Greater Anglia's Stadler Flirt - Class 745 & 755

[tgk300]

17 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

The author of the post you referenced gives this data from the vehicle plates:
 

AFAIK these should be all up weights including bogies. As the motor bogies are the two end bogies, ie the non-articulated ones the axleload on the motored axles will be around 9t, or a total adhesive weight of 36t.

All of which look perfectly reasonable to me.

Regards

I know they're from the vehicle plates, but they have not photographed two of them and I was wondering if the total weight is stated on one of the two unphotographed plates. 

Stadler have done an excellent job if a 4 car unit weighs just 114 tonne, well done to them. Not sure where the person who quoted 160 tonnes got that from, maybe I am missing something. 

 

Does the loading have to be the same on each axle of a car to help with balance and avoid derailments? 

[beast66606]

1 hour ago, tgk300 said:

 

Has this solved the issue entirely or is there still some concern? 

 

Line running normally again

[tgk300]

I have read on other forums that apparently these units, especially the four car ones, have rather small fuel tanks when their installed power and expected fuel consumption. Can any one tell the capacity of the tank and how often they need to be filled? 

[russ p]

They had to have smaller tanks than intended to keep the weight down so they can do sprinter speeds and because of this they need fuelling daily.  

And these are an improvement.... mmm

[tgk300]

1 hour ago, russ p said:

They had to have smaller tanks than intended to keep the weight down so they can do sprinter speeds and because of this they need fuelling daily.  

And these are an improvement.... mmm

Once again, forgive my ignorance as I am not familiar with either the diagramming or the operational procedures at GA, but how much of an issue is the fact that they need daily refuelling? How much of an affect does this have on where the units can be stabled, when/where they will be ready for service and of course their availability?. Does anyone know the capacity of the tanks in litres? 

[Zomboid]

It means that they'll all need to spend some time on a depot every single day. I don't know where fuelling can be done on the GA network (obviously Crown Point, possibly Ipswich where locos can be fuelled, Colchester?), But having to spend some time at one of those is clearly a constraint. 

 

Though I'd imagine that the 3 cars could go longer, given their engine module is the same size as the 4 cars but they have half as many engines.

[Siggie in the east]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

It means that they'll all need to spend some time on a depot every single day. I don't know where fuelling can be done on the GA network (obviously Crown Point, possibly Ipswich where locos can be fuelled, Colchester?), But having to spend some time at one of those is clearly a constraint. 

 

Though I'd imagine that the 3 cars could go longer, given their engine module is the same size as the 4 cars but they have half as many engines.

Fuelling will be done at Crown Point (obviously) colchester platform 6/ sudbury dock (once risk assessments and training have been done) and Ipswich platform 1 (again pending risk assessment, training and once a hole is cut in the fence ).

 

Thanks

[russ p]

2 hours ago, Siggie in the east said:

Fuelling will be done at Crown Point (obviously) colchester platform 6/ sudbury dock (once risk assessments and training have been done) and Ipswich platform 1 (again pending risk assessment, training and once a hole is cut in the fence ).

 

Thanks

 

Is that with road tankers? 

Is there any advantages with these units, up to now I've yet to see any significant ones, surely a fleet of 172s would have been a lot better 

[Siggie in the east]

1 hour ago, russ p said:

 

Is that with road tankers? 

Is there any advantages with these units, up to now I've yet to see any significant ones, surely a fleet of 172s would have been a lot better 

Quite possibly for the early days as tankers can access both the sudbury dock and platform 1 at ipswich. After that, a static unit of some sort may well be installed at colchester. Ipswich, well if GA get their way, when Freighliner move out of the carriage sidings/table road over to the upper yard, the facilities maybe taken over by GA for their units and and extra platform or 2 will go in on the downside.

 

Thanks

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, tgk300 said:

 

I get what you're saying, and agree with you that we will just have to wait for the RAIB report. My knowledge of trains and their compatability with the electrical circuits is almost non existant, can anyone which such knowledge tell me if it is a major issue? What I mean by that it, if there is a compatability issue with the electrical circuits for the level crossings on the Cromer Line, is it a simple (ish) fix, or is it a major crisis situation that could cause significant problems and/or cost some serious money? 

 

 

There were considerable amounts of track circuit alterations which had to be carried out for Class 373 Eurostars and Class 92s.  This included included the total replacement of certain types of Aster jointless track circuit which were  found to be very prone to interference from the electrical/electronic emissions from the trains including wrong side failures which meant the train 'disappeared' off the track circuit.  I understand that Class 373s have not been alone in having the wrong sort of effect on electronic based track circuits hence the need for extensive emissions testing with new trains.

[Classsix T]

No road access to the western side of Ipswich though.

Whether AGA would want to go through the rigmarole of tripping over an additional TTA tacked on to FL's once the station remodelling is complete is doubtful. A properly bunded tank next to platform 1 sounds doable though.

 

C6T. 

[tgk300]

I have found the page in which I got the idea of the total 4 car unit weight being 163.4 tonnes. 

This page states it on post no. 3723 https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/abellio-greater-anglia-class-755s-regional-trains.148431/page-125 

 

They state that the total unit weight is 163.4 according to the plate, but adding up all the vehicle weight plates, 112.2 tonnes is stated. Someone else has suggested that the 112.2 does not include the weight of the four Jacob bogies. 163.4 - 112.2 is 51.2. That would mean that each Jacob bogie weighs 12.8 tonne when connected to the unit. It amazes me that Stadler can make a unit like this only weigh 112.2 tonnes, to me it seems impossible. 

[Zomboid]

4 hours ago, russ p said:

 

Is that with road tankers? 

Is there any advantages with these units, up to now I've yet to see any significant ones, surely a fleet of 172s would have been a lot better 

Electric train performance on electrified routes is not an insignificant one (together with reduced fuel consumption and emissions). Also allows a single type of train for secondary routes, including the electrified ones to Harwich, Braintree etc.

 

Obviously these specific trains aren't the only way to achieve that, but the idea of bi-modes for the GA secondary routes has some advantages which are worth having. No doubt bombardier could have done a bi-mode Aventra (or indeed some 172s), but timing would play a part since they've been building a load for TfL, GA (London suburban) and SWR. Delivery for the required dates may well have been impossible.

[Fenman]

5 hours ago, Zomboid said:

... No doubt bombardier could have done a bi-mode Aventra (or indeed some 172s), but timing would play a part since they've been building a load for TfL, GA (London suburban) and SWR. Delivery for the required dates may well have been impossible.

Bombardier have been unable to meet the delivery schedules for the contracts they’ve won, so giving them even more contracts would seem unlikely to lead to faster deliveries. 
 

Paul

[tgk300]

I can't imagine that GA or Stadler would of designed a unit in such away as to make it's basic day to day operation difficult. Obviously the tanks are small, the powerpack is only 6.69m long so there was never going to be a huge amount of space, especially seeing as the bogies take up a significant amount of that underfloor length. I assume that the fuel tanks are under the floor as there is know where else for them, but what is their capacity? The issue is that all four engines, electrics, cooling systems and fuel tanks are in a 6.69m unit. The issue with the fuel tanks should of been realised from day one. 

[Suzie]

They are bi-modes. They should be using electric for part of the time and therefore require less diesel.

[Pete 75C]

So I'm assuming that once all units are in service and things have settled down somewhat that the 3 cars (less engines, presumably less diesel consumption) will be used on lines with zero or minimum overhead and the 4 cars will be used where they can at least spend some time running on AC?

[russ p]

6 minutes ago, Pete 75C said:

So I'm assuming that once all units are in service and things have settled down somewhat that the 3 cars (less engines, presumably less diesel consumption) will be used on lines with zero or minimum overhead and the 4 cars will be used where they can at least spend some time running on AC?

 

Think that's the idea Pete.

I see they are now running to sheringham but the one I saw last night was 20 minutes late.

I'm going to Norwich tomorrow but think too much of a risk to go to sheringham will probably go to cromer. 

Absolute rubbish that you can't rely on the service at all. 

If they swallowed their pride and but 156s back on that line and run at normal speed and no crossing restrictions,  but they won't as I imagine there are management bonuses at stake. 

I wonder what messes will be created when they start running the longer ones on intercity services? 

[Pete 75C]

1 hour ago, russ p said:

I see they are now running to sheringham but the one I saw last night was 20 minutes late.

 

My daughter's off into Norwich today and will be getting the 12 something from Sheringham which is on its way from Norwich as I type this.

Things seem to have settled down Russ. I can handle the odd bit of late running, but the big fear is that to get back on time, the service from Norwich will terminate at Cromer.

I don't use the train much tbh. If I lived in Cromer I would, but Sheringham can be hit and miss. I've been dumped at Cromer late at night once too often.

[russ p]

Trouble is if its running late some controllers seem to like terminating them at cromer as do some traincrew 

[great central]

1 hour ago, russ p said:

 

Think that's the idea Pete.

I see they are now running to sheringham but the one I saw last night was 20 minutes late.

I'm going to Norwich tomorrow but think too much of a risk to go to sheringham will probably go to cromer. 

Absolute rubbish that you can't rely on the service at all. 

If they swallowed their pride and but 156s back on that line and run at normal speed and no crossing restrictions,  but they won't as I imagine there are management bonuses at stake. 

I wonder what messes will be created when they start running the longer ones on intercity services? 

 

The 156s are required for EMR to honour their obligation to make all trains 2 car from the new year and also comply with the new PRM regulations.

156409 was at Eastcroft yesterday or Friday wearing it's modified livery, yet another one, and new number 156909 to set it apart from the existing fleet

[Siggie in the east]

As far as I know, 3cars are for sudbury, felixstowe and sheringham services. 4car for yarmouth, lowestoft, cambridge- ipswich,Peterborough, esk, nor-stanstead and 2x4car for the lowestoft-liv st.

 

Thanks

[caradoc]

1 hour ago, russ p said:

Trouble is if its running late some controllers seem to like terminating them at cromer as do some traincrew 

 

The problem is that on a route with short turnrounds (ridiculously so at Sheringham), plus single line sections, if Control does not take positive action early on trains run later, and later, and something has to be cancelled eventually anyway, the resulting overall disruption, and therefore delay to passengers, being greater.

 

An example of this from my own experience is the Far North Line in Scotland; When the afternoon Inverness-Wick service is running say 15 minutes late, it became practice (and is now laid-down policy) to hold it at, IIRC Helmsdale, for upwards of an hour, to save a 15 minute delay to the southbound service. It sounds ridiculous, but the northbound train, even if 75 minutes late, affects no other services, whereas if the southbound train is late the Far North and Kyle Line services are disrupted for the rest of the day.

 

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, tgk300 said:

I can't imagine that GA or Stadler would of designed a unit in such away as to make it's basic day to day operation difficult. Obviously the tanks are small, the powerpack is only 6.69m long so there was never going to be a huge amount of space, especially seeing as the bogies take up a significant amount of that underfloor length. I assume that the fuel tanks are under the floor as there is know where else for them, but what is their capacity? The issue is that all four engines, electrics, cooling systems and fuel tanks are in a 6.69m unit. The issue with the fuel tanks should of been realised from day one. 

I would be surprised, and in fact positively alarmed, if the required amount of fuel and therefore the minimum amount be carried after fuelling was not included in the spec for these trains.  However it would obviously have had to be based on the anticipated fuel consumption on the diagrams they would be working plus some margin for perturbations.  If that didn't work out as specified for whatever reason then there should  be the very simple alternative of knowing the actual mileage they can run between fuelling and diagramming them accordingly  - all of that is a very basic part of train planning.

[russ p]

The tanks were smaller than first planned to keep the weight down so they can run at SP speeds