Greater Anglia's Stadler Flirt - Class 745 & 755

[uax6]

Humm. I wonder if that is true, as AFAIUI the 387's and 379's cannot work together as one, which would be seriously restrictive in service. Now whether that is a software fixable issue or something a lot bigger I don't know. I have to say I think I will miss the 379's, they are a good reliable unit.

 

Andy G

[UpDistant]

There appears to be a bit of confusion over the last couple of pages concerning the 387s in East Anglia. These are not Greater Anglia units but Great Northern/(Thameslink). These have, for the most part, replaced the 365s on Peterborough and Kings Lynn services from Kings Cross and provide the majority of services to Kings Lynn. Kings Lynn is also served by a few Greater Anglia services to Liverpool Street but in terms of competition (both time and cost) is inferior to the GN service to KGX.

[uax6]

They provide ALL the GTN services to King's Lynn, GA have two up services in the morning delivered by a 317 (1H83) and 379 (1H87). Three down services in the evening are provided by 379's (1H82 and 1H86) and a 317 (1H90). It is alleged that the 317 service is still provided thus as GA doesn't want to leave a 379 overnight at Lynn in case the locals destroy it!

Who would have thought that the first class of unit to serve Lynn on electrification would still be doing so 27 years later?

 

Anyway back to the modern tram thingys....

 

Andy G

[Fenman]

...but in terms of competition (both time and cost) is inferior to the GN service to KGX.

Er ... unless your destination is The City?

 

Paul

[phil-b259]

Humm. I wonder if that is true, as AFAIUI the 387's and 379's cannot work together as one, which would be seriously restrictive in service. Now whether that is a software fixable issue or something a lot bigger I don't know. I have to say I think I will miss the 379's, they are a good reliable unit.

 

Andy G

So how about moving the 379s to GN thus displacing 387s which can then go to GWR.

 

Given the rest of the GN service fleet will be made up of the Siemens stock (700 series) that cannot couple to any Electrostar of whatever vintage then it doesn’t matter which variant GN gets.

 

Or is this all to logical for our fragmented and micromanaged railway....

[black and decker boy]

So how about moving the 379s to GN thus displacing 387s which can then go to GWR.

 

Given the rest of the GN service fleet will be made up of the Siemens stock (700 series) that cannot couple to any Electrostar of whatever vintage then it doesn’t matter which variant GN gets.

 

Or is this all to logical for our fragmented and micromanaged railway....

GTR do have other 387s though as GatEx is theirs. At present some of the GN 387s are on loan to GatEx.

 

379s are not ROSCO owned in the same way but by Macquarie Capital, an investment firm. They are reported to be very expensive to lease.

 

I guess whatever happens to them will depend on how flexible Macquarie are willing to be on price and if they can be made compatible with 387s.

[rodent279]

So how about moving the 379s to GN thus displacing 387s which can then go to GWR.

 

Given the rest of the GN service fleet will be made up of the Siemens stock (700 series) that cannot couple to any Electrostar of whatever vintage then it doesn’t matter which variant GN gets.

 

Or is this all to logical for our fragmented and micromanaged railway....

 

I do find it surprising that the industry hasn't agreed some sort of common interface that would allow MU's of different types and from different suppliers to talk to each other, and at least control brakes & power, and provide basic warning systems such as fire alarms. If these things are software controlled then it ought to be possible for units with the same mechanical couplings to at least provide the basic functionality to move.

Edited January 15, 2019 by rodent279

[russ p]

I do find it surprising that the industry hasn't agreed some sort of common interface that would allow MU's of different types and from different suppliers to talk to each other, and at least control brakes & power, and provide basic warning systems such as fire alarms. If these things are software controlled then it ought to be possible for units with the same mechanical couplings to at least provide the basic functionality to move.

That's what railwaymen would do!

[jim.snowdon]

I do find it surprising that the industry hasn't agreed some sort of common interface that would allow MU's of different types and from different suppliers to talk to each other, and at least control brakes & power, and provide basic warning systems such as fire alarms. If these things are software controlled then it ought to be possible for units with the same mechanical couplings to at least provide the basic functionality to move.

It took the railroad companies, via the AAR, to achieve that standardisation in the US, although the reduction of the US locomotive industry to just two players will probably have played a part.

As far as industry is concerned, MU standardisation is largely a marginal issue. It only helps if the customers attach importance to it in the procurement process, and in the UK, the train operators thinking is too narrow minded to see any benefit in having train coupling compatibility.

 

Jim

[jim.snowdon]

That's what railwaymen would do!

I'm sure that they would, but whilst there are railwaymen in the UK's railway industry, the industry is not run by railwaymen.

 

Jim

[keefer]

Surely that sort of provision could/should've been specified (by Govt/DfT or whoever) as a requirement for stock being allowed to operate in the UK?

So that irrespective of builder/owner/operator and whether it would actually be required day-to-day, there would be that compatibility built-in from the start.

[rodent279]

It would make sense to me that trains with the same coupler should be able to mechanically couple, and at least be able to work each other's brakes, as a bare minimum. At least that would make clearing the line in the event of a failure, or getting passengers to a safe place to detrain, less problematic.

[russ p]

Its not just different couplers , you nave have the same type couplers at different heights

[jim.snowdon]

Surely that sort of provision could/should've been specified (by Govt/DfT or whoever) as a requirement for stock being allowed to operate in the UK?

So that irrespective of builder/owner/operator and whether it would actually be required day-to-day, there would be that compatibility built-in from the start.

  

It would make sense to me that trains with the same coupler should be able to mechanically couple, and at least be able to work each other's brakes, as a bare minimum. At least that would make clearing the line in the event of a failure, or getting passengers to a safe place to detrain, less problematic.

It might, but it takes someone to lead. I'm sure that DfT would say that it is up to Network Rail, as the infrastructure owner; NR will point to the TOCs, and the TOCs will say it's not our problem, especially if the cause of the problem isn't one of their trains. Unlike the days of BR, when both operations and infrastructure ultimately came under a common control, both parties now see it as being not their problem. Compare that to the other European railways.

 

Jim

[rodent279]

Its not just different couplers , you nave have the same type couplers at different heights

 

Is that a thing? Same couplers at different heights?

 

That is bizarre!

[Davexoc]

   It might, but it takes someone to lead. I'm sure that DfT would say that it is up to Network Rail, as the infrastructure owner; NR will point to the TOCs, and the TOCs will say it's not our problem, especially if the cause of the problem isn't one of their trains. Unlike the days of BR, when both operations and infrastructure ultimately came under a common control, both parties now see it as being not their problem. Compare that to the other European railways.

 

Jim

A bit like most things really then, electric cars with different charging plugs, mobile phones with different leads (is improving slowly) and smart energy meters that have different communications so they don't talk to different suppliers networks and become dumb when you change provider.

One interface will dominate in the end, and not necessarily the best one, just think VHS and Betamax.....

 

Dave

[phil-b259]

Is that a thing? Same couplers at different heights?

 

That is bizarre!

 

Yup.

 

Or the electrical bit is mounted above the mechanical coupler on some units and below it on others! (see page 18 in the link below)

 

Just like UK model railways where a NEM coupling pocket ends up being in all sorts of odd positions, it doesn't matter that two units might have the same type of coupler (e.g. a Roco coupler on a model), unless the coupling is mounted at the same height it will not work

 

 

See http://www.dellner.com/Downloads/Brochure_English.pdf

 

and http://www.voith.com/ca-en/products-services/power-transmission/scharfenberg-couplers-10318.html

[rodent279]

Yup.

 

Or the electrical bit is mounted above the mechanical coupler on some units and below it on others! (see page 18 in the link below)

 

Just like UK model railways where a NEM coupling pocket ends up being in all sorts of odd positions, it doesn't matter that two units might have the same type of coupler (e.g. a Roco coupler on a model), unless the coupling is mounted at the same height it will not work

 

 

See http://www.dellner.com/Downloads/Brochure_English.pdf

 

and http://www.voith.com/ca-en/products-services/power-transmission/scharfenberg-couplers-10318.html

 

 

At one point, the SR had a whole fleet virtually all of which could either operate in multi, or at least couple up and rescue each other.

 

We really have gone backwards. No wonder the world laughs at us.

[jim.snowdon]

At one point, the SR had a whole fleet virtually all of which could either operate in multi, or at least couple up and rescue each other.

 

We really have gone backwards. No wonder the world laughs at us.

At least, once upon a time every item of rolling stock did at least have a common interface in terms being able to couple together in emergency and get the brakes to function. The rot set in with the decision to adopt autocouplers on multiple unit stock. There were good reasons for making that change, as it eliminated the need for staff to go between the units, but the failure was to standardise on one type of coupler and stick with it.

 

Jim

[frobisher]

At least, once upon a time every item of rolling stock did at least have a common interface in terms being able to couple together in emergency and get the brakes to function. The rot set in with the decision to adopt autocouplers on multiple unit stock. There were good reasons for making that change, as it eliminated the need for staff to go between the units, but the failure was to standardise on one type of coupler and stick with it.

Mind you, weren't all of the second generation EMU's (barring the 455/456's outwith themselves - oh and the 442 being a special little snowflake) nominally interoperable if never actually done in practice? It was the DMUs that started the rot I thought - 165/166 being deliberately not usable with anything but themselves.

 

I never understood why BR went with the BSI coupler for the second generation DMUs rather than the Tightlock coupler used on the EMUs. Yes, they were never going to coupled together, but it would potentially mean you only needed one type of translator vehicles for stock moves rather than two.

Edited January 16, 2019 by frobisher

[frobisher]

Is that a thing? Same couplers at different heights?

 

That is bizarre!

The primary offenders here are the Pendolinos (and I think Voyagers..?) which is why the Thunderbird 57's needed their Delner couplings adjusted to be able to be used for EMU stock moves.

 

Though the MK4 carriages have their intra set Tightlock couplings at different height than that used by those on EMUs which are I believe at the normal height for Buckeye couplers on coaching stock etc.

[newbryford]

I do find it surprising that the industry hasn't agreed some sort of common interface that would allow MU's of different types and from different suppliers to talk to each other, and at least control brakes & power, and provide basic warning systems such as fire alarms. If these things are software controlled then it ought to be possible for units with the same mechanical couplings to at least provide the basic functionality to move.

 

 

That's what railwaymen would do!

 

Almost.

Blue star, orange square, red diamond...........

[rodent279]

It might, but it takes someone to lead. I'm sure that DfT would say that it is up to Network Rail, as the infrastructure owner; NR will point to the TOCs, and the TOCs will say it's not our problem, especially if the cause of the problem isn't one of their trains. Unlike the days of BR, when both operations and infrastructure ultimately came under a common control, both parties now see it as being not their problem. Compare that to the other European railways.

 

Jim

I understand, but it ought to be a condition of the terms of a TOC's franchise that they make suitable provision for clearing the line for other trains in the event of a failure.

(Maybe it is?).

[uax6]

I understand, but it ought to be a condition of the terms of a TOC's franchise that they make suitable provision for clearing the line for other trains in the event of a failure.

(Maybe it is?).

But that would mean that they acknowledge that the world isn’t perfect and that their swanky trains will break down....

 

Andy g

[159220]

I heard over the weekend that the GA 379’s are going to be “tweaked” to turn them into 110mph 387’s and then the fleet divided between Great Northern so they can release the rest of the 365’s to the ROSCO and Great Western to bolster their fleet now that they’ve taken on HEx. Sounds quite plausible.

 

Sorry just not true. 1. No 'tweeking necessary, simple software change. But more importantly, 2. GWR has transferred over 12 x 387s for Heathrow Express services as they have a surplus of 387s! Not a shortage! Until Oxford is electrified, they shall not have a requirement for further 387s. At this point in the future, it is expected the surplus 387s from C2C shall become available. The 365s MUST stay with Govia Thameslink Railway until 2021, they are of oder of the DfT to remain (seeing as they were a government build order to keep York works open back in the day). 

 

379s are not ROSCO owned in the same way but by Macquarie Capital, an investment firm. They are reported to be very expensive to lease.

 

 

 

Not strictly true. They are ROSCO owned, all passenger stock is! The correct ROSCO registered company is Macquarie European Rail and its company registration is here: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08253782 

 

General comment

 

There appears to be a lot of speculation and outright 'fake news' on this thread of late. RMWeb used to be very well informed, unsure what has gone wrong.