Jump to content

Ron Ron Ron

Greater Anglia's Stadler Flirt - Class 745 & 755

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Just because the fault hasn't come to light until now doesn't mean it hasn't been there all along. It's entirely possible to get away with a non compliant system for a long time until something comes along which is itself compliant but is still able to expose a non compliance in a way which nothing previously has.

 

I'm not saying that that is what's happened, just that something appearing to work doesn't mean that it meets the standards required of it.


Indeed and this is what I have been trying to point out but few are willing to listen. 

 

Anyway, lets see what the next few days bring - hopefully Network Rail will discover what the problem is and fix it. 

Edited by Rail Way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rail Way said:


Indeed and this is what I have been trying to point out but few are willing to listen. 

No. You're insisting that it's the infrastructure because that's what GA inferred in a press release. Theoretically it could be the trains exposing a pre existing fault, it's true, but that won't be the first thing that the engineers looking into it will have considered.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rail Way said:


As you may be aware, unfortunately Greater Anglia, like any company applying for planning permission, does not have control of the planning system and in this country people are able to make objections to planning permission for very obscure and self serving reasons and you also have plenty of Nimbys about who would object to anything. Unfortunately companies can never be sure that planning permission will be granted as people have become more and more clever in order to create sophisticated arguments in order to get planning permission blocked for a project they don't want to go ahead. I hardly think you can blame Greater anglia for that.

 

In relation to the rural branchlines having too long trains, I do not believe this is true and there is nothing that states that it is. It was clearly a deliberate ploy to order a mixture of 3 car and 4 car units as this gives operational flexibility and whilst there are some places that the four car units cannot fit, the three car units will do. Door positioning on the 755s also has taken into account platform lengths and of course there is also cutting edge technology on board these new state of the art trains that ensures that if a train does hang off a platform, only doors fully within the platform are able to open. 

 

In relation to fuel, what is often misunderstood is the 755 services are bi-mode units and can run on electricity as well as conventional diesel. Some of the lines that the new fleet run on are partly electrified, so will only be using fuel for the sections where there are no wires, unlike the legacy much higher polluting fleet that required running under diesel even on sections of the route where there were wired provided. This will help the environment as well as use less fuel than the aging, heavier polluting trains they are replacing. 

 

 

What's the weather like on the isle of sodom tonight mate?

You clearly dont have much grip on reality and dont seem to realise that none of the branches have any OLE.

Are you that bunny off the GA adverts?  Why are you only on this thread when members on here are on it for modelling 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, russ p said:

You clearly dont have much grip on reality and dont seem to realise that none of the branches have any OLE.


I am surprised that you come out with this comment.

 

As you are aware, the rural services mostly run out of Ipswich and Norwich. Both of those stations have wires and part of the route that some of the rural routes take out of those station is under wires as well - not the whole routes but parts of them.

 

Until the fleet transformation started, they had to use diesel from terminus to terminus. Now part of the route on some of these services is electrified so they can use the wires when this is the case and when they are switching to a non electrified section, switch to diesel.

 

This means a reduction of fuel usage, is better for the environment and should also mean better performance since the switch between electric and battery mode on these state of the art trains is quick and easily performed.

Edited by Rail Way
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rail Way said:


I am surprised that you come out with this comment.

 

As you are aware, the rural services mostly run out of Ipswich and Norwich. Both of those stations have wires and part of the route that some of the rural routes take out of those station is under wires as well - not the whole routes but parts of them.

 

Until the fleet transformation started, they had to use diesel from terminus to terminus. Now part of the route on some of these services is electrified so they can use the wires when this is the case and when they are switching to a non electrified section, switch to diesel.

 

This means a reduction of fuel usage, is better for the environment and should also mean better performance since the switch between electric and battery mode on these state of the art trains is quick and easily performed.

 

 

Have you got much of your feet left mate? You have shot yourself in them so much tonight 

Yes the units can put the pans up in stations such as Norwich but they cant change on the move and where on earth has this battery nonsense come from?

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rail Way said:


As you may be aware, unfortunately Greater Anglia, like any company applying for planning permission, does not have control of the planning system and in this country people are able to make objections to planning permission for very obscure and self serving reasons and you also have plenty of Nimbys about who would object to anything. Unfortunately companies can never be sure that planning permission will be granted as people have become more and more clever in order to create sophisticated arguments in order to get planning permission blocked for a project they don't want to go ahead. I hardly think you can blame Greater anglia for that.

 

 

Oh yes I can.

Applications for Planning Permission need to be in compliance with the Local Development Framework, so AGA should have found a site suitable in policy terms for their use (industrial basically, or transport uses) or on existing transport-related land where such a use would be expected.  Any developer, industrialist or anyone wanting to develop land should know that, or employ someone who understands this to hold their hand.  Even if the site fell within a zone appropriate for the use, there can still be delay, as a wide range of statutory undertakers have to be consulted on a major application, not just the "nimbys" you patronisingly refer to.  This takes time, the more so with a major application like a rail depot.  There may be highways issues that need to be addressed (most depots have a significant amount of road traffic) which will need discussions about funding for any highways improvements.  Waste, water run-off, parking for staff, noise issues, lighting and power supplies all need to be factored in.  Anyone involved in development and planning knows these things take time, and that the statutory determination dates for planning applications are at best a guide suitable only for a conservatory, or at best a joke, especially as most planning departments have seen disproportionate cuts in staffing due to budget cuts.  So, if AGA had any sensible advice, they would have realised that getting a major new depot would take time.  However, as the depot plan at Brantham fell due to the highways impact of more frequent train movements into and out of the depot across a level crossing at Manningtree, you would have expected them to realise the unsuitability of the location a bit sooner.  Again, Anglia's management and contractor Taylor Woodrot, not exactly a novice to the UK planning system should have thought beyond their immediate needs and realised that having such an impact on the highway would cause problems.

In a 2018 article a spokesperson for the operator explained: “There are a number of issues to be resolved in order to progress with our proposed new depot at Brantham. These include preparation of the site, train access to the site and the fact that we have yet to agree commercial terms with the landowner involved.  “A potential further complication relates to the impact of additional train movements on the level crossing at Manningtree and we have been working with Network Rail about this.” There are currently only a limited number of times that the level crossing is allowed to close its gates, but the increase in rail traffic caused by the depot would mean increasing that number, which is not currently permitted because of the traffic flow issues it would cause. Greater Anglia also has to come to a deal with the landowner on commercial terms for the site and finish certain preparation works, meaning work will have to be paused while these issues are dealt with.

All of which should have been foreseen.  Also, the site is a former chemical plant, so there will have been land reclamation issues.


The Harwich depot that is replacing it was approved in July this year but was only submitted in March.  That's pretty swift for a major £70million depot which shows the original site was flawed.

And before you say anything, I'm a retired Chartered Town Planner and so can categorically say the original planning cock-up was their own fault.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this all got interesting quickly!

 

My take on the reports of GA blaming signalling issues was always that I was very good wording to make it sound like it's not their fault. The new trains not being compatible with the existing signalling can be reported as a signalling issue and you're not lying.

 

The only signalling issue that has had an issue on all train types as mentioned above is the incident on the Cromer line that is still under investigation. The GA release of signalling affecting ALL services was false. How do I know? That would be because on the very first day that the 755 fleet was grounded, I got held at the LC on my way to work by (if I remember rightly) a EMR 156 that had stopped at my local station instead of the usual 755. As EMR don't regularly stop at my local station (it's nearly always GA) I found that notable given the situation and wondered if EMR were adding additional stops due to GA's woes that day.

 

In response to the question 'why would GA lie in their releases?'; it would be commercial suicide to admit fault with something you've been proudly advertising. The financial cost and loss of confidence in the company if they turned around and released a statement of 'we f****d up', especially while the issue is still under investigation, would have a negative impact on an awful lot of people.

 

As has already been mentioned, teething problems with new units do happen and there's a lot of historical evidence of this. Yes the Stadler FLIRT is a tried and tested platform in other countries, I travelled on them in Switzerland before their introduction here and they are very good. Alterations were needed for the introduction to the UK, Stadler most likely have adhered to the specification requested by GA, but there is so many unknowns in a complex piece of technology like a new train design that all the issues may not present themselves straight away.

 

Is it a fault with signalling or the 755s? It looks to be the interaction of one with the other. Does this mean NR is to blame? No, everything else on the network interacts fine with the signalling. Does this mean the 755 is to blame? Potentially yes, but it's not the end of the story. If the 755 is doing what was asked of it at specification time, this is an unforeseen problem and it will be resolved and life will return to normal, just as it has with similar introductions in the past.

 

I also am enthusiastic as to the level of investment and new stock GA are giving the region I've called home all my life. However that's not a reason to blindly jump to their defence and try and blame NR instead. There are 2 sides to every story, creating your argument from just looking at press reports from one side is not the way to go about it, especially with the other personel that also visit this site!

  • Like 4
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rail Way said:

As you are aware, the rural services mostly run out of Ipswich and Norwich. Both of those stations have wires and part of the route that some of the rural routes take out of those station is under wires as well - not the whole routes but parts of them.

 

None of the rural lines out of Norwich have OHLE until Ely on the Cambridge line so none out of Norwich

 

From Ipswich :

Felixstowe branch - no

Cambridge and Peterborough when the "signalling" fault is resolved. - only to Stowmarket then no OHLE until Cambridge or Ely on the Peterborough route, which is useless for this route as theres then none until Peterborough.

Sudbury - no

Harwich - yes (yippeee !)

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. This is confirmed info regarding the 755s and their OHL compatability as we, the signaller, need to know this so that we dont have another elmswell incident.

Half of the fleet are currently banned from using their pans and half are permitted to use them. 

They are ONLY using them on routes that are electric from start to finish. So they are NOT, for example running on OHL from Ipswich to stowmarket, dropping the pan and then turning left at haughley, or running on OHL from platform 1 at ipswich to East Suffolk Jn and dropping on the move. That's horsecr*p. The only exception to this is the nor-stanstead which is on diesel from Norwich to cambridge and then OHL from there to the airport. The reason for this is that the OHL cannot support the draw of power from all the trains plus the 755 so its banned until cambridge. This has led to the trains being cancelled at times due to lack of fuel or being swapped with another unit at norwich and being delayed due to the swap. 

Now you can argue all you darn well like on this post but I know FIRST hand that it's TRUE because I have had to deal with it this week!

Edited by Siggie in the east
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Informative/Useful 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:


That's definitely not right, these new trains are powered by flux capacitors. Hence the funny looking bit with vents in the middle of the units. If you look carefully at night you can just see the glow. The problems here are that the signalling system is being interfered with when the units reach 88mph and the jump into time travel. Hence the level crossing incident was not actually an issue - technically the train wasn't there as it was in 1967, and there was just a line of flame on each rail, so no danger.

 

This is the picture RAIB didn't want you to see:

 

qd8uovqm0e021.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&a

 

This is also how GA will achieve Norwich in 90, by going back in time shortly before arrival, but NR has to update its systems to allow trains to arrive before they depart. Realtimetrains is also having to change its name as the times may not be real.

 

 

 

 

What a shame this isn't  true they would set off and turn into yellow diamond metcams,  class 15s and 30s (1)s

What a great railway 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rail Way said:

 

 

Anyway, I can take a hint that my input is not welcome here so this will be my last post.

 

I don't believe you.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Rail Way said:


I am an.......

 

1 hour ago, Rail Way said:


This is merely .........

 

1 hour ago, Rail Way said:


It is good .......

 

1 hour ago, Rail Way said:


As you may be aware.......

 

1 hour ago, Rail Way said:


Indeed ......

 

52 minutes ago, Rail Way said:


I am surprised........

 

 

This is more entertaining that than the finescale thread.

 

Edited by newbryford
  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to a normal post for once as this has descended into chaos on here since the introduction of the GA fanboy.

 

5Q45 755332, currently en route to colchester, will be the first 755 to venture onto the sudbury branch tonight for test purposes. Currently running 45mins late due to GA staff incompetence at Crown "Faulty Towers" Point. Also, not running on OHL.

Will post a photo when it gets to us.

 

Thanks

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Siggie in the east said:

Back to a normal post for once as this has descended into chaos on here since the introduction of the GA fanboy.

 

5Q45 755332, currently en route to colchester, will be the first 755 to venture onto the sudbury branch tonight for test purposes. Currently running 45mins late due to GA staff incompetence at Crown "Faulty Towers" Point. Also, not running on OHL.

Will post a photo when it gets to us.

 

Thanks

  00:25 ***** 5Q45 NCH CRNPT 22:18 SUDBURY   00:25 STP TO    171219 171219 EE
  ***** 01:30 5Q48 SUDBURY   01:30 COLCHESTR 02:18 STP WO    181219 181219 EE
  04:01 ***** 5Q49 COLCHESTR 03:18 SUDBURY   04:01 STP WO    181219 181219 EE
  ***** 04:05 5Q50 SUDBURY   04:05 NCH CRNPT 06:17 STP WO    181219 181219 EE

 

5Q45 currently 56 late Ipswich (p3)

 

SORRY POOR PIC QUALITY
 

 

 

5Q45.jpg

Edited by swills
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Only just picked up this thread despite living with the East Suffolk line 60 feet from my house!

 

My first thought was "Who does Rail Way work for?" 

 

My second thought was why not listen to the professional railway men who are commenting from a base of knowledge and not "What I read in the press/press releases?

 

My third thought was is it credible that a public relations department would tell fibs?

 

After a career of forty years in the motor industry, let me assure you that ALL the information given out by PR/press departments is true! just look at fuel consumption figures! (Under specific conditions a particular vehicle (perfectly prepared) did indeed achieve the quoted figure) Any similarity with reality is purely coincidental!

 

Sorry if I seem to have a jaundiced view. 

 

Regards

 

David.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Siggie in the east said:

Right. This is confirmed info regarding the 755s and their OHL compatability as we, the signaller, need to know this so that we dont have another elmswell incident.

Half of the fleet are currently banned from using their pans and half are permitted to use them. 

They are ONLY using them on routes that are electric from start to finish. So they are NOT, for example running on OHL from Ipswich to stowmarket, dropping the pan and then turning left at haughley, or running on OHL from platform 1 at ipswich to East Suffolk Jn and dropping on the move. That's horsecr*p. The only exception to this is the nor-stanstead which is on diesel from Norwich to cambridge and then OHL from there to the airport. The reason for this is that the OHL cannot support the draw of power from all the trains plus the 755 so its banned until cambridge. This has led to the trains being cancelled at times due to lack of fuel or being swapped with another unit at norwich and being delayed due to the swap. 

Now you can argue all you darn well like on this post but I know FIRST hand that it's TRUE because I have had to deal with it this week!

 

Driver found out today upon arrival at Cambridge, that the unit he had, was a pan isolated' one,  had to call 'fleet' and see if there was enough fuel to run under diesel to the Airport at back !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rail Way said:


You don't have to take my word for it about priority, there it is in black and white. 
https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/about-us/news-desk/blog-post/latest-information-greater-anglia-rail-disruption-in-norfolk-and

 

 

I don't know how you have the balls to argue with professional railway staff who have explained very carefully what many of the problems have been while claiming that everything printed in the press is true. Next you will be trying to tell us politicians never lie!

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, wombatofludham said:

 

Oh yes I can.

Applications for Planning Permission need to be in compliance with the Local Development Framework, so AGA should have found a site suitable in policy terms for their use (industrial basically, or transport uses) or on existing transport-related land where such a use would be expected.  Any developer, industrialist or anyone wanting to develop land should know that, or employ someone who understands this to hold their hand.  Even if the site fell within a zone appropriate for the use, there can still be delay, as a wide range of statutory undertakers have to be consulted on a major application, not just the "nimbys" you patronisingly refer to.  This takes time, the more so with a major application like a rail depot.  There may be highways issues that need to be addressed (most depots have a significant amount of road traffic) which will need discussions about funding for any highways improvements.  Waste, water run-off, parking for staff, noise issues, lighting and power supplies all need to be factored in.  Anyone involved in development and planning knows these things take time, and that the statutory determination dates for planning applications are at best a guide suitable only for a conservatory, or at best a joke, especially as most planning departments have seen disproportionate cuts in staffing due to budget cuts.  So, if AGA had any sensible advice, they would have realised that getting a major new depot would take time.  However, as the depot plan at Brantham fell due to the highways impact of more frequent train movements into and out of the depot across a level crossing at Manningtree, you would have expected them to realise the unsuitability of the location a bit sooner.  Again, Anglia's management and contractor Taylor Woodrot, not exactly a novice to the UK planning system should have thought beyond their immediate needs and realised that having such an impact on the highway would cause problems.

In a 2018 article a spokesperson for the operator explained: “There are a number of issues to be resolved in order to progress with our proposed new depot at Brantham. These include preparation of the site, train access to the site and the fact that we have yet to agree commercial terms with the landowner involved.  “A potential further complication relates to the impact of additional train movements on the level crossing at Manningtree and we have been working with Network Rail about this.” There are currently only a limited number of times that the level crossing is allowed to close its gates, but the increase in rail traffic caused by the depot would mean increasing that number, which is not currently permitted because of the traffic flow issues it would cause. Greater Anglia also has to come to a deal with the landowner on commercial terms for the site and finish certain preparation works, meaning work will have to be paused while these issues are dealt with.

All of which should have been foreseen.  Also, the site is a former chemical plant, so there will have been land reclamation issues.


The Harwich depot that is replacing it was approved in July this year but was only submitted in March.  That's pretty swift for a major £70million depot which shows the original site was flawed.

And before you say anything, I'm a retired Chartered Town Planner and so can categorically say the original planning cock-up was their own fault.

Also, the problem with the site was that it's on a flood plain. Every time the developers tested it for pilings to support the structures that would've gone in, they sunk into the ground or flooded. That also meant that when P-way would have gone in to lay the tracks, their trackbeds would have flooded once they dug down to lay the sub-bed and membrane, let alone anything else. Thats before they would've laid the first course of ballast, the sleepers, rails and final layers of ballast. Typically, its dug down around 4-5 foot, then you lay all those layers until you have a finished trackbed.

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, wombatofludham said:

 

Oh yes I can.

Applications for Planning Permission need to be in compliance with the Local Development Framework, so AGA should have found a site suitable in policy terms for their use (industrial basically, or transport uses) or on existing transport-related land where such a use would be expected.  Any developer, industrialist or anyone wanting to develop land should know that, or employ someone who understands this to hold their hand.  Even if the site fell within a zone appropriate for the use, there can still be delay, as a wide range of statutory undertakers have to be consulted on a major application, not just the "nimbys" you patronisingly refer to.  This takes time, the more so with a major application like a rail depot.  There may be highways issues that need to be addressed (most depots have a significant amount of road traffic) which will need discussions about funding for any highways improvements.  Waste, water run-off, parking for staff, noise issues, lighting and power supplies all need to be factored in.  Anyone involved in development and planning knows these things take time, and that the statutory determination dates for planning applications are at best a guide suitable only for a conservatory, or at best a joke, especially as most planning departments have seen disproportionate cuts in staffing due to budget cuts.  So, if AGA had any sensible advice, they would have realised that getting a major new depot would take time.  However, as the depot plan at Brantham fell due to the highways impact of more frequent train movements into and out of the depot across a level crossing at Manningtree, you would have expected them to realise the unsuitability of the location a bit sooner.  Again, Anglia's management and contractor Taylor Woodrot, not exactly a novice to the UK planning system should have thought beyond their immediate needs and realised that having such an impact on the highway would cause problems.

In a 2018 article a spokesperson for the operator explained: “There are a number of issues to be resolved in order to progress with our proposed new depot at Brantham. These include preparation of the site, train access to the site and the fact that we have yet to agree commercial terms with the landowner involved.  “A potential further complication relates to the impact of additional train movements on the level crossing at Manningtree and we have been working with Network Rail about this.” There are currently only a limited number of times that the level crossing is allowed to close its gates, but the increase in rail traffic caused by the depot would mean increasing that number, which is not currently permitted because of the traffic flow issues it would cause. Greater Anglia also has to come to a deal with the landowner on commercial terms for the site and finish certain preparation works, meaning work will have to be paused while these issues are dealt with.

All of which should have been foreseen.  Also, the site is a former chemical plant, so there will have been land reclamation issues.


The Harwich depot that is replacing it was approved in July this year but was only submitted in March.  That's pretty swift for a major £70million depot which shows the original site was flawed.

And before you say anything, I'm a retired Chartered Town Planner and so can categorically say the original planning cock-up was their own fault.

The stock from the depot (apart from a few to Colchester) did not need to go over the crossing, they could have run to the North Curve and reversed, or Mistley and done the same, one of the issues was the incline out of the depot to the ML, it needed all signals 'off' on the ML to the Station or North Curve, with the unit waiting a short distance from the exit to get a run up the incline !  and also they seemed a bit surprised when they dug holes on the site, they quickly filled up with water !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Promised, 755332 in Plt3 colchester.

Note, no pan up even though these are cutting edge, transformative trains with wifi and usb chargers which are better for the environment. ;)

 

Thanks

20191218_002633.jpg

Edited by Siggie in the east
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Siggie in the east said:

The good ol' days ;)

20191218_002637.jpg

 

 

That must be half the 'Legacy' fleet that AGA have left !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rail Way said:


In relation to Felixstowe services that were cancelled a fair bit last month this was the result of unfortunate incidents.

 

The problem is many of the rural lines are exactly that and the weather hasn't been great this year. Flooding and a number of vehicles hitting animals and vandalism incidents have resulted in the Greater Anglia DMU fleet being very stretched for a number of months now. This was down to sheer bad luck and there's nothing that Greater Anglia could do about this, when your luck is out and your luck is out.

 

We should not hold a number of freak incidents against Greater Anglia, since the whole idea of ordering the new fleet is to give more redundancy - to prevent this kind of issue in the future and this order will certainly do that, with longer carriages, more comfortable seats, USB sockets, more tables, high speed Wifi and far better passenger amenities. Rail is being transformed in this region and instead of moaning about first world problems, maybe we should realise how lucky we are, when you compare some of the other franchise owning groups who would never even think of doing such a massive step change transformation. 

 

Stadler are a well proven train building company and have made FLIRTS all around the world and many repeat customers. If they were so bad as you say they are and everyone else was having problems how would this be the case? The rolling stock market is competitive, you don't win the number of orders that Stadler do if your work is sub standard. Perhaps there's a little bit of sour grapes here because that they were not built in the UK and that is why the anti Stadler vibe?

 

Of course Network Rail will have to fix things at great cost to make the trains run, because passengers deserve to be able to depend on their train service and to enjoy the new features of state of the art rolling stock. If the signalling system worked perfectly then Network Rail wouldn't have to spend this money, but the system doesn't work perfectly so Network Rail need to invest time and money on fixing the issues with the signalling system. 

 

 

Sorry, missed what you were saying, the Felixstowe's were cancelled.....why... exactly ?   (and DON'T trot out Major Signalling Problems!)

 

As for the last sentence, The Signalling system worked as designed, right up until the first Stadler unit escaped from the Point,  there is a reason they are dubbed Basil's and Sybil's !

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wombatofludham said:


Only problem with that is the fact for the past 17-18 autumns and winters the previous traction has, apparently, coped with the weird American track circuits without triggering a wrong side failure (as I'm sure we would have heard about it by now).  The first autumn with new trains and one of them fails to trigger the circuits and suddenly there's a design flaw? 

 

Is this a binary issue though? This appears to be an existing characteristic/flaw that apparently affects everything - presumably previous traction hadn't triggered it to the same degree and/or as consistently as the Stadlers so escaped attention.

 

This would explain the most recent statements, why the Stadlers aren't being blamed and are back in use, and seems way more plausible than some grand conspiracy by Greater Anglia to deceive the public which would surely be exposed?

 

Edited by Christopher125

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Siggie in the east said:

The good ol' days ;)

20191218_002637.jpg

 

Oi! What's our new trains doing still standing there? Should be with EMR by now:mocking_mini:.

That's NOT the scrap company  EMR by the way:crazy_mini:

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.