Greater Anglia's Stadler Flirt - Class 745 & 755

[Siggie in the east]

As I watch a 156 leave colchester yard it appears that it is forming 2E70 to Peterborough!! 

So much for this major signalling disruption if a GA train is running to the city.

What might be more plausible is that there are enough units, old and new, now circulating that an old one is spare to run the 2Exx service today.

[Zomboid]

6 hours ago, Siggie in the east said:

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

There have been historic issues with the capacity of the feeder station at Milton (Cambridge), but I'm surprised at that restriction as a couple of years back I worked on a project to increase the capacity there (and also at Kings Lynn, though that's not relevant to this).

[Johann Marsbar]

Has our new "contributor" now gone back to annoying the Three Billy Goats Gruff now?

[Pete 75C]

9 minutes ago, Johann Marsbar said:

Has our new "contributor" now gone back to annoying the Three Billy Goats Gruff now?

 

Sadly, probably not. Watch this space. I guess even trolls have to sleep and eat. I had no idea their diet consisted entirely of GA press releases though.

 

Edited due to a spelling emergency.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Pete 75C

[beast66606]

2 hours ago, Siggie in the east said:

As I watch a 156 leave colchester yard it appears that it is forming 2E70 to Peterborough!! 

So much for this major signalling disruption if a GA train is running to the city.

What might be more plausible is that there are enough units, old and new, now circulating that an old one is spare to run the 2Exx service today.

 

Only got as far as Ipswich where it was cancelled.

[Pete 75C]

Quick question if I may?

 

I understand entirely the issues causing the revised service between Norwich - Sheringham. Due to the speed restrictions over the level crossings, the service is being cut back at Cromer and West Runton and Sheringham are not being served by trains. Historically, the Cromer - Sheringham section has often been sacrificed to get a late-running train back on time, as the round trip is a good 20 minutes minimum.

 

However, as there is now a 2 hourly service in place off-peak, why is it not possible to run through to Sheringham? The last train of the day is the only one that comes through to Sheringham (so I'm told) and it's been that way for some time now.

 

A replacement bus service is being provided but it's proving unreliable.

Example - Train arrives at Cromer from Norwich. Bus at Cromer, but bus driver nowhere to be seen. Often, He's in Morrisons having a cuppa. The bus drivers are saying they don't have a timetable to work to? Out of frustration, people are getting taxis and trying to bill GA.

Example 2 - People arrive at Sheringham to get the replacement bus to Cromer. Bus not at station, it's parked further away at the NNR station. In the absence of information, people miss the bus. The next day, bus is not at the NNR station, it's reversed onto the Network Rail forecourt. No pattern to it at all, and it all seems a little shambolic.

 

I get the distinct impression that commuters are abandoning the Bittern line in favour of car-sharing and timetabled buses to and from Norwich. That is a great shame, considering the vast increase in passenger numbers over recent years.

 

 

[4630]

6 minutes ago, Pete 75C said:

Quick question if I may?

 

 

A good question to which you’d like to think there will be some clear, sensible, rational answers to.  Together with some ‘ownership’ of the issue and it’s rapid resolution from GA. 

 

I wonder, perchance, if a ‘new contributor’ will be along shortly armed with the latest piece of GA’s version of the truth to enlighten everyone. 

[ruggedpeak]

6 hours ago, Christopher125 said:

 

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?

 

That is an entirely plausible scenario, a previously undetected flaw/fault that the previous set up never triggered. Introducing something new into a system will often reveal latent or hidden issues. Equally the most obvious solution is often the right one, so it may be trains.

 

However when you get the press department and lawyers involved trying not to admit responsibility or risk libelling another party the situation can be exacerbated as they try but fail to control the flow of information. Here we also have a problem linked to new trains on existing track and three companies trying to avoid it being perceived as their fault.

 

Add together a potentially complex issue with confused messaging, especially if some of it is demonstrably wrong, and you end up in a mess. Let's hope someone senior gets a grip soon and starts setting out the facts publicly.

[russ p]

1 hour ago, Pete 75C said:

Quick question if I may?

 

I understand entirely the issues causing the revised service between Norwich - Sheringham. Due to the speed restrictions over the level crossings, the service is being cut back at Cromer and West Runton and Sheringham are not being served by trains. Historically, the Cromer - Sheringham section has often been sacrificed to get a late-running train back on time, as the round trip is a good 20 minutes minimum.

 

However, as there is now a 2 hourly service in place off-peak, why is it not possible to run through to Sheringham? The last train of the day is the only one that comes through to Sheringham (so I'm told) and it's been that way for some time now.

 

A replacement bus service is being provided but it's proving unreliable.

Example - Train arrives at Cromer from Norwich. Bus at Cromer, but bus driver nowhere to be seen. Often, He's in Morrisons having a cuppa. The bus drivers are saying they don't have a timetable to work to? Out of frustration, people are getting taxis and trying to bill GA.

Example 2 - People arrive at Sheringham to get the replacement bus to Cromer. Bus not at station, it's parked further away at the NNR station. In the absence of information, people miss the bus. The next day, bus is not at the NNR station, it's reversed onto the Network Rail forecourt. No pattern to it at all, and it all seems a little shambolic.

 

I get the distinct impression that commuters are abandoning the Bittern line in favour of car-sharing and timetabled buses to and from Norwich. That is a great shame, considering the vast increase in passenger numbers over recent years.

 

 

 

Hiya Pete 

 

You are right about people abandoning GA to sheringham,  I got the train to Norwich for a beer on Monday teatime hardly anyone on it. I bet Sanders pyrotechnic coaches are rubbing their hands . Their reputation for reliability is horrendous but at the moment better than GA

[beast66606]

Great Moulton

17 December 2019

755407 on 5Q06, 15:36, Diss - Norwich C.PT. T.&R.S.M.D (15:58) - unit under test

 

[Satan's Goldfish]

An example of an unforseen issue with a new piece of equipment: a few years ago I was working as a maintainer on an antiquated high power tunable transmitter. Components inside were adjustable to assist with the tuning. Due to the age of the equipment and number of faults, we eventually ran out of spares of a large tunable capacitor. The originals were no longer produced so management put out a tender with the specs as written on the originals to get some more made.

 

A Swiss company came to the rescue and built us some new tunable capacitors. We checked them over, physical dimensions were identical to the old ones and the tunable range was as requested. But, first time we fitted one following a fault, we could no longer tune the transmitter. I eventually found that (plucking numbers out of the air here because I can't remember exactly) we'd requested capacitors that could adjust 3 to 30 as that is what the old ones had written on them and that's what the company delivered, but the old ones when tested actually had a range of 1 to 40 and that's why they worked and the new ones didn't. 

 

So who's at fault? The Swiss company built a product to the specs requested. The specs requested were as laid out for the previous model by the customer. The previous model was working in the system as it had a better operating envelope than had been recognised as being required.

 

That could potentially transpose to the FLIRTS: Swiss company has built a product to the specs requested. The specs requested were as per other items of stock in use. But the other items of stock have a better interaction spec with the signalling system than has previously been recognised as being required. These things happen, a solution will be found. It sounds like there have been more avoidable admin failings in other areas surrounding this (Sheringham bus replacement? Cascading stock before a proper test period in all seasons had been carried out?) which will justify a good witch hunt, but the FLIRT issue will be one for the engineers who will hopefully get recognised rather than berated when it's all over.

[uax6]

I'm interested to see who will foot the bill for any modifications to the infrastructure for these trains. I believe it should be GA, as it is not a network change by NR, as other trains run ok.

Sadly I guess it will be the taxpayer in the long run though....

 

Andy G

[Classsix T]

I asked the question earlier in a roundabout way of access charges for the Flirt fleet and if the all up weight reflected the amount charged. 

 

Having no idea how access charging works, is it possible or even legal that should NR have to alter the infrastructure to accommodate them, can NR then charge more for the Flirts to recoup the costs? 

 

C6T. 

[4630]

41 minutes ago, Classsix T said:

I asked the question earlier in a roundabout way of access charges for the Flirt fleet and if the all up weight reflected the amount charged. 

 

Having no idea how access charging works, is it possible or even legal that should NR have to alter the infrastructure to accommodate them, can NR then charge more for the Flirts to recoup the costs? 

 

C6T. 

 

 

If I've understood it correctly, the process by which NR is required to consider changes to the infrastructure to accommodate new vehicles is contained within a document called 'The Network Code' which should be available on NR's website.  It should be a publicly available document as it applies to Network Rail and any operator.   It's not specific to individual train or freight operating companies, or open access operators.

 

Last time I looked there was also a document on the NR website listing the price per mile, per vehicle for various classes of traction and rolling stock.   If I recall it was a little out of date, so probably doesn't yet reflect the access charges for classes 745 and 755, although I would guess that the appropriate calculations will have been completed by now.  

Edited December 18, 2019 by 4630
to aid clarity, hopefully

[Christopher125]

6 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Add together a potentially complex issue with confused messaging, especially if some of it is demonstrably wrong, and you end up in a mess. Let's hope someone senior gets a grip soon and starts setting out the facts publicly.

 

Was the messaging actually confused, or does it only seem that way because of the torrent of uninformed speculation in the media and amongst enthusiasts? My initial reactions were influenced by what I was reading here and elsewhere, but on reflection perhaps GA are right to feel aggrieved.

 

1 hour ago, uax6 said:

I'm interested to see who will foot the bill for any modifications to the infrastructure for these trains. I believe it should be GA, as it is not a network change by NR, as other trains run ok.

 

I think that's unlikely now the fault seems limited to the Cromer line.

 

According to this 2011 ORR report concerning the Whitlingham LC the Cromer line was resignalled "as a trial site for the Vaughan Harmon interlocking and level crossing predictor / processor technology".

 

Perhaps unsurprisingly for a trial of new technology the system proved unreliable, poorly supported by the manufacturer and limited staff competency - it seems entirely plausible and consistent with recent statements that Stadler met all the relevant standards but the design has exposed characteristics or flaws with the non-standard signalling.

 

Quote

In this case the following issues were identified:

- Concerns that the system is not robust and is prone to intermittent failures which can cause significant train delays.
- The cost and difficulty of obtaining spares for the VHLC system.
- The lack of any meaningful support for the VHLC system by GETS.
- The limited number of competent staff and difficulty obtaining training.

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Christopher125

[corneliuslundie]

"Also, the problem with the site was that it's on a flood plain."

An obvious contender for new housing then, if many recent developments are anything to go by.

And my thanks to all the railway professionals who have kept us informed to the best of their ability of developments.

Jonathan 

[PaulG]

I like one of the comments circulating that they couldn't retain the existing stock for the Sheringham line because they didn't have DDA compliant toilets. 

 

So at Sheringham we are going to be without trains for weeks or months because of DDA non compliances!

 

Earlier in the year the GA £1m plus replacement single platform project overrun for weeks, so perhaps we should not be surprised at the latest mess up by GA/NR.

 

Paul.

[Classsix T]

412 on 16:29 NMT-SMK tonight, on electric! 

 

C6T.

 

...and yes the Fell unit fired up after the coat hanger was lowered. 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Classsix T

[Siggie in the east]

Breaking news, but still to be 100% confirmed, 2S23 disappeared on its return journey to Norwich from Cromer earlier. Its next journey as 2J86 has been cancelled pending a unit examination.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Siggie in the east

[richardw1970]

5 hours ago, uax6 said:

I'm interested to see who will foot the bill for any modifications to the infrastructure for these trains. I believe it should be GA, as it is not a network change by NR, as other trains run ok.

Sadly I guess it will be the taxpayer in the long run though....

 

Andy G

I would think it will almost certainly be the Taxpayer either way as it will either come out of Network Rails budget or out of the Public Subsidy of GA rural services.

[Satan's Goldfish]

2 hours ago, Classsix T said:

412 on 16:29 NMT-SMK tonight, on electric! 

 

C6T.

 

...and yes the Fell unit fired up after the coat hanger was lowered. 

 

Embarrassingly, I'm drawing a blank on NMT-SMK as locations... it's been a long day!

 

Love the Fell unit reference though...

[beast66606]

13 minutes ago, Siggie in the east said:

Breaking news, but still to be 100% confirmed, 2S23 disappeared on its return journey to Norwich from Cromer earlier. Its next journey as 2J86 has been cancelled pending a unit examination.

 

These signalling faults are getting worse.

[Zomboid]

11 minutes ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

 

Embarrassingly, I'm drawing a blank on NMT-SMK as locations... it's been a long day!

 

Love the Fell unit reference though...

Needham Market & Stowmarket

[Siggie in the east]

News regarding the incident at the crossing on the cromer branch.

S&T have investigated the issue and have found that it could be down to the stadlers. They have found that the location of the TCAs under the trains are too close to where the units sanders are and when the driver dispenses the sand, it comes out and interrupts the contact between the TCAs and the wheels, causing an interruption in the signal between the train and the track. That, coupled with leaf fall contamination and drivers using the sanders alot to keep traction has resulted in the issue we have seen with the train "dissappearing".

Hope this makes sense.

 

Thanks

 

Edit- have heard it from a manager now that the Sanders are located in the wrong position. They are feeding the non- driving wheels when they should be feeding the driving wheels. The TCAs are linked with the non-driving wheels so we may have an answer to why it's not communicating with the infrastructure.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Siggie in the east
Update of info

[Zomboid]

Sounds both believable and like it shouldn't be a massive deal to resolve - not knowing the layout of the equipment under there.