Greater Anglia's Stadler Flirt - Class 745 & 755

[Christopher125]

Or it could all be a load of nothing that will go away when someone takes a closer look. Guess time will tell.

It wouldn't be the first time!

[beast66606]

It wouldn't be the first time!

 

It definitely was an issue - as I've already said, I heard it months ago via unnamed people from someone who was directly involved.

 

Whether it's now been resolved is more the point.

[rodent279]

Now these have to get a nickname especially with the slightly fatter middle. How do the following stack up.

 

Pie Van's

Worm's

Push me pull me's

Gammon :-)

Beer Bellies.

The similar (to me at least) Bombardier Talent 2 emu's are known in Germany as Hamsterbacke (hamster cheeks).

[Siggie in the east]

The route restrictions, apart from the tunnel also include points such as 1326s and 1327s, country end of platforms 2and3 at ipswich, which will greatly reduce the flexibility of the running potential on the panel. This is due to the nose of the 745s and 755s overhanging so far from the bogie and catching on the platform. The delays this will cause, especially during 'autumn working' will be pretty high and will tie the siggies in knots. Looks like there could be issues at colchester and norwich also with the same problem.

Sorry to sound like I'm a doom munger but thought this things might be interesting to the guys on here.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Siggie in the east

[Siggie in the east]

It could only affect the bi modes, as the diesel generator module is a bit bigger than the passenger carrying vehicles.

 

Or it could all be a load of nothing that will go away when someone takes a closer look. Guess time will tell.

The issue with the tunnel isn't the centre power car it's the overall length of the carriages. The maximum length is the equivalent to a mk3 so that they can pass without contact. The 745/755 vehicles are alot longer so the overhang on the inside of the radius will cause contact with the walls and/or other units.

This is why the class 360s are the length they are. The designers took this feedback when they were under construction and made them the maximum permitted length so that they could get through the tunnel but also get around the triangle at colchester town, which is another area the 745/755s will be barred from.

[phil-b259]

The route restrictions, apart from the tunnel also include points such as 1326s and 1327s, country end of platforms 2and3 at ipswich, which will greatly reduce the flexibility of the running potential on the panel. This is due to the nose of the 745s and 755s overhanging so far from the bogie and catching on the platform. The delays this will cause, especially during 'autumn working' will be pretty high and will tie the siggies in knots. Looks like there could be issues at colchester and norwich also with the same problem.

Sorry to sound like I'm a doom munger but thought this things might be interesting to the guys on here.

 

Two thoughts here, Firstly can the platforms be 'trimmed' to allow the required clearances?

 

Alternatively if its just the skirt / nose-cone at the front of the units that is the problem then given these are usually made of glass fire and and not structural, fitting a revised 'cladding' (for won't of a better word) design may be a solution.

[justin1985]

The route restrictions, apart from the tunnel also include points such as 1326s and 1327s, country end of platforms 2and3 at ipswich, which will greatly reduce the flexibility of the running potential on the panel. This is due to the nose of the 745s and 755s overhanging so far from the bogie and catching on the platform. The delays this will cause, especially during 'autumn working' will be pretty high and will tie the siggies in knots. Looks like there could be issues at colchester and norwich also with the same problem.

Sorry to sound like I'm a doom munger but thought this things might be interesting to the guys on here.

 

Interesting info!

 

Are we talking "would absolutely physically make contact" or just "outside the specified tolerance of comfort" ?

 

Presumably things like platform ends could be rebuilt\adjusted by Network Rail relatively easily? Whereas the Colchester Town triangle obviously couldn't be - and that line will clearly be operated by the new Bombardier Crossrail-alike units anyway?

 

J

[russ p]

The route restrictions, apart from the tunnel also include points such as 1326s and 1327s, country end of platforms 2and3 at ipswich, which will greatly reduce the flexibility of the running potential on the panel. This is due to the nose of the 745s and 755s overhanging so far from the bogie and catching on the platform. The delays this will cause, especially during 'autumn working' will be pretty high and will tie the siggies in knots. Looks like there could be issues at colchester and norwich also with the same problem.

Sorry to sound like I'm a doom munger but thought this things might be interesting to the guys on here.

This just gets worse! Who the hell and why did they think these trains were a good idea on this route???

Why didn't they build them to a different gauge too!

 

By the way if your in Colchester box I'm the Stowmarket DRS driver with a Yorkshire accent

[phil-b259]

The issue with the tunnel isn't the centre power car it's the overall length of the carriages. The maximum length is the equivalent to a mk3 so that they can pass without contact. The 745/755 vehicles are alot longer so the overhang on the inside of the radius will cause contact with the walls and/or other units.

This is why the class 360s are the length they are. The designers took this feedback when they were under construction and made them the maximum permitted length so that they could get through the tunnel but also get around the triangle at colchester town, which is another area the 745/755s will be barred from.

 

I understood the 360s were based on a 20m car length (i.e. a Mk1) rather than 23m (i.e. a Mk3)

 

The 800s employ a 26m length body - but careful location of the bogie pivots has minimised clearance issues (Note that they are intended to use the ECML not just the GWR with its slightly more generous loading gauge width wise.

 

If Sadler have really got things that wrong then some serious questions need to be asked about what discussions were had with NR during the design phase*

 

* Please note that this wouldn't be the first time someone has gone over NRs head and agreed a deal that cannot work - witness that DfT who went and awarded the SWR franchise to First Group despite NR making it very clear the proposed increase in service couldn't be supported by the exsisting electrical infrastructure plus there was no plan or money being made available to fix it!

[phil-b259]

This just gets worse! Who the hell and why did they think these trains were a good idea on this route???

 

 

Erm - Ultimately the DfT methinks.

 

While the DfT did not actually design these trains, they were the ones who picked the winning bid - a bid which already included the deal for Saddler to provide the new trains.

 

Ever since Whitehall has made it clear it likes 'total fleet replacement' in bids, many bidders have prearranged tie ups with various rolling stock manufacturers as part of their 'pitch'.

[BernardTPM]

Why do we waste money on foreign trains that don't fit our loading gauge? Crazy.

[uax6]

The issue with the tunnel isn't the centre power car it's the overall length of the carriages. The maximum length is the equivalent to a mk3 so that they can pass without contact. The 745/755 vehicles are alot longer so the overhang on the inside of the radius will cause contact with the walls and/or other units.

This is why the class 360s are the length they are. The designers took this feedback when they were under construction and made them the maximum permitted length so that they could get through the tunnel but also get around the triangle at colchester town, which is another area the 745/755s will be barred from.

 

And of course there is an element of 'well it doesn't really matter, as the timetable will be drawn up in such a way that they will never meet at these locations', which shows a level of naivety that I would expect from someone who has never seen a railway.  

Of course on the one or two days a year where absolutely nothing goes wrong, this is possibly the case, but as soon as anything does go wrong the chances that two of these units will meet is very high.  

But who of course will be the person having to sort this crap out? Well as normal it will be the one that the railway doesn't want to employ at all, namely the poor signaller!

And how do we know what unit is on what train? Not easily, we would have to go to the trust screen, select the headcode for each train, and do a Vehicle enquiry for each train. Of course when things have gone tit-shape we have plenty of time to do this.... 

 

When will the railway actually come back to railway people, who know about how the whole system fits together and have more of a clue how it even runs?

 

Muppetry from on high yet again!

 

Andy G

[black and decker boy]

Why do we waste money on foreign trains that don't fit our loading gauge? Crazy.

which British manufacturers would you prefer?

[phil-b259]

Why do we waste money on foreign trains that don't fit our loading gauge? Crazy.

 

Because it gets best value for the UK taxpayer' according to HM Treasury / the DfT

[Zomboid]

which British manufacturers would you prefer?

Presumably the Canadian owned factory at Derby. Which has on its books a large order for suburban trains from Greater Anglia.

 

I don't know for sure, but I doubt any of the issues with the Stadler trains will be insurmountable. Time will tell on that one.

[rodent279]

They certainly look smart. I hope the problems can be solved, it's about time that route had some decent new stock. It does go to show how restrictive our loading gauge is compared to UIC. 26m stock is the norm in most of Europe.

I guess it also impinges on the cost-effectiveness of UK-based train manufacturing-you can't really use the same plant to build UIC gauge stock, because you've then got to deliver it. If your plant is located next to HS1 or at Cheriton, or a large port, then maybe there's little difficulty, but you'd have a heck of a job building a fleet of UIC gauge EMU's in Derby and delivering them to mainland Europe. Since the days when the railway handled OOG loads routinely are long gone, the only real option would be road delivery nowadays.

[jjb1970]

I don't really mind who builds the things, I just want something with a tolerable ride quality.

[phil-b259]

I don't really mind who builds the things, I just want something with a tolerable ride quality.

 

I fear you will continually be disappointed.

 

British Rail were world leaders at designing suspension that could cope with imperfect track but as with many other things such knowledge was scattered in the wind upon privatisation.

 

Virtually every train now ordered in the UK is basically a foreign design tweaked to fit the UK loading gauge and said foreign designs all work on the basis that decent suspension is not required as the focus in most train building countries traditionally has been on getting the track up to scratch - not building a train to cope well with dips etc!

 

Add to that DfT mandated rock hard seats with no padding (all due to them supposedly performing much better in a train crash than the old comfortable ones - even though we haven't had a train crash in the UK for many years......)  which they swear blind no users have any issues with and the future is not looking good.

Edited December 18, 2018 by phil-b259

[stewartingram]

How about....a new batch of Brits and some Gresleys to go behind them? Would that work?

 

Stewart

[russ p]

It always saddens me when I go to the canteen at the RTC in Derby, back in its day it would have been the hang out of the some of brightest brains in rail technology in the world now its just a canteen for a rolling stock repair shop and some rented offices

[BernardTPM]

which British manufacturers would you prefer?

English Electric.

Edited December 18, 2018 by BernardTPM

[BernardTPM]

I don't really mind who builds the things, I just want something with a tolerable ride quality.

Good ride, comfortable seats, view out of the window and sufficient toilets.

[phil-b259]

Good ride, comfortable seats, view out of the window and sufficient toilets.

 

According to the DfT new trains already provide the first two on your list (I'm sure the inhabitants of Whitehall would present you with reams of paperwork they say proves it is so if you ask them enough) and its not their fault if your posterior / spine does not meet the superposed UK norms..

 

While as for the 3rd item - they would say you need to get with the times and start surfing the internet / watching a film / reading a book on your smart device via the on board wi-fi and powered by the charging socket under your seat (unless the DfT forgot to include that in the spec they themselves drew up - aka the 700s) like the rest of the population do, not doing that silly old 'looking out of the Window' routine.

 

Finally the DfT would say that not only are sufficient toilets are provided - but at least one of them will be fully accessible too. Of course being of the retention type and full of fancy controls there is much more to go wrong....

 

Perhaps it might be illuminating for someone to tell us what its like in DfT Towers. Are the inhabitants able to see out of the windows, are train style seats with minimal padding first choice in the office supplies catalogue and how many toilets do they have...

Edited December 18, 2018 by phil-b259

[jjb1970]

I fear you will continually be disappointed.

 

British Rail were world leaders at designing suspension that could cope with imperfect track but as with many other things such knowledge was scattered in the wind upon privatisation.

 

Virtually every train now ordered in the UK is basically a foreign design tweaked to fit the UK loading gauge and said foreign designs all work on the basis that decent suspension is not required as the focus in most train building countries traditionally has been on getting the track up to scratch - not building a train to cope well with dips etc!

 

Add to that DfT mandated rock hard seats with no padding (all due to them supposedly performing much better in a train crash than the old comfortable ones - even though we haven't had a train crash in the UK for many years......)  which they swear blind no users have any issues with and the future is not looking good.

It doesn't just seem to be a UK thing. I've been travelling quite a lot in the new Eurostar trains and the ride quality seems significantly worse than the old Alstom trains on all three networks (UK, France and Belgium), with a rather disappointing fidgetiness and rolling motion (the general build also seems poor as the last few trips have been a cacophony of rattles and noise from loose panels).

 

I really don't mind most of the seats on trains, I think shape is much more important than whether the cushions are soft or firm and generally find the newer generation of seats pretty well shaped.

[phil-b259]

I really don't mind most of the seats on trains, I think shape is much more important than whether the cushions are soft or firm and generally find the newer generation of seats pretty well shaped.

 

The problem is people are not all the same where as a train seat is!

 

The human body shape, size, etc is unique to every individual and very few will find the seat shape a perfect fit. The role of padding in this case is to allow a bit of flex - so if you are shorter or taller than average and your spine doesn't sit well against the back of the seat the padding provides a degree of support or can be compressed as your body shape requires.

 

Thats why the seats used in Mk1s were generally very comfortable - they were akin to a sofa or armchair and the seat moulded itself to your body - not your body being forced to mould itself to the seat profile.

Edited December 18, 2018 by phil-b259