Hitachi trains grounded

[Oldddudders]

17 hours ago, 1E BoY said:

802114 was on duty at Paignton yesterday around 1100. Snapped during a diversion enroute to football at Plainmoor.

I have never travelled on 802114, but feel a sort of affinity for the unit, having snapped it looking forlorn and embarrassed in the middle road at Totnes, a couple of years ago. It had run low on fuel, so we were told here.

[Gilbert]

28 minutes ago, SouthernMafia said:

 

387152 / 387165 in service today:

 

9U44 07:12 PAD - BPW 08:37
9L43 10:19 BPW - PAD 11:42  
9U54 12:12 PAD - BPW 13:36  
5Z54 13:49 BPW - SWI 14:14   
5Z53 14:32 SWI - BPW 14:57   
9L53 15:10 BPW - PAD 16:43  
9U66 17:12 PAD - BPW 18:38   
5Z66 19:04 BPW - RTCD 20:07

Thanks -I  may venture out!

[boxbrownie]

Well I hope it’s a bit better today, Mrs BB got on the 08:39 Liskeard today and is presently winding her way along to Worcester Parkway, but I did get a text a while ago saying the train has been delayed at Plymouth due to requiring coaches to be removed/added, not sure what that’s all about.

Edited May 24, 2021 by boxbrownie
Corrected

[Oldddudders]

17 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Well I hope it’s a bit better today, Mrs BB got on the 08:39 Liskeard today and is presently winding her way along to Worcester Parkway, but I did get a text a while ago saying the train has been delayed at Plymouth due to requiring coaches to be removed/added, not sure what that’s all about.

I  suggest it adds another 5 there, as it would. Seems she had then to change onto a Voyager at NA? 

[boxbrownie]

43 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

I  suggest it adds another 5 there, as it would. Seems she had then to change onto a Voyager at NA? 

Possibly, I am not sure....she had to change at Exeter St David’s....I know that.

[Ian Hargrave]

Don’t think XC Voyagers call at Worcester Parkway . Hence a change somewhere along the line would be necessary.it depends upon the best a available ticket as to where that would be.Most XC 220/221 on West to North turns seem now to be running in multiple and can add or detach units en route at Plymouth,Bristol,Gloucester ( strange but true as most avoid a call there except for one at least) and Newcastle . XC have redrawn their timetable and diagrams since Covid to account for social distancing.Bournemouth/Southampton services via Reading &Oxford now run to Manchester only.The Newcastle service is axed.

[boxbrownie]

18 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

Don’t think XC Voyagers call at Worcester Parkway . Hence a change somewhere along the line would be necessary.it depends upon the best a available ticket as to where that would be.Most XC 220/221 on West to North turns seem now to be running in multiple and can add or detach units en route at Plymouth,Bristol,Gloucester ( strange but true as most avoid a call there except for one at least) and Newcastle . XC have redrawn their timetable and diagrams since Covid to account for social distancing.Bournemouth/Southampton services via Reading &Oxford now run to Manchester only.The Newcastle service is axed.

She had the option to catch another from Worc Parkway but I think she is being picked up from there now.

 

I didn’t get involved, if something goes wrong.....it’s not my fault 

[iands]

4 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:

Don’t think XC Voyagers call at Worcester Parkway . 

Which seems strange, as platforms 1&2 at Worcester Parkway were provided for XC services to call at. The whole idea of Worcester Parkway station was to eradicate the (then current) poor accessibility to and from London and via the Cross-Country network. The improved "connectivity" aspects were the foundations of the business case for the station.

[caradoc]

2 minutes ago, iands said:

Which seems strange, as platforms 1&2 at Worcester Parkway were provided for XC services to call at. The whole idea of Worcester Parkway station was to eradicate the (then current) poor accessibility to and from London and via the Cross-Country network. The improved "connectivity" aspects were the foundations of the business case for the station.

 

XC services do call at Worcestershire Parkway Ian, but it is normally the Nottingham/Cardiff (Class 170) trains rather than the longer distance Voyagers; Which I do personally find strange as well !

 

[iands]

1 minute ago, caradoc said:

 

XC services do call at Worcestershire Parkway Ian, but it is normally the Nottingham/Cardiff (Class 170) trains rather than the longer distance Voyagers; Which I do personally find strange as well !

 

Ah, thanks for the clarification Caradoc. I misunderstood Ian Hargrave's comment to mean no XC services called at Worcester Parkway. Note to self - must read posts properley and accurately in furture.

 

And apologies for drifting off-topic.

[Afroal05]

After some rather sleepless days and nights I was fortunate to have 10 days leave hence I haven't given any up to date information. I went off grid which was a most needed tonic after the incredible events of the previous week. Apologies for such a lengthy reply.

 

I have replied to some things I felt I could comment on, I appreciate I am quite late to the debate on some of the points.

 

GWR are currently working to a plan of 65 units available each day for traffic. The units having been signed off for traffic for the day, previously units were prepped and certified for 35.5 hours, this was been reduced to 24 to allow more frequent inspections but has now reverted back to the 35.5hrs.

 

The units made available for traffic are a spread of 800/5s, 800/9s, 802/5s and 802/9s. Despite the plan being written for 65 units there are only 61 available today...

 

On 12/05/2021 at 14:47, Not Captain Kernow said:

Having been there and done that in the past (Kentish Town relay room fire, barge hitting Blackfriars Bridge, Gauge Corner Cracking) I feel for you and hours you will all be putting in to try and build a plan based on constantly shifting sands.  Most people will never understand the amount of effort made behind the scenes to keep trains running.  The effort is appreciated, especially by someone who has a trip to Edinburgh in early June booked which uses both affected routes!

 

It was a herculean effort for days and days by many many people across the business. You just wish that when TV series like 'Paddington 24/7' are in here filming that they actually catch problems of this magnitude. The drama that is constructed about generally very minor incidents is nothing in comparison with the extraordinary work that goes into events like this and that so many people have no idea occurs. It's saddening when all of that effort is still met with suggestions that more could have been done (as per my two replies below).

 

The day I last wrote a post finished with a Zoom call in the stairwell at 2345 briefing senior managers what the rough plan was that I had written that evening. Pleasingly it looks like the plan was of some use as it was mostly utilised on the Friday. It was a little ad hoc the following weekend but now we are working to a 'proper' train planning devised plan, albeit for a reduced number of units.

 

 

On 12/05/2021 at 19:32, Gwiwer said:

If they have passed the required safety checks then what are their grounds?  If not then what are their plans to get people moving?  

 

The fare-paying public is being held hostage to problems they have every reason to know more about and to know when they might be able to travel. 
 

Too many are being told “try again tomorrow” which is simply not an acceptable answer. 

 

Because I believe the ORR wanted to further inspect and understand why and how a fleet that 24hrs earlier was deemed not fit for traffic was going to be returned to service almost overnight. There was a requirement for the sign off paperwork to be inspected further and approval from higher up that no corners were being cut to save face and endanger passengers or staff.

 

On 12/05/2021 at 19:47, Gwiwer said:

I’m afraid I see little evidence of “pulling together” when a simple London - Plymouth journey (as one example) currently takes around seven hours by at least three trains instead of three hours by one, may involve indirect routes or lengthy waits and is putting both staff and passengers under immense stress and pressure. 
 

I see a XC unit shuttling Swindon - Bristol but I don’t see any additional services or strengthening - even where it might be possible which is far from everywhere - to accommodate displaced passengers. 
 

I don’t see “pulling together” when displaced customers are required to pay again in order to travel with a different TOC and then advised “you might get a refund”. And I don’t see “pulling together” when bus drivers in Cornwall know nothing about the GWR / NR websites suggesting rail tickets will be honoured on their buses and again demand payment or no ride. 
 

It’s a huge task. It needs an incident co-ordinator to take charge.  Not the piecemeal approach and the “come back later” attitude currently found far too widely. 

 

Whilst it may have taken many hours and many changes to have travelled Paddington - Plymouth that option was only available because a number of TOCs working together and talking to each other. If XC hadn't willingly offered up several units to run additional PLY-BPW services (which they did, even if you didn't see them) and the Swindon shuttle then it would have been much harder to have travelled anywhere on the GWML. XC couldn't have strengthened many more as most of their services were already running as pairs of Voyagers as they have been throughout the Covid timetable. Neville Hill conducting a powercar exam on an XC set then allowed the HST to stay on the Swindon circuit, preventing it from being a single Voyager. The single Voyager they had planned for the Swindon circuit was frequently full and standing, the 7 car HST made a real difference.

 

Ticket acceptance was in place with AWC, Chiltern, XC (and initially I believe with LU as well) to try and get people moving. SWR were less willing as they felt they couldn't amend or strengthen their West of England services and thus didn't have the capacity. Bus ticket acceptance wasn't necessarily required in Cornwall as a very close to full service was run with additional West units covering for High Speed Services (having said that I don't know if ticket acceptance with First Kernow was asked for or not, it may well have been and they are usually very forthcoming and without issue).

 

The 'come back later' approach as you call it surely is a necessity to prevent hideous overcrowding at a time when social distancing is still prevalent! You cannot welcome people onto the railway when you cannot provide a service, it has to be for essential journeys only and advising people not to travel. Loadings were high on a lot of GWR services and that was with asking people to stay away. There was/is no magic fleet of trains we can roll out for such rare instances as this, I really don't see what other option there is/was.

 

On 14/05/2021 at 11:31, Gilbert said:

Does anyone know if 387s are operating west of Swindon?

 

Yes! Now trundling through to Bristol Parkway in service. Only 12 drivers sign route and traction at the moment which is a little bit of a challenge. Pencilled in until mid June at the moment. (Subject to change as has everything during this extraordinary event).

 

On 14/05/2021 at 12:18, Dunsignalling said:

Probably the latter, and that's by the end of next week, not immediately.

 

Philip was asking about the resumption of the normal service, which (on GW) AIUI needs all bar four or five sets available.

 

Getting the glass more than a bit over half full is clearly still some way off.

 

 

On 14/05/2021 at 12:44, Coryton said:

 

Were they previously planning on a resumption of the full timetable on Sunday?

 

The "pandemic" timetable they were running up until the cracks were found must have been possible with a significantly reduced number of units.

 

The requirement is that 80/93 80X are required for service each day allowing Hitachi to maintain and tinker with 13 units each day. During the last covid timetable this was roughly a 60/20 split of units working passenger trains and spares available on depot at short notice to cover for failures etc.

 

The 'full' timetable originally planned for launch in December '19 complete with superfast services etc clearly required a much higher proportion of those 80 units for service with only a handful of spares (say 75/5 or similar). The May timetable we were supposed to have just started was 90% of the December '19 timetable, still with the superfasts and a handful of other services omitted. I have no provisional date to even try and return to that level.

 

The plan for the next few weeks is to run a service with 65 units a day. Today there were only 61 available.

 

On 14/05/2021 at 17:29, TomScrut said:

How come a deal wasn't struck for GWR or LNER to run TPE/HT 802s? There's at least 1 TPE 802 gadding up and down the WCML on what I presume are mileage accumulation runs and at least 1 HT on driver training. Surely the current situation would mean they should do the right thing and help GWR out?

 

Or could the trains be not suitable for passenger carrying yet OK to drive otherwise in terms of the cracking issue? Either from a public liability perspective or from the train not having a payload.

 

Well... it was. I was expecting 3x TPE 802s to arrive at some point. Then the advice changed again that actually some units might be allowed to return to traffic and that was shelved (along with any loco hauled ideas and 2+4s to Reading etc)

 

On 16/05/2021 at 09:03, rodent279 said:

Even if the electrical connections are standard, you still have to have compatible software. I think it is the case that there are EMU's around that have compatible couplers, both mechanically and electrically, but have software that is incompatible. I can't remember whether it's Electrostars, or Desiros, but they are in use with different operators.

And of course, that software is a safety critical system, as not only does it control functions such as power and braking, but also door opening, closing and interlocking.

 

TMS software is a big issue here. Every few weeks the fleet has a new version of the TMS updated, over a 3 day period when it happens you cannot attach two units with incompatible TMS versions, they have a hissy fit and won't work. It is said that this is why 800s and 802s cannot attach (which would be really useful sometimes). 

It is also because of the TMS that the original plan to be able to couple up units into 14 or 15 car formations cannot happen - the onboard systems are unable to monitor more than 10 engines (GUs technically) and so there is no fire protection in the rear vehicles. Units can be coupled for an emergency recovery and when that happens a competent person has to be in the rear vehicles to observe for fire purposes.

 

It's quite a nuisance when it seems to the uneducated (myself) that it is just a computer issue, but those are the rules we have to play by!

 

On 16/05/2021 at 16:20, phil-b259 said:

 

As has been noted a 377 can physically couple to a 387 to clear the line, but the faulty unit will be towed with no brakes due to incompatible software. You may well find the same is true with IET units.

 

Naturally the ORR expect this to be a 'last resort measure' and only for passenger evacuation / transportation to the nearest loop / siding where the defective train can be dumped out the way as towing unbraked stock is usually done in the middle of the night to minimise the consequences should it become separated from the towing unit.

 

 

Yes, as above, 800/802s don't play well together. Although it has happened by accident a couple of times and a 5 car 800 and 5 car 802 did make a run from Oxford to Paddington to passenger service without any issues.

[Gwiwer]

35 minutes ago, Afroal05 said:

Bus ticket acceptance wasn't necessarily required in Cornwall as a very close to full service was run with additional West units covering for High Speed Services (having said that I don't know if ticket acceptance with First Kernow was asked for or not, it may well have been and they are usually very forthcoming and without issue).

GWR advertised that ticket acceptance was in place listing routes T1 and T2 (Penzance / St. Ives - Truro) and a number of others which had no relevance to the railway such as L1 (Helston - Lizard).  In practice bus drivers were not advised this was the case and therefore - within my experience and from comments received - correctly declined travel.  Most of these buses are run by First as are the trains but that group has often given the public the impression that bus and rail are entirely different entities and do not run in co-operation with each other nor are they parts of the same business at all.  Honourable exceptions have existed.  

 

35 minutes ago, Afroal05 said:

The 'come back later' approach as you call it surely is a necessity to prevent hideous overcrowding at a time when social distancing is still prevalent! You cannot welcome people onto the railway when you cannot provide a service, it has to be for essential journeys only and advising people not to travel. Loadings were high on a lot of GWR services

Which is the worse scenario?  To be advised "come back later" without any specific advice as to when "later" might be (In an hour?  In a few hours?  Tomorrow?  Next week?  Next month?  Will I make it to work?  Will I miss my father's funeral?).  Or to be advised "No service until further notice"?  (Quite simply nothing is going anywhere and everyone receives the same unambiguous message).

 

What does the railway want?  "Essential journeys only" and "Social distancing" (neither of which has been enforced across some operators) or customers to pay fares and travel?  High loadings should be considered a good thing.   What does one say to the customer who has travelled by - for example - Southern on a train with most seats occupied and many standing passengers, who has crossed London by often-busy tube train and is then met with a refusal to be admitted to a near-empty train on the grounds that it has reached its "Covid capacity"?  

 

Social distancing has been patchy at best since the start of this year as people have returned to a more normal way of life; more people are travelling, shopping, sitting in parks and (very recently) eating and drinking out.  Enforcement of face-coverings has been almost non-existent.  

 

I appreciate the point that some people have been working long hours behind the scenes and I respect that.  That has not always translated into support for delayed, displaced and distressed customers nor for operating staff on the ground - not confined to GWR, LNER nor the other operators of Hitachi trains - who have suffered in some cases known to me abuse now resulting in extended sick leave.  

 

There is no "strategic reserve" of trains.  But a learning point which has to come out of this is for a major incident to be placed under the control of one person (perhaps under GBR this will become the norm) who is responsible for clear and consistent messaging from top to bottom across the industry.  

 

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Gwiwer

[Ian Hargrave]

2 hours ago, iands said:

Ah, thanks for the clarification Caradoc. I misunderstood Ian Hargrave's comment to mean no XC services called at Worcester Parkway. Note to self - must read posts properley and accurately in furture.

 

And apologies for drifting off-topic.

No I did specifically say Voyagers.The Cardiff -Nottingham XC 170service picks up the in between bits with the 220/221 chasing their tails as far as Derby.

[Afroal05]

3 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

GWR advertised that ticket acceptance was in place listing routes T1 and T2 (Penzance / St. Ives - Truro) and a number of others which had no relevance to the railway such as L1 (Helston - Lizard).  In practice bus drivers were not advised this was the case and therefore - within my experience and from comments received - correctly declined travel.  Most of these buses are run by First as are the trains but that group has often given the public the impression that bus and rail are entirely different entities and do not run in co-operation with each other nor are they parts of the same business at all.  Honourable exceptions have existed.  

 

Which is the worse scenario?  To be advised "come back later" without any specific advice as to when "later" might be (In an hour?  In a few hours?  Tomorrow?  Next week?  Next month?  Will I make it to work?  Will I miss my father's funeral?).  Or to be advised "No service until further notice"?  (Quite simply nothing is going anywhere and everyone receives the same unambiguous message).

 

What does the railway want?  "Essential journeys only" and "Social distancing" (neither of which has been enforced across some operators) or customers to pay fares and travel?  High loadings should be considered a good thing.   What does one say to the customer who has travelled by - for example - Southern on a train with most seats occupied and many standing passengers, who has crossed London by often-busy tube train and is then met with a refusal to be admitted to a near-empty train on the grounds that it has reached its "Covid capacity"?  

 

Social distancing has been patchy at best since the start of this year as people have returned to a more normal way of life; more people are travelling, shopping, sitting in parks and (very recently) eating and drinking out.  Enforcement of face-coverings has been almost non-existent.  

 

I appreciate the point that some people have been working long hours behind the scenes and I respect that.  That has not always translated into support for delayed, displaced and distressed customers nor for operating staff on the ground - not confined to GWR, LNER nor the other operators of Hitachi trains - who have suffered in some cases known to me abuse now resulting in extended sick leave.  

 

There is no "strategic reserve" of trains.  But a learning point which has to come out of this is for a major incident to be placed under the control of one person (perhaps under GBR this will become the norm) who is responsible for clear and consistent messaging from top to bottom across the industry.  

 

 

 

T1 & T2 are common requests when anything goes wrong in Cornwall, I have requested them myself in a previous role a number of times. I agree L1 seems more peculiar. What I will say is that it is normally the station teams on the ground that are providing the lists of routes they want ticket acceptance on to move passengers and then up to controllers to interpret if these requests are reasonable or not. In the case of the 80x disruption the attitude towards trying to keep passengers moving has been 'anything goes' and so it doesn't surprise me if less obvious routes were requested.

 

To request bus ticket acceptance it is treated the same way if it is First Group as it if were Stagecoach or Arriva buses, they are regarded as entirely different entities. A request is made to the chosen transport provider - currently First Travel Solutions (but it hasn't always been them!) with a reference code that costs can be attributed to and then FTS will liaise with the relevant company and agree the ticket acceptance. FTS will then call back to advise when it has been arranged, this can feel like an eternity when you are trying to move passengers. 

From a GWR controller's point of view once it is requested you would expect the information to be disseminated to all bus drivers accordingly to prevent issues as the controller is by this point probably advertising the acceptance on the relevant websites. The only way you would ever find out there was a problem would be through social media or via station teams getting comments from disgruntled passengers.

 

As you have picked up on - I do not feel there is any affiliation with any other First Group company, there is no frequent dialogue between any of the bus company's empire, TPE, SWR, AWC or Hull Trains, we are all separate entities beavering away independently.

 

**********

 

I don't think I can honestly answer for what the Railway wants, only what I want based on my personal feelings on the pandemic and what people define as an 'essential' journey. I agree that following of the rules has been in decline but seeing the whole train service from Control there is more enforcement than you might think. Trains crew are unhappy with are recorded daily, serial offending trains are fed back to train planning for strengthening (I ad hoc strengthened a particular PAD-BRI service everyday for a week before this crisis because it was reported as over capacity). We have had trains refused by crew until people alighted and police called to a couple when people refuse to comply. It may not be as widespread or as iron fisted as some would like and I would like to see more compliance from the travelling public.

We have ball park figures for what a covid compliant unit is - 139 places in a 5 car for example - but it is not enforced strictly as it is a pencil pushers calculation and not an exact science. The judgement is down to the traincrew who are there in the moment and must always be relied upon to have some judgement in what is safe and what is not. They have the right to refuse to take the train and some have.

 

Under the emergency measures agreements I would have thought the priority should be keeping staff and customers safe and not worrying about the railway purse and getting as many paying passengers back in. High loadings could be viewed as a bad thing were they to be linked to an increase and spread in the virus (and subsequent deaths).

 

'Which is the worse scenario?  To be advised "come back later" without any specific advice as to when "later" might be (In an hour?  In a few hours?  Tomorrow?  Next week?  Next month?  Will I make it to work?  Will I miss my father's funeral?).  Or to be advised "No service until further notice"?  (Quite simply nothing is going anywhere and everyone receives the same unambiguous message).'

 

I agree entirely with you here and I would have liked to have seen a clearer message. GWR's 'Code Black' message seemed pretty clear to me - but I only ever saw the internal messages. We were advising people not to travel on that specific day. Perhaps it should have been made clearer that it would last days but the situation was changing hour by hour and every day there was the suggestion you might have 40+ units back the next day.

 

My two penneth - I would like to see clearer messages to all passengers, I hear the automated reasons we select from in Control from a limited selection and just wish we could be more honest with the travelling public. Before I left my role in the information team we were told we were not allowed to put things as 'A points problem' even when it was a points problem because the manager's opinion was the travelling public are confused by what points are. In the end just about any infrastructure problem is given the reason 'A problem with the signalling system'.

There are plenty more examples of things like that but I'm digressing from stricken 80Xs and slipping into personal opinion!

[Oldddudders]

53 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

There is no "strategic reserve" of trains.  But a learning point which has to come out of this is for a major incident to be placed under the control of one person (perhaps under GBR this will become the norm) who is responsible for clear and consistent messaging from top to bottom across the industry.  

Presumably part of that lucky person's empowerment will include provision of a magic wand. He/she will need it to achieve what you think is possible. It wasn't possible in BR days, and won't be in future with or without GBR. 

[TomScrut]

1 hour ago, Afroal05 said:

You just wish that when TV series like 'Paddington 24/7' are in here filming that they actually catch problems of this magnitude. The drama that is constructed about generally very minor incidents is nothing in comparison with the extraordinary work that goes into events like this and that so many people have no idea occurs. It's saddening when all of that effort is still met with suggestions that more could have been done

 

Yes, and it's those kinds of "catastrophes", tied to the over dramatic commentary which is why I don't watch what would otherwise probably be a very interesting programme!

 

1 hour ago, Afroal05 said:

Well... it was. I was expecting 3x TPE 802s to arrive at some point.

 

That's interesting, as I'd not have made that post had I remembered the ATP. Is it fitted to the TPE units?

 

1 hour ago, Afroal05 said:

Yes, as above, 800/802s don't play well together.

 

That's interesting, and I'd be keen to know (not necessarily from you) as to why.

 

AFAIK LNER use 800s attached to 801s, at least when there are diversions with no OHLE.

[pheaton]

2 hours ago, iands said:

Ah, thanks for the clarification Caradoc. I misunderstood Ian Hargrave's comment to mean no XC services called at Worcester Parkway. Note to self - must read posts properley and accurately in furture.

 

And apologies for drifting off-topic.

Voyagers are covering for non available 170s on the notts - cardiff

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, Afroal05 said:

TMS software is a big issue here. Every few weeks the fleet has a new version of the TMS updated, over a 3 day period when it happens you cannot attach two units with incompatible TMS versions, they have a hissy fit and won't work. It is said that this is why 800s and 802s cannot attach (which would be really useful sometimes). 

It is also because of the TMS that the original plan to be able to couple up units into 14 or 15 car formations cannot happen - the onboard systems are unable to monitor more than 10 engines (GUs technically) and so there is no fire protection in the rear vehicles. Units can be coupled for an emergency recovery and when that happens a competent person has to be in the rear vehicles to observe for fire purposes.

 

It's quite a nuisance when it seems to the uneducated (myself) that it is just a computer issue, but those are the rules we have to play by!

 

 

Yes, as above, 800/802s don't play well together. Although it has happened by accident a couple of times and a 5 car 800 and 5 car 802 did make a run from Oxford to Paddington to passenger service without any issues.

I can quite appreciate that you have been through the mill over the last couple of weeks. I'm not in the industry, but I do come from a railway family, and I can well remember, as a kid, the telephone in the hall in our house being an extension of LM region control, Dad being called away from family holidays to attend incidents, or getting up at some unearthly hour to attend site.

 

Going back to software, I'm sure there's a good reason for incompatibilities between ostensibly the same class or family of unit, but it should be possible for software revisions to be compatible with previous versions.

As for being unable to couple up 3 class 80x to make 14/15 car trains- I guess if more of the fleet had been all electric, that might have been possible?

[Bucoops]

15 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Going back to software, I'm sure there's a good reason for incompatibilities between ostensibly the same class or family of unit, but it should be possible for software revisions to be compatible with previous versions.

 

 

To make software compatible with previous versions can make it so that the required changes can't be done and increases the amount of testing required before release so I do understand why this is the case.

[corneliuslundie]

Vary many thanks for your extended comments and explanations, Afroal05. I only hope that pretty soon you will be able to have some rest. I shan't suggest a tour by train.

A couple of comments and thoughts.

First and minor in a way. Should the government have told the bus companies to accept rail tickets? Thoughts?

Secondly, I am afraid that I am not convinced that there are any grounds for trains from the same manufacturer built at almost the same time and of essentially of the same class, with variations, not being completely compatible. This is simply laziness or incompetence by the manufacturer.  Ands why updates all the time? Get it right first time.

And finally, I am afraid that the message about essential travel only is no longer being preached by government. They are making a point about everything opening up. Can you blame the public for believing that it is now safe to travel? I know that too many people have been doing it all the time - including people I know who should know better - but I think that to try to enforce essential travel only now would fail completely.

Jonathan

Edited May 24, 2021 by corneliuslundie
typos

[RJS1977]

Covid-wise, the "essential travel" rule was dropped around the time of the non-essential shops opening in favour of "minimise travel", which was a somewhat meaningless phrase as the minimum of travel is "essential only" or none! However I think in practice, trips to the shop or tourist attractions by bus or train were considered to be OK, doing a Tube Challenge most definitely was not! And of course, going by public transport to get your jab is allowed.

 

Now at least some public transport operators are advertising as "We're ready when you are" (i.e. passengers welcome). Of course the level of loading on particular services or routes makes a difference - I've been on trains from Reading where I've had the entire carriage to myself, or been on the top deck of a bus with only two other people. 

 

[Ultimately the Government couldn't keep non-car users holed up at home forever. One of the biggest frustrations for me last year was the length of time for which I was prohibited from going further from home than I could walk back from - the circuit along both banks of the Thames between Reading and Caversham bridges became very 'old' quite quickly!]

 

I think any recent 'essential journeys only' instructions from GWR, LNER etc recently has been down to the lack of rolling stock rather than a nationwide Government edict with regards to covid.

[Gilbert]

2 hours ago, pheaton said:

Voyagers are covering for non available 170s on the notts - cardiff

 1M73 1545 Cardiff Central to Nottingham 4 CAR 221 22 May 2021

[Gilbert]

and here's a 387 at BPW

 

[Gwiwer]

2 hours ago, Afroal05 said:

the manager's opinion was the travelling public are confused by what points are. In the end just about any infrastructure problem is given the reason 'A problem with the signalling system'.

Without wishing to steer this topic too far away from subject I believe most railway users have at least sufficient understanding of what points are to comprehend "points failure".  We on the coal-face (at least in my  neck of the woods but from friends around the country within and outside the industry the message is the same) are sick of banal pre-recorded announcements.  "Due to a problem currently under investigation" is the worst.  Someone has not entered the relevant code and the system defaults to "dunno mate" mode.  We don't need to be too specific about "The emergency services dealing with an incident" but those are not always fatalities.  I have never announced a cancelled train.  When required I grab the hand-mic and will say something like "We are sorry that we are unable to run the xx.xx to ABC today.  This is because there is a fault on the train.  Your next train to ABC is expected to be at xx.xx".  Not the dreaded "cancelled" but the same information conveyed in a simple yet apologetic, rather than dramatic, form.  

 

In the context of the Hitachi Problem perhaps the message could have been "We are sorry that, because of emergency safety checks to all trains, we are unable to run the advertised service today on the following routes ..... and advise everyone not to travel.  We do not have an expected time for services to resume but it will not be today."  Simple, clear and as customer-friendly as possible under Code Black.  Which is a situation I myself have handled a few times.  As I mentioned before there have to be learning points coming out of this.  And of course as things start to return the occasional train which does manage to run might be expected to load more lightly, easing pressure on staff everywhere, if everyone clearly has the message to not travel at all.  

[rodent279]

30 minutes ago, Gilbert said:

and here's a 387 at BPW

 

Could this be a viable model for future services on the London-Bristol-Cardiff corridor?

387's running to Parkway, Newport/Cardiff, as an all (major) stations stopping service, leaving the 80x's to form the services to Swansea & points west. After all, 350's work similar distances on the WCML. 111 miles Padd-BPW with 4 stops should be possible in sub-1:45, even with 110mph top speed.

Edited May 24, 2021 by rodent279