378 extra coach

[Minstral25]

378209 will be the last to be lengthened for a little while. The North London Line and West London Line platforms need testing, which will be done in a few weeks I think.

Can't wait for them on the WLL - desperately overcrowded.

I'd have thought all platforms there are fine as Southern run 8 coach trains but I assume we have to wait for Willesden to Stratford to be done. Is there much to do to the NLL platforms or could they use SDO to get them sent out?

 

[Clip]

SDO is already in use on the ELL so its possible but without remembering off top of me head about a lot of the NLL platforms I am unsure if it would just cause chaos or not with people in the wrong bit

 

[33056]

Centre coach for 378 215 (38415) should be on it's way south from Bescot very shortly for delivery tonight; hauling loco is shown as 66025.

 

[Chris125]

First 5-car on the NLL, with regards to Darren Johnson for the photo:



378203 @ Stratford by dazz285, on Flickr

 

[jon0844]

Whenever they use the door to put up posters like that, it always appears as if they've covered a window.

I wonder if anyone has ever complained to LO/TfL and claimed it is dangerous!

 

[mrmatt]

Going back a few pages (and a year) if someone on my team programmed software that could only cope with up to 5 components it wouldn't get past code review. I'm sure I am missing an awful lot of nuances but that seems like rather a lapse in code quality. The fact electrostar software works in multiple makes this even worse as they clearly allowed for some instances of longer vehicles (even if not part of the same "train")

 

[jon0844]

Bombardier trains are usually pretty 'special'.

 

[MCR247]

I'm sure if they really wanted to they could change the software and extend them to six carriages. Tbh if theres anything to worry about for me it'd be whether Bombardier would be willing to supply extra electrostar coaches x years into the future knowing what they're like

 

[jon0844]

Can you imagine the problems if they tried adjusting the software?

 

[Peter Sarf]

The biggest problem with altering the software is probably that the whole safety case would need to be gone through again.

If they went to six car trains I could see some arguing that these should be made up of 2*3-car units. That is a bit difficult now that there are so many 4th and 5th centre cars floating around as they would only need the fourth centre car to build the same number of 3 car units !. Things evolve over time in reality so there is always going to be a bit of hindsight agonising. It is just as likely that a new design of unit might come along thus cascading the 378s to other routes.

 

[JohnElliott]

Going back a few pages (and a year) if someone on my team programmed software that could only cope with up to 5 components it wouldn't get past code review. I'm sure I am missing an awful lot of nuances but that seems like rather a lapse in code quality. The fact electrostar software works in multiple makes this even worse as they clearly allowed for some instances of longer vehicles (even if not part of the same "train")

But if the limit was eight cars, everyone would nod sagely and assume it was something to do with the number of bits in a byte

 

[jon0844]

So 256 carriage trains aren't imminent then?

 

[Class377/5]

Going back a few pages (and a year) if someone on my team programmed software that could only cope with up to 5 components it wouldn't get past code review. I'm sure I am missing an awful lot of nuances but that seems like rather a lapse in code quality. The fact electrostar software works in multiple makes this even worse as they clearly allowed for some instances of longer vehicles (even if not part of the same "train")

Components is an unfair comparison. Each coach had thousands of components. I bet your team never had to provide a safety case either. Not to mention each version will require seperate proof that it works safe. Also would you allow your team to waste money with no return? Because that what you suggesting.

 

[Taunton]

Going back a few pages (and a year) if someone on my team programmed software that could only cope with up to 5 components it wouldn't get past code review. I'm sure I am missing an awful lot of nuances but that seems like rather a lapse in code quality. The fact electrostar software works in multiple makes this even worse as they clearly allowed for some instances of longer vehicles (even if not part of the same "train")

This may be true from your perspective of a software developer, but from the view of your sales and marketing department they would love it, because it would be fully compliant with the specification of the original trains, plus when the (suspected) additional vehicle is ordered then you have the client by the short & curlys to charge what you like for a software enhancement, all additional to the physical cost of the vehicles themselves.

In fact the greater skill is in noticing what the client accidentally missed out from their specification and, even if additional variation prices are pre-agreed, bending the pricing of elements within the original overall quotation so that things they will never come back for more of are cheaper, and things they are likely to come back for more of are correspondingly more expensive.

 

[jon0844]

Your last paragraph is a perfect example of when a council outsources maintenance (and many other things) and gets royally stitched up!

I've seen it so many times it's not even funny.

 

[CosherB]

In fact the greater skill is in noticing what the client accidentally missed out from their specification and, even if additional variation prices are pre-agreed, bending the pricing of elements within the original overall quotation so that things they will never come back for more of are cheaper, and things they are likely to come back for more of are correspondingly more expensive.

That attitude is a bit 'last year' ..... you'd be amazed what a collaborative approach does for both parties, particularly for repeat business. You're only as good as your last project, and people generally only remember the bad things that happened .....

 

[Nym]

It's the attitude taken by quite a lot of the rail supply industry though, one supplier that shall remain nameless takes a particularly bad attitude when it comes to 'customer care'. Failing to stand by shoddy products that fail during normal use as an example, and the threat of no repeat business can't be used thanks to OJEU requirements for tendering, let alone the DfT / GLA stepping in...

 

[33056]

Bumper delivery to New Cross Gate a few hours ago, extra coaches for 378 213 / 216 and 217 hauled by 66128 and 66161.

 

[Minstral25]

Bumper delivery to New Cross Gate a few hours ago, extra coaches for 378 213 / 216 and 217 hauled by 66128 and 66161.

Wow - two massive diesels to haul 3 coaches - why do they need two surely one would be capable of pulling 3 coaches? Or are 66's that unreliable?

Good news - was popped out of 4-car WLL train yesterday morning at West Brompton that was way past capacity limits I'm sure

 

[jopsuk]

it could be that the locomotives needed positioning for other work

 

[swt_passenger]

it could be that the locomotives needed positioning for other work

'Hauled by' two 66s could also of course result from normal top and tailing for a planned reversal on route somewhere. They wouldn't necessarily have to stay top and tailed for the whole journey.

 

[Minstral25]

Yes that makes sense - thanks

 

[33056]

'Hauled by' two 66s could also of course result from normal top and tailing for a planned reversal on route somewhere. They wouldn't necessarily have to stay top and tailed for the whole journey.

Sorry, posting in a hurry too early in the morning! Should have said they were top & tail as all such moves are between Wembley and New Cross - looks like there is a bit of faffing around in the New Cross area which would otherwise involve running round.

 

[33056]

38423 is currently on its way up to Wembley from Derby / Bescot, sandwiched between 66170, 66174 and some vans for brake force.

 

[Peter Sarf]

38423 is currently on its way up to Wembley from Derby / Bescot, sandwiched between 66170, 66174 and some vans for brake force.

So where are we up to with the fifth cars for 378s ?. I think 378135-378154 are all done. Then most/all of 378201-378223. That leaves 378224-378234 & 378255-378257 all still to be extended to five cars.

Must have been another delivery by now.

 

[JonathanH]

So where are we up to with the fifth cars for 378s ?. I think 378135-378154 are all done. Then most/all of 378201-378223. That leaves 378224-378234 & 378255-378257 all still to be extended to five cars.

Must have been another delivery by now.

Presumably 378231-4/55-7 aren't being done for the time being so that they can continue to work the Euston to Watford service pending arrival of new units alongside the West Anglia fleet replacement.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I assumed all 378s were being extended. I think I read somewhere that the Euston-Watford line would be the last to get lengthened platforms so last to get extended units.

 

[Class377/5]

I assumed all 378s were being extended. I think I read somewhere that the Euston-Watford line would be the last to get lengthened platforms so last to get extended units.

The 72 stock are 112m long (give or take) where a five car 378 is 100m so not sure where platform extensions are required.

However it was started somewhere DC lines were to see 5 cats temporarily. This makes sense as we ate several years away from new stock and stopping the production line or storing carriages for a couple of years makes no sense. Former especially as the final Electrostars will be completed in early 2017.

 

[Domh245]

Platform extensions might be needed between Harrow & Wealdstone and Watford, or they could just use SDO, which would be cheaper. The 5 car services will be temporary until the new stock for WA services is delivered, at which point, the watford DC will revert back to 4 car. Presumably the released 378s will go to operating higher frequency service on existing lines, assuming the electrified GOBLIN will also receive stock from the new order.

 

[swt_passenger]

Platform extensions might be needed between Harrow & Wealdstone and Watford, or they could just use SDO, which would be cheaper. The 5 car services will be temporary until the new stock for WA services is delivered, at which point, the watford DC will revert back to 4 car. Presumably the released 378s will go to operating higher frequency service on existing lines, assuming the electrified GOBLIN will also receive stock from the new order.

Yes - there's a planned increase from 8 - 10 tph on the NLL, and a very recent (i.e. dated next week, for the 17th) board paper now mentions the future possibility of 4 tph on the DC lines, and 5 tph on the Goblin. There are also options for 69 additional carriages either for extensions or additional units, assuming that 249 includes the 45 x 4 car units already ordered for known uses:

3.2 The LOTRAIN Project comprises the design, manufacturing, commissioning, entry into service (covered by the Manufacturing and Supply Agreement (MSA)) and ongoing all-inclusive maintenance of 45 new electric multiple units (covered by the Train Services Agreement (TSA)) to support the following London Overground Programmes:
(a) Gospel Oak – Barking Capacity Increase following electrification of the line by Network Rail (NR) in mid 2017 (eight, four car trains);
(b) West Anglia Route (Devolution) Programme including Romford-Upminster, which transfers the contracting of train services between Liverpool Street – Chingford/Cheshunt/Enfield Town from the Department for Transport (DfT) to TfL from 31 May 2015 (31 x four car trains); and
(c) London Overground Frequency Increase Programme, which enhances the current eight trains per hour (tph) on the North London Line (NLL) to 10 tph and increased service resilience on the East London Line (ELL) (six, four car trains)
[these being the replacements for the DC line units which will cascade to NLL/ELL]
3.3 Priced options are included in the MSA for up to 249 cars for train lengthening to five car and/or additional trains for possible future schemes including;
(a) Barking Riverside;
(b) Stratford – Angel Road; and
(c) four tph Euston – Watford, five tph Gospel Oak – Barking.
Options may be exercised by TfL at any time up to November 2019.

https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/fpc-20150617-item16-part-1-lotrain.pdf