Or they might have decided that whatever the soft launch set out to prove has now been achieved.
yes, I know. I was observing that the number of units needed to operate the Windsor service is exactly the same as the number of units that have so far been in passenger service.
Only one failure (16th March, first round trip didn't happen but second did) in 13 weeks. 83 working days, (not counting strikes, bank holidays and external disruptions) and about 160 round trips. That's about 99.4% reliability!
There have been plenty of faults that occurred during the trips though, those issues are not taken into account of your reliability statistics.
Those faults haven't actually stopped or impaired the service though, and that's where it matters. When you look at reliability statistics you always look for miles between major failures, meaning those which result in the train being unable to carry passengers. However your point about the lack of usage is true.
The standard method of measuring reliability of all train fleets is for each four week period the average mileage between technical faults that cause delays to passengers. It's known as Mp701D. No idea what that stands for.
Ironic the name includes "701"
See this thread (only 4 posts) "What is Mp701d"?
Yes indeed.
Extra cabs in the 710 pair will add weight (crashworthiness), as will equipment for AC electrification such as pantographs and transformers.
Do they have the same amount of motor boxes, traction package configuration. I seem to remember the 345s have quite a bit of powered axels especially on the said trailer car(car 5)
I suspect the lack of transformers and other AC bits might explain some of the reduction in weight.
They're the figures listed on the plates outside the train between the carriages.
A 701 has 8 motored carriages, however I believe less motored axles or something along those lines, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Probably, although I think the equipment is still there for AC operation, just no pantograph?
2 x 5 car has twice as many cabs as 1 x 10 car; would not most of the weight difference be accounted for by the reinforced structure around the cab areas?
Hit the nail on the head. If I could get hold of the 5 car 701 weight figures and in turn the 2x5 weight we'd know for sure.
In the latest issue of Modern Railways, Roger Ford's league table of new units has figures for fifteen classes, ranging from 522 Mp701D for class 777 to 20,789 for class 710/1. Aventras occupy five of the top six places (classes 710/1, 720, 710/2 and 720/6, 730) with class 345 in ninth.
But are they faults that need addressing when it comes to having a full fleet running all day everyday. That is probably more the question that needs answering.
www.realtimetrains.co.uk
www.realtimetrains.co.uk
Quite so. It's quite easy to provide 100% avaialbility when at least five units have entered service, but there is only one diagram to fulfil.
So what? That's just like any other new train that enters service. Look at the appalling reliability of the 777s. That hasn't stopped their continued introduction en masse. The 345s had terrible reliability when first introduced and even now it's not brilliant. The 458s were terrible for the first few years.
Finally something other than 043!
They're all in the Combined Volume - but I'm at work at the moment...
037 has been on all week (well, except Moday, when there was a strike)
Because it looks horrible?
Figures from combined volume
Apparently it was because there are too many foot and level crossings on the network and therefore it was justified to keep the yellow
