Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[TRAX]

He's just two steps away from thinking he deserves a Mk3 car just for himself - except for the rude interruption from servants and masseuses.

 

[Class377/5]

Sat at St.Albans for 57 minutes on the Up Slow, hardly a minor problem...
Took Siemens techs some time to get power to the units.

Honestly, your incessant defending of these awful trains is getting tedious.

One of your beloved children FAILED on the job in the morning peak. Don't try to spin it any other way.

After the fuss that's been made about the level of testing these units have gone through and the redundant fail-safe systems they have to keep them going it's laughable that it's only taken two days in service (north of London) for one to sit down.

It's only because Thameslink have a captive market of commuters who have no reasonable alternative but to get the train that these trains are in any way deemed acceptable. They won't encourage anyone out of their car, nor will they make anyone feel better about commuting via GTR.

It's only the fact that Southern is managing to p1$$ off all and sundry that keeps Thameslink's current dire reliability out of the headlines.

Let's get something straight, I'm using facts in my posting and not baseless opinion (less aimed as the poster I'm first quoting) based on gossips and looking from outside. Considering the problem was one coach issue and no-one is using factual info (in fact the only previous posting was that a train that had no power magically moved before getting power is overlooked because it's a negative post yet fact based is attack on, says a lot).

Especially when two days of service isn't actually true, its four :roll:

I also love the blaming here of GTR, didn't realise they'd had the Thameslink franchise since 2007! Oh wait a minute, no they didn't. Try some facts when posting, does wonders for your posts.

As for one of my 'children' failing, so you've never ever experienced a train failure before then? It happen and demanding that you get 100% failure free train has never happened anywhere. Perhaps you had unrealistic expectations or frankly just hate the train and will pile that onto any incident? It seems most on here do not agree with you on your opinion.

I remember. In fact, a Bulgarian chap I know (electrical engineer who works for NR) was involved in remedying the supply problem.

If I remember correctly originally they could only changeover if another 377 was in the other platform to reduce the overall voltage. Without another train I believe it was about 800-850V.

I suppose it's good a few 700s are failing early on, allows the problems to be sorted before mass introduction. Let's face it anyway, Siemens products are usually far superior even when new to Bombardiers.

Indeed. The problem never 100% went away (like the SDO beacon issue at St Pancras) and does occasionally raise its head. However drivers are used to it now and know the work around well. Its this learning process that is the reason behind the bath tub curve as I've stated before.

It's worth noting that pretty much ever fleet has had issues. Even the bog standard 313s had major issues when introduced that force BR to do some heavy thinking over fixing them.

 

[TRAX]

All new vehicles have teething issues. Simple as.

 

[LBSCR Times]

Let's get something straight, I'm using facts in my posting and not baseless opinion (less aimed as the poster I'm first quoting) based on gossips and looking from outside. Considering the problem was one coach issue and no-one is using factual info (in fact the only previous posting was that a train that had no power magically moved before getting power is overlooked because it's a negative post yet fact based is attack on, says a lot).

It's worth noting that pretty much ever fleet has had issues. Even the bog standard 313s had major issues when introduced that force BR to do some heavy thinking over fixing them.

Based on fact at the time through managing the incident....

However, to be fair, there is still a learning curve, as there is for all new stock, and that for me goes back as far as the 455's and 442's (when new on the South West Division!).
It's just that in todays society, every little incident / issue is magnified in to a major one thanks to social media!

 

[ComUtoR]

and no-one is using factual info (in fact the only previous posting was that a train that had no power magically moved before getting power is overlooked because it's a negative post yet fact based is attack on, says a lot).

It is a matter of perception and I'd say both of you are being disingenuous. From a passenger perspective if a unit stops out of course for any reason and then they are detrained, diverted, cancelled etc then it has failed and shouldn't happen. They don't care about the technicalities. It failed.

I have been on a train where it failed due to having no power. The unit came to a grinding halt and stopped in the middle of nowhere. After some kicking of tyres and the usual reboot the unit retook power but barely past 5mph. That doesn't change the fact that it failed due to not being able to take power and then took power. That isn't "magic" Similar to brake faults. I have failed due to not being able to remove the brake then rolled out the station as ECS. Again, not magic. On our units we can fail due to power and then use the battery to get us out of trouble. Again, not magic.

If one coach has had an issue then it has failed. Technicalities or not the unit failed but managed to pull away after it was dealt with. IT was mentioned that the fitters had to mess about with it ?

The biggest problem we have is communication. We need to be mindful of how we talk to passengers and the kind of information they get. Berating a passenger because of his personal views on a train that do not align to our and that our technical knowledge outstrips his serves to keep that passenger/staff divide.

When these units fail, and they will, passengers will see nothing more than another broken train. We shouldn't get so angry at them for misunderstanding the information WE have given them. As a Driver I use the term "power" to both describe when I take traction power and for the juice. I don't announce "The traction package on DMOS B has a HSCB failure and I had to operate the TCOS" I say "It failed due to power problems, I isolated it, and can now continue." It's not "magic"

We are be best served if we stopped taking things personally. Some times I really believe it is our responsibility to be the more level headed ones.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Do modern units have a "limp home" mode that can be used to get them into the nearest station, passengers disembarked then into the nearest siding out of the way?

 

[fusionblue]

Also, when is testing going to start on the Sevenoaks or Sutton loops or north of the core?

(Is there plans to?)

 

[D365]

Do modern units have a "limp home" mode that can be used to get them into the nearest station, passengers disembarked then into the nearest siding out of the way?

I remember hearing that the Crossrail units will have some kind of backup battery that will allow a train to continue to the next station in such an event.

 

[Class377/5]

Based on fact at the time through managing the incident....

However, to be fair, there is still a learning curve, as there is for all new stock, and that for me goes back as far as the 455's and 442's (when new on the South West Division!).
It's just that in todays society, every little incident / issue is magnified in to a major one thanks to social media!

I couldn't agree more with you.

It is a matter of perception and I'd say both of you are being disingenuous. From a passenger perspective if a unit stops out of course for any reason and then they are detrained, diverted, cancelled etc then it has failed and shouldn't happen. They don't care about the technicalities. It failed.

But on here its not a passengers perspective but those with an interest. That means its important to use the correct terms when talking about events.

I have been on a train where it failed due to having no power. The unit came to a grinding halt and stopped in the middle of nowhere. After some kicking of tyres and the usual reboot the unit retook power but barely past 5mph. That doesn't change the fact that it failed due to not being able to take power and then took power. That isn't "magic" Similar to brake faults. I have failed due to not being able to remove the brake then rolled out the station as ECS. Again, not magic. On our units we can fail due to power and then use the battery to get us out of trouble. Again, not magic.

I know far better than you think about this. However I was pointing out the post where it was stated the unit had no power but travelled from St Albans to Cricklewood some 'magic' way alone. If a train has no power then it cannot move off alone, hence my magic comment.

As I deal with units all day long I know the ins and out and how to get them moving.

If one coach has had an issue then it has failed. Technicalities or not the unit failed but managed to pull away after it was dealt with. IT was mentioned that the fitters had to mess about with it ?

Indeed the nature of the fault meant it was able to move. Was it mentioned fitters were onboard? The posts didn't state that but they thought there was Siemens personnel onboard. However I believe that was only for the soft launch. This week is full introduction meaning there won't be fitters aboard every train all the time.

[quoteThe biggest problem we have is communication. We need to be mindful of how we talk to passengers and the kind of information they get. Berating a passenger because of his personal views on a train that do not align to our and that our technical knowledge outstrips his serves to keep that passenger/staff divide. [/quote]

But this is where its important to use the correct terms. I'm not berating a passenger, but correcting errors made. If being corrected is seen as attacking then this forum really is full of kids as some make out.

When these units fail, and they will, passengers will see nothing more than another broken train. We shouldn't get so angry at them for misunderstanding the information WE have given them. As a Driver I use the term "power" to both describe when I take traction power and for the juice. I don't announce "The traction package on DMOS B has a HSCB failure and I had to operate the TCOS" I say "It failed due to power problems, I isolated it, and can now continue." It's not "magic"

No we should ensure WE give out the correct information. No when you report a fault your supposed to give as much details as possible. What I do when my drivers report a fault. And if they ask I'll give a explanation of what the issue is if I can. Simply putting its a fault is neither helpful nor useful for fault finding and actually hurts the passenger in the long run as it means far more fault finding is required and ay affect train availability.

We are be best served if we stopped taking things personally. Some times I really believe it is our responsibility to be the more level headed ones.

And its our responsibility to ensure things are done properly.

Prehaps we should this incident behind us as its clear we have very different views on this and its flooding the thread rather than dealing with the 700s.

Also, when is testing going to start on the Sevenoaks or Sutton loops or north of the core?

(Is there plans to?)

Loop has already been tested with a 12 car (works the same from a testing point of view as a 8 car) with Kent to start soon-ish.

 

[AM9]

I remember hearing that the Crossrail units will have some kind of backup battery that will allow a train to continue to the next station in such an event.

That would be some backup battery to get a 300 ton train along a tunnel, possibly up some inclines. Crossrail AIUI doesn't have any sidings or spare platforms in the core (Royal Oak portal to Pudding Lane/Custom House portals) so anything disabled in that section needs to be pushed/pulled all the way to the surface. That would be up to 13Km eastbound to Stratford unless failure was east of Stepney Junction that means a maximum over 7Km to Abbey Wood. Going westbound, a push could be up to 17Km from the Abbey Wood portal and 13kM from the GEML branch to Royal Oak. There would be little point in any battery solution that couldn't guarantee clearing the two track sections as there would be a queue of trains behind to deal with.
A more likely solution would be similar to Thameslink where the class 700s are able to assit another dead unit, even up the 1:29 gradients at either end of the core.

Ooops, sorry I forgot that this was the class 700 thread, but the comment still applies.

 

[Class377/5]

Do modern units have a "limp home" mode that can be used to get them into the nearest station, passengers disembarked then into the nearest siding out of the way?

Sorry miss post. The 700s are very over powered compared even to the 387s. On a 12 car 387 you'd need 5 traction motors to stay in service. One traction motor on a 12 car would be good for walking pace. On a 700 one traction will allow a 12 car 700 to reach 40mph when tested. If all traction motors are dead then another unit will be required to rescue the unit.

 

[ComUtoR]

But on here its not a passengers perspective but those with an interest. That means its important to use the correct terms when talking about events.

Ultimately they are still just passengers. They have a little more educated and insightful view but they are passengers.

I know far better than you think about this. However I was pointing out the post where it was stated the unit had no power but travelled from St Albans to Cricklewood some 'magic' way alone. If a train has no power then it cannot move off alone, hence my magic comment.

I am well aware of you being in a position to know more. Please don't assume anything about me. The way you commented was not constructive and came across as insulting and dismissive. It becomes divisive. Explaining the ins and outs and assisting people to become a little more knowledgable goes a very long way to build relationships with passengers and enthusiasts.

As I deal with units all day long I know the ins and out and how to get them moving.

Clearly you do but why not share that with posters when faults are happening and units that fail.

But this is where its important to use the correct terms. I'm not berating a passenger, but correcting errors made. If being corrected is seen as attacking then this forum really is full of kids as some make out.

I agree but we still need to remember their perspective.

No we should ensure WE give out the correct information. No when you report a fault your supposed to give as much details as possible. What I do when my drivers report a fault. And if they ask I'll give a explanation of what the issue is if I can. Simply putting its a fault is neither helpful nor useful for fault finding and actually hurts the passenger in the long run as it means far more fault finding is required and ay affect train availability.

When I report to control and report anything internally I use as much detail as possible and all the correct terms. But to passengers when I'm in the middle of fault finding I report basics. We aren't even allowed to give out technical information.

And its our responsibility to ensure things are done properly.

It is. When passengers seen new shiny units entering service they don't expect them to break in the first few weeks. Things should work before they get to the passenger. They don't see it as being done properly. They see another broken train.

Prehaps we should this incident behind us as its clear we have very different views on this and its flooding the thread rather than dealing with the 700s.

Perhaps we should learn from this incident and how its relayed to the passenger. The thing is, this is dealing with 700's It is an opportunity to learn their foibles and start letting passengers know the problems and ins and outs of how and why they fail from the outset.

Remember there are also people on here looking for technical information and how faults are dealt with, as well as how Drivers are understanding what went wrong. From what I hear in the crew room its very different from what is being reported here. A unit was announcing a fire alarm and that was what I heard from Drivers. You basically dismissed the fault and the poster who mentioned it.

Put yourself in their shoes.

 

[Deepgreen]

Sorry miss post. The 700s are very over powered compared even to the 387s. On a 12 car 387 you'd need 5 traction motors to stay in service. One traction motor on a 12 car would be good for walking pace. On a 700 one traction will allow a 12 car 700 to reach 40mph when tested. If all traction motors are dead then another unit will be required to rescue the unit.

Does this power work effectively on the 1 in 29s - i.e. is their adhesion/T.E. up to it?

 

[Class377/5]

Ultimately they are still just passengers. They have a little more educated and insightful view but they are passengers.

I am well aware of you being in a position to know more. Please don't assume anything about me. The way you commented was not constructive and came across as insulting and dismissive. It becomes divisive. Explaining the ins and outs and assisting people to become a little more knowledgable goes a very long way to build relationships with passengers and enthusiasts.

Clearly you do but why not share that with posters when faults are happening and units that fail.

I agree but we still need to remember their perspective.

When I report to control and report anything internally I use as much detail as possible and all the correct terms. But to passengers when I'm in the middle of fault finding I report basics. We aren't even allowed to give out technical information.

It is. When passengers seen new shiny units entering service they don't expect them to break in the first few weeks. Things should work before they get to the passenger. They don't see it as being done properly. They see another broken train.

Perhaps we should learn from this incident and how its relayed to the passenger. The thing is, this is dealing with 700's It is an opportunity to learn their foibles and start letting passengers know the problems and ins and outs of how and why they fail from the outset.

Remember there are also people on here looking for technical information and how faults are dealt with, as well as how Drivers are understanding what went wrong. From what I hear in the crew room its very different from what is being reported here. A unit was announcing a fire alarm and that was what I heard from Drivers. You basically dismissed the fault and the poster who mentioned it.

Put yourself in their shoes.

Trying to draw a line under this but will reply with few faults. Not everything should be in the public domain, especially with a contract like on the 700s.

I can't say why I was dismissive but my opinion is based on what really happened not mess room gossips. Facts over rumours is important. Especially as the train reports the real faults in real time meaning it can be checked remotely so procedures can be followed to resolve the issue.

This forum is monitored by many TOCS and this thread in particular has been brought up (and to linked to) in business emails to myself over why I did x in a post. Many of us that know cannot say much in some situations.

Does this power work effectively on the 1 in 29s - i.e. is their adhesion/T.E. up to it?

I believe it would be. Won't be a the same speed as normal but it would clear the line atleast.

 

[Deepgreen]

Trying to draw a line under this but will reply with few faults. Not everything should be in the public domain, especially with a contract like on the 700s.

I can't say why I was dismissive but my opinion is based on what really happened not mess room gossips. Facts over rumours is important. Especially as the train reports the real faults in real time meaning it can be checked remotely so procedures can be followed to resolve the issue.

This forum is monitored by many TOCS and this thread in particular has been brought up (and to linked to) in business emails to myself over why I did x in a post. Many of us that know cannot say much in some situations.



I believe it would be. Won't be a the same speed as normal but it would clear the line atleast.

Wikipedia (!) states 6700hp at wheels for a 12 car - is this correct? Makes the REPs look a bit rustic!

 

[ComUtoR]

I believe it would be. Won't be a the same speed as normal but it would clear the line at least.

I assume it will be out of service anyway. If it did get there is it safe to assume it has the same style restriction (the local instruction) that a 319 has ? I would think that in a 12 car you hit the peak and begin to level out pretty quickly. That climb is a nightmare to drive with motors out.

PS I appreciate your posts and why they are limited at times. My course will be by the end of the year and you can tell the powers that be that some of us are here learning stuff so that when we do get to play with them it makes life easier for all concerned.

 

[samuelmorris]

I take the point about the single-side door buttons being intended to provide a passenger flow of 'out one side, in the other' - but given the abhorrent behaviour of many a peak-time traveller when boarding trains, I can't see that often working in practice.
My remark on DOO affecting door button placement is that to my recollection a lot of stock that only has passenger door buttons on one side, has a guard's panel the other side.

I shared the concerns of many regarding modern stock's longevity compared with old BR stuff, but now that, as two regular examples I use, the 357/0s are 17 or so years of age, and the 96TS 18 years, I don't think they're holding up too badly. They look rather tatty in some cases (especially the latter), but by no means falling apart, and neither route is plagued with train failures so reliability is still clearly sufficient as well.

As far as the recent issue is concerned, it's 'one of those things' when it comes to new stock. All testing being completed and then encountering other issues in deployment is a problem affecting far more than just the railway industry. I have no issue with these things happening in the early days. I think it's only really fair to complain (as someone who knows more about the industry than the average passenger) if the failure rate does not drop to be equal or below that of the 377/387 fleets within the next couple of months and/or when maybe a fifth of the fleet has entered service and seeing the units becomes a norm rather than a noteworthy event, even if less so than last month.
A passenger has every right to complain if their service is delayed. They (hopefully) pay for their journey and have it disrupted - whose fault that is, is entirely irrelevant. The general punctuality on Thameslink is ghastly for all sorts of reasons, issues with 700s, even if they were quite severe (and I see no evidence to suggest that) would pass almost unnoticed.

Long distance express units they are not. In off-peak times the service was comfortable enough, even if less cosy than a 387. In peak times, you wouldn't necessarily get a seat even on a 3+2 319 or 377. Seeing the load levels on the 8-car 319 services that turn up at Blackfriars each morning, it amazes me that arguments are still being made against the 'metro-style' interior of the Class 700. The extra standing room can't come soon enough.

 

[Bald Rick]

Wikipedia (!) states 6700hp at wheels for a 12 car - is this correct? Makes the REPs look a bit rustic!

I think it is correct, and they really shift.

 

[Deepgreen]

I think it is correct, and they really shift.

Does this give them the highest power-to-weight ratio of any UK unit/standard formation so far, or do the 373s exceed this?

 

[Class377/5]

Wikipedia (!) states 6700hp at wheels for a 12 car - is this correct? Makes the REPs look a bit rustic!

Honestly do not know.

I assume it will be out of service anyway. If it did get there is it safe to assume it has the same style restriction (the local instruction) that a 319 has ? I would think that in a 12 car you hit the peak and begin to level out pretty quickly. That climb is a nightmare to drive with motors out.

PS I appreciate your posts and why they are limited at times. My course will be by the end of the year and you can tell the powers that be that some of us are here learning stuff so that when we do get to play with them it makes life easier for all concerned.

There is a lot of differences between a 700 and 319. The 319s and two motors per four car, where as the 377s its three (one three difference coaches vs one on a 319 makes a massive difference).

The 50% traction applies to the 700s as much as any other stock which is right as come 2018 you're going to want your 700 to shift and anything less than that will threaten your right time railway.

Thanks for the nice words. I have yet to meet a driver who doesn't like the units compared to their current stock. Fact that the only time a driver needs to leave the train is to access the parking brake or use an SPT (all cocks are within the coaches) will make it a much better train for staff and experience for passengers.

I take the point about the single-side door buttons being intended to provide a passenger flow of 'out one side, in the other' - but given the abhorrent behaviour of many a peak-time traveller when boarding trains, I can't see that often working in practice.
My remark on DOO affecting door button placement is that to my recollection a lot of stock that only has passenger door buttons on one side, has a guard's panel the other side.

I shared the concerns of many regarding modern stock's longevity compared with old BR stuff, but now that, as two regular examples I use, the 357/0s are 17 or so years of age, and the 96TS 18 years, I don't think they're holding up too badly. They look rather tatty in some cases (especially the latter), but by no means falling apart, and neither route is plagued with train failures so reliability is still clearly sufficient as well.

As far as the recent issue is concerned, it's 'one of those things' when it comes to new stock. All testing being completed and then encountering other issues in deployment is a problem affecting far more than just the railway industry. I have no issue with these things happening in the early days. I think it's only really fair to complain (as someone who knows more about the industry than the average passenger) if the failure rate does not drop to be equal or below that of the 377/387 fleets within the next couple of months and/or when maybe a fifth of the fleet has entered service and seeing the units becomes a norm rather than a noteworthy event, even if less so than last month.
A passenger has every right to complain if their service is delayed. They (hopefully) pay for their journey and have it disrupted - whose fault that is, is entirely irrelevant. The general punctuality on Thameslink is ghastly for all sorts of reasons, issues with 700s, even if they were quite severe (and I see no evidence to suggest that) would pass almost unnoticed.

Long distance express units they are not. In off-peak times the service was comfortable enough, even if less cosy than a 387. In peak times, you wouldn't necessarily get a seat even on a 3+2 319 or 377. Seeing the load levels on the 8-car 319 services that turn up at Blackfriars each morning, it amazes me that arguments are still being made against the 'metro-style' interior of the Class 700. The extra standing room can't come soon enough.

Btw the one in, one out was more my belief than something confirmed by Siemens.

As for failure/fault rates, personally I think they are already below the 319/377 rates and certainly on par with the 387 if not better. That's said it's not been a good recent period either. But there is the desire to make things better and I truly believe we will get there.

I think it is correct, and they really shift.

Have you experienced 100% traction power acceleration on AC? I still can't quite believe how quick off the mark these units are when you open them up fully.

 

[asylumxl]

Have you experienced 100% traction power acceleration on AC? I still can't quite believe how quick off the mark these units are when you open them up fully.

This is something I wanted to experience on the MML, but I've yet to experience it the times I've ridden the 700s. Every driver seemed to be taking it easy. I'm hoping they'll become slightly more aggressive in driving style in the future.

 

[Class377/5]

This is something I wanted to experience on the MML, but I've yet to experience it the times I've ridden the 700s. Every driver seemed to be taking it easy. I'm hoping they'll become slightly more aggressive in driving style in the future.

You may not have the chance as I did it during testing with space given to use to allow 100mph testing overnight. Going from 30mph to 100mph at full acceleration does require holding on!

 

[physics34]

You may not have the chance as I did it during testing with space given to use to allow 100mph testing overnight. Going from 30mph to 100mph at full acceleration does require holding on!

Quite impressive acceleration yesterday after Preston park towards burgess Hill too.

 

[bengley]

700 on 2W41 failed after Sandridge Rd neutral section at St Albans today, rest of its workings cancelled.

 

[asylumxl]

700 on 2W41 failed after Sandridge Rd neutral section at St Albans today, rest of its workings cancelled.

Same neutral section?

 

[bengley]

Same neutral section?

Indeed

 

[trainmania100]

Indeed

Would this indicate a problem with the units as other EMUs don't fail in the same spot?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Why couldn't it have moved on 50% power with just one pan until it had cleared the neutral section?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Why couldn't it have moved on 50% power with just one pan until it had cleared the neutral section?

It would appear there's an issue with voltage, frequency or phase which is tripping something within the unit. The engineers will need to assess if it's safe to reset and continue or not.

They may want to tweak some of the harmonic protection or add additional filters to the equipment which is tripping, similarly it could be a developing issue with the OLE, the physical components of the neutral section, or feeding arrangements which NR will be asked to look at.

 

[Class377/5]

Round up of deliveries so far...

Unit 1 - 700106 - 31/07/15
Unit 2 - 700107 - 30/09/15
Unit 3 - 700108 - 28/10/15
Unit 4 - 700110 - 16/12/15
Unit 5 - 700109 - 06/01/16
Unit 6 - 700111 - 20/01/16
Unit 7 - 700102 - 02/03/16
Unit 8 - 700002 - 09/03/16
Unit 9 - 700112 - 16/03/16
Unit 10 - 700103 - 23/03/16
Unit 11 - 700113 - 30/03/16
Unit 12 - 700114 - 20/04/16
Unit 13 - 700003 - 27/04/16
Unit 14 - 700004 - 04/05/16
Unit 15 - 700005 - 18/05/16
Unit 16 - 700104 - 01/06/16
Unit 17 - 700006 - 08/06/16
Unit 18 - 700007 - 29/06/16
Unit 19 - 700105 - 06/07/16
Unit 20 - 700010 - 13/07/16

So far in service we have...

700108 - 20/06/16
700109 - 23/06/16
700107 - 04/07/16
700114 - 06/07/16
700104 - 12/07/16