Transport for Wales Class 231 / 756 FLIRTs

[PaulHarding150]

How much extra training will drivers and crew who can already use a 231 need to use a 756?

 

[MikePJ]

How much extra training will drivers and crew who can already use a 231 need to use a 756?

A related question to those in the know - presumably since TfW drivers have only previously driven diesel units, is there a whole training programme on "driving an overhead-powered electric train" that they have to do to drive a 756? Presumably covering stuff like pantograph raising/lowering, automatic power control, dewirements, on-train electrical equipment associated with the 25kV supply, and so on? Or does a lot of this material get covered in general driver training and then simply get refreshed in the training for a specific class of unit?

 

[Dai Corner]

A related question to those in the know - presumably since TfW drivers have only previously driven diesel units, is there a whole training programme on "driving an overhead-powered electric train" that they have to do to drive a 756? Presumably covering stuff like pantograph raising/lowering, automatic power control, dewirements, on-train electrical equipment associated with the 25kV supply, and so on? Or does a lot of this material get covered in general driver training and then simply get refreshed in the training for a specific class of unit?

A subsidiary question is whether traincrew required training before driving existing diesel trains under the wires when the main line was electrified.

 

[craigybagel]

A related question to those in the know - presumably since TfW drivers have only previously driven diesel units, is there a whole training programme on "driving an overhead-powered electric train" that they have to do to drive a 756? Presumably covering stuff like pantograph raising/lowering, automatic power control, dewirements, on-train electrical equipment associated with the 25kV supply, and so on? Or does a lot of this material get covered in general driver training and then simply get refreshed in the training for a specific class of unit?

A subsidiary question is whether traincrew required training before driving existing diesel trains under the wires when the main line was electrified.

I can't speak for the 756 training itself - but trainee driver training at TfW doesn't currently cover the differences on how to drive electric trains, since there's never been a need for it.

It does cover driving under the wires however. It also includes driving over 3rd rail, something any driver that signs Chester has to be aware of.

 

[MikePJ]

I can't speak for the 756 training itself - but trainee driver training at TfW doesn't currently cover the differences on how to drive electric trains, since there's never been a need for it.

It does cover driving under the wires however. It also includes driving over 3rd rail, something any driver that signs Chester has to be aware of.

Thanks Craigybagel - I wasn't sure how much driver training varied between train operators.

 

[Wyrleybart]

A subsidiary question is whether traincrew required training before driving existing diesel trains under the wires when the main line was electrified.

That is a good question.
Many years ago EWS diagrammed a class 92 to work a coal train from Scotland to the West Midlands overnight Friday evening and arriving Bescot Saturday afternoon. Finding class 92 trained driver was always difficult on Saturdays because they were already at work on charters or ballast work requiring their route knowledge. One day I offered the Control to send a diesel trained driver to Crewe and work it with the diesel. They said the diesel driver could route conduct a class 92 trained driver. I didn't think that was a good idea and told them that diesel drivers would not know where neutral sections were. Neither did I think running 2000 tonne coal trains through neutral sections where the conducting driver didn't know where they were was also a great idea. The response I was given that any driver who signed a route should know where neutral section were. I agreed to disagree, but it never happened anyway.

 

[AdamWW]

I had another go on a FLIRT today.

Once again the passenger information system was sulking and spent some of the time with the screens completely blank, and when it was working it was still only announcing stations when you're almost at them.

I was somewhat amused when the guard made the standard "mind the gap" announcement given that the gap was about 1 cm. I suppose if you turned sidewise for some reason when getting off you could still manage to go between the train and the platform.

I also noticed for the first time that there don't seem to be any door close buttons, unlike the trains they're replacing. But the doors do seem to shut themselves quite promptly.

There was a rather noticable vibration in the end coach I was in which was a bit surprising given the lack of a diesel engine underneath. The traction motor whine also seemed more annoying than usual.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

it was still only announcing stations when you're almost at them.

how close, I find where I am stations are announced too soon (e.g. literally just as the "the next stop is" announcement finishes)

I also noticed for the first time that there don't seem to be any door close buttons, unlike the trains they're replacing. But the doors do seem to shut themselves quite promptly.

30 seconds? I've heard that's a common standard.

 

[AdamWW]

how close, I find where I am stations are announced too soon (e.g. literally just as the "the next stop is" announcement finishes)

As in a few seconds before the wheels stop, and the announcement says something like that "We have arrived at".

30 seconds? I've heard that's a common standard.

Could be. I didn't time it.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I had another go on a FLIRT today.

Once again the passenger information system was sulking and spent some of the time with the screens completely blank, and when it was working it was still only announcing stations when you're almost at them.

I had my first ride on a FLIRT yesterday - only a short trip so can't comment much on the interior but the Passenger Information Systems (at least the external displays) on the examples I saw seemed to be contraditing themselves - not sure of the exact wording but it was something like NOT IN SERVICE in big letters and Welcome Aboard underneath it in smaller type. The other things that stuck in my mind were:

• the delay before the door starts to open (while the level boarding 'step' slides out),
• the seemingly perfect alignment of the table bay I sat in with the window and
• the rock-hard seats (such a stark contrast to the cusioned experience of the 15x and a 769 I used yesterday and/or Sunday).

 

[pokemonsuper9]

the delay before the door starts to open (while the level boarding 'step' slides out),

I think this is quite acceptable (Although as someone who can travel gaps easily, I'd prefer it open instantly, although that carries risks [imagine someone falling out a 390!]).
Although it's much worse on stock that doesn't even have a step (158s are one of which)

 

[Last Hurrah]

Many years ago, back in the days of the Pacer, a lady ahead of me was exiting a train on platform 7 at Central with a pushchair.
The front wheels of the pushchair dipped into the gap and as the pushchair fell forward, the toddler still strapped in, crashed head first into the platform - thankfully after a lot of screaming and parental upset, the toddler seemed none the worse for the experience

If a small delay opening doors saves another such mishap, that’s progress

 

[AdamWW]

Many years ago, back in the days of the Pacer, a lady ahead of me was exiting a train on platform 7 at Central with a pushchair.
The front wheels of the pushchair dipped into the gap and as the pushchair fell forward, the toddler still strapped in, crashed head first into the platform - thankfully after a lot of screaming and parental upset, the toddler seemed none the worse for the experience

If a small delay opening doors saves another such mishap, that’s progress

I think we can take for granted that nobody is going to change things so the doors open before the step is in place - even for a door locally opened by the guard.

It's not so obvious to me that time couldn't be saved by having the steps extend as soon as the doors are released rather than waiting until somebody presses the "open" button, or even having them all extend at the same time as the step at the door the guard opens locally.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not so obvious to me that time couldn't be saved by having the steps extend as soon as the doors are released rather than waiting until somebody presses the "open" button, or even having them all extend at the same time as the step at the door the guard opens locally.

Certainly in Switzerland they don't retract until the driver closes up for departure so if the door is reopened they are already in place. I half recall they do extend when release is pressed but I might be remembering wrongly.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Are we still on an average of three a day in service at the moment or has there been an increase?

 

[Doveymain158]

How diesel gen units are in the 756 power pack? I thought it was less than a 231 because they have batteries fitted.

 

[800301]

756 001 on test at Swindon

 

[AdamWW]

How diesel gen units are in the 756 power pack? I thought it was less than a 231 because they have batteries fitted.

1 instead of 4, I believe

Certainly in Switzerland they don't retract until the driver closes up for departure so if the door is reopened they are already in place. I half recall they do extend when release is pressed but I might be remembering wrongly.

When I've been paying attention, they definitely didn't extend on 231s when the guard released the doors, but once extended they do seem to stay like that until the guard closes the doors.

 

[Jez]

Are we still on an average of three a day in service at the moment or has there been an increase?

Seems to be 3 at the moment. Supposed to be all 231s on Rhymney to Penarth from May TT change.

 

[XAM2175]

It's not so obvious to me that time couldn't be saved by having the steps extend as soon as the doors are released rather than waiting until somebody presses the "open" button, or even having them all extend at the same time as the step at the door the guard opens locally.

Certainly in Switzerland they don't retract until the driver closes up for departure so if the door is reopened they are already in place. I half recall they do extend when release is pressed but I might be remembering wrongly.

AFAIK the primary reason they don't all extend when the doors are released - and retract whenever the doors auto-close - is to reduce the number of unnecessary operating cycles they're put through, which I think is understandable enough. That said though, if you're using them on routes where the majority of doors will be opened at the majority of stations, there will be a point at which the number of genuinely unnecessary cycles becomes very small and setting them to auto-extend would be a better choice.

A compromise would at least be to allow door pre-selection by passengers.

 

[AdamWW]

AFAIK the primary reason they don't all extend when the doors are released - and retract whenever the doors auto-close - is to reduce the number of unnecessary operating cycles they're put through, which I think is understandable enough. That said though, if you're using them on routes where the majority of doors will be opened at the majority of stations, there will be a point at which the number of genuinely unnecessary cycles becomes very small and setting them to auto-extend would be a better choice.

A compromise would at least be to allow door pre-selection by passengers.

That was the only sensible reason I could think of.

Certainly retracting every time the doors close would make little sense - unlikely to save time and a nuisance having to wait for it to come out again if someone reopens the door.

It's not so clear to me what the right approach is regarding auto-extending. I suppose it depends on whether you'd rather save on maintenance than improve dwell times a little and reduce annoyance to passengers.

Of course if the driver releases the doors or the guard does it from the rear cab then this isn't much of an issue. If it's usual in Europe for drivers to release doors this might just be the standard design because it normally makes sense.

 

[XAM2175]

It's not so clear to me what the right approach is regarding auto-extending. I suppose it depends on whether you'd rather save on maintenance than improve dwell times a little and reduce annoyance to passengers.

Of course if the driver releases the doors or the guard does it from the rear cab then this isn't much of an issue. If it's usual in Europe for drivers to release doors this might just be the standard design because it normally makes sense.

I'm afraid I don't follow your meaning here when you say "Of course if the driver releases the doors or the guard does it from the rear cab then this isn't much of an issue." On a train with central locking those are the only two possible ways the doors will be released, are they not? (excluding "guard from a saloon door", I guess)

My personal opinion, at the risk of potentially broaching a contentious topic, is that the major source of annoyance to passengers when opening doors lies in the delay between the train stopping and the doors actually being released - because in that time the passenger is not aware of what's going on unless they're in a position to see the guard doing their various checks. Once release is given, the gap-filler extension doesn't take very long and passengers can at least see the open-door button flashing in acknowledgment of their pressing it.

The door pre-selection that I mentioned in my earlier post does counter this to some extent and is widely used in Europe: it allows passengers to press the door open button before the train has come to a stand. If the driver or guard gives the release within a certain amount of time of the button being pressed, that door will then open as soon as the release is given without needing the passenger to press it again.

To the best of my knowledge this does appear every now and again in the UK - 777s and the Manchester trams are the two that come to mind immediately - but in general terms safety assessors here seem to actively dislike it on the grounds that people would be taken by surprise when the door opens if they're not expecting it.

 

[AdamWW]

I'm afraid I don't follow your meaning here when you say "Of course if the driver releases the doors or the guard does it from the rear cab then this isn't much of an issue." On a train with central locking those are the only two possible ways the doors will be released, are they not? (excluding "guard from a saloon door", I guess)

As you say yourself, the other possibility is the guard locally opening a saloon door (and that's the only option on some trains such as the now departed Pacers).

When I've been on 231's the guard has generally used a saloon door and I'm not sure if I've seen them work the doors from the rear cab or not.

Since opening and closing the local door goes through the full sequence of step extension/retraction (and I think even the warning sound before closing) this does add to dwell time.

My personal opinion, at the risk of potentially broaching a contentious topic, is that the major source of annoyance to passengers when opening doors lies in the delay between the train stopping and the doors actually being released - because in that time the passenger is not aware of what's going on unless they're in a position to see the guard doing their various checks. Once release is given, the gap-filler extension doesn't take very long and passengers can at least see the open-door button flashing in acknowledgment of their pressing it.

On the other hand regular passengers are used to having to wait for doors to be released but do expect some action as soon as they press the button. From watching people on these trains, it does cause confusion. And while the button flashing may indeed be saying "Wait a moment, the step's coming out" it could equally be some kind of error message to say that the door isn't working. I've had to explain to people that they just need to be patient and that the door will open when it's ready.

One thing did occur to me this week watching someone else trip on the step down from their seat - when someone breaks a leg doing that and ends up on crutches or in a wheelchair at least it will be much easier to get on a FLIRT again than it would the previous trains.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I think we can take for granted that nobody is going to change things so the doors open before the step is in place - even for a door locally opened by the guard.

It's not so obvious to me that time couldn't be saved by having the steps extend as soon as the doors are released rather than waiting until somebody presses the "open" button, or even having them all extend at the same time as the step at the door the guard opens locally.

My thoughts exactly. I completely agree that openning the door if the step isn't out would be a bad idea,

 

[XAM2175]

As you say yourself, the other possibility is the guard locally opening a saloon door (and that's the only option on some trains such as the now departed Pacers).

When I've been on 231's the guard has generally used a saloon door and I'm not sure if I've seen them work the doors from the rear cab or not.

Since opening and closing the local door goes through the full sequence of step extension/retraction (and I think even the warning sound before closing) this does add to dwell time.

Oh yes, I see what you mean now. Indeed, that introduces another chunk of delay before the guard even starts to go through the "does the platform still exist?" rigmarole.

This method of working is uncommon in Europe, to the best of my knowledge, and I think also in much of the wider world - it's more common elsewhere for either the driver to give the release, or for the guard to do so from a cab.

I suppose that a work-around would be to configure any door being opened from the local panel to open at the same time as the gap filler extends, but that would rely on the guard being trusted with not come to any harm in the process.

On the other hand regular passengers are used to having to wait for doors to be released but do expect some action as soon as they press the button. From watching people on these trains, it does cause confusion. And while the button flashing may indeed be saying "Wait a moment, the step's coming out" it could equally be some kind of error message to say that the door isn't working. I've had to explain to people that they just need to be patient and that the door will open when it's ready.

In the nicest possible way, I'm not sure that there's much more that can be done for people who interpret the button flashing green and being accompanied by normal "door opening" beeping as an error message - as opposed to, say, the button flashing red instead. If nothing else, they'll get used to it in the same way that people have already gotten used to waiting for the release, but I still feel that the waiting for release is the more egregious delay as there's genuinely zero explanation available as to what's going on.

 

[markymark2000]

I suppose that a work-around would be to configure any door being opened from the local panel to open at the same time as the gap filler extends, but that would rely on the guard being trusted with not come to any harm in the process.

I am not sure on the full capabilities of the guard panel on the 231s but from my normal observations, guards key in just before the train comes to a stop and then when the train stops, they press the local door open button. Could it be done so that when the guard 'keys in' the train waits until it stops and then automatically does the step. It's clear that that set of doors is going to be used as the guard has keyed in and so it wouldn't be an unnecessary cycle but it would reduce the delay by maybe a few seconds (that few seconds currently being the train stopping and the guard pressing the local door open button). Is this just a lot of effort though for a few seconds?

 

[XAM2175]

Could it be done so that when the guard 'keys in' the train waits until it stops and then automatically does the step. It's clear that that set of doors is going to be used as the guard has keyed in and so it wouldn't be an unnecessary cycle but it would reduce the delay by maybe a few seconds (that few seconds currently being the train stopping and the guard pressing the local door open button). Is this just a lot of effort though for a few seconds?

Yeah that would work as well, and be even faster. I can't speak as to the exact difficulty involved in implementing it though.

 

[craigybagel]

I am not sure on the full capabilities of the guard panel on the 231s but from my normal observations, guards key in just before the train comes to a stop and then when the train stops, they press the local door open button. Could it be done so that when the guard 'keys in' the train waits until it stops and then automatically does the step. It's clear that that set of doors is going to be used as the guard has keyed in and so it wouldn't be an unnecessary cycle but it would reduce the delay by maybe a few seconds (that few seconds currently being the train stopping and the guard pressing the local door open button). Is this just a lot of effort though for a few seconds?

Yeah that would work as well, and be even faster. I can't speak as to the exact difficulty involved in implementing it though.

Probably not worth the effort given the plan is that eventually drivers will be releasing the doors.

 

[Stompehh]

Passengers were similarly confused about the door opening delay when the 745/755s were introduced in East Anglia. As the trains became more common people rapidly got used to it.

Same goes for the steps up to some seats.

People generally use public transport in "autopilot" mode so anything different will be disruptive initially but will quickly bed in.

 

[AdamWW]

Same goes for the steps up to some seats.

From what I've seen it's not the step up, it's the step down...