Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[Philip Phlopp]

What were the original Desiros like when the very first entered service (I'd assume that the SWTs 450s or the 444s were the first examples of Desiros to enter service)?

The Siemens guys were almost in tears, their brilliant product sitting down on an hourly basis, they were such an embarrassment to them and the company.

The fitters started calling them doodlebugs because they sent them off towards London, had no idea if they hit their target or not, if they made it they usually caused chaos in London and they often seemed never to return.

 

[The Box Photter]

We never could have guessed!



I think I mentioned it in another (now deleted) post, but the people who will talk are the people who feel strongly about it. A lot of passengers simply couldn't care either way and so don't talk about it (or are just living up to a Londoner's stereotype of absolute silence on public transport). The vast majority of restaurant customers come, have their food, leave, and that's the end of it. Those who have a horrible experience are the ones likely to then go on and write a bad review.



But which passenger's perspective do you look at it from? The Bedford commuter, or the passenger who can now board the train near the core in the peak? Also, do you look at it now, or in 15 years time when the network is even busier?



As mentioned, the doors have been tested to meet the specification. The doors themselves are fine, it is the systems surrounding them that seem to be the weak link.



So, you don't want onboard WiFi then!?

That's quite obvious really. A train with a body, bogies, a motor, and no doors is obviously going to be a damn sight easier to get working that an all singing, all dancing machine. However, the all singing, all dancing train will then easily surpass the other one once everyone is trained on it, and will provide a far greater environment for staff and passengers. The problems aren't entirely with the train - some 'blame' must be apportioned to staff unfamiliarity.

Personally I couldn't give a monkeys about on-board Wi-Fi.

I've yet to see any train running through the core (St Pancras - Blackfriars) that was so full passengers couldn't board or alight, and that's in 13 years of regular commuting. The only reason these trains have been specified for such short dwell times is because the powers that be have become obsessed with cramming GN trains through the core as well as Bedford and Wimbledon Loop trains.

There's no reason to put GN trains through the core. Blackfriars Station was rebuilt to create two bay platforms for terminating Wimbledon/Sutton trains. Passengers would have then had a straightforward cross-platform interchange if they wanted to go further north. Instead the local Wimbledon muppet MP got on his high horse about his constituents being disadvantaged and voila! the whole plan was ****ed.

Thameslink is the answer to a question no-one asked. The fall-out is the unnecessary disruption of journeys either side of the Core because of disruptions that have happened miles away.

In what sane world should commuters wanting to travel from London to Luton & Bedford have their journeys messed up by a train failure in Brighton, Sevenoaks or Littlehampton?

Now the Canal Tunnels have been commissioned, why not extend Thameslink (and Class 700 operation) to Grantham, Stamford or Doncaster? Or perhaps Kettering and Wellingborough?

It's absurd.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Looks like I'm the only person who has yet to travel on a 700. On a rare weekday off yesterday, my chance of photographing (and travelling) on units in service were dashed by the Gatwick fire. I didn't want to waste money on buying a ticket in case the booked 700 didn't turn up.

I'm hoping for a second chance this Friday morning but obviously won't have time to actually travel on one as I have to be in work by lunchtime and need to travel there (not on GTR).

I'm sure there's a valid reason but I wish there were one or two 700 workings on a weekend.

 

[AM9]

I presume that many of those complaining here about class 700 reliability are not necessarily engineers and moreover, have no experience in the development of product reliability.
Developing a large system, particularly one which carries members of the public needs a layered approach to reliability. For example, top of the list is safety features where any failure should as far as practicable, fail safe. If the doors failed by random opening or the seat cantilever mounts worked loose after a few hundred hours, everybody would rightly be worried. We can be assured that such features have been tested thoroughly and such failures would be very rare anyway. So far there have been NO safety issues reported (the crash protection in the cab was fixed during trials).
Unlike consumer items, (probably cars are the nearest comparison), trains are made in much smaller numbers. The reliability of cars is largely derived by the quite high numbers made and tested well before the first one is sold to a customer. They are baked, vibrated, frozen, abused, and crashed to destruction. The results of each test are reviewed and where appropriate, fed back into the design. Then more cars are tested to destruction. At over £1m each, this can't be done with trains, so key parts are stress tested as appropriate. The doors have already been mentioned, then there is all the major parts of the electric and traction sub-sytems.
These often sub-contracted items are tested by their suppliers against stress conditions defined by the systems integrator (Siemens in this case). EMC, a major issue which is often the root source of mysterious failures is tested in representative worst-case conditions. That is why it isn't acceptable just bolting on some unproven electronic gadget that worked OK in an office, (or even in another train).
It's not realistic to expect lay persons to understand how reliability is grown and just doesn't happen, - when their train has a problem, they just want to complain. If they have already convinced themselves that they don't like the train or the service that it will ultimately bring before they are even delivered, their judgement is so prejudiced that they just look for faults, relish telling everybody and say 'I told you so' at every opportunity.

 

[AlexNL]

Trade shows are the most incredible fun way of finding out things too - you should really try it. You might learn just how much twaddle you're talking right now.

This is true. At the last InnoTrans fair, I walked past the booth of a company that sells the tactile buttons that are used to open doors. They had a video on play which showed some of the tests that they conducted, so I stood around and watched for a while.

The testers used hammers on the buttons. They applied blowtorches. They even hammered nails into them. The buttons still worked.

A representative of the company approached me as he had seen me watching the video and said something like "You don't believe us? Well, look over here."

The company had brought the buttons from that video to the fair, and hooked them up to a test setup. All buttons still worked.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Reading another thread mentioning the 700s and Beckenham Junction made me think, would they be cleared to work through Crystal Palace tunnel or would the TL side at London Bridge be ready for their wholesale introduction and thus do away with the diversion through this part of South London?

 

[The Box Photter]

The Siemens guys were almost in tears, their brilliant product sitting down on an hourly basis, they were such an embarrassment to them and the company.

The fitters started calling them doodlebugs because they sent them off towards London, had no idea if they hit their target or not, if they made it they usually caused chaos in London and they often seemed never to return.

Clearly their product wasn't as brilliant as the hype.

Trains should be as simple as they can be, mechanically and electronically. This happens every time a new batch of trains is ordered. Instead of additional builds of tested and reliable stock being ordered, the manufacturers push so-called "improvements" which involve more and more interlocking computer systems. If the computers refuse to talk to each other, the train won't go. The poor driver is then left to resort to the age-old "switch it off and switch it on again".

Thameslink passengers have suffered the run down and clapped out class 319s. We were promised 12-car trains and got them eventually. The 377s and 387s had reliability issues, but just as they're reaching acceptable reliability, they're being snatched away from us and replaced with more unreliable, less comfortable trains. If Thameslink wan't to shift crush-loads between Mill Hill and Blackfriars, use the class 700s on the stopping trains and leave the long-distance trains to the 387s. If the stopping services are all class 700s, the Bedford - Brighton trains can all be run with 12-car 387s and 377s.

Now, I've work to do on my laptop which I won't be able to do on tomorrow's 0744 from Flitwick (assuming it isn't cancelled).

 

[transmanche]

That's two nights in a row that a class 700 has fallen down on that train.

Class 700 clearly not brilliant technologically [...]

Oh what utter rot. All new stock goes through some teething troubles when bedding in - that's exactly why they do a soft launch.

You can go back as far as the 1938 tube stock had many teething issues with the new technology when introduced. But they got sorted and they're still going strong on the Isle of Wight.

Or the Class 458 Junipers? Their reliability was so poor the TOC was planning to return them to the ROSCO. A few years later they won a golden spanner and were the most reliable fleet in the country - the first units to achieve more than 100,000 miles per technical incident.

 

[The Box Photter]

I presume that many of those complaining here about class 700 reliability are not necessarily engineers and moreover, have no experience in the development of product reliability.
Developing a large system, particularly one which carries members of the public needs a layered approach to reliability. For example, top of the list is safety features where any failure should as far as practicable, fail safe. If the doors failed by random opening or the seat cantilever mounts worked loose after a few hundred hours, everybody would rightly be worried. We can be assured that such features have been tested thoroughly and such failures would be very rare anyway. So far there have been NO safety issues reported (the crash protection in the cab was fixed during trials).
Unlike consumer items, (probably cars are the nearest comparison), trains are made in much smaller numbers. The reliability of cars is largely derived by the quite high numbers made and tested well before the first one is sold to a customer. They are baked, vibrated, frozen, abused, and crashed to destruction. The results of each test are reviewed and where appropriate, fed back into the design. Then more cars are tested to destruction. At over £1m each, this can't be done with trains, so key parts are stress tested as appropriate. The doors have already been mentioned, then there is all the major parts of the electric and traction sub-sytems.
These often sub-contracted items are tested by their suppliers against stress conditions defined by the systems integrator (Siemens in this case). EMC, a major issue which is often the root source of mysterious failures is tested in representative worst-case conditions. That is why it isn't acceptable just bolting on some unproven electronic gadget that worked OK in an office, (or even in another train).
It's not realistic to expect lay persons to understand how reliability is grown and just doesn't happen, - when their train has a problem, they just want to complain. If they have already convinced themselves that they don't like the train or the service that it will ultimately bring before they are even delivered, their judgement is so prejudiced that they just look for faults, relish telling everybody and say 'I told you so' at every opportunity.

I'm always heartened to remember that these complex safety-critical devices have been made by the lowest commercial bidder.

If they're so good, why can't they cope with running from Brighton to Bedford a couple of times a day? Perhaps they've stood for too long in sidings at Three Bridges & Cricklewood? Certainly the units at Cricklewood have been powered-up but going nowhere for the last month. What effect does that have on the on-board systems.

I thought one of the main reasons why we allow the Germans, Spanish and Canadians to sell us trains instead of building them ourselves anymore is that we'll benefit from using tried & tested equipment. Well that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Domh245]

Clearly their product wasn't as brilliant as the hype.

Trains should be as simple as they can be, mechanically and electronically. This happens every time a new batch of trains is ordered. Instead of additional builds of tested and reliable stock being ordered, the manufacturers push so-called "improvements" which involve more and more interlocking computer systems. If the computers refuse to talk to each other, the train won't go. The poor driver is then left to resort to the age-old "switch it off and switch it on again".

Thameslink passengers have suffered the run down and clapped out class 319s. We were promised 12-car trains and got them eventually. The 377s and 387s had reliability issues, but just as they're reaching acceptable reliability, they're being snatched away from us and replaced with more unreliable, less comfortable trains. If Thameslink wan't to shift crush-loads between Mill Hill and Blackfriars, use the class 700s on the stopping trains and leave the long-distance trains to the 387s. If the stopping services are all class 700s, the Bedford - Brighton trains can all be run with 12-car 387s and 377s.

Now, I've work to do on my laptop which I won't be able to do on tomorrow's 0744 from Flitwick (assuming it isn't cancelled).

If we stuck with tried and tested simple technology, we'd still have carburetors in cars and get about 15mpg. Things aren't made more complex for ****s and giggles, they're made more complex because there is a tangible improvement - efficiency, weight, etc.

Also, as transmanche says, don't assume that this level of reliability will be the final reliability. I expect that once they've bedded in, these units will surpass the reliability of the existing electrostars.

As for your suggestion about retaining electostars for longer distance service, the problem is that they have nowhere near the sort of performance that the 700s have. Not only does this mean that they wouldn't be capable of running to the final service pattern through the core without holding trains up, but it would also likely lead to bunching up of trains as the 700s out accelerate and brake them.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I thought one of the main reasons why we allow the Germans, Spanish and Canadians to sell us trains instead of building them ourselves anymore is that we'll benefit from using tried & tested equipment. Well that doesn't seem to be the case.

This is trolling. I read a book about it once and it said to watch out for people expressing idiotic opinions constantly with such hyperbole it was only being done to cause upset and start arguments.

I've seen a lot of absolute rubbish being churned out of BREL plants - vehicles with random wiring which we've put down to colour blind electricians, vehicles built to different specifications using different steel depending on what works they came out of, different vehicles for the same train coming out of different works, random traction motor assignments depending on who BR was needing to prop up on any given week and corrosion so spectacular I'm surprised the erecting sheds at Derby and York didn't have piles of rust from the brand new stock they had just wheeled out.

Derby isn't bad - it's better than BR, which isn't saying much, but it's something. The Germans and Japanese are in a race to the top, the reliability figures for Class 350 Desiro stock and Class 395 AT300 stock are quite, quite incredible. The only stock BR built which came close was the old Southern slam door stock, and it was rotten and woefully unsafe when it was withdrawn.

 

[The Box Photter]

Oh what utter rot. All new stock goes through some teething troubles when bedding in - that's exactly why they do a soft launch.

You can go back as far as the 1938 tube stock had many teething issues with the new technology when introduced. But they got sorted and they're still going strong on the Isle of Wight.

Or the Class 458 Junipers? Their reliability was so poor the TOC was planning to return them to the ROSCO. A few years later they won a golden spanner and were the most reliable fleet in the country - the first units to achieve more than 100,000 miles per technical incident.

I agree, none of the trains introduced in recent years has been fault-free. The difference is that GTR and Siemens made a major play on the superiority of the class 700. That's certainly what was being peddled at the exhibition I went to at Excel in London when the mock-up and motor bogie was on show.

I commented to the FCC (remember them) staff about the worryingly close seat pitch and the lack of give in the seat cushions. Perhaps they already knew that FCC wouldn't have to introduce the trains, but their response was pretty much "tough, how else will you get to work".

The Siemens reps were all about the power and lightness of the trains and how they'd weigh themselves to ensure traction was applied correctly. How the trains could run with x number of isolated traction motors and still push another fully-loaded train out of St Pancras or into Blackfriars.

What's the problem then? Are the on board systems using Windows 8?

 

[Bald Rick]

I've yet to see any train running through the core (St Pancras - Blackfriars) that was so full passengers couldn't board or alight, and that's in 13 years of regular commuting. The only reason these trains have been specified for such short dwell times is because the powers that be have become obsessed with cramming GN trains through the core as well as Bedford and Wimbledon Loop trains.

You have been very, very lucky.

In my 13 years of commuting, I have been left behind at Farringdon or St Pancras, unable to board, on average once a month.

Going the other way, I have been unable to board every fast train from St Albans to London from the 0726 to the 0812 (mostly on different days) just this year. And all of this under normal service, ie without disruption.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The Siemens reps were all about the power and lightness of the trains and how they'd weigh themselves to ensure traction was applied correctly. How the trains could run with x number of isolated traction motors and still push another fully-loaded train out of St Pancras or into Blackfriars.

They can do all of that, it's not an issue. The problem is getting the speed that's needed in opening some doors without compromising on safety. It's taking a little work to resolve but it's just that, a little work.

You're the person who has decided GTR are hiding design flaws, safety problems and that the entire program is going badly wrong, despite people from all parts of the industry telling you this isn't the case, that introduction is going well and that these teething problems are neither unexpected nor as severe as could have occurred.

 

[The Box Photter]

This is trolling. I read a book about it once and it said to watch out for people expressing idiotic opinions constantly with such hyperbole it was only being done to cause upset and start arguments.

I've seen a lot of absolute rubbish being churned out of BREL plants - vehicles with random wiring which we've put down to colour blind electricians, vehicles built to different specifications using different steel depending on what works they came out of, different vehicles for the same train coming out of different works, random traction motor assignments depending on who BR was needing to prop up on any given week and corrosion so spectacular I'm surprised the erecting sheds at Derby and York didn't have piles of rust from the brand new stock they had just wheeled out.

Derby isn't bad - it's better than BR, which isn't saying much, but it's something. The Germans and Japanese are in a race to the top, the reliability figures for Class 350 Desiro stock and Class 395 AT300 stock are quite, quite incredible. The only stock BR built which came close was the old Southern slam door stock, and it was rotten and woefully unsafe when it was withdrawn.

This absolutely isn't trolling.

I'm suffering from the combined ineptitude of GTR every day and now it's being compounded by having my trains to & from work being cancelled because of unreliable rolling stock. The cherry on top of the horse**** sandwich is the fact that these new trains have the most uncomfortable seating I've ever encountered on a British train.

The prospects for my lumbar region aren't good, as I've no foreseeable alternative but these trains from now until I retire, unless I give up the career I love in London.

So, keep your offensive comments to yourself.

 

[Bald Rick]

Reading another thread mentioning the 700s and Beckenham Junction made me think, would they be cleared to work through Crystal Palace tunnel or would the TL side at London Bridge be ready for their wholesale introduction and thus do away with the diversion through this part of South London?

They are cleared through Crystal Palace tunnel, and operating through it several times a day!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Now, I've work to do on my laptop which I won't be able to do on tomorrow's 0744 from Flitwick (assuming it isn't cancelled).

Suggest you get up 4 minutes earlier and get the 0740. It gets you into London 12 minutes earlier than the 0744 as well; less time in the seats you don't like and more time at work. Everyone's a winner!

 

[Islineclear3_1]

The cherry on top of the horse**** sandwich is the fact that these new trains have the most uncomfortable seating I've ever encountered on a British train.

So far, the Class 376 and Southern 455 ironing boards (and 377 derivatives) win hands down so I look forward to passing judgement on a 700 when I get the chance to travel on one
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They are cleared through Crystal Palace tunnel, and operating through it several times a day!

Of course, with all the cancellations and recent forum arguments of late, I forgot that some 700s have actually made it from south to north and vice versa

 

[The Box Photter]

They can do all of that, it's not an issue. The problem is getting the speed that's needed in opening some doors without compromising on safety. It's taking a little work to resolve but it's just that, a little work.

You're the person who has decided GTR are hiding design flaws, safety problems and that the entire program is going badly wrong, despite people from all parts of the industry telling you this isn't the case, that introduction is going well and that these teething problems are neither unexpected nor as severe as could have occurred.

The major design flaw isn't hidden. Try sitting on a window airline seat on a full class 700 when it's moving for more than 20 minutes and you'll understand the major design flaw.

The trains were "being launched from Spring 2016". That didn't happen even though there have been class 700s in the UK for more that a year. GTR even had the gall to launch the trains to the press, even though none were ready to go into service. It's now the summer and GTR is still unable to field any more than two full diagrams per day. On some days this summer, there have been more steam-hauled passenger trains in service on BR than there have been class 700 trains. On Thameslink and its predecessors its always jam tomorrow.

In this case, we were promised jam, but it turned out to be chutney.

I'm not a train designer, or an engineer, I'm a train passenger. That gives me the right to comment and criticise. I don't need your permission.

If you can't cope with a robust debate, then an internet forum isn't the place for you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You have been very, very lucky.

In my 13 years of commuting, I have been left behind at Farringdon or St Pancras, unable to board, on average once a month.

Going the other way, I have been unable to board every fast train from St Albans to London from the 0726 to the 0812 (mostly on different days) just this year. And all of this under normal service, ie without disruption.

Why don't you get on at Blackfriars going north? I do and I always get a seat. It's called forward planning. Trying to get on a northbound train at Farringdon or St Pancras in the rush hour is a pain. That's why I don't even try.

I believe that Thameslink also run trains that start at St Albans and get into London almost as quickly as the trains you struggle to squeeze onto. There's always space on those trains. By the way, there's always plenty of standing room available in the rear two coaches of the 0802 St Albans fast to London service. Just remember there'll be nowhere to put your coffee.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's now the summer and GTR is still unable to field any more than two full diagrams per day. On some days this summer, there have been more steam-hauled passenger trains in service on BR than there have been class 700 trains.

Oh come on.

Today is the 13th day of 'fleet' introduction, fleet defined as more than one diagram. I'm reasonably sure there were days last week when all 3 diagrams ran - indeed I saw them all running. On every day until a couple of weeks ago there would have been more steam locomotives in service than Class 700s.

Suggest, that like for all new fleets, we pass judgement in a couple of months. I can remember similar discussions when the 387s kept failing on introduction, and the 377s, and the 319s, and let us not forget the entire fleet of 317s in Cricklewood and Bedford for nearly a year in the early 80s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why don't you get on at Blackfriars going north?

I do, thanks. But about twice a week I have meetings at Euston, so find it a little easier to walk 8 minutes to St Pancras than go all the way to Blackfriars.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I believe that Thameslink also run trains that start at St Albans and get into London almost as quickly as the trains you struggle to squeeze onto. There's always space on those trains. By the way, there's always plenty of standing room available in the rear two coaches of the 0802 St Albans fast to London service. Just remember there'll be nowhere to put your coffee.

If by 'almost as quickly' you mean 'almost twice as long' then you're right. (0802 fast takes 17 mins to St Pancras, 0752 takes 33 mins, both GBTT).

Interestingly enough the last time I was unable to board the 0802 was at the rear set of doors.

Thanks for the advice about coffee. I don't drink it. But if I did, I would have my life sufficiently organised to have it before I left home, rather than try and take it on to a train that I knew would be full and standing. It's called forward planning. Some of us do it for a career.

 

[bramling]

You have been very, very lucky.

In my 13 years of commuting, I have been left behind at Farringdon or St Pancras, unable to board, on average once a month.

Going the other way, I have been unable to board every fast train from St Albans to London from the 0726 to the 0812 (mostly on different days) just this year. And all of this under normal service, ie without disruption.

I must have been lucky too. I've never been left behind except when the job has been up the wall totally.

Maybe it's a special part of the Thameslink privilege package that will be offered to GN passengers in 2018 (along with more cramped seating both sideways and longways, and guaranteed worse reliability)?

 

[Abpj17]

A (safe) slow launch is fine for rolling stock. I believe the thing everyone tries to avoid now is a Heathrow Terminal 5 style fiasco on the first day.

On doors, if trains end up on the ‘wrong’ platform, then door for the last few carriages won’t open - broadly the fast lines at the smaller stations.

On tables, the problem is some of us got used to the luxury of tables on some of the borrowed stock…

The reason I saw for the 07:34 from Bedford was it was actually a failure of the previous train - not that train (live trains or GTR email from memory). Which was a little bit bizarre.

I’m not sure about Box’s experience, but I’ve seen passengers left behind at St Pancras on a semi-regular basis. It’s unusual, but not unheard of. And as Bald Rick says, passengers left at St Albans is a daily occurrence (all the worse when there are cancellations) - including at the rear doors. (Tho I do wonder why the St Alban-ers don’t just grab a slow train sometimes with a guaranteed seat)

Bald Rick - 07:40 from Flitwick doesn’t help with Leagrave It continues to be madness that there is a relatively long gap between the 7:35 and 7:53/7:59:8:08, especially when the 7:35 and 7:53 are both pretty prone to cancellation.

 

[Class377/5]

I get that but it still beggars belief that systems can fail after they have already been through rigorous testing. By the time it hits service those kinks should be ironed out. I do understand unknowns but doors failing to open seems like a basic oversight.

Your confusing failure with safety system being operated.

I understand and I do watch the Mitrac boot on my units. One of the reasons why old software is used is because it brings reliability. I assume (yes deliberate use of the word ) that 700's and other new units still use systems that are "old faithfulls'"

However your old faithful parts are no longer being made so special orders have to be made for replacement parts increasing costs and time for delivery of parts.

Also I'd state the reliability factor is a tad over played as dealing with the things they break about once an hour at minimum all day every day. It just we have become used to the fleet so know the solutions much quicker.

Which is why I don't get why unit failures happen and why its expected. As a for example, our PIS was broken at install and is still broken. If the testing regime is so rigorous then why do they fail so frequently ? I have a new car and it hasn't failed yet so why does a new train, subject to higher testing still fail on basic systems like doors ?

A system can be working correctly but still fail. This is in part of what happens when we work in a safety critical industry where if your not 100% confident in something then it doesn't run.

Also its worth pointing out there a world of difference between a failure and fault and no 700 has yet actually (in the railway terms) failed. To those not in the know a failure is where a train cannot move under its own steam and must be rescued. So far all we've had is faults where trains have been taken out of service.

Very true and they are mostly down to human error and things slipping through the gaps. I understand that but I don't accept it should happen. Those should be dealt with before delivery to the passenger.

How can you deal with human error by those that do not create the trains prior to service introduction? For the record driver were involved in some part of the design of the cab in the Desrio City.

Yes, its been happening for years, why do we accept it so readily ? Is it because the supplier swallows the costs ? Political pressure ? Operatonal demands ?

None of those. Its impossible to fully replicate the service issues as most of the time the factors causing problems are unexpected or simply down to the train operating as expected but failures elsewhere.

So its Driver error that doors don't open ? I don't understand where you say they are working as planned but passenger and Driver reports say that doors are not opening correctly. Are you saying that they are not designed to open all 12 on a 12 car mark ? A little clarity would be appreciated.

I'm saying that the units are operating as designed. Your assuming there are in the correct place when the 'fault' occurs.

The 700 stopping window is very different to the 319/377/387 they've been driving so far.

Totally understand that point and I've always been a little tentative in a new unit but I do expect onboard systems to work as intended. From my perspective if I press doors open then I expect them to open. When I hit the AWS button I expect it to cancel. I really do understand differences in traction and new bells and whistles, I've been driving long enough. My course is looming and tbh I am a little apprehensive. I shouldn't expect failure to happen.

Again no failures have happened on a service train. You cannot expect just because you press a door pen button the doors magically open. The SDO and ASDO now being introduced on all new trains won't let you open the doors anywhere.

Bells and whistles as you put it, things like ASDO, are not nice to have but safety critical system there to protect.

I'm on your side with that one. This forum is a shining example of the wrong end of the stick and jumping to conclusions.

**ninja edit**

Seems a few posters have been putting this forward. In fact one poster is making stuff up in his argument which in my eyes shows he ranting.

Looks like I'm the only person who has yet to travel on a 700. On a rare weekday off yesterday, my chance of photographing (and travelling) on units in service were dashed by the Gatwick fire. I didn't want to waste money on buying a ticket in case the booked 700 didn't turn up.

I'm hoping for a second chance this Friday morning but obviously won't have time to actually travel on one as I have to be in work by lunchtime and need to travel there (not on GTR).

I'm sure there's a valid reason but I wish there were one or two 700 workings on a weekend.

No weekend workings this weekend. Don't expect any the week after but I think that will be the final weekend with no 700s.

I presume that many of those complaining here about class 700 reliability are not necessarily engineers and moreover, have no experience in the development of product reliability.
Developing a large system, particularly one which carries members of the public needs a layered approach to reliability. For example, top of the list is safety features where any failure should as far as practicable, fail safe. If the doors failed by random opening or the seat cantilever mounts worked loose after a few hundred hours, everybody would rightly be worried. We can be assured that such features have been tested thoroughly and such failures would be very rare anyway. So far there have been NO safety issues reported (the crash protection in the cab was fixed during trials).
Unlike consumer items, (probably cars are the nearest comparison), trains are made in much smaller numbers. The reliability of cars is largely derived by the quite high numbers made and tested well before the first one is sold to a customer. They are baked, vibrated, frozen, abused, and crashed to destruction. The results of each test are reviewed and where appropriate, fed back into the design. Then more cars are tested to destruction. At over £1m each, this can't be done with trains, so key parts are stress tested as appropriate. The doors have already been mentioned, then there is all the major parts of the electric and traction sub-sytems.
These often sub-contracted items are tested by their suppliers against stress conditions defined by the systems integrator (Siemens in this case). EMC, a major issue which is often the root source of mysterious failures is tested in representative worst-case conditions. That is why it isn't acceptable just bolting on some unproven electronic gadget that worked OK in an office, (or even in another train).
It's not realistic to expect lay persons to understand how reliability is grown and just doesn't happen, - when their train has a problem, they just want to complain. If they have already convinced themselves that they don't like the train or the service that it will ultimately bring before they are even delivered, their judgement is so prejudiced that they just look for faults, relish telling everybody and say 'I told you so' at every opportunity.

While it isn't realistic to expect the lay person to understand the faults, those posting on here are not really the lay person but people that have an interest in the railways so are a bit more clued up. Well some are.

 

[AM9]

... While it isn't realistic to expect the lay person to understand the faults, those posting on here are not really the lay person but people that have an interest in the railways so are a bit more clued up. Well some are.

My reference to 'lay person' was specifically with regards to reliability. As a branch of engineering, many think that they know what it is, who or what to blame and how to fix it. In practice, achieving reliability in a system is a blend of co-operation of disciplines, each understanding the others' roles. Trains are no different.
Now put disgruntled commuters in a public discussion which is primarily about reliability of a new complex system. The language becomes less rational.
If some of those disgruntled posters have a big chip on their shoulder about the concept of the trains just because it affect their cosy little arrangements, the discussion will then get derailed (apologies for the pun) with endless irrelevant uninformed rants, to sate their ire and/or boost their ego.

 

[JonathanH]

Looks like all five diagrams are in action today, with the 0520 and 0547 from Brighton both starting at Three Bridges due to Brighton being short of units from yesterday's missing workings.

 

[Goldfish62]

Notwithstanding any doors/beacon issues that are arising during the introduction of the 700s, will the current practice of defensive driving at low speed into platforms be programmed into the ATO parameters?
Those tube lines using ATO approach their fixed stopping locations at speeds determined by the braking dynamics althougn the driver has a hand on the emergency brake if necessary. In order to fulfil the peak frequency requirements in the Thameslink core, surely the trains will need to use the precision of ATO to optimise the approach/dwell time and minimise station section occupancy time.

Indeed, it would render ATO pretty pointless if "defensive driving" was programmed into it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Modern Railways outlines the proposals for fitting WiFi, which is cheap and easy, and tables, which is not so. It seems that the tables cannot be retrofitted to the existing seats, so will have to be rolled out on later builds and then seat swapping take place to ensure that all units have a proportion of seats with flip down tables. Bit of a mess.

 

[DerekC]

Indeed, it would render ATO pretty pointless if "defensive driving" was programmed into it..

Absolutely right.

Modern Railways outlines the proposals for fitting WiFi, which is cheap and easy, and tables, which is not so. It seems that the tables cannot be retrofitted to the existing seats, so will have to be rolled out on later builds and then seat swapping take place to ensure that all units have a proportion of seats with flip down tables. Bit of a mess.

Leaving out WiFi was definitely a mistake, but I don't understand the obsession with seat back tables. In my view they are a pain. I have lost count of the times when arriving at Waterloo in a window seat, the aisle seat passenger has left the table down for me to fold up. Occasionally with a free, gratis nearly empty coffee cup on it for me to put in the litter bin.

 

[ComUtoR]

Your confusing failure with safety system being operated.

Which is why I ask questions and ask for clarity.

I'm saying that the units are operating as designed. Your assuming there are in the correct place when the 'fault' occurs.

The 700 stopping window is very different to the 319/377/387 they've been driving so far.

I make no assumptions, hence the questions.

I watched the stop markers get put up and I spoke with a test Driver regarding stopping. The people who put the stop markers up seemed to take an approach of stick it up about there, oh look there's a convenient post to attach it to.

I agree that there is a new technique to learn but why wasn't that taken into account when setting up the stop markers. I drive 3 different units and each needs a different stop point. Whilst they are less accurate than a 700 It comes across to me that it is another example of where nobody is really working together.

Many thanks for your reply.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

No weekend workings this weekend. Don't expect any the week after but I think that will be the final weekend with no 700s.

Thank you, this is very helpful

 

[Class377/5]

My reference to 'lay person' was specifically with regards to reliability. As a branch of engineering, many think that they know what it is, who or what to blame and how to fix it. In practice, achieving reliability in a system is a blend of co-operation of disciplines, each understanding the others' roles. Trains are no different.
Now put disgruntled commuters in a public discussion which is primarily about reliability of a new complex system. The language becomes less rational.
If some of those disgruntled posters have a big chip on their shoulder about the concept of the trains just because it affect their cosy little arrangements, the discussion will then get derailed (apologies for the pun) with endless irrelevant uninformed rants, to sate their ire and/or boost their ego.

Least you managed to make me smile with some of that.

Indeed, it would render ATO pretty pointless if "defensive driving" was programmed into it.

The ATO is rather forward in its moving. Literally. I got shown on the simulator on what it does with a red in front of it. It will move as far forward as it can.

Which is why I ask questions and ask for clarity.

I make no assumptions, hence the questions.

I watched the stop markers get put up and I spoke with a test Driver regarding stopping. The people who put the stop markers up seemed to take an approach of stick it up about there, oh look there's a convenient post to attach it to.

I agree that there is a new technique to learn but why wasn't that taken into account when setting up the stop markers. I drive 3 different units and each needs a different stop point. Whilst they are less accurate than a 700 It comes across to me that it is another example of where nobody is really working together.

Many thanks for your reply.

Indeed. You've put into words what I was trying to say far better than myself. Technique is something that only comes in time.

Thank you, this is very helpful

Weekend workings are coming but initially won't be than many. I've seen some draft workings and don't expect much the first few weekends.

 

[physics34]

The major design flaw isn't hidden. Try sitting on a window airline seat on a full class 700 when it's moving for more than 20 minutes and you'll understand the major design flaw.

The trains were "being launched from Spring 2016". That didn't happen even though there have been class 700s in the UK for more that a year. GTR even had the gall to launch the trains to the press, even though none were ready to go into service. It's now the summer and GTR is still unable to field any more than two full diagrams per day. On some days this summer, there have been more steam-hauled passenger trains in service on BR than there have been class 700 trains. On Thameslink and its predecessors its always jam tomorrow.

In this case, we were promised jam, but it turned out to be chutney.

I'm not a train designer, or an engineer, I'm a train passenger. That gives me the right to comment and criticise. I don't need your permission.

If you can't cope with a robust debate, then an internet forum isn't the place for you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Why don't you get on at Blackfriars going north? I do and I always get a seat. It's called forward planning. Trying to get on a northbound train at Farringdon or St Pancras in the rush hour is a pain. That's why I don't even try.

I believe that Thameslink also run trains that start at St Albans and get into London almost as quickly as the trains you struggle to squeeze onto. There's always space on those trains. By the way, there's always plenty of standing room available in the rear two coaches of the 0802 St Albans fast to London service. Just remember there'll be nowhere to put your coffee.

I fully agree with your complaints regarding the seating and accomodation, but i dont get the complaints about faults, their introduction, diagrams etc...........

there will always be teething problems....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Absolutely right.



Leaving out WiFi was definitely a mistake, but I don't understand the obsession with seat back tables. In my view they are a pain. I have lost count of the times when arriving at Waterloo in a window seat, the aisle seat passenger has left the table down for me to fold up. Occasionally with a free, gratis nearly empty coffee cup on it for me to put in the litter bin.

having to put the table up isnt that much of a chore is it?

Many people now board trains in the morning rush hour with a cup of tea or coffee in their hand or a laptop or tablet to entertain themselves during their commute or check emails. .. on this basis i cant see how you think leaving out wifi is a bad idea but leaving out tables isnt.

I'll once again state that i think the layout is "suitable" for shorter journeys i.e WImbledon loop/Kent suburban - London journeys but is wholely unsuitable for anything over an hour.

Passengers on routes that previously had 377s, 387s and 365s will see these as a downgrade.