Abellio Greater Anglia Class 755s (Regional Trains)

[61653 HTAFC]

Well, the UK Flirts are certainly better-looking than those Japanese trains... that second one looks like it's based on a kitchen appliance!

 

[38Cto15E]

On the Class 755 is it possible to walk the length of the train or does the power equipment stop this?
TIA

 

[felixthebadger]

On the Class 755 is it possible to walk the length of the train or does the power equipment stop this?
TIA

There is a corridor through the power car.

 

[whhistle]

Are we saying disabled people are too expensive to cater for, so they are not allowed to travel by train (without a lot of hassle) ?

We already do.

I'm sure the law says companies (and such) have to make reasonable adjustments. For parks and leisure facilities, it may not be reasonable to get rid of stairs or steep ramps.
Therefore, you could say it's too expensive to cater for those with disabilities. In some cases it isn't even possible but not many I could think of. Not that all disabilities relate to mobility.
But then again, why aren't signs 5 times bigger than they currently are? Ya know... to help those who can't see very well?
Why aren't announcements 10 times louder... ya know, to help those who are hard of hearing, or blind!

It's just not practical in life to get everything to meet everyones needs.

 

[whhistle]

Only one door this commuter vehicle?
It will take very time in getting on and off of the rush hour.
In the problem?

The doors are wider than usual though so more people can get on/off at the same time.
There have decisions made to build stock with one door, and the buyer to choose a train with one door, so it should be safe to assume one door will not have a negative effect on boarding.

 

[332 > 444]

Put it this way, it seems there is a door every 20m either way passengers decide to alight and it's a double door as opposed to the single leaf doors on the 153/156 plus they have shorter carriages than the units they are replacing (bar 379s).

 

[700007]

Sorry I have not been following the introduction of FLIRTs, but in what order is it planned they will replace fleets?

I have heard the 37s and 90s being the first lot to go off but can anyone verify what the plan is?

 

[hwl]

The doors are wider than usual though so more people can get on/off at the same time.
There have decisions made to build stock with one door, and the buyer to choose a train with one door, so it should be safe to assume one door will not have a negative effect on boarding.

You make a big assumption that Abellio 's bid team knew what they were doing. It turns out that they didn't.
It will effect boarding at Tottenham Hale and Stratford significantly and cause lots of knock on problems.

One of the reasons NR System Operator unit now reviews bid in lots of detail.

 

[F Great Eastern]

You make a big assumption that Abellio 's bid team knew what they were doing. It turns out that they didn't.

Indeed, it was put together all by the bidding and finance people without any real input from operations, who have now been told to make it work somehow. The bid team was full of people who knew the price and theory of everything and the practice and reality of nothing if you ask me.

 

[87015]

Indeed, it was put together all by the bidding and finance people without any real input from operations, who have now been told to make it work somehow. The bid team was full of people who knew the price and theory of everything and the practice and reality of nothing if you ask me.

They didn’t understand the theory of their beloved bi-modes as they had 50% electric mileage for the Norwich local diagrams. Fuel tanks speced for that of course now.

 

[dk1]

Sorry I have not been following the introduction of FLIRTs, but in what order is it planned they will replace fleets?

I have heard the 37s and 90s being the first lot to go off but can anyone verify what the plan is?

37s first, 153s August, 170s October. Everything else will last into 2020 is the latest we've been told.

 

[lordbusiness]

The doors are wider than usual though so more people can get on/off at the same time.
There have decisions made to build stock with one door, and the buyer to choose a train with one door, so it should be safe to assume one door will not have a negative effect on boarding.

I fear a lot will depend on passenger behaviour- if people on the platform stand back from the doors and allow people off before trying to board it will probably ok.
Judging by what I see at Stratford most days and other inner London stations I'll reserve judgement.

 

[robreed90001]

37s first, 153s August, 170s October. Everything else will last into 2020 is the latest we've been told.

will GA have to get permission/a special permit to keep the MK3s going untill the 745s are ready?

 

[Alfie1014]

They will need a dispensation for any non PRM TSI (formerly RVAR) compliant stock to operate beyond 31/12/20. As will all other operators who have non-compliant stock at the end of the year.

 

[LAX54]

They didn’t understand the theory of their beloved bi-modes as they had 50% electric mileage for the Norwich local diagrams. Fuel tanks speced for that of course now.

If the current units run low on fuel on a fairly regular basis, I can imagine the Bi-Modes will be even more prone to it !

 

[whhistle]

You make a big assumption that Abellio 's bid team knew what they were doing. It turns out that they didn't.
It will effect boarding at Tottenham Hale and Stratford significantly and cause lots of knock on problems.

Can you point me to the quantifiable evidence that clearly shows the bid team did not know what they were doing?
I would suggest their aim was to provide a bid to secure the franchise... which they did.

SImilarly, can you also point me in the direction of your "fact" that the trains will directly affect the boarding at those two stations?
I mean, they're not in service yet so I'm interested how you came to that conclusion... unless of course, it's just your opinion.

Not saying the bid was perfect, just interested in reading factual information into this.

 

[43096]

They will need a dispensation for any non PRM TSI (formerly RVAR) compliant stock to operate beyond 31/12/20. As will all other operators who have non-compliant stock at the end of the year.

The deadline is 31/12/19.

 

[dk1]

The deadline is 31/12/19.

Ah you beat me to it.

Things will just carry on as they are on those routes with slam door stock etc.

 

[47421]

Can you point me to the quantifiable evidence that clearly shows the bid team did not know what they were doing?
I would suggest their aim was to provide a bid to secure the franchise... which they did.

SImilarly, can you also point me in the direction of your "fact" that the trains will directly affect the boarding at those two stations?
I mean, they're not in service yet so I'm interested how you came to that conclusion... unless of course, it's just your opinion.

Not saying the bid was perfect, just interested in reading factual information into this.

Anyone can win an auction. Dead simple. And perhaps the bid team were told to secure the franchise on any basis. In which case they delivered. This however seems like a classic case of winners curse: "a tendency for the winning bid in an auction to exceed the intrinsic value or true worth of an item. Because of incomplete information, emotions or any other number of factors regarding the item being auctioned, bidders can have a difficult time determining the item's intrinsic value".

If the brief was to win on a basis that is deliverable and will generate a satisfactory return for our shareholders then we can be pretty sure they failed.

Most notably the GA accounts confirm that Abellio/Mitsui have had to advance £80m by way of subordinated loans (ie loans that only get repaid after all other obligations are met including the premiums payable to DfT) up to March 2018. It is widely reported further shareholder loans will be needed in year to March 2019. See the discussion on the legal action thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/greater-anglia-legal-action.179033/page-2 for info on many missed commitments and how GA think the Franchise Agreement needs to be re-written to change the revenue risk sharing mechanism that GA freely agreed to.

On station dwell times, time will tell. On WestAnglia considering first StanExp. One door per carriage could well add to dwell times at intermediate stations, which are very busy at peak times. Current services are 8 car (=16 doors) or 12 car (=24 doors), intuitively increasing passenger capacity but through only 12 doors is going to add to dwell times. And on the nonStanExp services if they run as 10x720 in peak times that should be fine, but we dont know yet whether that is going to happen. The suspicion is that because the platform lengthening work at Hert East, Ware, St Margarets, Elsenham and Enfield Lock required under FA has not been done we will see current 8 car 317s replaced by 5 car 720s. If that does happen we can be very confident that dwell times will increase significantly especially at Lea Valley stations where delays today using 8x317 are the norm. Perhaps the new units will have better acceleration/breaking to compensate, but as no amended timetables have ever been made publicly available, only the headline "1144 extra trains a week from May 2020", we dont know what assumptions they are making.

 

[axlecounter]

Much depends on the type of door, not only on their number.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Can you point me to the quantifiable evidence that clearly shows the bid team did not know what they were doing?
I would suggest their aim was to provide a bid to secure the franchise... which they did.

Just a few:
- Not delivering specified timetable improvements.
- Threatening to sue the DFT because they got their figures wrong.
- Deadlines come and gone for certain promised changes
- Not being able to build a depot the bid relied on
- Having to be bailed out on several occasions by it's owners
- The avoidance of giving straight answers to straight questions.
- Brushing off criticism of introducing new trains by pointing to their introduction of the 379s, which they didn't introduce.
- Over ambitious delivery schedules of trains built on theory over practice.
- Not really consulting their operations team over the utilisation of rolling stock
- Prospect of mass cancellations on 1st January 2020 if derogation on existing stock are not given
- The departure of the majority of the senior management team responsible for many of the promises in the last 12 months.
- Hiring a bunch of aviation engineers to run the engineering side with no railway experience replacing experienced railway people, and having 40 short forms on a regular basis in both morning and evening peak.
- The 317 traction cover saga
- The 321 plug socket sealing saga

I take no pleasure in listing these things on the forum as I was a fan of Abellio before the new franchise started and thought that they did a good job, but the bid looked suspect from day one to me and nothing I have seen since has changed my thoughts on that.

The only good thing is that I've seen very early signs recently that they may be starting to try and address some of the issues with recent appointments of Ian McConnell and the new Engineering Director but it may be too little too late.

 

[Alfie1014]

The deadline is 31/12/19.

Appolgies I meant to type that!

 

[Alfie1014]

I’ve heard un-officially that there will be a timetable consultation later this year for the changes now planned for December 2020. Which gives them more time to sort out the (many) outstanding infrastructure issues and the presumed delay to the 720 fleet.

 

[hwl]

Can you point me to the quantifiable evidence that clearly shows the bid team did not know what they were doing?
I would suggest their aim was to provide a bid to secure the franchise... which they did.

SImilarly, can you also point me in the direction of your "fact" that the trains will directly affect the boarding at those two stations?
I mean, they're not in service yet so I'm interested how you came to that conclusion... unless of course, it's just your opinion.

Not saying the bid was perfect, just interested in reading factual information into this.

Unfortunately I can't share what is on the hard drive / in my inbox . It isn't my opinion but I agree with the conclusions of the detailed modelling on the later for example.

In the Tottenham Hale case expect the Airport Stadler dwell times to be 120s in the working timetable (a very backward assumption from the current situation). The bid team were completely unaware of the huge passenger churn and pedestrian flow issues at Tottenham Hale.

The poor deliverability of certain bids in practice (including this one as virtually the final straw) as now led to the detailed review by NR system operator as part of DfT tender process. (SE and EM are the first subject to enhanced review)

 

[Class 170101]

Not entirely convinced that NR are upto that job I'm afraid. How capable are the people at validating a timetable within a bid? It seems to be viewed as a starter grade with most moving away from it when they can in my experience.

 

[whhistle]

Unfortunately I can't share what is on the hard drive / in my inbox

Well, you could. But choose not to for some unknown reason.
Ya know, create a new Gmail account, upload these secret files to the Drive, share the link.

Because on this forum, unless you have evidence, it's hard to believe.

 

[bastien]

Well, you could. But choose not to for some unknown reason.
Ya know, create a new Gmail account, upload these secret files to the Drive, share the link.

Because on this forum, unless you have evidence, it's hard to believe.

Indeed, I think all we've proved is that the current franchising system causes a lot of resentment...

 

[47421]

In the Tottenham Hale case expect the Airport Stadler dwell times to be 120s in the working timetable (a very backward assumption from the current situation). The bid team were completely unaware of the huge passenger churn and pedestrian flow issues at Tottenham Hale.

Wow, ouch. If this is correct, and hwl is generally a pretty sober poster so I assume it is, then the situation is even worse than I thought. Improved breaking and accelerating performance of new trains will not be able to compensate for longer dwell times, most notably at Tott Hale on the up, where the current peak timetable has multiple occasions of 4 departures in 9 minutes from the same platform. If that becomes 10mins means last train misses path at Clapton Junction, and running after the Chingford to LivSt means too little dwell time at Liv St for next leg of diagram. Put another way looks like Network Rail will not allow GA to operate existing timetable with new units.

It is ancient history now, but how bid team did not know of potential issues at Tott Hale is amazing. Anyone who has ever been there can see it is very overcrowded, with entrance and footbridge and tube station at the Liv St end so passengers naturally crowd at that end of platform, which is where trains leaving Liv St are already the most crowded (crush loaded in peak). I think they are building a new footbridge further up, but that will not help much given location of tube station.

 

[sprinterguy]

Deleted.

 

[306024]

......It is ancient history now, but how bid team did not know of potential issues at Tott Hale is amazing.......

Err it isn’t so amazing. Some of the stuff that goes into bids is of course there to win the bid, doesn’t matter if it can’t be achieved in practice, as that possibly won’t be discovered until after the winner is announced.

As a small example one bidder, in the distant past, produced a timetable with an ECS from Ilford Depot to Liverpool St on the up main at 08.30. Had to cross all four running lines, which as those with knowledge of the GEML will know is bonkers. That was part of the winning bid!