• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Class 710 LO

greatkingrat

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2011
Messages
2,749
Also you would need at least two staff at each station - one for each platform, plus others to cover for meal breaks etc.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Fincra5

Established Member
Joined
6 Jun 2009
Messages
2,486
Also you would need at least two staff at each station - one for each platform, plus others to cover for meal breaks etc.

Yeah you need a lot more staff. However, On-Track are able to supply Agency Dispatchers (once trained) so normal LO staff could have continued their normal duties. I do agree there would have been a lot of hoops to jump through for what LO would have assumed was a short duration.
 
Joined
31 May 2017
Messages
53
Where was it looking very likely? User group imagination doesn’t count.

I think LO was guilty of an extreme form of optimism bias. They really, really didn't want to get into the nasty complexities of procuring alternative stock so they convinced themselves that it wouldn't be needed until it was too late.
 

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
4,901
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
I think LO was guilty of an extreme form of optimism bias. They really, really didn't want to get into the nasty complexities of procuring alternative stock so they convinced themselves that it wouldn't be needed until it was too late.
The evidence suggests otherwise as it’s now 378 operated - The engineering change, approvals, PTI, crew familiarisation etc weren’t done on a whim overnight?
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,493
The evidence suggests otherwise as it’s now 378 operated - The engineering change, approvals, PTI, crew familiarisation etc weren’t done on a whim overnight?
Nevertheless there are also supplementary buses. Correct me if I'm wrong but there are only three 378s for the line so they need 100% availability all day seven days a week. Any problem or unplanned maintenance and there will be 60 minute gaps in the service.
 

plcd1

Member
Joined
23 May 2015
Messages
788
Nevertheless there are also supplementary buses. Correct me if I'm wrong but there are only three 378s for the line so they need 100% availability all day seven days a week. Any problem or unplanned maintenance and there will be 60 minute gaps in the service.

Correct. And for a variety of reasons we have lost service entirely or partially on the line over three separate days in the last week or so. Two were rolling stock related - a problem at Barking requiring a 378 to be rescued and repaired, another day when a 378 failed meaning no service east of S Tottenham and then a lineside fire caused a partial suspension for most of the day (12 hours) last Sunday. If a train fails then TfL simply suspend the service east of South Tottenham. If two trains are out then no service at all. Yes supplementary buses do operate but no one bothers to tell anybody when they get extended to Barking (from Leytonstone) when there are more serious problems. No tweets from TfL about that. I only know it happened because a bus company employee told me after the event.

The service is very fragile at present. TfL and Arriva did what they could with existing resources when they finally conceded that Bombardier would not get the 710s into passenger service by March. If they had been a lot more sceptical about Bombardier's performance and had taken a decision at least 6 months ago then we might be in a different position service wise today. I do not wish to go back over all the well worn arguments as that would be utterly pointless. Nonetheless I do wonder quite who holds what "power and influence" in the TfL / Bombardier relationship. It often feels, as an observer, that Bombardier have the upper hand given the lack the progress and no great sanction against them (£15m in compensation payments is small change on a long term supply and maintain contract).

We do seem to be seeing a few more daytime "training" runs on the GOBLIN over the last couple of days. Some though have not run due to train problems - the train got as far as Kensal Rise junction and then had to go back to Willesden via the turnback siding used by Clapham J - Willesden J short workings. Overnight mileage runs to Milton Keynes seem to have stopped for some reason. Who knows what's happening? :rolleyes: :frown:
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
Same answer as earlier in the thread: far cheaper to go for 8 car with longitudinal seating to increase capsacity

At some point in the future when the finances are healthier you imagine they could probably still buy some extra trailers. Despite the problems the Bombardier Aventras will probably be rolling off the production line for a decade or so. You could also cascade carriages from the smaller services the 710s are going to operate, replacing those trains again with something else.
 

AlanFry1

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2011
Messages
662
Kicking the can down the road isn't helpful at all. It will be cheaper to buy new carriages now than in ten years.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Kicking the can down the road isn't helpful at all. It will be cheaper to buy new carriages now than in ten years.
And paying for platform extension work now too...
8car is the max for Chingford without major work including stabling
 

AlanFry1

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2011
Messages
662
And paying for platform extension work now too...
8car is the max for Chingford without major work including stabling

I thought apart from Stoke Newington, all platforms on the route are 9-car usage, as they all used to serve 9-car trains? I assume Enfield Town/Cheshunt/Chingford need major work done at the London ends.
 

Brissle Girl

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
2,478
That might be the case, but when you have no money and are having to cancel and defer projects left right and centre then making provision for future growth is going to be very low on the list of priorities. Besides, given the drop off in commuter traffic, who's to say that they will be needed in the foreseeable future.
 

AlanFry1

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2011
Messages
662
That might be the case, but when you have no money and are having to cancel and defer projects left right and centre then making provision for future growth is going to be very low on the list of priorities. Besides, given the drop off in commuter traffic, who's to say that they will be needed in the foreseeable future.
Drop off?
 

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,372
It halted for a year but strong growth now seen again on tube, DLR and many TOCs.
 

AlanFry1

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2011
Messages
662
Think a lot of these drop offs on this line would only be associated with Tottenham not at the lane for the entire season, for increasing fare evasion on a line mostly without barriers, increased engineering work on weekends, etc? So if you actually look, the 18-19 figures will be sky high, and the 19-20 more so! Not sure if night tube has done anything to the trains on the Chingford routes.
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,066
I thought apart from Stoke Newington, all platforms on the route are 9-car usage, as they all used to serve 9-car trains? I assume Enfield Town/Cheshunt/Chingford need major work done at the London ends.
I don't have the measurements to hand but IIRC those were shorter cars.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,493
Correct. And for a variety of reasons we have lost service entirely or partially on the line over three separate days in the last week or so. Two were rolling stock related - a problem at Barking requiring a 378 to be rescued and repaired, another day when a 378 failed meaning no service east of S Tottenham and then a lineside fire caused a partial suspension for most of the day (12 hours) last Sunday. If a train fails then TfL simply suspend the service east of South Tottenham. If two trains are out then no service at all. Yes supplementary buses do operate but no one bothers to tell anybody when they get extended to Barking (from Leytonstone) when there are more serious problems. No tweets from TfL about that. I only know it happened because a bus company employee told me after the event.
Thanks, an interesting insight into the reality of the situation. I wouldn't be susprised if the rest of the network is suffering too because the five car fleet has three fewer spares than before.

In my humble opinion it was avoidable. I think I posted a potential solution on this forum several months ago, namely using 379s. They are very similar to 378s so I think a conversion for LO drivers would be straightforward. Transfer 317887-892 off the Chingford/Enfield/Cheshunt locals to AGA and replace six 379 diagrams on the Stansted route. The short fall on the Chingford line could have been covered by surplus 315s off the Shenfield line. All fleets are maintained at Ilford so for AGA and Chingford it would make little difference. 315s are far more suited to stopping trains than 317s so it would be a win for those routes.

The hard part would be maintaining the 379s for the Barking route. Off the top of my head I don't think it's possible to access Willesden depot with AC units so they would have to go to Ilford. It might be possible to stable a unit at Gospel Oak and another at Barking to reduce the empty moves.

I'm actually surprised that the DFT hasn't stepped in like they did when TPE lost the 170s. They were happy to pay for the 37s on the Cumbrian coast for years to release some 156s to TPE. I bet that cost way more than my proposal here.
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
I suspect TfL would prioritise 4tph on each branch over longer trains. I believe I read an FOI saying that even that was now likely pushed back indefinitely.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I suspect TfL would prioritise 4tph on each branch over longer trains. I believe I read an FOI saying that even that was now likely pushed back indefinitely.

It was never an option. Liverpool Street West side is at capacity, and has been or a long time.
 

AlanFry1

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2011
Messages
662
Longitudinal seating will not go down well at all if the 710s end up on the WASL, 379s would be much better placed (I can be wishful!)
 

20atthemagnet

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2019
Messages
201
Location
England
Thanks, an interesting insight into the reality of the situation. I wouldn't be susprised if the rest of the network is suffering too because the five car fleet has three fewer spares than before.

In my humble opinion it was avoidable. I think I posted a potential solution on this forum several months ago, namely using 379s. They are very similar to 378s so I think a conversion for LO drivers would be straightforward. Transfer 317887-892 off the Chingford/Enfield/Cheshunt locals to AGA and replace six 379 diagrams on the Stansted route. The short fall on the Chingford line could have been covered by surplus 315s off the Shenfield line. All fleets are maintained at Ilford so for AGA and Chingford it would make little difference. 315s are far more suited to stopping trains than 317s so it would be a win for those routes.

The hard part would be maintaining the 379s for the Barking route. Off the top of my head I don't think it's possible to access Willesden depot with AC units so they would have to go to Ilford. It might be possible to stable a unit at Gospel Oak and another at Barking to reduce the empty moves.

I'm actually surprised that the DFT hasn't stepped in like they did when TPE lost the 170s. They were happy to pay for the 37s on the Cumbrian coast for years to release some 156s to TPE. I bet that cost way more than my proposal here.

Let me chime in here....you assume

AGA will agree to loose 6 379s on the stansted route (100% not)
That 378s and 379s are similiar, (in physical appearance perhaps, you'd still need a full conversion..I signed them, they couldnt be more different and TCMS wise)
That TFL/LO would foot the bill to lease extra 315s from TFL and that everybody would be happy to shuffle trains from here there and everywhere to fit Bombardiers mess, and mess with leases, agreements, arrangements for staff, maintenance schedules, mileage plans,...debranding the list is endless..whos paying for all of these logistics? Bombardier? I dont think so. TFL? Dont think so..Dft? Certainly not.

Not you personally but I've read so many posts on this thread about they should/could have picked up 315s/387s/379s, could have trained dispatchers/guards/driver etc etc. The bottom line is this. If it costs, its not happening. It costs. So nothing is going to happen. They will wait. They made a balls up of this 100% but no trains were ever moving anywhere. No staff were going to be trained. The buses are already there. You will see a total line closure before you'll see any of the logistics suggested in this thread.

To draw attention to how anal costs are across TOCs on the NL/GOB/WA, LO have an acquired TFL rail 315, but only because another one was written off, so no bill. It currently runs in multiple as it has defective motors. It wont be repaired until 710s arrive on the WA. Why? Again. Costs. It just about keeps up in the timetable so doesn't cause PPM fines. Theres currently a signal somewhere on the this very network required for a "new train" to run sitting on ballast wrapped up whilst the titans argue over whos pays to install it. Thats reality.

We also must consider that this has been a rolling problem for some time..Bombardier keep trying and keep failing, and gave time frames that kept slipping. As a company what happens if halfway through training your staff, renegotiating your leases etc, orginising moving units spending huge amounts of money, the ORR sign off 710s? Now you really do have a problem.

The reason for shortened 4 car 378's was because Bombardier were happy to foot the bill of the conversion and LO were happy as everything remained the same, drivers, routes, traction etc..then as soon as 710s go live the 5th carriage goes back into your 378 and off it goes down the NLL. Nobodies going to pay for these ideas. Ultimately its the lines users who will suffer, but this is the reality of business, and I can only predict more carnage when they finally do arrive, they (710s) will be dropping like flies with faults in the first year or so, like most other new rolling stock.
 
Last edited:

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
Last edited:

AlanFry1

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2011
Messages
662
I read an FOI, which I will try and find, that they planned to terminate the extra services at Seven Sisters using the crossover there and the Seven Sisters chord. I'll see if I can dredge it up.
I thought the long term goal was to extend the Stratford to Stortfords to Stansted, cut down the trains per hour from LST to 2tph, and increase the enfield/cheshunt services to 4tph, as the hertford peak fasts will not stop at edmonton anymore? Then there were 2 additional tph to Barking from Enfield rumoured for the mid 2020s? The Seven Sisters terminators were one of the CPs (CP4?) I believe, but nothing on that mentioned since.
 

Top