• 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!

Greater Anglia Bombardier Aventras (Class 720): Technical discussion and introduction

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
All trains are timed at 321 running times regardless of whether they are Class 321s or Class 360s which is why there aren't any differences. If some trains were timed at Class 360 running times you would have to account for the longer dwell times in timing the trains from origin to destination. This would would lead to differences in journey times between one hour and the next for the same journey - eg 1Y35 could have a different journey time to 1Y37 in the next hour accounting for traction type. Hence why you can't see it just looking at the data as provided on sites like Realtime trains.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Railperf

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2017
Messages
2,922
All trains are timed at 321 running times regardless of whether they are Class 321s or Class 360s which is why there aren't any differences. If some trains were timed at Class 360 running times you would have to account for the longer dwell times in timing the trains from origin to destination. This would would lead to differences in journey times between one hour and the next for the same journey - eg 1Y35 could have a different journey time to 1Y37 in the next hour accounting for traction type. Hence why you can't see it just looking at the data as provided on sites like Realtime trains.
Lets hope they reduce the running times for the 720's! I have no issue with slightly longer dwell times. It is amazing how often trains exceed the 30 sec or 1 min dwell times booked. I would prefer running times that matched the traction capability even if it meant slightly longer dwell times. Then there is no excuse not to depart on time unless there is a serious operational issue. even so, the 720's - should be able to reduce running times between Ipswich and London by at least 10 minutes.
 

Railperf

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2017
Messages
2,922
As a side note the fact running times are same for 321 and 360 is a waste of the 360 capabilities and what they were first designed for - 62 min Liverpool St to Ipswich services!
I seriously hope the 720's potential is not wasted.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
As a side note the fact running times are same for 321 and 360 is a waste of the 360 capabilities and what they were first designed for - 62 min Liverpool St to Ipswich services!
I seriously hope the 720's potential is not wasted.

Will be easier to time as it will be one fleet with one set of Sectional Running Times. However don't get your hopes up about faster journey times, they still have to follow other trains that GA has no control of such as freight trains - and they seem to be getting slower and heavier.
 

306024

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2013
Messages
3,940
Location
East Anglia
Lets hope they reduce the running times for the 720's! I have no issue with slightly longer dwell times. It is amazing how often trains exceed the 30 sec or 1 min dwell times booked. I would prefer running times that matched the traction capability even if it meant slightly longer dwell times. Then there is no excuse not to depart on time unless there is a serious operational issue. even so, the 720's - should be able to reduce running times between Ipswich and London by at least 10 minutes.

The half minute dwell time for 321s and 360s is actually planned for 40 seconds. That all goes back to when DOO was introduced for 321s many years ago. But the planning software doesn’t work to that level of accuracy so some running times are extended slightly by half a minute to average this out.

As for at least a 10 minute speed up between Ipswich and London, that should see GA comfortably at the bottom of the punctuality table. You don’t (and on the GEML can’t) plan a whole timetable on the fastest schedules possible. The actual punctuality of the Norwich 90 minute schedules should explain why not.
 

Shunter_69

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2014
Messages
478
As a driver, 360’s are faster between stations due to better acceleration. Not sure there’s any difference in dwell times unless a 360 door bounces back open after closure. Doesn’t happen very often.
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
360s would be comfortably faster than a 321 between stations, the only reason you don't really see the end to end times showing this is the 360s are held back by the 321 timings. Anything they gain between stations they lose waiting at each station for time.

They've done Ipswich to Liverpool Street in 53 minutes in the past non stop and that wasn't even a fully clear run. 52 minutes should be possible.
 

Railperf

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2017
Messages
2,922
360s would be comfortably faster than a 321 between stations, the only reason you don't really see the end to end times showing this is the 360s are held back by the 321 timings. Anything they gain between stations they lose waiting at each station for time.
Except when running late, when it is not unknown to make up 10 minutes on the schedule.
 

Railperf

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2017
Messages
2,922
The half minute dwell time for 321s and 360s is actually planned for 40 seconds. That all goes back to when DOO was introduced for 321s many years ago. But the planning software doesn’t work to that level of accuracy so some running times are extended slightly by half a minute to average this out.

As for at least a 10 minute speed up between Ipswich and London, that should see GA comfortably at the bottom of the punctuality table. You don’t (and on the GEML can’t) plan a whole timetable on the fastest schedules possible. The actual punctuality of the Norwich 90 minute schedules should explain why not.
Biggest issue on the northbound Norwich in 90 run is the preceding Braintree service - which could be blessed with a faster schedule - even retimed to leave a minute or two earlier. A fleet of faster accelerating 720S should allow these slower services to clear the main line quicker, reducing delays to the Norwich in 90. Plus, once the preceding Norwich stopper become regularly diagrammed for a 745, that too should allow for quicker sectional running times that will keep those services further ahead of the Nin90 service compared to now and reducing potential delays. The single track at Trowse does not help matters, neither does the layout and Ipswich. if we cannot get beyond 60mph averages on a 90/100mph railway with this new fleet of trains - it will be a joke!
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
TRUST shows the test trips as Q paths (obviously), and are Ilford (2210) to Liverpool Street, then to Southend (0001) , back to Stratford, down to Southend (0236), back up to the Street (0503), then to ICS. another schedule is 2210 ICS to Liverpool Street, then to Ipswich arr 0142, Up to Colchester (0218), back to Ipswich (0319), then Up to Liverpool Street (0503) and return to ICS, arriving there at 0529

Times we have are the Southend trips on a Tues / Weds and Ipswich Thu / Fri, but when will we see the first one at Ipswich ?
 

Roger B

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2018
Messages
891
Location
Gatley
Just over 50% of the 5 cars built...

The second sentence start "British company Bombardier". It's been while since Canada was British (Statute of Westminster, 1931)! Good old GA, their PR just can't stop the facts getting in the way of a 'good' story, can they?
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
The second sentence start "British company Bombardier". It's been while since Canada was British (Statute of Westminster, 1931)! Good old GA, their PR just can't stop the facts getting in the way of a 'good' story, can they?

But it does say on the Bombardier site......The UK’s leading rail engineering and manufacturing company, which sort of gives that impression, and you could argue that, 'that' part of the Company is British.
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,753
We are told Wednesday night and Thursday night will see the 720 at Ipswich, then a quick shuttle to Colchester and back, then return to Ilford.
 

Shunter_69

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2014
Messages
478
Wondering if the Coronavirus will have an effect on introduction as classroom training for drivers hasn’t started yet and I can’t see it starting with current restrictions.
 

James James

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2018
Messages
426
But it does say on the Bombardier site......The UK’s leading rail engineering and manufacturing company, which sort of gives that impression, and you could argue that, 'that' part of the Company is British.
Funny that, they use very similar language on their equivalent Swiss website. (They're also using the "if you don't order more trains from us we might have to fire some people in Switzerland" trick, although realistically the only alternative train would be built by Stadler most likely in Switzerland.)
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The second sentence start "British company Bombardier". It's been while since Canada was British (Statute of Westminster, 1931)! Good old GA, their PR just can't stop the facts getting in the way of a 'good' story, can they?

But it does say on the Bombardier site......The UK’s leading rail engineering and manufacturing company, which sort of gives that impression, and you could argue that, 'that' part of the Company is British.

Not to worry, it will soon be French (with a Canadian share) if the Alstom/CDPQ takeover stays on course.
It's a mongrel train anyway, when you work out where all the bits come from.
 

Top