Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

HLE 13 said:

I'm sorry to be argumentative fella but every time I've had to travel in the peak in and around London, every platform has people crowding right up to the doors wanting to be the first on and it's not just London that's like this Stevenage is terrible for this too.



So saying the Vic doesn't have to deal with platform overcrowding is wrong in my view, it may be quieter off peak but in the peak it's certainly busy!

Click to expand...

You can't argue that the Vic line has anywhere near the complex service that Stevenage has though?! Stevenage sees a range of trains in the peak...fast to kings x, fast to Finsbury, via Welwyn, via Hertford etc plus everyone wanting the 07.46 will force their way on as It may be 25 mins till the next one etc...the Vic line sees a train every couple of mins which all run to exactly the same stations so people can effectively que up to get to the front of the platforms, not have Welwyn commuters having to force their way through a wall of kings x commuters standing at the edge waiting for the fast train 3 mins behind etc.

Would it be possible to implement some kind of "virtual coupling" whereby signals become more or less irrelevant and the maximum speed of a train is dictated by the train in front of it.

So on arrival at Blackfriars northbound, for example, a train (we'll call this train A) would cruise right up to the edge of the platform but not quite enter it.
Then as the train in front (we'll call this train B) starts to move, so does train A, at the same speed.
Until, that is, train A reaches the point at which it will start slowing down for the platform.

This would have the effect of reducing the distance, and therefore time, between trains

This would only work on sections without junctions of course.

I have noticed that there is a signal mid-way down the platform at Blackfriars in both directions which I guess can be used (the old fashioned way) to emulate this. i.e. train A can start to move before train B has totally vacated the platform.
As far as I can work out this isn't being done currently though I can't tell if that is due to a delay in the drivers reaction and the acceleration of the train, or if the overlaps are such that the signal takes a while to clear.


It seems unlikely to me that this hasn't been thought of before therefore I assume it has and is a bad idea for one reason or another.

DJL said:

Would it be possible to implement some kind of "virtual coupling" whereby signals become more or less irrelevant and the maximum speed of a train is dictated by the train in front of it.

So on arrival at Blackfriars northbound, for example, a train (we'll call this train A) would cruise right up to the edge of the platform but not quite enter it.
Then as the train in front (we'll call this train B) starts to move, so does train A, at the same speed.
Until, that is, train A reaches the point at which it will start slowing down for the platform.

This would have the effect of reducing the distance, and therefore time, between trains

This would only work on sections without junctions of course.

I have noticed that there is a signal mid-way down the platform at Blackfriars in both directions which I guess can be used (the old fashioned way) to emulate this. i.e. train A can start to move before train B has totally vacated the platform.
As far as I can work out this isn't being done currently though I can't tell if that is due to a delay in the drivers reaction and the acceleration of the train, or if the overlaps are such that the signal takes a while to clear.


It seems unlikely to me that this hasn't been thought of before therefore I assume it has and is a bad idea for one reason or another.

Click to expand...

That sounds like Moving Block, which is used on LU. ETCS Level 3 does something similar but AFAIK nowhere has got it working fully yet (and I can't see NR taking the plunge!)

tsr said:

Apologies - I meant the actual time spent stationary is apparently meant to be less than 30 seconds (or 27 seconds, to be precise). Let us know if what you've been told differs from that!

Yup (or is it 33tph?). And it is a tremendously, ah, popular line at some of the key stations. If the TL Core, with its projected frequencies of lengthened trains, consistently reaches those levels of overcrowding throughout, I'll still be quite interested to see how it all copes, even though it is "scaled up"!

Click to expand...

I couldn't remember to be honest if it had gone up to 33tph so I was cautious in my example.

Manchester77 said:

Are the 12 and 8 car 700s to be diagramed onto certain services or will they be pooled as one fleet?

Click to expand...

Yes and no. The 8 cars will be a general pool for use on all routes with the 12 cars restricted to just 12 car routes. For example, there is shoulder peak 8 car Bedford - Brighton's expected but this is subject to change in line with the winning bidders.

A-driver said:

You can't compare the Thameslink to the Victoria line. The Victoria line is a single corridor with all trains going from Brixton to walthamstow or wherever stopping at all stations en route. So if you stand at kings cross vic line southbound platform you get on the first available train and if it's too full you wait a minute or 2 for the next one. On the Thameslink we are looking at about 5 different northbound calling patterns and possibly more southbound so you have to factor in that peterbourgh commuters will want to get on the their correct train as if they miss it they may have a 20 min wait or so whilst the next few trains head to Bedford, Cambridge, St. Albans and welwyn. Therefore you also have to factor in something which the vic line dosnt have to worry about which is crowding on the platforms from people standing right up against the platform edge so they can be first onto the 4th train due...happens all the time at other similar stations and even with side mounted DOO cameras it still delays dispatch as rather than glancing at screens to check for an empty platform you have to closely look at each image in detail to check that no one is actually touching or trapped in the train. Plus add in the late runners who will run up to the doors and hold them open whilst they find out if this is the correct train or not in the rush hour. .

Click to expand...

Actually not all Victoria line trains go to the same place. There is short workings but your idea of corridor is something you fail to follow through on while applied to Thameslink.

Thameslink is a collections of corridors with some major stations, all KO2 seeing is more the this. But what you assume and fall over on this the idea that every passenger to Peterborough can only be served by Peterborough trains. This simply isn't true.

Taking Peterborough as an example with its 2tph if you miss one in peak then it will be quicker for most to take a Cambridge or Welwyn GC and change on route to one of the services from Kings Cross. That's not including the factor that those south of Hitchin can be served by other services. I could go on but this shows just because you miss one train doesn't mean you have to wait reducing the peak flows more.

I don't your point of standing alone the platform edge is isn't the same as you make out. The same happens on the Victoria and not just in peak. All your getting on Thameslink is the same thing with wider platforms. Add in my point above about trains serving the same corridor and you get less defensive positioning.

Of course those holding doors open still happens but if a service of 32tph+ can be run with people doing this I fail to see any merit to the idea this can't happen with Thameslink.

DJL said:

Would it be possible to implement some kind of "virtual coupling" whereby signals become more or less irrelevant and the maximum speed of a train is dictated by the train in front of it.

So on arrival at Blackfriars northbound, for example, a train (we'll call this train A) would cruise right up to the edge of the platform but not quite enter it.
Then as the train in front (we'll call this train B) starts to move, so does train A, at the same speed.
Until, that is, train A reaches the point at which it will start slowing down for the platform.

This would have the effect of reducing the distance, and therefore time, between trains

This would only work on sections without junctions of course.

I have noticed that there is a signal mid-way down the platform at Blackfriars in both directions which I guess can be used (the old fashioned way) to emulate this. i.e. train A can start to move before train B has totally vacated the platform.
As far as I can work out this isn't being done currently though I can't tell if that is due to a delay in the drivers reaction and the acceleration of the train, or if the overlaps are such that the signal takes a while to clear.

It seems unlikely to me that this hasn't been thought of before therefore I assume it has and is a bad idea for one reason or another.

Click to expand...

The HCI (High Capacity Infrastructure as the DfT calls it) is already capable of 20tph with trains of 24tph being controlled automatically through the Core meaning they won't work on signals but the signalling themselves. So your idea is actually whats being designed and worked on right now using the Hertford Loop.And this system will work with junctions too.

When this fails you have the PoSA signalling that has been used many times however its not great at high frequencies required today.

Don't forget the current maximum signalling section is 100m in the core, just enough to fit a single four car.

starrymarkb said:

That sounds like Moving Block, which is used on LU. ETCS Level 3 does something similar but AFAIK nowhere has got it working fully yet (and I can't see NR taking the plunge!)

Click to expand...

Something very similar yes.
My prior understanding of moving block is that the blocks are still fixed but to very short lengths and the signal aspects are replaced by a number of "target speeds" - effectively having lot's of aspect possibilities instead of the more usual 2-4
But maybe I misunderstood it or am thinking of something else (I though it was the Central line that had this system but wikipedia indicated otherwise) But in any case it does indeed sound very similar and is probably close enough to the same thing in terms of the effect it has on platform reoccupation time.

I can fully understand though why NR would be very twitchy about installing this system on the mainline.
However the speed limit in the core is pretty low anyway - probably lower than the Victoria line?
As long as the driver has a big red override button I can't see the problem from that point of view.

DJL said:

I can fully understand though why NR would be very twitchy about installing this system on the mainline.
However the speed limit in the core is pretty low anyway - probably lower than the Victoria line?
As long as the driver has a big red override button I can't see the problem from that point of view.

Click to expand...

This big enough for you?


Class 700 Cab by Sparkyscrum, on Flickr

Class377/5 said:

Actually not all Victoria line trains go to the same place. There is short workings but your idea of corridor is something you fail to follow through on while applied to Thameslink.



Thameslink is a collections of corridors with some major stations, all KO2 seeing is more the this. But what you assume and fall over on this the idea that every passenger to Peterborough can only be served by Peterborough trains. This simply isn't true.



Taking Peterborough as an example with its 2tph if you miss one in peak then it will be quicker for most to take a Cambridge or Welwyn GC and change on route to one of the services from Kings Cross. That's not including the factor that those south of Hitchin can be served by other services. I could go on but this shows just because you miss one train doesn't mean you have to wait reducing the peak flows more.



I don't your point of standing alone the platform edge is isn't the same as you make out. The same happens on the Victoria and not just in peak. All your getting on Thameslink is the same thing with wider platforms. Add in my point above about trains serving the same corridor and you get less defensive positioning.



Of course those holding doors open still happens but if a service of 32tph+ can be run with people doing this I fail to see any merit to the idea this can't happen with Thameslink.

Click to expand...

I think you fail to grasp what I am saying. All Vic line trains do stop at exactly the same stations. Ok some don't go all the way along the line but they all serve the majority of stations and, for example, southbound from somewhere like kings x all serve all stations to Brixton.

As for changing en route, commuters are unlikely to do that. You could apply that argument to current trains out of Finsbury park or kings cross but it dosnt happen. No Cambridge commuters board the Peterbourgh train at Finsbury park and change at Hitchin to the Cambridge train 30 mins behind. Plus the majority of the time you will end up on the train behind anyway-why board the Peterbourgh train and change at Hitchin for Cambridge when you will end up on the same Cambridge train 10 mins behind it at farringdon?

I'm not talking about people missing trains, I'm talking about those waiting for the 1830 city thameslink to Peterbourgh arriving at the platform at 1820 and blocking up the edge of the platform for those waiting for the preceding Bedford, Cambridge. St. Albans and Welwyn trains slowing down the dispatch. Happens all the time at the moment at any busy station in the peak all over the UKs big cities.

And I can't see how you can possibly compare the Vic line to thameslink...perhaps your definition of 'corridor' is different to mine but the Victoria line sees every single train go to exactly the same place. Forget the shorter services as they are irrelevant to the busiest section of the route. People don't stand on the platform waiting for the 0832 to Brixton and let the 0826,0828 and 0830 go first, they get to the platform and board the first train they can get on. Thameslink is entirely different. The 4 central core stations will see about half a dozen different routes to the north and the same to the south so rather than people waiting on the platform until they can fit on a train they will wait there for a specific train. Entirely different.

Class377/5 said:

I couldn't remember to be honest if it had gone up to 33tph so I was cautious in my example.



Yes and no. The 8 cars will be a general pool for use on all routes with the 12 cars restricted to just 12 car routes. For example, there is shoulder peak 8 car Bedford - Brighton's expected but this is subject to change in line with the winning bidders.



Actually not all Victoria line trains go to the same place. There is short workings but your idea of corridor is something you fail to follow through on while applied to Thameslink.

Thameslink is a collections of corridors with some major stations, all KO2 seeing is more the this. But what you assume and fall over on this the idea that every passenger to Peterborough can only be served by Peterborough trains. This simply isn't true.

Taking Peterborough as an example with its 2tph if you miss one in peak then it will be quicker for most to take a Cambridge or Welwyn GC and change on route to one of the services from Kings Cross. That's not including the factor that those south of Hitchin can be served by other services. I could go on but this shows just because you miss one train doesn't mean you have to wait reducing the peak flows more.

I don't your point of standing alone the platform edge is isn't the same as you make out. The same happens on the Victoria and not just in peak. All your getting on Thameslink is the same thing with wider platforms. Add in my point above about trains serving the same corridor and you get less defensive positioning.

Of course those holding doors open still happens but if a service of 32tph+ can be run with people doing this I fail to see any merit to the idea this can't happen with Thameslink.



The HCI (High Capacity Infrastructure as the DfT calls it) is already capable of 20tph with trains of 24tph being controlled automatically through the Core meaning they won't work on signals but the signalling themselves. So your idea is actually whats being designed and worked on right now using the Hertford Loop.And this system will work with junctions too.

When this fails you have the PoSA signalling that has been used many times however its not great at high frequencies required today.

Don't forget the current maximum signalling section is 100m in the core, just enough to fit a single four car.

Click to expand...

You can't compare the Victoria Line's short workings (a proportion of the service terminating at Seven Sisters) with the multiple destinations served by Thameslink.

The fact is that, going north, there are going to be at least 5 different service groups - the Luton to Bedford section, the London to Luton section, Peterborough, Cambridge, and London to WGC.

As A Driver says, Stevenage station already sees the irritating phenomenon of little groups of passengers waiting on the platform. Hitchin is even worse, some people will deliberately arrive 20 minutes early for their train to ensure they secure their chosen spot on the platform. This causes issues when another train then arrives, watch some of the exchanges where someone has arrived early for their little spot, and another train arrives and someone wishes to alight past that person! Worse, watch the chaos and squabbles that develop when the train arrives and the driver stops just a little short or past the mark!

I really don't fancy the idea of this situation occurring at the likes of St Pancras International or Farringdon.

Whilst I can see some benefits from Thameslink Programme, the service should be implemented on top of existing service options, rather than instead of. Many off-peak trains on the GN side are already crowded, and there are spare off-peak paths across the Welwyn viaduct, so I would much prefer to see something like 1x additional hourly train to Peterborough and Cambridge, on top of the existing combined 2 tph into KX. This would keep everyone happy. On top of this I dread the idea that delays from three networks will all be combined together, especially on a fragile railway like the GN where the timetable consists of a web of interconnected services which mesh in with each other through the various bottlenecks.

A-driver said:

I think you fail to grasp what I am saying. All Vic line trains do stop at exactly the same stations. Ok some don't go all the way along the line but they all serve the majority of stations and, for example, southbound from somewhere like kings x all serve all stations to Brixton.

As for changing en route, commuters are unlikely to do that. You could apply that argument to current trains out of Finsbury park or kings cross but it dosnt happen. No Cambridge commuters board the Peterbourgh train at Finsbury park and change at Hitchin to the Cambridge train 30 mins behind. Plus the majority of the time you will end up on the train behind anyway-why board the Peterbourgh train and change at Hitchin for Cambridge when you will end up on the same Cambridge train 10 mins behind it at farringdon?

Click to expand...

Plenty of commuters change on enoute, what years of being based on the platform taught me. Many won't but my point was it reduces those waiting. Your point about getting the train behind it, you were making the point that people are prepared to wait 30mins between trains yet your talking of 10mins between trains. Seems your examples used are designed to the biggest variations possible to suit the your point.

I'm not talking about people missing trains, I'm talking about those waiting for the 1830 city thameslink to Peterbourgh arriving at the platform at 1820 and blocking up the edge of the platform for those waiting for the preceding Bedford, Cambridge. St. Albans and Welwyn trains slowing down the dispatch. Happens all the time at the moment at any busy station in the peak all over the UKs big cities.

Click to expand...

Your point seems self defeating. Happens all the time at busy stations like London Bridge. So it happens now with slower moving trains so no reason the future it can't happen.

And I can't see how you can possibly compare the Vic line to thameslink...perhaps your definition of 'corridor' is different to mine but the Victoria line sees every single train go to exactly the same place. Forget the shorter services as they are irrelevant to the busiest section of the route. People don't stand on the platform waiting for the 0832 to Brixton and let the 0826,0828 and 0830 go first, they get to the platform and board the first train they can get on. Thameslink is entirely different. The 4 central core stations will see about half a dozen different routes to the north and the same to the south so rather than people waiting on the platform until they can fit on a train they will wait there for a specific train. Entirely different.

Click to expand...

You mean the trains go to the same core stations not the same stations (as you've admitted they don't all call at the same stations) at the end of route.

But your remaining ignorant of my initial point of the Victoria Line coping with smaller platforms, smaller trains and more trains. Compared with trains designed to allow 1,000 people on or off at a single stop within the dwell times and still have the capacity to step up to even more. Compare that to platforms on the Victoria Line in peak which can't be cleared in peak because limited capacity to enter/leave the station which restricts the flow ultimately of the trains.

By focusing on the people towards the end of the route your ignoring the large numbers of people who travel to other stations served by multiple services routes prior to them splitting. Welwyn, Three Bridges and St Albans are all good examples of this where multiple services will call at these stations for large volumes of people to travel.

DJL said:

Would it be possible to implement some kind of "virtual coupling" whereby signals become more or less irrelevant and the maximum speed of a train is dictated by the train in front of it.

So on arrival at Blackfriars northbound, for example, a train (we'll call this train A) would cruise right up to the edge of the platform but not quite enter it.
Then as the train in front (we'll call this train B) starts to move, so does train A, at the same speed.
Until, that is, train A reaches the point at which it will start slowing down for the platform.

This would have the effect of reducing the distance, and therefore time, between trains

This would only work on sections without junctions of course.

I have noticed that there is a signal mid-way down the platform at Blackfriars in both directions which I guess can be used (the old fashioned way) to emulate this. i.e. train A can start to move before train B has totally vacated the platform.
As far as I can work out this isn't being done currently though I can't tell if that is due to a delay in the drivers reaction and the acceleration of the train, or if the overlaps are such that the signal takes a while to clear.


It seems unlikely to me that this hasn't been thought of before therefore I assume it has and is a bad idea for one reason or another.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's called ETCS Level 2 with ATO, and is exactly what will be in use from 2018. The difference between then and now being that the drivers won't be driving.

Some news on the Class 700 build.

• 30 carriages now built
  
• 15 more under construction
  
• At peak two carriages a week will be produced to build a train a week.
  
• First proper testing of a unit will be March/April
  
• First unit arrives in the UK August 2015
  
• First unit commissioned is set for 18/12/2015
  
• First unit in service early 2016 (Feb/March)
  
• The 700s will have the six digit carriage numbers of 40xxxx for the 8 car 700/0 and 41xxxx for the 12 car 700/1.
  
• 8 car 700/0 weights 278 tonnes compared to 344t for a 8 car 450.

That's an impressive diet they put the Desiro family on...

ainsworth74 said:

That's an impressive diet they put the Desiro family on...

Click to expand...

It is. The acceleration of the units from a standing start is key, and the weight of it has been really crucial. That's why fittings such as plug sockets and possibly also tables are missing from Standard Class.

DJL said:

Would it be possible to implement some kind of "virtual coupling" whereby signals become more or less irrelevant and the maximum speed of a train is dictated by the train in front of it.

So on arrival at Blackfriars northbound, for example, a train (we'll call this train A) would cruise right up to the edge of the platform but not quite enter it.
Then as the train in front (we'll call this train B) starts to move, so does train A, at the same speed.
Until, that is, train A reaches the point at which it will start slowing down for the platform.

This would have the effect of reducing the distance, and therefore time, between trains

This would only work on sections without junctions of course.

I have noticed that there is a signal mid-way down the platform at Blackfriars in both directions which I guess can be used (the old fashioned way) to emulate this. i.e. train A can start to move before train B has totally vacated the platform.
As far as I can work out this isn't being done currently though I can't tell if that is due to a delay in the drivers reaction and the acceleration of the train, or if the overlaps are such that the signal takes a while to clear.


It seems unlikely to me that this hasn't been thought of before therefore I assume it has and is a bad idea for one reason or another.

Click to expand...

Thalys S40 does this rather well, it is used as "TBTC" on the Northern Line and Jubilee Line.

However, if you use good old fassioned signalling principals, properly, and impliment it well with something like CBTC (Victoria Line and Central Line) an equally impressive throughput is possible.

Such implimentations nowerdays are backed by hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of computer simulations to make sure the Block Marker Boards, Signal Heads, Overlaps, Speed Restrictions, Stopping Points, and even the way that ATO attacks the stopping points, is all, perfect.

tsr said:

It is. The acceleration of the units from a standing start is key, and the weight of it has been really crucial. That's why fittings such as plug sockets and possibly also tables are missing from Standard Class.

Click to expand...

And seats!

tsr said:

It is. The acceleration of the units from a standing start is key, and the weight of it has been really crucial. That's why fittings such as plug sockets and possibly also tables are missing from Standard Class.

Click to expand...

Acceleration from a standing start doesn't depend on train weight, simply on adhesion and the percentage of that weight that sits on motored axles.

Do you mean acceleration at higher speeds?

edwin_m said:

Acceleration from a standing start doesn't depend on train weight, simply on adhesion and the percentage of that weight that sits on motored axles.

Do you mean acceleration at higher speeds?

Click to expand...

But surely it does if you have limited power available i.e. via the 3rd rail? SWT's Desiro acceleration rates are limited because of 3rd rail issues for example.
Or just even reducing the running costs by being energy efficient?

Also see NR presentation on 3rd rail to OHLE swap from about 15months ago which showed better acceleration (and faster journeys) of SWML services with OHLE.

I don't think the 450s are much slower off the mark than a 350. 455driver will be explain in greater detail than me, but my understanding is while accelerating they operate at 100% power, but once on the move they are reduced to 50%.

hwl said:

But surely it does if you have limited power available i.e. via the 3rd rail? SWT's Desiro acceleration rates are limited because of 3rd rail issues for example.
Or just even reducing the running costs by being energy efficient?

Also see NR presentation on 3rd rail to OHLE swap from about 15months ago which showed better acceleration (and faster journeys) of SWML services with OHLE.

Click to expand...

From a standing start (which is where we came in) acceleration is limited by adhesion. Above a certain speed acceleration becomes limited by power. That speed depends on factors including how much power is available.

The full carriage numbers have been released for the class 700 fleet. The 8 car 700/0 follows a logic with certain carriages 'skipped'. The last three digits are always the unit number.

700/0 8 car

DMCO 401xxx
PTSO 402xxx
MSO 403xxx
TSO 406xxx
TSO 407xxx
MSO 410xxx
PTSO 411xxx
DMCO 412xxx

700/1 12 car

DMCO 401xxx
PTSO 402xxx
MSO 403xxx
MSO 404xxx
TSO 405xxx
TSO 406xxx
TSO 407xxx
TSO 408xxx
MSO 409xxx
MSO 410xxx
PTSO 411xxx
DMCO 412xxx

Siemens gives an update in the latest Modern Railways of the fleet building.

By April it had completed 40 body shells
First 12 car is at Wildenrath with second due by later in April (so two whole 12 cars there now)

There's also a few pictures of the class 700 carriages in the extreme weather testing center in Vienna and a shot a 700 alongside another carriage.

To compare Today's Railways stated in its March issue that Siemens had completed 30 carriages and another 15 under construction.

Class377/5 said:

Siemens gives an update in the latest Modern Railways of the fleet building.

By April it had completed 40 body shells
First 12 car is at Wildenrath with second due by later in April (so two whole 12 cars there now)

There's also a few pictures of the class 700 carriages in the extreme weather testing center in Vienna and a shot a 700 alongside another carriage.

To compare Today's Railways stated in its March issue that Siemens had completed 30 carriages and another 15 under construction.

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting it on here, by the way (and on WNXX too). Good to see the construction coming along well. Even if the first won't be with us until December 2015, it's good to see it's progressing nicely.

If there's two full sets fully constructed, and another 16 odd body shells done, will there not be quite a stockpile building up by the time the first unit is introduced? It's over 18 months until the first delivery due - or do they plan to introduce a large number of them at once? My understanding was they'd trickle in at regular intervals over the following couple of years...

samuelmorris said:

If there's two full sets fully constructed, and another 16 odd body shells done, will there not be quite a stockpile building up by the time the first unit is introduced? It's over 18 months until the first delivery due - or do they plan to introduce a large number of them at once? My understanding was they'd trickle in at regular intervals over the following couple of years...

Click to expand...

I'm guessing Siemens have the capacity to build them now and space to store them so they are doing so. IIRC they had quite a large stock of 450s at Wildenrath. After Thameslink Siemens have a huge order for ICx units for DB (300 7-10 car sets IIRC with Bombardier also building vehicles as a subcontractor) so that may also be why they are speeding ahead with production even if TSGN won't take delivery until 2015

Building trains early, that's a bit radical. Those Germans with their weird working practices

Didn't Siemens start building some aspects of the 700 order before they were actually awarded the contract I seem to remember reading that on here?

Todays German LOK REPORT news page has an image of a 700 car after leaving Wien Arsenel test centre on a road low loader.

--
Nick

Mikey C said:

Building trains early, that's a bit radical. Those Germans with their weird working practices

Click to expand...

I bet they won't even have to send the trains back for modification work either. To be honest, I don't know why they even bother.

Well, on a 'keeping people busy' front they clearly won't win against Bombardier Transportation, that's a lot of future work in the bag when you order trains off them.

Manchester77 said:

Didn't Siemens start building some aspects of the 700 order before they were actually awarded the contract I seem to remember reading that on here?

Click to expand...

They did! That's one of the aspects I like about Siemens, the fact they were prepared to risk their own money building (and integrating various aspects into the 380s) parts of the Desiro City to test them before the actual contract was fully signed off - including building a few test bogies, as Siemens rather well know that even if the contract was severely scuppered or cancelled altogether, they can then go on to use what is already built and what works / what doesn't into future orders for future rolling stock, either for Britain or another country. Quite the opposite to Bombardier and the Aventra, who started redesign and rectification work on Aventra II for Crossrail as late as last November. And as you say jonmorris0844, rarely have to send stock back to the factory for rectification work either!

Another reason for building all these Desiro Cities (or is it Desiro City's?) early is probably - apart from giving them a good amount of time to rectify any issues before an entry to service, is if their chasing more UK or European contracts - The long mooted Desiro Cities for SWT Suburban services, further electrification of the UK Network, ScotRail EGIP trains etc...