Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'UK Railway Discussion' started by Wivenswold, 9 Dec 2018.
6 out of 7 is not too bad.
they have had these things in storage for the best part of a year.
not exactly in any rush,are they?
I really ought to comment here.
these sort of excuses really are feeble.
the only saving grace you have is you are swamped by pointless paperwork.
frankly,you need a dose on "on a war footing" logistics.
it will be made to work...well,adequately enough to complete the task required, mostly on the job.
They very much are in a rush and a fortune has so far been spent. A very respectable 100% of Norwich guards along with over 90% of Norwich drivers are now fully trained. Cambridge drivers are priority now ready for the bimode Stansted launch in December. What with this, Artisan training, rebuilding Crown Point, fault free running & getting ORR/Network Rail approval for the first Stadler fleet in the UK makes the task in hand a massive one.
And when something goes wrong because your training was only 'adequate' ? No point in trying to explain what is really involved here if it's just going to be dismissed as excuses.
3-4 out in service today(rode on 2) seem to be having a better day for rolling stock than yesterday. Nice units.
Actually 5-6 today.
if the RAF adopted the "safety first" mentality for everything,the whole bloody fleet would be grounded!
problem with IFF....sortie still needs doing.
just have to risk it and notify control and other countries radar operators(friendly/coalition ones) of the extra plane they're likely to see...and pray they don't open fire!
Command need targets x,y,z neutralised in this order on this date-battlefield logistics are not rigid either and subject to change because of hostile forces tactics,inclement weather etc, but mechanical/personnel unpreparedness is not one of factors in play.crew and equipment are expected to be ready to go whatever
that's also a potentially a life threatening situation!!!
When you're at war, things are rather different. Doing something dangerous is part of the job, combat in any form is life-threatening! People aren't exactly going to die from using a 156 over a 755, or a replacement bus service for that matter. Yes, I think the time taken to get new rolling stock fleets in place in this country is poor even considering the work involved, but not only is this actually one of the better examples (the units were in service the same calendar year they were expected to be and several are now working without being recalled for safety-critical design defects), but there is just simply no need for wartime levels of productivity. Everybody should work acceptable length days without long-term effects on their health and to deliver anything for a remotely reasonable price under those conditions takes an order of magnitude longer than 'the good old days'. If the 755/3s still haven't been approved by christmas, I will happily revise that statement, but for now, they're not actually doing so bad, frustrating as it is.
And I think currently, within the RAF, if they found an aircraft had a fault they would ground it, pending rectification, everyone seems to be blaming GA, but of course 'on test' the units still belong to Stadler, and run by ROG, and not handed over / accepted by GA.
We are not in the RAF we are the railway. If everything has to be grounded so be it whether it's a month or a year.
Some people i know need to be told they’re not in the ****** RAF anymore!
The problem with GA is the timescale proposed by the bid management, without adequately consulting their operations team for the introduction in service of two unproven fleets was completely unrealistic.
Not saying that Stadler are without fault but anyone who had experience of similar projects that I spoke to when the timescale was outlined felt that they wouldn't come close to achieving it.
It's funny you should talk about the RAF, because whilst GA did have mostly former bid managers in their executive team at the start of the franchise, the engineering director and some of the managers in that department were parachuted in from the airplane industry with no rail experience who may well have worked in the RAF!
To be fair to GA, I somewhat disagree about that - I think Q2 2019 was a perfectly reasonable expectation to get some units into service. Replacing all the non-PRM stock by the deadline is another matter entirely, but you had to be seen to be trying to do it, the bid would likely never have been accepted otherwise. You could argue that choosing an unproven manufacturer for the UK and a manufacturer with a proven bad track record for delivering new designs in a timely manner, was questionable, but realistically, it is no fault of GA's bid team the Aventra line is so far behind schedule. A few months' slippage would have been anticipated I'm sure, but more than a year? Not likely.
My main complaint about the GA bid is not the timescales at all, it's just the numbers, fleet size, unit vehicle length and so on. Expecting new trains (even if there are too many, the wrong size etc) to arrive 30 months after they were ordered doesn't seem unrealistic, surely?
Nobody said it was an unrealistic expectation to get some units into service, but the problem with Greater Anglia is that the speed and amount being delivered into service was completely unrealistic and was the result of a proposal and belief of people who know the theory of everything and the practice of nothing.
Having a tight timeframe and choosing an Unproven manufacturer for the UK that has a tendency to engage in blame culture on it's suppliers, according to another member of this forum, and a manufacturer which has an awful track record for delivering trains on time was questionable, there's no doubt about that. That's where the lack of experience of the management team in operationally delivering similar projects in practice rather than in theory and on paper shows up hugely.
With this kind of project and many of the senior management team coming from a bid management background rather than an operational one, the advice and input of an experienced operational team who had been there and done that was always going to be critical, backed up by an engineering director who has been there and done that.
Not only were they apparently deaf to the opinions of their operations team and think they know better, they managed to replace one of the most respected engineering directors in the industry with someone who had only ever worked with planes and was new to the industry. That was a huge mistake and such lack of balance in the management team may well be why we are where we are today.
Yes you can argue GA had to propose something radical to win the bid, but if that is what franchised railways are about now, the bidders propose something ridiculous and unrealistic to win a bid and then quickly jump ship afterwards and leave the operations team whose protests were previously ignored to take the flack for the pup that they were sold, then the industry is fundamentally broken.
And I'm sure you know from my posts since the bid was released that I have problems with that as well, however that is further down the line at the moment and the time for debating that in detail is going to be later on when the proverbial is really going to hit the fan. But again it all comes down to the fact that the bid managers didn't seek adequate input of the operations side who would no doubt have pointed these things out if they had chance to scrutinise them beforehand and have an input.
Expecting new trains to arrive 30 months after they were ordered in some cases isn't unrealistic, but when it's a new manufacturer that has never operated in the UK and an manufacturer that has a history of having bugging software and massive delays on production runs, then the management team should have allowed a bigger margin for error. It's not like it's a follow on or repeat order of previously proven stock.
Not suggesting the bid needed to be radical, it just needed to demonstrate that something was being done about meeting PRM-TSI by 31-12-19. Rather than retrofit all the existing stock, they took the option to replace it instead. They'd have had to have done at least one or the other, even if it ultimately transpires nobody will be ready for that deadline.
As for allowing a margin for error with the unproven supplier, there are 755/4s in service and plenty of 745s undergoing testing and training. Where are the 720s?
I did... Seriously I don't think anyone here thought there would be any new trains in April. Trains almost never enter service on time except for follow on orders. But for an unproven manufacturer Stadler are coping well, even if there is some blame culture. They are far beyond Bombardier which frankly at the moment is a joke and I don't think anyone can disagree with that. If you ignore the bid promises, we aren't doing too badly with the Stadlers, its the Aventras that are so backlogged in Derby and they can't get their 'proverbial' together. The rollout has been very slow and painful so far, more for the Aventra side.
They were willing to promise something daring to win it. If they hadn't, they would've lost the bid to an operator who did and that operator would have been given a long term franchise contract off the bat.
Now the government are changing the system to something heavily criticized on other pages (along the lines of 'Tories localizing railway funding to local departments and underfunding said department so that they can disperse blame down the ladder when local dept. inevitably can't do anything with so little money').
Bombardier will make sure there is a large float of 720 before any deliveries start as a small smattering of units often doesn't help with introduction to service. I suspect the first one won't be delivered till at least 8 units have gone through testing (but not necessarily all mileage accumulation and there is no sign of WCML mileage accumulation that previous Bombardier stock was doing pre-entry into service yet.)
Another reason that Derby is backed up is that they had to rewire all the S-Stock (192 units) blocking a production line as the 3rd attempt at SSR resignalling from Thales needed substantially more and different on train wiring than either of the first 2 signalling proposals.
Agreed, as dismal as the UK railway is for performance, I'd much rather it have a reputation for delays than a reputation for the likes of Southall, Ladbroke Grove, Potters Bar, Hatfield etc.
Not on railways at least. Roadways...
Sigh. 1600 to Norwich cancelled "due to a train fault". I had a funny feeling the 1630 would be a pai of rammed 321s, which is indeed the case.
Heads-up for anyone heading to their GEML station this morning. OHL down Colchester to Marks Tey. Both lines blocked until at least (ETA) 09:00.
Heads-up for anyone heading to their GEML station this morning. OHL down Colchester to Marks Tey. Both lines blocked until (ETA)
There is the possibility a very limited service may start at Colchester via the up & down Goods Roads in/out of platform 1. This however will have to be operated by 4 or 8-car EMUs only.
Third day in a row I believe there have been early morning mainline issues?
1G17 first up via the goods lines on its way to London. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O51316/2019-10-24/detailed
Actually it looks like 1G01 was the first up https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O51312/2019-10-24/detailed
The rare track bashers will be out in force
How much damage was done? And by what?
Whilst today is a Unit or possible OHL fault, not sure a fatality can be blamed for íssues? os for OHL this is the 1st OHL trouble at Colchester for many years !
If they can run via the Goods Line, then it will be one train each way, and any IC service will not be able to call at Colchester, as has been said a maximum 8 car EMU, depending on the Isolation and bock needed, will dictate whether they can go back Up Main at the London end Junction or haveto go bi-di to Marks Tey/Kelevdeon
edit..lookslike they can shorten the isolation to part of the station as far as the L/E junction, which will haelp running via the goods, still only one train at a time L/E Junction to C/S Platform 1 tho