Greater Anglia Rolling Stock Updates

[Railperf]

Not what I was told by an Ipswich based colleague yesterday. If that was the case a Stadler would have stood in occasionally if trained crew where available rather than cancel & it's not happened yet. The Manea crossing issue remains so it's not entirely untrue.

What is the Manea crossing issue?

 

[Railperf]

Not what I was told by an Ipswich based colleague yesterday. If that was the case a Stadler would have stood in occasionally if trained crew where available rather than cancel & it's not happened yet. The Manea crossing issue remains so it's not entirely untrue.

How can anyone diagram a unit occasionally on Ipswich to Peterboro? The available units have been diagrammed on the routes where they can guarantee enough trained drivers to fulfill a daily diagram. My understanding is that if there were enough trained drivers and spare units to fulfill a daily diagram to Peterboro diagram..(including back ups) then it would happen. Wouldn't an issue with ASDO only affect the places the train can stop as per the early days of 755s on Gt Yarmouth and Lowestoft services?

 

[bspahh]

What is the Manea crossing issue?

The reasons have been discussed in this thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...pswich-service-abandoned.197672/#post-4363144

 

[Railperf]

The reasons have been discussed in this thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...pswich-service-abandoned.197672/#post-4363144

Thx for the link

 

[dk1]

What is the Manea crossing issue?

So much going on there. If ASDO isn't working at Manea, March, or Whittlsea there's no chance of working trains on that route. No driver will agree to working it & no TOC would dare try to ask them to in the first place.

 

[F Great Eastern]

So much going on there. If ASDO isn't working at Manea, March, or Whittlsea there's no chance of working trains on that route. No driver will agree to working it & no TOC would dare try to ask them to in the first place.

That may be the case, but the TOC has said they are cleared for the route, which to the vast majority of population means that the trains should be able to run on the route, not that they are able to run on the route but can't because of some other reasons.

If what you say is correct, wouldn't it be more prudent and correct for the operator to say to it's patrons that it's new trains are not running on the route due to a technical issue with their new trains at certain stations on the line? They haven't done this so it suggests that what you say may not be true, so we have a discrepancy here.

It does however, seem that Greater Anglia are extremely unlucky that this roll-out is being effected by so many problems in the last few months, none of which have anything to do with the design and performance of their new trains. You have to feel sorry for them and their continued bad luck and hopefully a new year will bring better luck and the end of those pesky faults with the signalling system.

 

[700007]

I'm not sure with regard to the attribution 'behind the scenes' as it were, the cancellation codes that seem to be used are YI (late arrival of inbound service) so that's not quite so easy to predict. You're right, however, in that concealing the real reason from the public might also be having an SWT-effect on the figures.

As for TfL's 360s I'm honestly not sure, they've been panned for reliability since TfL took over and I don't really understand why one of, if not the most reliable rolling stock product in the UK is rock bottom in the EMUs table apart from the 9-car 345s which are a bit of an edge case at the moment to say the least. That's for discussion in another thread though.

Just a quick diversion off topic but the reason the TfL Rail class 360 are so poor is that Heathrow Airport owns the trains and leases them out to TfL. Siemens maintains the trains but Heathrow gives 'chicken change' to maintaining the trains (basically, the bare minimum). There's one unit that's quite notorious for conking out most of the time. It's why they're in such a poor state alongside the 332s mechanically speaking. Without much money, Siemens can only do so much with trying to fix the many problems they have.

 

[dk1]

Appears 755s will be introduced within the next few days on the Ipswich-Peterborough route. Going to be quite a week on the network what with 745/0 introduction planned on the main line.

 

[43096]

Had my first experience of a 755 yesterday, and have to say I was impressed. I had high expectations of them, and I wasn't disappointed. I tried various seats, including next to the power car (which as a diesel-head I enjoyed; the noise was of similar level to what you get in a 158), mid coach (no "traction" noise at all) and next to the cab (sounds like an EMU).

The good points:
- level boarding: this is where the use of the power car really scores as it means a low floor can be used. Interesting to see a wheelchair boarding at Brundall with, as far as I could see, no help from on-train staff - just wheeled on.
- seats. Every new train since the 700s has had rubbish seats. The seats on the 755 are massively better than anything since we started getting "ironing boards"; way better than an IET for example.
- build quality. Having used Stadler trains overseas, I'd expect the finish to be good, and it is.
- performance. These things shift, especially on 25kV. I reckon we did 0-60 in around 40secs out of Cambridge North, and it felt like it had something in reserve. Likewise, performance on diesel was much better than the existing fleet, especially the asthmatic 170s.

Downsides
- the strut supporting the cantilever seats is annoying in the window seats, as you can't stretch your legs out.
- slightly harsh ride quality, especially on jointed track when sat over a bogie. They're not bad (much better than the appalling IETs) but not as "soft" as you'd like.

Overall, I'd rate them 9/10. They are a huge upgrade on everything in the GA regional fleet (including 170s), and utterly transformative over 150/153/156 type units. With the level access as well, they really ought to be the new standard for regional trains - if we're serious about getting people out of their cars, we ought to be replacing regional fleets with these rather than the CAF rubbish.

 

[F Great Eastern]

I wouldn't disagree with that but be very careful about wishing everywhere the same seats. Those seats were not chosen for comfort, they were chosen for the fact that they've actively traded proper legroom for a niche in the back of the seat in front to cram more in as that is the USP of that particular seat. If you are not tall this is no problem, but if you are it's a problem.

I find the seats fine but the legroom in the airline seats is very poor for anyone over 6ft1. A high density seat with a niche for knees is nowhere near as good as a slightly lower density seat with proper legroom and you add to that the cantilever on the window seats and there's not many good seats for a tall person, unless you pick the aisle seat or extra legroom seat..

Certainly the seats are more comfortable than the original FISA Lean product so kudos to Greater Anglia for that, but unfortunately having my legs crammed into a small niche or a cantilever stopping me spreading my legs properly means any gain in comfort of the seat itself is lost because of the seating layout and the lack of consideration given to tall people in the name of maximum capacity.

It's a shame, because in all other aspects these trains are a step forward from what they are replacing, but having sat in an airline seat a few times, I find the legroom much poorer and my legs almost feel claustrophobic because of the layout than a 156 or 170. Will have to see how often I can get an extra legroom or table seat, if it's rare then the car seems more attractive.

I agree they are better trains than the CAF stuff, without a doubt, but I actually prefer the seating layout on CAF trains, even if the train itself is inferior in every other way.

 

[43096]

I wouldn't disagree with that but be very careful about wishing everywhere the same seats. Those seats were not chosen for comfort, they were chosen for the fact that they've actively traded proper legroom for a niche in the back of the seat in front to cram more in as that is the USP of that particular seat. If you are not tall this is no problem, but if you are it's a problem.

I find the seats fine but the legroom in the airline seats is very poor for anyone over 6ft1. A high density seat with a niche for knees is nowhere near as good as a slightly lower density seat with proper legroom and you add to that the cantilever on the window seats and there's not many good seats for a tall person, unless you pick the aisle seat or extra legroom seat..

Certainly the seats are more comfortable than the original FISA Lean product so kudos to Greater Anglia for that, but unfortunately having my legs crammed into a small niche or a cantilever stopping me spreading my legs properly means any gain in comfort of the seat itself is lost because of the seating layout and the lack of consideration given to tall people in the name of maximum capacity.

It's a shame, because in all other aspects these trains are a step forward from what they are replacing, but having sat in an airline seat a few times, I find the legroom much poorer and my legs almost feel claustrophobic because of the layout than a 156 or 170. Will have to see how often I can get an extra legroom or table seat, if it's rare then the car seems more attractive.

I agree they are better trains than the CAF stuff, without a doubt, but I actually prefer the seating layout on CAF trains, even if the train itself is inferior in every other way.

I'm not tall, so not an issue for me - but I could see how it would be. Probably history repeating itself from when the first Turbostars appeared which had one row too many of seats in them.

 

[Railperf]

Had my first experience of a 755 yesterday, and have to say I was impressed. I had high expectations of them, and I wasn't disappointed. I tried various seats, including next to the power car (which as a diesel-head I enjoyed; the noise was of similar level to what you get in a 158), mid coach (no "traction" noise at all) and next to the cab (sounds like an EMU).

The good points:
- level boarding: this is where the use of the power car really scores as it means a low floor can be used. Interesting to see a wheelchair boarding at Brundall with, as far as I could see, no help from on-train staff - just wheeled on.
- seats. Every new train since the 700s has had rubbish seats. The seats on the 755 are massively better than anything since we started getting "ironing boards"; way better than an IET for example.
- build quality. Having used Stadler trains overseas, I'd expect the finish to be good, and it is.
- performance. These things shift, especially on 25kV. I reckon we did 0-60 in around 40secs out of Cambridge North, and it felt like it had something in reserve.

I reckon both the 3 and 4 car variants would easily do 125mph on electric with that power to weight ratio without an extra powered bogie. Only the 100moh speed limiter interrupts the sheer rate of acceleration on electric.
And probably the 4-car diesel would come close to 125mph. Ultimately it all depends on the traction motor gearing i guess!

 

[Rick1984]

What I found more than lack of leg room is, becuse your sat very low your right where the body side curves in. Obviously this is just the low seats

 

[hwinter]

[If anything is ever certain] see post 3227^^^
which suggests 31st Jan 2020.

170271 is no longer planned to leave at the end of January anymore, she is possibly leaving in March/April but could and hopefully be longer

 

[Railperf]

Had the joy of the 'short' Mk 3 set today (two coaches locked out of use). Still - managed a record sub 36 min time Colchester to Stratford. Amazing how fast the GEML can be when there are fewer trains on the line affording a clear run.

 

[samuelmorris]

I reckon both the 3 and 4 car variants would easily do 125mph on electric with that power to weight ratio without an extra powered bogie. Only the 100moh speed limiter interrupts the sheer rate of acceleration on electric.
And probably the 4-car diesel would come close to 125mph. Ultimately it all depends on the traction motor gearing i guess!

Basically the same units do abroad, don't they? I'm sure the same Flirt product is geared for 200k in some countries. I can certainly see why.

 

[Railperf]

Basically the same units do abroad, don't they? I'm sure the same Flirt product is geared for 200k in some countries. I can certainly see why.

I would not be surprised if GA units are geared for 200 km/h but simply limited electronically.
Anyone claiming the 3-car units are underpowered for 60 and 75mph routes - eat your words. They are a performance step up from class 153, 156 and 170s.

 

[ashkeba]

170271 is no longer planned to leave at the end of January anymore, she is possibly leaving in March/April but could and hopefully be longer

Why would anyone be hoping for a grotty old turd-o-star to stay longer? Where will it be maintained? Will it be maintained?

 

[Railperf]

I would not be surprised if GA units are geared for 200 km/h but simply limited electronically.
Anyone claiming the 3-car units are underpowered for 60 and 75mph routes - eat your words. They are a performance step up from class 153, 156 and 170s.

So 755/4s weigh in at 163.4t per unit and the 3-car 755/3s are 135 t - plated unit weights. So 9.5 hp/t in diesel mode - which is on a par with an HST!!!

 

[chubs]

Why would anyone be hoping for a grotty old turd-o-star to stay longer? Where will it be maintained? Will it be maintained?

This.

How many 755's are left to be accepted?

Really cant see why we need one 170 when we're so close to replacing all trains.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Well there are 27 local services cancelled this morning and that is with the 170 in service. That's over 30 reasons to keep it for longer.

A 156 has gone today.

 

[Shunter_69]

I heard it was the 170 that had the fault

 

[F Great Eastern]

I heard it was the 170 that had the fault

There's a few more than one train out of service this morning with a fault.

 

[samuelmorris]

Why would anyone be hoping for a grotty old turd-o-star to stay longer? Where will it be maintained? Will it be maintained?

Because a 170 is better than no train at all? There are clearly still issues with fleet availability for the time being so retaining at least one legacy unit, and let's face it, one of the better ones, will be very useful!
It's not just about every 755 being accepted, it's that there need to be significantly more 755s than there were legacy units until their reliability matches that of the units they replaced. I don't think we're there yet. GA's 170s were running at about 10,000 MTIN, their 156s between 4000 and 8000, and their 153s 8000 to 12000. As of mid-October, 755s had just come up into the 3000s, but the "signalling issues" period probably means they haven't got much further in the last couple of months.

 

[ashkeba]

Because a 170 is better than no train at all? There are clearly still issues with fleet availability for the time being so retaining at least one legacy unit, and let's face it, one of the better ones, will be very useful!

How is one of the 2-cars one of the better ones?!? At least if it was a 3, peak travellers wouldn't be mentally sizing up who they can beat to the seats as they see it clagging into the platform!

Yes, a 170 is better than no train, but surely we should be hoping availability and reliability improve, not that one of the grotty old units has to linger on. And will its reliability remain good if there is no local maintenance?

 

[samuelmorris]

How is one of the 2-cars one of the better ones?!?

Because it's not a 156

Keeping a 170 in standby doesn't really in any significant way prevent the rollout of 755s from continuing. I don't really see what the issue is.

 

[Icky Qualms]

I'm sure TFW can't wait to get their hands on that "grotty old unit".

 

[F Great Eastern]

A 170 is not a grotty old unit, honestly, they were given a fairly good refresh recently.

A 153 on the other hand....

 

[Railperf]

170271 is in far better mechanical condition than any of the 156s. It performs reasonably well too. After a few runs between Stowmarket and Ipswich on the super fast 755 electrics, a ride in the 170 reminded me how good and comfy these units are - and much as i hate to say it - they go pretty well too. The 156's on the other hand - awful in every way. The 153's are no better or worse than the 156 except when it replaces and 3 or 4 car train and is full and standing!

 

[samuelmorris]

170271 is in far better mechanical condition than any of the 156s. It performs reasonably well too. After a few runs between Stowmarket and Ipswich on the super fast 755 electrics, a ride in the 170 reminded me how good and comfy these units are - and much as i hate to say it - they go pretty well too. The 156's on the other hand - awful in every way. The 153's are no better or worse than the 156 except when it replaces and 3 or 4 car train and is full and standing!

That the 156s are half as reliable as the 153s is a little odd, I would say hopefully they'll do better in EMR land but their 156 fleet also looks like it might be on a downward trend and isn't scoring much higher. Oh well, fortunately they'll soon all be replace by 'grotty old' 170s (The WMR examples of which currently score 20k+)