Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[The Box Photter]

Train 1W96 cancelled again tonight.

 

[JonathanH]

Train 1W96 cancelled again tonight.

That isn't mentioned on the Thameslink website.

501 -

17:32 Brighton to London Bridge due 18:35

This train will be cancelled.
This is due to a fault on this train.

502 -

18:24 Bedford to Three Bridges due 20:30

This train will be cancelled.
This is due to a fault on this train.

503 -

17:20 Bedford to Three Bridges due 19:33

This train has been delayed from Bedford and is now 10 minutes late.
This is due to a broken down train earlier today.

504 - 16:35 Brighton to Bedford

Not mentioned on Thameslink website but cancelled on RTT (the entire diagram has been cancelled)

505 - 18:35 Brighton to Bedford

Running but reported earlier as 12-387 on ukmodernemu yahoo group

 

[The Box Photter]

Thameslink Twitter feed has confirmed that 1W96 was cancelled due to failure. In addition I was waiting for it on the platform at Blackfriars.

Class 700s are wreaking havoc on the already fragile timetable.

Why all the failures? Doors, brakes, CIS etc.

We've been assured that each unit has completed X-hundred miles of fault-free testing by Siemens. Clearly the testing regime hasn't been rigorous enough and doesn't replicate real-world conditions.

At what point does GTR realise that the Class 700s aren't ready for service and make enquiries with GWR/Bombardier about "borrowing" some green Class 387s?

 

[physics34]

That isn't mentioned on the Thameslink website.

501 -

502 -

503 -

504 - 16:35 Brighton to Bedford

Not mentioned on Thameslink website but cancelled on RTT (the entire diagram has been cancelled)

505 - 18:35 Brighton to Bedford

Running but reported earlier as 12-387 on ukmodernemu yahoo group

oh dear lol

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Thameslink Twitter feed has confirmed that 1W96 was cancelled due to failure. In addition I was waiting for it on the platform at Blackfriars.

Class 700s are wreaking havoc on the already fragile timetable.

Why all the failures? Doors, brakes, CIS etc.

We've been assured that each unit has completed X-hundred miles of fault-free testing by Siemens. Clearly the testing regime hasn't been rigorous enough and doesn't replicate real-world conditions.

At what point does GTR realise that the Class 700s aren't ready for service and make enquiries with GWR/Bombardier about "borrowing" some green Class 387s?

Where's the evidence/assurance that each unit has completed X-hundred miles of fault free testing? Conditions on the Siemens test track are obviously very different to those on the BML/MML and the core.

I think one just has to be patient. Better to find all the faults now and get them rectified before mainstream introduction.

Or just run them during the slacks

I'm sure Northern can wait for some more 319's a bit longer; I know they're getting on in years but at least they work...

And of course, its getting the drivers familiarised with the stock

 

[absolutelymilk]

Class 700s are wreaking havoc on the already fragile timetable.

Why all the failures? Doors, brakes, CIS etc.

We've been assured that each unit has completed X-hundred miles of fault-free testing by Siemens. Clearly the testing regime hasn't been rigorous enough and doesn't replicate real-world conditions.

At what point does GTR realise that the Class 700s aren't ready for service and make enquiries with GWR/Bombardier about "borrowing" some green Class 387s?

Have you seen/do you have some statistics about that or is this anecdotal?

 

[W230]

Why all the failures? Doors, brakes, CIS etc.

Mostly software issues. In fact I should think it's only software issues.

It's just nowadays the software controls everything! I had one chuck the brake on the other day for no reason. Got it going again. Then there was the issues with braking in neutral sections (we're trying to avoid that one now, or just braking more lightly ).

Issues with doors that won't open, again software related. I'm not sure how much this has been a unit problem or maybe driver familiarity issue as although i've had plenty of doors issues I have at least eventually got them open...

HMI/DMI screen not working or on intermittently. That's been a failure around a few times.

It's basically all software bugs and glitches that get ironed out as time progresses. They have to complete I think 1500 fault free miles or the counter gets reset again. The only problem is that the ones out now have done that.

Basically it's bathtub curve time and we're sliding down the sides at the moment!

 

[The Box Photter]

Mostly software issues. In fact I should think it's only software issues.

It's just nowadays the software controls everything! I had one chuck the brake on the other day for no reason. Got it going again. Then there was the issues with braking in neutral sections (we're trying to avoid that one now, or just braking more lightly ).

Issues with doors that won't open, again software related. I'm not sure how much this has been a unit problem or maybe driver familiarity issue as although i've had plenty of doors issues I have at least eventually got them open...

HMI/DMI screen not working or on intermittently. That's been a failure around a few times.

It's basically all software bugs and glitches that get ironed out as time progresses. They have to complete I think 1500 fault free miles or the counter gets reset again. The only problem is that the ones out now have done that.

Basically it's bathtub curve time and we're sliding down the sides at the moment!

Why do the travelling public have to put up with the chaos caused by trains that don't work out of the box. The contract with Siemens must specify minimum availability percentages, otherwise how can the trains even be allowed out on the main line?

Assuming there are financial penalty clauses in place for non-functioning trains, who gets the penalty payments? Presumably GTR/DfT. Passengers get nowt but a late journey home/to work.

We no longer put up with Friday afternoon cars, yet the industry as a whole is content to procure ever more complex trains that fail because of ever more trivial reasons. Why do so many systems rely on on-board computers? Why does the train have to communicate with GPS satellites just so the doors can be opened? Isn't part of the skill of driving the ability to stop the train in the correct place so that passengers can alight and board?

The fragmentation of the British Rail industry means that no one TOC or ROSCO has the purchasing power to demand a bulk order of simple, reliable trains that put the passenger rather than the designer and manufacturer first.

Pilots have a mantra - "Never fly the A-model of anything" meaning that as aircraft are developed, they get better and more reliable. Every time a new batch of trains is ordered, we get the A-model and nothing else.

 

[Class377/5]

Mostly software issues. In fact I should think it's only software issues.

It's just nowadays the software controls everything! I had one chuck the brake on the other day for no reason. Got it going again. Then there was the issues with braking in neutral sections (we're trying to avoid that one now, or just braking more lightly ).

Issues with doors that won't open, again software related. I'm not sure how much this has been a unit problem or maybe driver familiarity issue as although i've had plenty of doors issues I have at least eventually got them open...

HMI/DMI screen not working or on intermittently. That's been a failure around a few times.

It's basically all software bugs and glitches that get ironed out as time progresses. They have to complete I think 1500 fault free miles or the counter gets reset again. The only problem is that the ones out now have done that.

Basically it's bathtub curve time and we're sliding down the sides at the moment!

Worth noting the 700 are not subject to 1500 miles of overall testing but far higher over all. Worth noting that the next 700 delivery has done nearly twice as many on test since it's last exam as any of the 387s have done on test! And that's without the UK fault free running being taken into account.

Funny how on a day (week might be more sensible) where the 319s have destroyed the timetable some on here are looking only at the 700s. Or the failure of a 12 car 387 today.

And not all failure have been the units or the units reacting as they are supposed to do and failing in a safe manner.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Why do the travelling public have to put up with the chaos caused by trains that don't work out of the box. The contract with Siemens must specify minimum availability percentages, otherwise how can the trains even be allowed out on the main line?

The problem for rolling stock is that it's not possible to undertake every aspect of testing on test tracks. That's why a limited program of running is being undertaken to slowly introduce these units into service, and to gather the data needed to ensure the work reliably when fully introduced.

Assuming there are financial penalty clauses in place for non-functioning trains, who gets the penalty payments? Presumably GTR/DfT. Passengers get nowt but a late journey home/to work.

That's between you, GTR and DfT.

We no longer put up with Friday afternoon cars, yet the industry as a whole is content to procure ever more complex trains that fail because of ever more trivial reasons. Why do so many systems rely on on-board computers? Why does the train have to communicate with GPS satellites just so the doors can be opened? Isn't part of the skill of driving the ability to stop the train in the correct place so that passengers can alight and board?

You've been told time and time again why these units have sophisticated computer systems, this isn't a small 4 car unit where drivers can have lights in the cab for motor faults, door faults etc, the only way to present information to the driver now is to computerise it. These are units with 12 carriages, 24 sets of doors per side, 48 in total. They have two sets of traction equipment for redundancy, and 16 to 24 traction motors. There's passcom equipment and the integration of ETCS Level 2 signalling.

What's also important is maintenance - these units monitor their own health, they tell engineers something is likely to break, and it's repaired overnight, so it doesn't break in service. The Class 350 units went through testing and fettling, and now they'll do 350,000 or 400,000 miles between failures causing a delay of five minutes or more.

GPS is needed to have the units stop accurately, but also to provide location information for fault finding.

It's also worth remembering, heaven forbid you forget, that we're no longer dealing with slam door stock free from such trivial systems as a signalling system, brake/door interlocking, PIS and retention toilets. Do you remember just how rudimentary a CIG or VEP was - they didn't even have headlights when built and left service without proper tail lights.

The fragmentation of the British Rail industry means that no one TOC or ROSCO has the purchasing power to demand a bulk order of simple, reliable trains that put the passenger rather than the designer and manufacturer first.

Pilots have a mantra - "Never fly the A-model of anything" meaning that as aircraft are developed, they get better and more reliable. Every time a new batch of trains is ordered, we get the A-model and nothing else.

That's nonsense - there's now more Bombardier Electrostar stock than British Rail Mark 3 units, and current orders of Desiro City stock will out number the BR PEP stock, and having seen how reliable some of the more 'simple' stock can be, you're not missing out on anything.

We've got fleets which are really incredibly reliable and above all, incredibly safe. We've seen them all be improved enormously from the 'A-model' that was initially delivered - hell, Alstom had the Class 458 winning Golden Spanners before being re-built, units SWT basically took out of service.

The Siemens guys know their stuff, they'll get things sorted quickly, it's just a shame the units are being introduced at the same time as industrial action and other problems on the BML.

 

[JonathanH]

Worth noting the 700 are not subject to 1500 miles of overall testing but far higher over all. Worth noting that the next 700 delivery has done nearly twice as many on test since it's last exam as any of the 387s have done on test! And that's without the UK fault free running being taken into account.

Funny how on a day (week might be more sensible) where the 319s have destroyed the timetable some on here are looking only at the 700s. Or the failure of a 12 car 387 today.

And not all failure have been the units or the units reacting as they are supposed to do and failing in a safe manner.

Yes, there are plenty of short formations on all sorts of Thameslink trains today and other workings being cancelled for whatever reason. Some people are dependent on certain trains running and for others there will be an option which still gets them to where they need to be with a short delay. I'd guess that the 319 or 387 failures aren't always the same services.

This is a thread about 700s so it is reasonable to be monitoring how their introduction goes and ignore what happens to 319s and 387s. Thanks to the really welcome postings of 'Class 377/5', we know there are 5 diagrams and 9 units to work them.

From a purely enthusiast's viewpoint I want to go and catch 700s as they are introduced. I look each evening at what is running and see that all the services I might want to catch only to find that hardly any of them are running. Having looked them up, it is not much more effort to post that here. It is a shame to see them having a difficult introduction.

From a normal passenger's viewpoint, I would be annoyed if 'my train' was cancelled every day just because it is diagrammed a 700 during this early phase (when the introduction of a 700 on 'my train' should mean a bit more space / less crowding).

 

[The Box Photter]

The problem for rolling stock is that it's not possible to undertake every aspect of testing on test tracks. That's why a limited program of running is being undertaken to slowly introduce these units into service, and to gather the data needed to ensure the work reliably when fully introduced.



That's between you, GTR and DfT.



You've been told time and time again why these units have sophisticated computer systems, this isn't a small 4 car unit where drivers can have lights in the cab for motor faults, door faults etc, the only way to present information to the driver now is to computerise it. These are units with 12 carriages, 24 sets of doors per side, 48 in total. They have two sets of traction equipment for redundancy, and 16 to 24 traction motors. There's passcom equipment and the integration of ETCS Level 2 signalling.

What's also important is maintenance - these units monitor their own health, they tell engineers something is likely to break, and it's repaired overnight, so it doesn't break in service. The Class 350 units went through testing and fettling, and now they'll do 350,000 or 400,000 miles between failures causing a delay of five minutes or more.

GPS is needed to have the units stop accurately, but also to provide location information for fault finding.

It's also worth remembering, heaven forbid you forget, that we're no longer dealing with slam door stock free from such trivial systems as a signalling system, brake/door interlocking, PIS and retention toilets. Do you remember just how rudimentary a CIG or VEP was - they didn't even have headlights when built and left service without proper tail lights.



That's nonsense - there's now more Bombardier Electrostar stock than British Rail Mark 3 units, and current orders of Desiro City stock will out number the BR PEP stock, and having seen how reliable some of the more 'simple' stock can be, you're not missing out on anything.

We've got fleets which are really incredibly reliable and above all, incredibly safe. We've seen them all be improved enormously from the 'A-model' that was initially delivered - hell, Alstom had the Class 458 winning Golden Spanners before being re-built, units SWT basically took out of service.

The Siemens guys know their stuff, they'll get things sorted quickly, it's just a shame the units are being introduced at the same time as industrial action and other problems on the BML.

Garbage. Staff taking industrial action doesn't make a train break down, poor design, inadequate testing and mis-handling by operators causes trains to fail.

I know 377/5 has wittered on about how much testing the door mechanisms have been put through. Its of no use if the driver is unable to stop the train in the correct position for the GPS to unlock all the doors. Nor has that testing involved having the whole carriage subject to the hammering meted out by what is laughingly called track in 3rd rail land. My point is that vital peak hour crowd-shifting trains shouldn't be turned over to class 700s until all the "bugs" have been ironed out.

As for the units being self-diagnosing, that's only useful if it means that the faults are fixed quickly and the unit returned to traffic. Current experience suggests that the self-diagnosis program might be something of a hypochondriac.

I agree that the country is swarming with the products of Bombardier (and that they've had reliability problems too). Do you know what, I'd rather ride home in a Class 310 with slam-doors and opening windows than stand on a packed platform waiting for a train that never arrives because its sitting at Hassocks and only one set of doors will open.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Garbage. Staff taking industrial action doesn't make a train break down, poor design, inadequate testing and mis-handling by operators causes trains to fail.

There's certainly no evidence of poor design or inadequate testing, the units are actually showing excellent mechanical reliability, the problems are really what should be described as calibration difficulties.

I know it doesn't help you, but compared with some of the introduction problems fleets have endured, including the infamous transformer explosion problem on the Class 303 fleet, the introduction of the Class 700 stock isn't too problematic. I'd have a Class 700 over a Class 310 any day, not because it's safer, better built or features modern safety and signalling equipment, but because it has AC traction equipment and it won't spend days out of service waiting motor rebuilds after a bit of ice and snow.

What really comes across is your intense loathing for these units, but that came across before the technical problems started.

 

[ainsworth74]

The Class 350 units went through testing and fettling, and now they'll do 350,000 or 400,000 miles between failures causing a delay of five minutes or more.

Good luck getting performance like that out of the 'simple' stock that used to (and in some places still does) run around the network.

 

[D365]

Good luck getting performance like that out of the 'simple' stock that used to (and in some places still does) run around the network.

The 313s (which are generally now considered 'simple') reportedly suffered from a far worse introduction than that of the 700s.

 

[Harbornite]

It seems as though these units have had a less troublesome introduction than the 380s.

 

[J-2739]

It seems as though these units have had a less troublesome introduction than the 380s.

Considering the fact most people on this forum like the slam doors and PEP stock to the 380's, it probably wouldn't make much impact (joke...)

 

[bramling]

There's certainly no evidence of poor design or inadequate testing, the units are actually showing excellent mechanical reliability, the problems are really what should be described as calibration difficulties.

I know it doesn't help you, but compared with some of the introduction problems fleets have endured, including the infamous transformer explosion problem on the Class 303 fleet, the introduction of the Class 700 stock isn't too problematic. I'd have a Class 700 over a Class 310 any day, not because it's safer, better built or features modern safety and signalling equipment, but because it has AC traction equipment and it won't spend days out of service waiting motor rebuilds after a bit of ice and snow.

What really comes across is your intense loathing for these units, but that came across before the technical problems started.

Perhaps people might be more inclined to show toleration of class 700 failures if they felt the finished product was something worth the short-term pain. Fortunately I don't use today's Thameslink operation so haven't been affected by this, but I wouldn't be overly happy suffering disruption related to the introduction of a fleet of trains that I don't like, don't want, and represent a downgrade in comfort over the trains currently serving my journey.

Yes some degree of early unreliability is likely, so I don't think we should be overly critical of this - for the time being at least. However it's unacceptable that this early unreliability is being allowed to disrupt such a busy and important piece of railway right in the heart of the peak hours. Whichever way one looks at it, this is poor planning. Perhaps it's indicative of an over-confidence in their product which seems to be associated with those specifying and delivering the Thameslink Programme.

Let's hope the reliability issues get ironed out sooner rather than later, and lessons are learned.

 

[AM9]

Let's hope the reliability issues get ironed out sooner rather than later, and lessons are learned.

Launching in the comparatively quiet period of the summer months could be seen as better than a full-on roll-out warts and all mid-September. Three months turbulence at the beginning of their 30+ years expected service would not be an unreasonable period of disruption from bedding in.
Regardless of whether individual passengers prefer their predecessors or not, the '700s are designed for a specific job.
When passenger numbers climb above the maximum level that is possible to serve using more conventional stock, the need for the additional capacity will be obvious. Of course those who have decided not to like the design will still nevertheless see them as a failed design.

 

[bramling]

Launching in the comparatively quiet period of the summer months could be seen as better than a full-on roll-out warts and all mid-September. Three months turbulence at the beginning of their 30+ years expected service would not be an unreasonable period of disruption from bedding in.

I'm not sure many employers would deem that as an acceptable reason for an employee being consistently late for work.

The most important function of a rail operator is to deliver their published timetable, no ifs or buts. For one reason or another, GTR seem consistently unable to deliver this.

 

[trainmania100]

Will a unit be arriving tomorrow?

 

[carriageline]

Question for 377/5 (no agenda here, just interest from a signaller)

The faults that are happening day in/day out. Is it stuff that generally wouldn't/couldn't of been tested during the testing stage, or is it that now they are in service they are 'busier'/being used in a different way, and thus the testing wouldn't of picked it up?

I find the whole testing/reliability thing quite interesting. I see these trains everyday, and have grown on me!! I am yet to use one, but colleagues that have are overally impressed (apart from usual complaints)

If you rather, stick it in a PM

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I have yet to travel on one. I had planned to travel on the latter part of the diagram last Saturday until 700110 got taken out of service at Brighton.

Just a suggestion: as there seems to be fewer services running on the Coastway lines at present, could this not be used as an opportunity to run/test 700 stock? Plenty of stops along the coast including a couple of reversals.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not sure many employers would deem that as an acceptable reason for an employee being consistently late for work.

It's a handful of services on different diagrams each day isn't it? It might make you late once but I don't think this soft launch is likely to make any one consistently late.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I have yet to travel on one. I had planned to travel on the latter part of the diagram last Saturday until 700110 got taken out of service at Brighton.

Just a suggestion: as there seems to be fewer services running on the Coastway lines at present, could this not be used as an opportunity to run/test 700 stock? Plenty of stops along the coast including a couple of reversals.

There's a couple of minor issues with what I believe is regenerative braking in neutral sections upsetting the TMS, that needs AC running to generate data and experience with, so appropriate 'calibration' can be achieved.

The main issue is, however, the door opening issues, and that's to do with the train recognising where it is and doing the appropriate SDO routine. It's not going to help getting it working on the Coastway route, it needs to work perfectly on the TL core.

It seems some of the difficulty with this is the stop boards on platforms being mounted to the nearest convenient lamp standard or fence post, rather than the precise position needed for the SDO system to work automatically as intended. It's simply a case of determining how far out a unit can be from the correct stopping position and if it's still safe to open all doors, that being safety critical, is easier said than done.

 

[jon0844]

Any idea what the problem was with this today?

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G73351/2016/08/09/advanced

We were at London Bridge waiting for it to arrive to go to Brighton, and they said on the PA that the delay was due to emergency repair work on the train.

On the train to BTN and all seems well so far, although we've not stopped anywhere yet!

One complaint: no declassified first class today! (first world problems)

Edit: just had our stopping pattern changed at East Croydon. Gatwick and Brighton only now.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

There's a couple of minor issues with what I believe is regenerative braking in neutral sections upsetting the TMS, that needs AC running to generate data and experience with, so appropriate 'calibration' can be achieved.

The main issue is, however, the door opening issues, and that's to do with the train recognising where it is and doing the appropriate SDO routine. It's not going to help getting it working on the Coastway route, it needs to work perfectly on the TL core.

It seems some of the difficulty with this is the stop boards on platforms being mounted to the nearest convenient lamp standard or fence post, rather than the precise position needed for the SDO system to work automatically as intended. It's simply a case of determining how far out a unit can be from the correct stopping position and if it's still safe to open all doors, that being safety critical, is easier said than done.

Ah ok, I take your point. Perhaps more night time testing then?

Of course I am the first to admit to not understanding the complexity of SDO issues but is there not a "tolerance" built into the system, say 1 foot either side of the stop board rather than an exact position? I am not surprised then if drivers are having difficulty.

 

[BelleIsle]

The 313s (which are generally now considered 'simple') reportedly suffered from a far worse introduction than that of the 700s.

Doors not opening on a 700 at standstill in a station is better than doors opening whilst in motion on a 313. Had a few on those back in the day.

 

[leomartin125]

A Class 92, presumably 92023 as that is the only one based at Willesden T.M.D. without it's shoe gear isolated, is running light to Dollands Moor GBRf at the moment, and looks like it will pick up some 700's for delivery in the early hours of tomorow morning. Anyone know which these are?

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R02274/2016/08/10/advanced

 

[trainmania100]

Would be nice to see a 92 at Three Bridges