Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[Dr Iver]

If that does turn out to be the case, it could potentially mean problems for Bombadier with the S stock. Could having the wide open gangways (no matter what manufacturer) be a problem?

But that is not the problem!! I posted above its the area around the drivers legs that are a problem! Did you not see my post?

Also the next three are due to be delivered by the end of the year.

 

[D365]

ADTranz/Bombardier-built S-Bahn trains have been running around with 'wide gangways' for about 15 years or more, long before even the Overground/Capitalstar was a glint in the Mayor's eyes. Why should gangways only now turn out to be a problem?

Also the next three are due to be delivered by the end of the year.

Already been posted, but thanks

There's not all that much point in responding to the 'wide gangways' accusation really, some people make a habit of tactless remarks...

As for the crash test. If it did indeed fail. Why are units still being delivered and how was this discovered so late ? Wouldn't a crash test take place quite early on in the whole design and build process and certainly before they are delivered ?

Seeing as deliveries are happening to schedule; one can be at least 90% certain there aren't significant flaws in the cab design.

Also since they're not coming from Derby

 

[Domh245]

Looking at the diagram that I linked to from the D-Train thread, I'm trying to see where the problem arises, possibly something to do with parts of the desk folding into where the driver's knees are? That said, all I'm going off are some (presumably) pre-production drawings!

Crash test scenarios

Cab drawings - No 10 particularly

 

[Skimble19]

I rather like your uniform :/

Those of us who have to wear the damn stuff don't! First stuff was far superior (except the blue coats, which I always thought were a bit odd )

 

[Cletus]

Three Bridges official opening today.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ls-state-of-the-art-thameslink-train-facility

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin today (15 October 2015) formally opened the Three Bridges traincare facility in Crawley, West Sussex, marking a major milestone for the government’s multi-billion pound Thameslink Programme.
cont'd

There was a report with internal and external pictures of the two 700's on Meridian News earlier. Can't see the report online yet.

 

[jon0844]

"That button up there? It's still in one piece"

"They're not made by Bombardier, sir"

"Ah, yes"

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What's the current guesstimate as to when they'll start to be tested in the main line under their own power?

 

[Fincra5]

"That button up there? It's still in one piece"

"They're not made by Bombardier, sir"

"Ah, yes"

And yet we have to walk around the Depots in Hi-Vis :P

 

[Dave1987]

Can't stand McLoughlin myself. The bloke has no humility to admit when his Dept has made a massive balls up of contracts they have signed. Very impressive looking trains though!

 

[jopsuk]

And yet we have to walk around the Depots in Hi-Vis :P

Ah, see, they have the branded tensa barrier of ultimate protection keeping them safe, so the magic vests of safety aren't needed

 

[A-driver]

What's the current guesstimate as to when they'll start to be tested in the main line under their own power?

Currently drivers are not able to move the units as ASLEF have blocked them for several reasons on H&S grounds (including the now confirmed Failiure to meet crashworthiness standards). GTR have agreed this so until ASLEFs concerns are addressed the units will not be moved on the main lines.

 

[Fincra5]

Currently drivers are not able to move the units as ASLEF have blocked them for several reasons on H&S grounds (including the now confirmed Failiure to meet crashworthiness standards). GTR have agreed this so until ASLEFs concerns are addressed the units will not be moved on the main lines.

I also heard from someone working up there that the 700's aren't a fan of the 3rd Rail... some sort of software issues!

 

[The Box Photter]

Maybe they should dust off the plans to equip the 442s with AC equipment so they can deputise for these un-Desiros.

How are they going to change a design so far into the construction phase to satisfy the only people on the railways with any clout left, i.e. ASLEF/RMT?

If it didn't threaten that I'm going to have to use the shoddily refurbished class 319s for longer, it would be almost amusing.

 

[A-driver]

Maybe they should dust off the plans to equip the 442s with AC equipment so they can deputise for these un-Desiros.



How are they going to change a design so far into the construction phase to satisfy the only people on the railways with any clout left, i.e. ASLEF/RMT?



If it didn't threaten that I'm going to have to use the shoddily refurbished class 319s for longer, it would be almost amusing.

As far as crash worthy issues go they are looking at strengthening the front end to meet standards. As far as I know it's an issue of an old standard being given to Siemens in the brief, or something along those lines.

 

[ainsworth74]

As far as I know it's an issue of an old standard being given to Siemens in the brief, or something along those lines.

You've got to be kidding... :roll:

How does someone make a mistake of that magnitude...

 

[A-driver]

You've got to be kidding... :roll:



How does someone make a mistake of that magnitude...

As far as I'm aware the standards were changed after the spec was drawn up and not amended. Or something along those lines.

 

[Domh245]

Everybody's favourite standards (EN15227) were first released on 28/02/2009, and then amended in January 2011, seemingly to make some correspondences and EU HS TSI. Presumably, when the trains were designed (pre jan 2011?) the HS TSI wasn't applicable, but it has since come into effect for them. The 'other' standard (EN12663) was also recently updated, but from what I can tell, all of those revisions were to do with lifting jack points.

Having done even more digging, I can only conclude that it is something to do with survival space, as you've mentioned that they are looking into strengthening. If you were doing that, it would make it less like to crumple, and with a harder deceleration which is one of the failure clauses of the crash test (5g is the maximum for anyone who cares)

Perhaps the pertinent line is:

The driver’s cab shall have a survival space for the driver maintaining a section of a minimum of 0,75m length.

but this could be solved in a few ways. 1 way would be strengthening the front to prevent it crumpling, but equally, it could be to secure panels more rigidly and do a bit of redesigning of the cab's interior so that in a crash, items don't come into the survival space, see this as an example of what ought to be avoided.

Equally it could be to do with low level obstacle deflection, which would come as a surprise with their sizeable deflectors.

If anyone wants to have a read of the HS TSI themselves, click here the relevant section being clause A3 on page 139 of the PDF

 

[RichmondCommu]

Can't they just modify the software so it says it passed?

VW did something very similar and got found out big time so I doubt that Siemens will try anything like that.

 

[Class377/5]

Currently drivers are not able to move the units as ASLEF have blocked them for several reasons on H&S grounds (including the now confirmed Failiure to meet crashworthiness standards). GTR have agreed this so until ASLEFs concerns are addressed the units will not be moved on the main lines.

Correct although the crashworthiness has a soluation.

I also heard from someone working up there that the 700's aren't a fan of the 3rd Rail... some sort of software issues!

Not true. Especially as they haven't tried to stick one the 3rd rail in the UK.

As far as I'm aware the standards were changed after the spec was drawn up and not amended. Or something along those lines.

Correct. Don't forget the 700 design was fixed in 2008.

 

[MCR247]

VW did something very similar and got found out big time so I doubt that Siemens will try anything like that.

I don't think he was serious

 

[A-driver]

Correct although the crashworthiness has a soluation.







Not true. Especially as they haven't tried to stick one the 3rd rail in the UK.







Correct. Don't forget the 700 design was fixed in 2008.

Thanks for the patronising response! I do know it is correct, it was a statement, not a question requiring your clarification!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Other concerns from Aslef are around braking systems, collection shoes and the transition from ERTMS to TPWS.

 

[The Box Photter]

Given that the design was fixed in 2008, and we've seen pictures of the class 700s undergoing "rigorous" testing in Germany, how can such flaws be only coming to light now?

Weren't the unions consulted over the design and safety aspects of the cab? I wouldn't fancy being told to get in and drive a train that needed after-market modifications to provide me with a safe working environment.

Perhaps Siemens should have spent less time putting the units in a massive freezer and more time checking that they could operate as designed on the infrastructure available. There will definitely be a fecal matter/air conditioning interface when one of these bad boys sits down at East Croydon or Herne Hill because of juice problems.

 

[jon0844]

VW did something very similar and got found out big time so I doubt that Siemens will try anything like that.

That was the joke.

 

[47802]

Given that the design was fixed in 2008, and we've seen pictures of the class 700s undergoing "rigorous" testing in Germany, how can such flaws be only coming to light now?

Weren't the unions consulted over the design and safety aspects of the cab? I wouldn't fancy being told to get in and drive a train that needed after-market modifications to provide me with a safe working environment.

Perhaps Siemens should have spent less time putting the units in a massive freezer and more time checking that they could operate as designed on the infrastructure available. There will definitely be a fecal matter/air conditioning interface when one of these bad boys sits down at East Croydon or Herne Hill because of juice problems.

What's the betting that the required modifications are only minor and that as they are they offer much better crashworthiness than the current 319's in operation and that are likely to be in operation on Northern for years.

 

[A-driver]

What's the betting that the required modifications are only minor and that as they are they offer much better crashworthiness than the current 319's in operation and that are likely to be in operation on Northern for years.

That is of course true-they will be far safer in that respect than any train currently on those routes. But it dosnt change the fact that they don't meet current standards so can't be run until they do.

No different from cars. I could build a car far safer than a 30 year old car still perfectly legally running down the motorway at 70mph but if it dosnt quite meet current standards it won't be cleared to run on the public highway.

Of course Aslef can't allow a train to run which dosnt meet the current standard.

 

[Domh245]

I find it reassuring in some ways that this has come to light, because it means Siemens will have noticed it and gone about correcting it. Let's be honest, ASELF and GTR aren't going to be able to get the relevant CAD files (or possibly even software) to be able to carry out a crash test, and they certainly aren't going to crash one themselves, so the only way I can see this having come to light is through Siemens telling ASLEF and GTR that they made a mistake.

 

[A-driver]

I find it reassuring in some ways that this has come to light, because it means Siemens will have noticed it and gone about correcting it. Let's be honest, ASELF and GTR aren't going to be able to get the relevant CAD files (or possibly even software) to be able to carry out a crash test, and they certainly aren't going to crash one themselves, so the only way I can see this having come to light is through Siemens telling ASLEF and GTR that they made a mistake.

It certainly would have come to light anyway as all the paperwork would have to have gone through. They don't just take the manufacturers word for it!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Perhaps Siemens should have spent less time putting the units in a massive freezer and more time checking that they could operate as designed on the infrastructure available. There will definitely be a fecal matter/air conditioning interface when one of these bad boys sits down at East Croydon or Herne Hill because of juice problems.

Crash testing issues aren't an unusual experience for manufacturers - Volvo, Jaguar and Lexus amongst others have been given four star Euro NCAP ratings instead of the expected (and needed) five star ratings, because of very minor issues. The manufacturers go away, look at the crash test data and revise what it is they need to revise, and re-submit their product.

Volvo revised the detonation sequence for their multi stage airbag, so it remained more fully inflated for a little longer in the crash, Jaguar did likewise, and Lexus made changes to the lower trim on one of their models, so it deformed in a slightly different shape, keeping it away from the ankles of the driver and passenger.

Siemens has almost 20 years of experience operating their products on the UK network on both AC and DC routes. They have generated significant amounts of data from their own on-board monitoring and have access to Network Rail's infrastructure monitoring data.

The Class 700 units are a result of all of Siemens experience, which has resulted in the winning Golden Spanners for reliability and has seen them continually pushing the envelope when it comes to Miles per Casualty (MPC) and Miles per 5 Minutes Delay (MP5MD).

They put the Class 700 unit into the freezer at Vienna Arsenal precisely because they have data from their current units which show the temperatures they've experienced in squadron service, and need to expose their new design to the same conditions, they've identified reliability modifications and little changes that will help fitters and drivers, but need to confirm they work as expected, with no unexpected side effects - like improved drainage holes which promote icicle formation in the right conditions.

The formation of ice is just one of the many enormous issues that need proper testing - wind chill and the way water is moved around at low temperatures can result in some very unexpected ice formation, we wouldn't want the Class 700 unit forming long/heavy icicles on the roof, as they could be dislodged and thrown up in the air, ending up damaging the pantograph or OLE, hitting windows or damaging signal heads.

Shoe gear is equally important - you do not want ice forming and causing conductance issues with the shoe gear, nor do you want ice forming on top of the shoe and causing it to drop/fail, leaving you with a damaged unit or broken third rail. You don't want ice forming in door pockets and preventing doors from opening, but you do want rain water to escape and for debris to be prevented from entering the door pocket.

That's just some of the issues Siemens have to deal with and why the climatic testing at Vienna is vitally important. It's precisely to reduce the risk of the unit sitting down at East Croydon or Herne Hill.

I don't expect any major issues on the stock entering service - once it's allowed to enter service, but I do expect lengthy and on-going issues fine tuning the computer systems to cope with interference and harmonics issues on both AC and DC systems.

 

[Class377/5]

Thanks for the patronising response! I do know it is correct, it was a statement, not a question requiring your clarification!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Other concerns from Aslef are around braking systems, collection shoes and the transition from ERTMS to TPWS.

I am sorry if it came across way add that was not what I intended.

I'd not heard of these concerns myself prior to the statement and I've spoken with drivers who have driven real 700s.

Given that the design was fixed in 2008, and we've seen pictures of the class 700s undergoing "rigorous" testing in Germany, how can such flaws be only coming to light now?

Standards chane. Bit like the ORR decision recently that aren't happy with no end gangways, but they only decided this two years after they started building the 700s.

Weren't the unions consulted over the design and safety aspects of the cab? I wouldn't fancy being told to get in and drive a train that needed after-market modifications to provide me with a safe working environment.

Yes they were. Many trains have needed after market mods including the 377/5s.

Perhaps Siemens should have spent less time putting the units in a massive freezer and more time checking that they could operate as designed on the infrastructure available. There will definitely be a fecal matter/air conditioning interface when one of these bad boys sits down at East Croydon or Herne Hill because of juice problems.

Siemens does that to all it's stock (the 350, 444 etc). It likes to test is designs prior to them hitting the customer unlike Bombardier.

The Electrostar sit down with juice issue so your point is an attack on Siemens. Need we bring up Bombardier's error in the 172 testing that delayed the units by six months because they measured it wrong but thought had a design flaw.

 

[The Box Photter]

Actually, my comment about the 700 "sitting down" was intended as a comment on the out of the box reliability of pretty much all new rolling stock and the obsession with "more technology must be better". They look impressive and shiny when the relevant Minister for Transport arrives to take the credit and cut the ceremonial ribbon. Give them a few weeks in traffic and the squeaks & rattles will start, followed by the PIS playing up. Then the doors won't open at St Pancras, then the connections between the carriages will start to leak and allow draughts into the passenger space, then the oh-so state of the art toilets will go out of service because no-one has emptied the retention tanks, then the air-conditioning will be freezing in one coach, but sub-tropical in the next etc, etc... Oh and did I mention the seats designed for anorexics and the "extra-comfy" standing room.

I'm sorry if I seem to be a bit down on Siemens, it seems that whoever we get to design & build our trains, they never really work as intended and because they're all different, they can't be dragged or pushed out of the way by a different type of train. Incidentally, I did once have the misfortune to buy a Siemens-branded phone. It looked sleek & whizzy and had many unique features, but it was a crap phone.