Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[Deepgreen]

Add to that fact that two other Siemens Disastros failed at Bedford on the 0716 to Sevenoaks and 0730 to Brighton and you've got a recipe for complete meltdown ... which is what happened.

No southbound trains from Flitwick between 0708 and 0817 (except for 1H91 Bedford to Beckenham Jcn which sailed through without stopping). When a 700 RLU did finally arrive it was all-stations to St Pancras.

Why the constant failures in traffic? Hardware, software or soft-squishy-ware (driver mis-handling)?

Perhaps it would have been wise to have an extensive and properly-directed testing/training period before service use? Oh, hang on...

 

[spark001uk]

Perhaps it would have been wise to have an extensive and properly-directed testing/training period before service use? Oh, hang on...

Well the 707s seem ok on test so far, what happens in service next month remains to be seen! Once they start I may jump on one or two whilst I'm on a travelcard and see how they are in comparison with the 700s.

 

[The Box Photter]

Well the 707s seem ok on test so far, what happens in service next month remains to be seen! Once they start I may jump on one or two whilst I'm on a travelcard and see how they are in comparison with the 700s.

The 700s were fine during testing. Expose them to real drivers, real passengers and real service and they're useless.

 

[Billy A]

The 700s were fine during testing. Expose them to real drivers, real passengers and real service and they're useless.

Interestingly there was a post earlier by somebody who actually drives these for a living and has done so since last June and has only ever experienced one minor fault.
I wonder do some people here have some sort of grudge against this particular class of train? You don't see every issue, however trivial or unrelated to the units themselves, being posted for other classes. I have a theory, and I hope I'm wrong, that the fact that the operators had the temerity to import fully built up trains rather than have them for example assembled from kits of parts imported from Japan may have something to do with it.

 

[Domh245]

Interestingly there was a post earlier by somebody who actually drives these for a living and has done so since last June and has only ever experienced one minor fault.
I wonder do some people here have some sort of grudge against this particular class of train? You don't see every issue, however trivial or unrelated to the units themselves, being posted for other classes. I have a theory, and I hope I'm wrong, that the fact that the operators had the temerity to import fully built up trains rather than have them for example assembled from kits of parts imported from Japan may have something to do with it.

I think in a few cases it's probably down to the choice of seats and internal layout.

 

[Deepgreen]

Interestingly there was a post earlier by somebody who actually drives these for a living and has done so since last June and has only ever experienced one minor fault.
I wonder do some people here have some sort of grudge against this particular class of train? You don't see every issue, however trivial or unrelated to the units themselves, being posted for other classes. I have a theory, and I hope I'm wrong, that the fact that the operators had the temerity to import fully built up trains rather than have them for example assembled from kits of parts imported from Japan may have something to do with it.

I haven't detected any 'grudges' - but the class 700s are supposed to permit the Thameslink operation to work at high frequency through the core and, having undergone a supposedly exhaustive testing and training regime, have been failing at what most people regard as an unacceptable rate. I certainly don't recall any animosity around their construction location, etc.

The failures seem to have been time-consuming to rectify and very disruptive to the service. I think it would be fair to expect the stock to have settled down by now, but we still seem to be having a relatively high number of major failures. Of course, the nature of the core is such that anything going wrong there is almost certain to cause chaos, whereas other, more conventional, routes can probably handle a train failing with less impact.

 

[AM9]

The 700s were fine during testing. Expose them to real drivers, real passengers and real service and they're useless.

Assuming your comment to be serious, how many train hours were they subjected to during their extended testing phase both in Germany and during training runs on Thameslink?
From the last full listing of diagrams at the beginning of February, the 700/0s were clocking up about 240 hours per day and the 700/1s some 200 hours per day. Even going on those figures, (there have been about another 12 delivered since then}, if translated to equivalent 4-car train availability that totals over 5000 hours per week. So no pre roll-out testing could compare with that.
I think that their reliability has improved better than many other designs, particularly given that they are the first in the new Desiro City's generation. Added to that, many of the issues so far have been about the train's interface with an enhanced infrastructure.
We should be very careful when comparing them to the likes of Electrostars that even in the 'MKII' design, (377/6&7s, 379s & 387s) which as established designs with only minor variations certainly had their share of teething problems.

 

[jon0844]

When did a 700 last cause major grief like this?

They seem to be just getting on with the job most days, often running one after another, and causing no real problems at all.

I haven't looked to see how many cancellations there are, but I'm assuming that if there IS a cancelled train then passengers must be appreciating the increased chance of getting on the next train.

 

[The Box Photter]

Well the meltdown this morning WAS caused by THREE 700s becoming faulty. I've no axe to grind about the place they were built. But how can GTR contemplate ramming the GN trains through the core as well, give the havoc that the apparently daily occurrence of "a train failure at City Thameslink" causes to the current level of service.

I realise that DfT specced the trains with fewer seats and wider doors, but was it really necessary to design a completely new type of train (with all the potential reliability issues that could happen) when the operators already had a tried and tested design in the Bombardier Electrostar?

This industry seems to delight in ironing out the problems in a fleet of trains to the point of reliability, then when more trains are needed for the same type of service, they blindly order new, untested, unproven types with all the training and infrastructure shenanigans that follow.

 

[Saint66]

When did a 700 last cause major grief like this?

They seem to be just getting on with the job most days, often running one after another, and causing no real problems at all.

I haven't looked to see how many cancellations there are, but I'm assuming that if there IS a cancelled train then passengers must be appreciating the increased chance of getting on the next train.

This is my perception of the situation also. From the information I've been receiving the reliability of the 700's seems to have been a lot better lately and there hasn't been any major issues until today for a while.

 

[Domh245]

Well the meltdown this morning WAS caused by THREE 700s becoming faulty. I've no axe to grind about the place they were built. But how can GTR contemplate ramming the GN trains through the core as well, give the havoc that the apparently daily occurrence of "a train failure at City Thameslink" causes to the current level of service.

Three? I was under the impression that it was one train having a monumental sit down which couldn't be fixed by the assisting unit (and probably wouldn't have been by any other units) which means that it was just the one train becoming faulty. Was the other incident at Earlswood (?) a 700 issue?

I realise that DfT specced the trains with fewer seats and wider doors, but was it really necessary to design a completely new type of train (with all the potential reliability issues that could happen) when the operators already had a tried and tested design in the Bombardier Electrostar?

Given that Bombardier were offering an Aventra for the Thameslink contract, then a new train design would have been involved at some point.

 

[asylumxl]

Well the meltdown this morning WAS caused by THREE 700s becoming faulty. I've no axe to grind about the place they were built. But how can GTR contemplate ramming the GN trains through the core as well, give the havoc that the apparently daily occurrence of "a train failure at City Thameslink" causes to the current level of service..

I can agree with this. It seems somewhat insane to add more trains to a route that has very little resilience to disruption already. As it is Thameslink struggles to operate the current services without delays. Of course, that's another issue entirely.

 

[jon0844]

Given that Bombardier were offering an Aventra for the Thameslink contract, then a new train design would have been involved at some point.

There's simply no way Bombardier could have given us a train based on the old 'tried and tested' design as it would surely be WAY out of date in just about every area.

But even if it could, is that what we would have wanted for the next 30+ years?

I wonder how testing is going on the new Crossrail trains, which will provide a pretty good comparison.

 

[bramling]

I haven't detected any 'grudges' - but the class 700s are supposed to permit the Thameslink operation to work at high frequency through the core and, having undergone a supposedly exhaustive testing and training regime, have been failing at what most people regard as an unacceptable rate. I certainly don't recall any animosity around their construction location, etc.

The failures seem to have been time-consuming to rectify and very disruptive to the service. I think it would be fair to expect the stock to have settled down by now, but we still seem to be having a relatively high number of major failures. Of course, the nature of the core is such that anything going wrong there is almost certain to cause chaos, whereas other, more conventional, routes can probably handle a train failing with less impact.

I don't think anyone has a grudge against the trains as such. The problem is simply the desire to stuff too many services through Thameslink, which as you say is *not* a resilient solution for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the design of the trains has also been heavily influenced by the same desire to stuff too many services through Thameslink, which in turn has resulted in them being unpopular. Then on top of this we can add some early unreliability, which is proving the fragility of the whole Thameslink Programme concept. Sure no doubt reliability of the trains should improve in time, although of course that's no comfort to today's disrupted passengers who deserve better, but if it's not the trains disrupting the Thameslink network then it will be something else, especially infrastructure.

Of course, a certain (former?) poster on here waxed lyrical about how wonderful the Undesiro S*tties would be, how well-tested and reliable they would be. The reality has been somewhat different, but just another thing to add to all the negative characteristics of Thameslink, which hasn't really ever provided what I would regard as a high-quality service.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Well the meltdown this morning WAS caused by THREE 700s becoming faulty. I've no axe to grind about the place they were built. But how can GTR contemplate ramming the GN trains through the core as well, give the havoc that the apparently daily occurrence of "a train failure at City Thameslink" causes to the current level of service.

I realise that DfT specced the trains with fewer seats and wider doors, but was it really necessary to design a completely new type of train (with all the potential reliability issues that could happen) when the operators already had a tried and tested design in the Bombardier Electrostar?

This industry seems to delight in ironing out the problems in a fleet of trains to the point of reliability, then when more trains are needed for the same type of service, they blindly order new, untested, unproven types with all the training and infrastructure shenanigans that follow.

Both Siemen's Desiro "Classic" and Bombardier's Electrostars are discontinued designs, neither will offer them. Siemens only offers Desiro Cities and Bombardier only offers Aventras.

Is there something about City Thameslink station that's messing with the 700s if there's so many faults occurring there?

 

[The Box Photter]

Three? I was under the impression that it was one train having a monumental sit down which couldn't be fixed by the assisting unit (and probably wouldn't have been by any other units) which means that it was just the one train becoming faulty. Was the other incident at Earlswood (?) a 700 issue?

Given that Bombardier were offering an Aventra for the Thameslink contract, then a new train design would have been involved at some point.

There was the first "sit down" at City Thameslink. Then two consecutive southbound trains "went tech" whilst in the platforms at Bedford station. So trains heading north were already delayed and displaced, resulting in the cancellation of the 0748 and 0758 southbound departures from Bedford. The two failed units took care of the 0716 and 0730 departures, blocking in the 0734 departure. The only train that got away from Bedford for an hours was the 0702 Beckenham Junction train. GTR didn't even consider stopping that train additionally at Flitwick, Harlington or Leagrave, even though it ran slow line, there was nothing else on the track and it was virtually empty as it hurtled through Flitwick.

It was a total cluster**** and only what we've come to expect from the incompetents at GTR. Putting these idiots in charge of such a complex bit of railway is like putting a toddler in charge of a bazooka.

 

[Domh245]

There was the first "sit down" at City Thameslink. Then two consecutive southbound trains "went tech" whilst in the platforms at Bedford station. So trains heading north were already delayed and displaced, resulting in the cancellation of the 0748 and 0758 southbound departures from Bedford. The two failed units took care of the 0716 and 0730 departures, blocking in the 0734 departure. The only train that got away from Bedford for an hours was the 0702 Beckenham Junction train. GTR didn't even consider stopping that train additionally at Flitwick, Harlington or Leagrave, even though it ran slow line, there was nothing else on the track and it was virtually empty as it hurtled through Flitwick.

It was a total cluster**** and only what we've come to expect from the incompetents at GTR. Putting these idiots in charge of such a complex bit of railway is like putting a toddler in charge of a bazooka.

Ah yes, I remember you mentioning those earlier, but had forgotten. Not a particularly good day for GTR then.

 

[redbutton]

Both Siemen's Desiro "Classic" and Bombardier's Electrostars are discontinued designs, neither will offer them. Siemens only offers Desiro Cities and Bombardier only offers Aventras.

Is there something about City Thameslink station that's messing with the 700s if there's so many faults occurring there?

From what I gather, it's the auto-changeover from AC/DC that fails, requiring a manual changeover to be performed which doesn't always work. Often times the trains are left in a 50/50 scenario where one unit is on AC and the other is on DC, which requires a full reset (an even more complicated procedure) to resolve.

 

[asylumxl]

From what I gather, it's the auto-changeover from AC/DC that fails, requiring a manual changeover to be performed which doesn't always work. Often times the trains are left in a 50/50 scenario where one unit is on AC and the other is on DC, which requires a full reset (an even more complicated procedure) to resolve.

And if it's a FLU, it can't even be put in Smithfields anymore. Wonderful joined up thinking.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

From what I gather, it's the auto-changeover from AC/DC that fails, requiring a manual changeover to be performed which doesn't always work. Often times the trains are left in a 50/50 scenario where one unit is on AC and the other is on DC, which requires a full reset (an even more complicated procedure) to resolve.

Could the balise that tells the TMS to switch over supply at City Thameslink be faulty? For the 319s and 377s to the drivers press a button to initiate the changeover?

 

[childwallblues]

Interestingly there was a post earlier by somebody who actually drives these for a living and has done so since last June and has only ever experienced one minor fault.
I wonder do some people here have some sort of grudge against this particular class of train? You don't see every issue, however trivial or unrelated to the units themselves, being posted for other classes. I have a theory, and I hope I'm wrong, that the fact that the operators had the temerity to import fully built up trains rather than have them for example assembled from kits of parts imported from Japan may have something to do with it.

There are always people with a grudge against the railways. Ther are a few people up here that hate 319s and are content to highlight every breakdown whist ignoring those at occur to their beloved 323s.

 

[Kite159]

The revised stop board at City Thameslink (southbound) for a RLU 700 seems to be catching a few commuters out (where the unit stops in the middle of the platform instead of right at the southern end)

I heard a driver mention that come 4th May Thameslink will be fully 700 operated.

 

[Bald Rick]

And if it's a FLU, it can't even be put in Smithfields anymore. Wonderful joined up thinking.

A train in the southbound platform at City can't even get to Smithfield without going via Blackfriars junction or Farringdon.

 

[W230]

City Thameslink is where the DC/AC voltage changeover is. This can lead to problems with any stock.

The unit that went wibble yesterday morning lost power at Farringdon during the AC/DC changeover. The driver was advised to run it to City Thameslink on AC and try again. Unfortunately it then lost all power. Totally and permanently. Another FLU was sourced to move it. Unfortunately as far as I'm aware no one has actually coupled one of these together in practice which won't have helped. Either way, once it was coupled the fault transferred and the second FLU also lost power though as we know now eventually it was sorted.

There has been a recent software upgrade and it seems (maybe anecdotally) that a whole host of problems have appeared with failures since this last update. However, as mentioned before I've had my service cancelled for a fault before when it could easily have been run. I'm not sure if this happens routinely but if it's does then this will impact performance. Certainly I can confirm first hand that not every service cancelled due to a train fault is actually a train fault, just like not every service cancelled due to unavailable train crew is correct either!

And of course, Siemens do have to pick up the tab...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Unfortunately as far as I'm aware no one has actually coupled one of these together in practice which won't have helped. Either way, once it was coupled the fault transferred and the second FLU also lost power though as we know now eventually it was sorted.

Would that have been a result of being coupled both mechanically and electrically instead of mechanically only?

 

[Abpj17]

The only train that got away from Bedford for an hours was the 0702 Beckenham Junction train. GTR didn't even consider stopping that train additionally at Flitwick, Harlington or Leagrave, even though it ran slow line, there was nothing else on the track and it was virtually empty as it hurtled through Flitwick.

The 6.58 to Three Bridges from Bedford made an unscheduled stop at Leagrave around 7.15, not leaving until after 7.30. Quite a few passengers boarded

 

[Abpj17]

The revised stop board at City Thameslink (southbound) for a RLU 700 seems to be catching a few commuters out (where the unit stops in the middle of the platform instead of right at the southern end)

I heard a driver mention that come 4th May Thameslink will be fully 700 operated.

I don't pay attention to the southbound ones but 8 cars stopping in the middle of Blackfriars causes persistent confusion

 

[jon0844]

Given Siemens pick up the tab for failed trains, is there a risk of some being cancelled and considered failed so as to pass on the associated NR penalties to them?

It strikes me as the arrangement having an obvious downside in that it might be rather tempting to do this.

How does Siemens protect itself from this? Will it come back and say 'this could/should have been done?' and refuse?

 

[OFFDN]

City Thameslink is where the DC/AC voltage changeover is. This can lead to problems with any stock.

The unit that went wibble yesterday morning lost power at Farringdon during the AC/DC changeover. The driver was advised to run it to City Thameslink on AC and try again. Unfortunately it then lost all power. Totally and permanently. Another FLU was sourced to move it. Unfortunately as far as I'm aware no one has actually coupled one of these together in practice which won't have helped. Either way, once it was coupled the fault transferred and the second FLU also lost power though as we know now eventually it was sorted.

There has been a recent software upgrade and it seems (maybe anecdotally) that a whole host of problems have appeared with failures since this last update. However, as mentioned before I've had my service cancelled for a fault before when it could easily have been run. I'm not sure if this happens routinely but if it's does then this will impact performance. Certainly I can confirm first hand that not every service cancelled due to a train fault is actually a train fault, just like not every service cancelled due to unavailable train crew is correct either!

And of course, Siemens do have to pick up the tab...

Not 100% accurate...

The broken down train off 2W91 was a 12 car FLU (700114) and the rescue train from Cricklewood was an 8 car RLU (700019 IIRC). 700s have been coupled before, although admittedly probably not by the drivers and fitters on the scene. That said, they coupled the units easily. The problem was that the brakes were then hard stuck on on both units. Fault finding, resets etc and even advice on the phone from Siemens in Germany couldn't fix the units so the brakes were isolated and the 20 car unit ran at 5mph to Cricklewood.

 

[The Box Photter]

Not 100% accurate...

The broken down train off 2W91 was a 12 car FLU (700114) and the rescue train from Cricklewood was an 8 car RLU (700019 IIRC). 700s have been coupled before, although admittedly probably not by the drivers and fitters on the scene. That said, they coupled the units easily. The problem was that the brakes were then hard stuck on on both units. Fault finding, resets etc and even advice on the phone from Siemens in Germany couldn't fix the units so the brakes were isolated and the 20 car unit ran at 5mph to Cricklewood.

Shouldn't there be an option to couple up another unit and be able to release the brakes totally on the failed unit without having to go through the electronics? Another fully operational 700 must have enough brake force to stop the combined mass of the two units. Write a safety case to treat the failed unit as unbraked hauled coaching stock and allow movement at a reasonable speed (suggest 25mph).

In these circumstances, the priority is moving the errant unit.

On a connected point, why was the failed unit moved to Cricklewood, effectively shutting down the core, when it would have been possible to drag it south through Blackfriars and dump it in a bay platform there?