Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 30, 2018 12:27:16 GMT
Chris my thought was to use the 313s on the DC line and use the displaced 378s on the Goblin. Sounds like there are no spare 313s yet though! With the exception of 313s being cleared for use on the DC already, all of the above points apply equally to that line as they do on the Goblin. Trying not to step on any toes, I think it's probably apposite to quote the mods: We've done replacement of 378s with 315s (or any other stock without DOO cameras or requiring guards) to death, members can read back through if they want to see why. Desist, please. Noting that "378s" can probably also be taken to mean 172s and 710s. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2018 17:04:53 GMT
So glad that the next generation of tube stock won’t be built by Bombardier. This fiasco and the severe problems with the class 345 introduction vindicate the decision not to award them the contract, I made this statement once, and got a telling off haha. Apparently you are only allowed to make a decision on tendering based on the actual bid. |
|
|
|
Post by dmncf on Dec 30, 2018 23:01:02 GMT
So glad that the next generation of tube stock won’t be built by Bombardier. This fiasco and the severe problems with the class 345 introduction vindicate the decision not to award them the contract, I made this statement once, and got a telling off haha. Apparently you are only allowed to make a decision on tendering based on the actual bid. I think that if Bombardier's tender had a section about their capability to introduce new trains into service, you would be totally within your rights to take into account the Class 345 experience when scoring that section of Bombardier's bid. If a (hypothetical) supplier said their capability was amazing but you knew it wasn't, you would score the tender based on facts not marketing fiction. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 31, 2018 13:14:00 GMT
I made this statement once, and got a telling off haha. Apparently you are only allowed to make a decision on tendering based on the actual bid. I think that if Bombardier's tender had a section about their capability to introduce new trains into service, you would be totally within your rights to take into account the Class 345 experience when scoring that section of Bombardier's bid. If a (hypothetical) supplier said their capability was amazing but you knew it wasn't, you would score the tender based on facts not marketing fiction. Actually you would not be within your rights. All you could do is raise questions with Bombardier, citing real life examples, and asking them to explain what they would do in terms of design / process / etc to avoid the issues that were experienced with another fleet. You would then have to assess their responses fairly against the identified criteria. You can't just go "oh well they were useless on that contract so they'd be useless on a future one". In terms of fairness you'd also want to understand from, say, Siemens how they would avoid a 15 month delay as they had with the class 700s! |
|
|
|
Post by dmncf on Dec 31, 2018 18:34:35 GMT
There's also a question of where do you put the carriages that aren't being used (it's not like they can propel themselves around if they're in the way like a spare unit can) and also who is gonna pay for all the work? Shhh, or threads will start about which London Overground lines could handle 6-car trains, followed by points about whether Electrostar software allows 6-car units, counterpoints about how they could be configured as two units, and suggestions of temporary swaps with other TOCs... ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Dec 31, 2018 23:25:06 GMT
Actually you would not be within your rights. All you could do is raise questions with Bombardier, citing real life examples, and asking them to explain what they would do in terms of design / process / etc to avoid the issues that were experienced with another fleet. You would then have to assess their responses fairly against the identified criteria. You can't just go "oh well they were useless on that contract so they'd be useless on a future one". In terms of fairness you'd also want to understand from, say, Siemens how they would avoid a 15 month delay as they had with the class 700s! What 15 month delay happened with the 700s please, as they came into service in the correct time according to when the contract was signed. The delay was in getting the finance together so the contract could be signed due to the global financial issues.The class 700 introduction in the end was right on schedule in the end with the last couple of trains slightly ahead of delivery. As for contract delivery, its a complex minefield with both parties needing to ensure things are right. I'm sure Bombardier will be in part bale to off set some of the reasons for delays due to the inability to run under the wires earlier which will have affected their ability to deliver. As for freed up 313s, its a no go as none will be freed up any time soon plus it's far easier for LO to use the 378s as it avoids the issues with dispatch that any of the older ex BR fleets present. Also don't forget re-introducing the 313s back onto the main line would be unlikely to be operated in the same method as before as standards have changed and any older rights have gone as they haven't been kept in service on these routes. The use of a single 378 4 car, s is my understanding, is to provide a temporary break in the needs to allow more testing to happen. Remember the same group of people now have 3 separate software issues to deal with. Making the 345s work to Heathrow, making the 345s work in the Crossrail Core and making the 710s work. However the 710 is a far bigger problem for Bombardier with 1988 coaches worth of orders (with multiple due in service during 2019) that need to be delivered and the 710 issue affects all of them as its the base software for the Adventra (just not the 345 that use a different software package). However more delays will create a major issue as there is no way to provide a 2nd or more 378 for GOBLIN without the cancellation of trains on somewhere else on the network. The next few months are going very interesting to see what happens as long as your not someone depending on these units. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 1, 2019 14:30:28 GMT
Actually you would not be within your rights. All you could do is raise questions with Bombardier, citing real life examples, and asking them to explain what they would do in terms of design / process / etc to avoid the issues that were experienced with another fleet. You would then have to assess their responses fairly against the identified criteria. You can't just go "oh well they were useless on that contract so they'd be useless on a future one". In terms of fairness you'd also want to understand from, say, Siemens how they would avoid a 15 month delay as they had with the class 700s! What 15 month delay happened with the 700s please, as they came into service in the correct time according to when the contract was signed. The delay was in getting the finance together so the contract could be signed due to the global financial issues.The class 700 introduction in the end was right on schedule in the end with the last couple of trains slightly ahead of delivery. As for contract delivery, its a complex minefield with both parties needing to ensure things are right. I'm sure Bombardier will be in part bale to off set some of the reasons for delays due to the inability to run under the wires earlier which will have affected their ability to deliver. As for freed up 313s, its a no go as none will be freed up any time soon plus it's far easier for LO to use the 378s as it avoids the issues with dispatch that any of the older ex BR fleets present. Also don't forget re-introducing the 313s back onto the main line would be unlikely to be operated in the same method as before as standards have changed and any older rights have gone as they haven't been kept in service on these routes. The use of a single 378 4 car, s is my understanding, is to provide a temporary break in the needs to allow more testing to happen. Remember the same group of people now have 3 separate software issues to deal with. Making the 345s work to Heathrow, making the 345s work in the Crossrail Core and making the 710s work. However the 710 is a far bigger problem for Bombardier with 1988 coaches worth of orders (with multiple due in service during 2019) that need to be delivered and the 710 issue affects all of them as its the base software for the Adventra (just not the 345 that use a different software package). However more delays will create a major issue as there is no way to provide a 2nd or more 378 for GOBLIN without the cancellation of trains on somewhere else on the network. The next few months are going very interesting to see what happens as long as your not someone depending on these units. The reference to the class 700s is to an article on London Reconnections where it was clearly shown that the 700s were late in delivery and software development was, how shall I put it, a rather long and convoluted exercise with many many months of in service failures and breakdowns. Obviously Siemens have broken the back of the issues with the 700s as you would hope and the 707s and 717s seem to have had a smoother early life. To be fair I didn't mention the 313s as any sort of option. I am well aware of the many issues which make the re-use of old stock (from whatever route) a no go on the GOBLIN. I think Bombardier will struggle hugely to demonstrate that any class 710s were in a suitable approved state for testing on the GOBLIN and that the wiring delays had any impact whatsoever on their programme. The only factor that might play to their hand is if TfL formally instructed them to "go slow" with deliveries because of the wiring delays. I would be very surprised if TfL did that given Bombardier were nowhere near getting regulatory approval for the class 710s to run on *any* NR metals a year ago. Wasn't it September or October 2018 when NR eventually allowed 710s to run on their tracks? 9 months is a one heck of a delay. I would agree with your view if Bombardier had had 10 class 710s lined for delivery having gained regulatory clearance in Jan 2018 but they didn't. I agree Bombardier have a lot on their plate in terms of software development. From reading the released Crossrail papers it seems the Core software has always had priority in terms of development with Heathrow following on behind. I think the Heathrow issue is now embroiled with the HEX / GWR fleet cascade so outside of TfL's control. I do wonder whether TfL have had to instruct Bombardier as to the relative priorities with these three workstreams with Crossrail naturally being the number one priority. How long before those priorities, because of the Aventra order book, have to change? |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Jan 2, 2019 17:43:09 GMT
The 172s are still here, I spotted one going through Leyton Midland Road this afternoon.
I just spotted this question from AM Andrew Dinsmore to the Mayor on the GLA website
The Mayor hasn't answered yet. www.london.gov.uk/questions/2018/5316
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Jan 2, 2019 22:06:23 GMT
|
|
Antje
侵略! S系, でゲソ! The Tube comes from the bottom of London!
Posts: 605
|
Post by Antje on Jan 3, 2019 21:33:51 GMT
I just wished that new trains didn’t have to rely so much on computers for anything other than passenger information. Then the roll-out would be faster.
|
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Jan 3, 2019 22:01:10 GMT
That said, they do have advanced diagnostics that make easier to find out what the fault is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2019 15:21:54 GMT
That said, they do have advanced diagnostics that make easier to find out what the fault is. Which in terms means more electronics to go wrong later on  |
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jan 4, 2019 22:47:05 GMT
That said, they do have advanced diagnostics that make easier to find out what the fault is. Whilst the diagnostics could well indicate the Pantograph has unexpectedly decided to retract, it seems whoever designed the system software and/or hardware interface failed to add a rapid "well put it back up now please" feature. Hence I fully understand why Network rail are hardly going to permit 710s to run on any route where they do not have ample scope in the timetable to restore or rescue a protracted 710 failure at least until someone at Bombardier can demonstrate they have sorted this mess out. Sadly that seems many months away!
Sadly Bombardier have not covered themselves with glory here and regardless of how tendering theory is meant to work - certainly the problems with the 710s are not going to help when pursuing future overseas sales. I really think TFL need to have an enormous hissy fit with Bombardier and tell them to get their chequebook out and get in whatever resources are needed to get the 710s sorted out now rather than seeing them as a secondary issue which they can afford to ignore for now and resolve after they have got Elizabeth Line and Heathrow service software problems sorted out. Wake up Bombardier - Heathrow services are still running using the previous rolling stock and Elizabeth line core is unlikely to open this year - so surely Goblin should be the number one priority.
As for Goblin services I fully understand the reason why TFL have decided to convert a vaguely spare class 378 unit back to 4 car format to operate on Goblin - it buys them time.
The 5 December edition of Rail magazine explained that like it or not the 172s will definitely be returning to West Midlands trains at the rate of two units per month as this is needed to allow WMT to prepare them for use in May. As for Goblin the normal timetable (ignoring the now deleted peak buster service) seems to require 6 serviceable units. They only had 8 units to start with, and returned two units in December. Sometime this month when the next two units are returned the service will either have to be hacked back, or some fudge provided. In this case I guess bringing in a 4 car unit can be argued to deliver the same capacity on Goblin even if it means reducing the service frequency - which will give Bombardier a bit more breathing space and get them by this month!
However what happens in February when two more 172s are due to leave? Can other Overground services really be reduced to release another 378 unit for Goblin.
Even less plausible is the potential for TFL to achieve the same trick a third time in March when all the 172s are due to be returned? I guess someone in the PR department might attempt to argue that customers will be pleased by the introduction of electric trains albeit whilst halving the service frequency effectively offset by doubling the train lengths. I think regular Goblin customers may think otherwise..
What astonishes me is this mess has not been picked up by the mainstream media - even if there are other things also coming to a head in March.
|
|
|
|
Post by patstonuk on Jan 5, 2019 22:08:13 GMT
That said, they do have advanced diagnostics that make easier to find out what the fault is. Whilst the diagnostics could well indicate the Pantograph has unexpectedly decided to retract, it seems whoever designed the system software and/or hardware interface failed to add a rapid "well put it back up now please" feature. Hence I fully understand why Network rail are hardly going to permit 710s to run on any route where they do not have ample scope in the timetable to restore or rescue a protracted 710 failure at least until someone at Bombardier can demonstrate they have sorted this mess out. Sadly that seems many months away!
Sadly Bombardier have not covered themselves with glory here and regardless of how tendering theory is meant to work - certainly the problems with the 710s are not going to help when pursuing future overseas sales... I'm not sure how or why problems affecting Bombardier's Litchurch Lane-produced Aventra platform would impact future overseas sales as Bombardier seems to be going great guns over in mainland Europe - with kit produced at their several facilities over there. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 7, 2019 0:44:08 GMT
I really think TFL need to have an enormous hissy fit with Bombardier and tell them to get their chequebook out and get in whatever resources are needed to get the 710s sorted out now rather than seeing them as a secondary issue which they can afford to ignore for now and resolve after they have got Elizabeth Line and Heathrow service software problems sorted out. Wake up Bombardier - Heathrow services are still running using the previous rolling stock and Elizabeth line core is unlikely to open this year - so surely Goblin should be the number one priority. However what happens in February when two more 172s are due to leave? Can other Overground services really be reduced to release another 378 unit for Goblin. Even less plausible is the potential for TFL to achieve the same trick a third time in March when all the 172s are due to be returned? I guess someone in the PR department might attempt to argue that customers will be pleased by the introduction of electric trains albeit whilst halving the service frequency effectively offset by doubling the train lengths. I think regular Goblin customers may think otherwise.. What astonishes me is this mess has not been picked up by the mainstream media - even if there are other things also coming to a head in March. If you believe the Mayor and the Commissioner then they've been having "gentlemanly" hissie fits with senior Bombardier people over the 710s and 345s for months. Doesn't seem to have had any discernible impact. Bombardier have already forked out £5m to TfL in respect of the 710 contract and there's probably more due. That hasn't had any demonstrable effect either. This is a classic "stand off" because the customer is effectively powerless against the supplier. TfL simply cannot afford to tear up the contract and go and buy some trains from someone else. Far too much hinges on making the 710s (and 345s for that matter) work. Bombardier know this. While I am sure they are not trying to "upset" (ahem) TfL deliberately none of this mess stopped them from taking legal action against TfL in respect of the Picc Line procurement - a saga that will run on for months or years and might mean TfL shovelling many millions in their direction. They know there is a contractual cap on "consequential losses" or whatever term is in the contract. They will have priced that risk into the overall contract which means TfL pays for it at some point over the 20 year manufacture and maintain deal that's been signed. The bigger risk for Bombardier is reputational in having far larger orders for other TOCs beginning to look delayed because that brings in the DfT who will NOT be happy if delayed new trains means more collapsing franchises (as is distinctly possible). I also suspect that Bombardier have actually forced TfL to set the respective project priorities in terms of Crossrail vs GOBLIN vs later 710 deliveries. Crossrail, given the enormous sums involved and media / political spotlight, will always win out. That's just how it is. I don't see that changing given Mark Wild has to provide some sort of updated Crossrail programme this month or early next and then deal with the inevitable fall out from whatever he announces. It doesn't matter what he says he will be challenged on every aspect from many different parties. The only way the Crossrail melée calms down is when demonstrable progress can be shown to be happening. I think we're months away from that so the atmosphere will remain febrile and that's to the detriment of getting the 710s into service given Bombardier clearly have finite software development and testing resources. Once we get to February - 25 days away - we won't have a viable service on the GOBLIN. Half hour gaps in the peaks are beyond comprehension even if you have a 4 car EMU to play with. TfL have nowhere to go with this apart from closing the line *again*. I think the media are aware of the looming problem but they won't use the story as it currently is because it's all threat and bluster and hoping for a miracle. Once the 172s start going and the timetable starts collapsing that's when the BBC and ITV London will turn up to film 250 people waiting at Wanstead Park when 600 people have already boarded the train at Barking and Woodgrange Park after a 30-45 min gap in the AM peak. That makes for suitable "disaster" like coverage. There will be a queue of Assembly Members and user group reps willing to appear in front of the cameras to "comment" on the mess and those responsible for it. So give it a month or so unless Bombardier pull a rabbit with new software from their development hat. I can't see it myself. Bye bye GOBLIN service in 4-5 weeks time is my prediction. Forum members can happily come back and point and go "HA HA" if I am (hopefully) proved wrong.   |
|
|
|
Post by billbedford on Jan 12, 2019 9:49:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jan 13, 2019 15:28:48 GMT
I just wished that new trains didn’t have to rely so much on computers for anything other than passenger information. Then the roll-out would be faster. Passenger information requires a computer to comply with legal requirements with visual and audio displays. You also need a train to tell you what's wrong or you will require an engineer up front, something that the drivers of old had much more training in. Also don't forget that things like live CCTV are helping deal with incidents and direct emergency services already elsewhere on the network. It helps for after the incident as well. Its not all about passenger facilities, especially with real time monitor of faults means you can avoid getting to the point of complete failure which causes far more affects for passengers. One example is fires on board with a regular issue being people setting fire to a train. Modern trains will realise this quickly and proactive sacrifice themselves to allow passengers to escape, slam doors for example will require humans to report the flames, at which time lives will be in danger. |
|
|
|
Post by up1989 on Jan 15, 2019 14:28:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Jan 17, 2019 1:00:39 GMT
My source within LO tells me that TfL cannot claim compensation from Bombardier because the software glitches are a result of TfL repeatedly changing the specs after they placed the order.
Mike Brown's head on a pole outside City Hall?
|
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Jan 17, 2019 22:12:43 GMT
My source within LO tells me that TfL cannot claim compensation from Bombardier because the software glitches are a result of TfL repeatedly changing the specs after they placed the order. Mike Brown's head on a pole outside City Hall? That is an issue on any software project, funny thing is that the cost overrun is somehow always the deveopers' fault. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 18, 2019 0:13:29 GMT
My source within LO tells me that TfL cannot claim compensation from Bombardier because the software glitches are a result of TfL repeatedly changing the specs after they placed the order. Mike Brown's head on a pole outside City Hall? Err TfL have already had £5m from Bombardier. I assume that is for some form of breach under the contract. You can't claim for everything little thing that goes wrong. I assume Bombardier have accepted some level of contractual responsibility for their failings or else why pay out anything? If they weren't "in the wrong" then they'd have assembled their lawyers and would be in a full blown contractual dispute with TfL. I am sure some form of dispute is underway but Bombardier can't escape the fact that (a) their trains are a year late (b) they failed to get clearance to run on NR tracks for at least a year and possibly longer and (c) their Cl 710 trains *still* don't work. I can't see how TfL will have changed the spec in any fundamental way - it would be a form of refinement of how customer facing facilities work. Issues relating to maintainability are a matter for Bombardier who have a long term maintenance / availability contract for these trains. Any issues around the driver's cab / ergonomics should have been tackled long ago between Bombardier and Arriva Rail London as part of a standard design engagement and refinement process. That's not rocket science. The only known change is to the passenger seating layout which is not of any great consequence given the Aventra is a modular design capable of a variety of internal layouts. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jan 21, 2019 11:06:42 GMT
I've seen on Twitter (spread over a string of messages) that for 4 nights a week a Class 710 is running 300 miles (two trips a night up the WCML to Tring / Milton Keynes Central) and if / when a train has made 7 successful fault-free such trips then it will have passed the Network Rail test requirement and be accepted for the start of staff training. Its going to be a very tight timeframe but maybe, just maybe, at least one train will be ready to enter service towards the end of next week?
edit to add: what I am not understanding is how a few high speed runs can thoroughly test a train which will spend its life travelling at lowish speed (40mph and less) stopping at stations every few minutes... doors open / close and all that!
|
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Jan 21, 2019 12:29:38 GMT
Door testing can be incorporated into staff training.
|
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jan 21, 2019 22:02:28 GMT
I've seen on Twitter (spread over a string of messages) that for 4 nights a week a Class 710 is running 300 miles (two trips a night up the WCML to Tring / Milton Keynes Central) and if / when a train has made 7 successful fault-free such trips then it will have passed the Network Rail test requirement and be accepted for the start of staff training. Its going to be a very tight timeframe but maybe, just maybe, at least one train will be ready to enter service towards the end of next week? edit to add: what I am not understanding is how a few high speed runs can thoroughly test a train which will spend its life travelling at lowish speed (40mph and less) stopping at stations every few minutes... doors open / close and all that!
All mainline trains are subject to acceptance running which is mileage based. The 387/700 were 1,500 miles without a single fault. If they failed that they would have to attempt it again. |
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jan 21, 2019 22:03:54 GMT
Door testing can be incorporated into staff training. No it cant. Acceptance running has to be completed prior to allowing staff training. Prior to a unit being accepted, its Bombardier's train and LO staff cant be training on it. Partly because before acceptance testing is complete the unit is not proven to work correctly and that's never good place to do staff training. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jan 21, 2019 23:06:29 GMT
I am full of what in the American dialect is known as 'hopium' - a hopeful desire that something is or will soon be so, even though at times it seems unlikely - in this instance a 'hope' that these trains will be carrying passengers soon. Of course it must pass all safety requirements, the staff must be trained and the unions must be happy too. To me (and other ordinary passengers) this is the important part.
Any bureaucratic requirements should be conducted with the same extreme haste that was demonstrated for the Millennium Dome and when the railway service was introduced in Cumbria after a road bridge was washed out in flooding. As pen-pushing is not seen to be a safety issue it should be treated as of secondary importance, and certainly not become a reason that delays the trains entering service.
I am motivated by the thought of passengers hanging about, stomping their feet on the ground trying to get warm, etc., on freezing cold platforms because the usually 15 minute frequency has become 30 minute intervals. Especially for elderly passengers becoming very cold can cause ill-health. Or worse. The weather forecast for the near future is for such cold weather.
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Jan 22, 2019 7:06:28 GMT
I am full of what in the American dialect is known as 'hopium' - a hopeful desire that something is or will soon be so, even though at times it seems unlikely - in this instance a 'hope' that these trains will be carrying passengers soon. Of course it must pass all safety requirements, the staff must be trained and the unions must be happy too. To me (and other ordinary passengers) this is the important part. Any bureaucratic requirements should be conducted with the same extreme haste that was demonstrated for the Millennium Dome and when the railway service was introduced in Cumbria after a road bridge was washed out in flooding. As pen-pushing is not seen to be a safety issue it should be treated as of secondary importance, and certainly not become a reason that delays the trains entering service. I am motivated by the thought of passengers hanging about, stomping their feet on the ground trying to get warm, etc., on freezing cold platforms because the usually 15 minute frequency has become 30 minute intervals. Especially for elderly passengers becoming very cold can cause ill-health. Or worse. The weather forecast for the near future is for such cold weather. So pen pushing is assessing whether these trains can operate safely in service without causing precisely the sort of delays you are rightly concerned about? While I completely agree with you about how long this shambles has taken, and believe urgency is required, I can’t accept your view that what is happening is just pen pushing. |
|
|
|
Post by regp41 on Jan 23, 2019 9:56:56 GMT
I read elsewhere that a 710 did a test run last night from (I think) Liverpool Street to Enfield.
Has anyone any knowledge about this?
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Jan 23, 2019 11:31:57 GMT
I read elsewhere that a 710 did a test run last night from (I think) Liverpool Street to Enfield. Has anyone any knowledge about this? No idea where it may have started but one has shown up at Broxbourne Down Tamper Siding off the wires earlier today. |
|
|
|
Post by waysider on Jan 25, 2019 1:26:17 GMT
|
|
