On Sat, 19 May 2018 09:10:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:55:59 on Sat, 19 May
2018, Basil Jet remarked:

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/ne...ns-for-gospel-
oak-to-barking-line-delayed-by-three-months-1-5491792

That story appears to be a month old (but an interesting read
nevertheless).

Of course, what they should really "hold the front page" for, is a story
that a project like this was delivered on time.

That ship sailed a long time ago for the Goblin.

Of course, it would have been even worse if the new trains had all turned
up on schedule and the wires weren't yet up. And at least the existing DMUs
haven't been committed to another TOC yet.

ISTR that they are committed to the West Midlands franchise.
(Makes sense, they are the other major 172 operator, although I'm
surprised that Chiltern don't want them.)

At least 1 unit is earmarked for the Coventry-Kenilworth-Leamington
service from December.

I'm assuming that they might need some works attention before that, if
only to have a toilet fitted.

DC

David C wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2018 09:10:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:55:59 on Sat, 19 May
2018, Basil Jet remarked:

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/ne...ns-for-gospel-
oak-to-barking-line-delayed-by-three-months-1-5491792

That story appears to be a month old (but an interesting read
nevertheless).

Of course, what they should really "hold the front page" for, is a story
that a project like this was delivered on time.

That ship sailed a long time ago for the Goblin.

Of course, it would have been even worse if the new trains had all turned
up on schedule and the wires weren't yet up. And at least the existing DMUs
haven't been committed to another TOC yet.

ISTR that they are committed to the West Midlands franchise.
(Makes sense, they are the other major 172 operator, although I'm
surprised that Chiltern don't want them.)

Fellow Arriva TOC Chiltern probably would like to have them, but stock
allocation is a DfT decision.


At least 1 unit is earmarked for the Coventry-Kenilworth-Leamington
service from December.

I'm assuming that they might need some works attention before that, if
only to have a toilet fitted.

That would be quite expensive, and a large disabled loo will take out a
significant proportion of the seats in a two-car set.

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 10:39:12 on Sun, 20 May 2018, Recliner
remarked:
ISTR that they are committed to the West Midlands franchise.
(Makes sense, they are the other major 172 operator, although I'm
surprised that Chiltern don't want them.)

Fellow Arriva TOC Chiltern probably would like to have them, but stock
allocation is a DfT decision.

At least 1 unit is earmarked for the Coventry-Kenilworth-Leamington
service from December.

I'm assuming that they might need some works attention before that, if
only to have a toilet fitted.

That would be quite expensive, and a large disabled loo will take out a
significant proportion of the seats in a two-car set.

Doesn't appear to worry TOCs running with 2-car 170's plus disabled
tiolet in their fleet.

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk..._seat_plan.pdf
--
Roland Perry

On 2018\05\20 11:39, Recliner wrote:
David C wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2018 09:10:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:55:59 on Sat, 19 May
2018, Basil Jet remarked:

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/ne...ns-for-gospel-
oak-to-barking-line-delayed-by-three-months-1-5491792

That story appears to be a month old (but an interesting read
nevertheless).

Of course, what they should really "hold the front page" for, is a story
that a project like this was delivered on time.

That ship sailed a long time ago for the Goblin.

Of course, it would have been even worse if the new trains had all turned
up on schedule and the wires weren't yet up. And at least the existing DMUs
haven't been committed to another TOC yet.

ISTR that they are committed to the West Midlands franchise.
(Makes sense, they are the other major 172 operator, although I'm
surprised that Chiltern don't want them.)

Fellow Arriva TOC Chiltern probably would like to have them, but stock
allocation is a DfT decision.


At least 1 unit is earmarked for the Coventry-Kenilworth-Leamington
service from December.

I'm assuming that they might need some works attention before that, if
only to have a toilet fitted.

That would be quite expensive, and a large disabled loo will take out a
significant proportion of the seats in a two-car set.

Toilets for a 16 minute journey?

On Saturday, 19 May 2018 13:41:34 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2018 11:36:13 +0100, Robin9
wrote:

Last week I asked one of the station staff at Leyton Midland Road when
the electric trains would be running. The answer was that almost none of
the drivers had even begun learning how to drive the new trains.

Presumably *none* of the MTU drivers will have started learning to
drive them (except perhaps in the classroom and simulator), as none of
the 710s have been delivered yet? Or maybe they can start to be
trained on the similar class 345s in service with TfL Rail.

The contract requires a simulator to be provided in advance of the scheduled train deliveries. I'd therefore expect it to have been installed months ago as the first train was contracted to be delivered last December. No point using it in anger as drivers will lose whatever knowledge they may gain given delivery of the real trains is so late.

The line user group has reported that the trains won't enter service until September at the earliest. Not one 710 has run on the NR network excluding the Old Dalby test track. Based on comments elsewhere the 710s use a brand new software platform and this is what is causing Bombardier problems. The 345s use a modified Electrostar software package which is why they're in service but 710s are not. I also suspect the 710s may have differences in how they perform plus functionality (e.g. dual voltage) which probably invalidates any use of the 345s as a driver training tool for Overground drivers. I also guess that MTR Crossrail (not MTU) have their hands full in training drivers for December and all of the testing in the core.

--
Paul C
via Google

On Saturday, 19 May 2018 22:59:18 UTC+1, wrote:
On 19/05/2018 10:10, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:55:59 on Sat, 19 May
2018, Basil Jet remarked:

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/ne...ns-for-gospel-
oak-to-barking-line-delayed-by-three-months-1-5491792

That story appears to be a month old (but an interesting read
nevertheless).

Of course, what they should really "hold the front page" for, is a story
that a project like this was delivered on time.

That ship sailed a long time ago for the Goblin.

Of course, it would have been even worse if the new trains had all turned
up on schedule and the wires weren't yet up. And at least the existing DMUs
haven't been committed to another TOC yet.


The OHLE is energised, is it not? Any chance that they can borrow
rolling stock from elsewhere in the meantime?

Energised but not finished nor fully signed off. Apparently there are still snags that need to be fixed and signed off. This would explain why no electric trains of whatever sort have been seen - barring the 378 test train that did a lot of data gathering.

--
Paul C
via Google

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Saturday, 19 May 2018 13:41:34 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2018 11:36:13 +0100, Robin9
wrote:

Last week I asked one of the station staff at Leyton Midland Road when
the electric trains would be running. The answer was that almost none of
the drivers had even begun learning how to drive the new trains.

Presumably *none* of the MTU drivers will have started learning to
drive them (except perhaps in the classroom and simulator), as none of
the 710s have been delivered yet? Or maybe they can start to be
trained on the similar class 345s in service with TfL Rail.

The contract requires a simulator to be provided in advance of the
scheduled train deliveries. I'd therefore expect it to have been
installed months ago as the first train was contracted to be delivered
last December. No point using it in anger as drivers will lose whatever
knowledge they may gain given delivery of the real trains is so late.

The line user group has reported that the trains won't enter service
until September at the earliest. Not one 710 has run on the NR network
excluding the Old Dalby test track. Based on comments elsewhere the 710s
use a brand new software platform and this is what is causing Bombardier
problems. The 345s use a modified Electrostar software package which is
why they're in service but 710s are not.

Thanks, that's interesting.

I must admit I'm very surprised indeed that the software platform has been
completely changed between the 345 and 710 Aventras, built little more than
a year apart. I'd have expected either an all-new platform for all
Aventras, or that the slightly later Aventras would have just minor changes
from whatever the first Aventras used. I presume that the new Aventra
software platform was running so late when the 345s had to be delivered,
that the obsolescent old Electrostar platform had to be used as a stop-gap?

Incidentally, didn't the 345s also have persistent software problems when
first introduced on the Shenfield line?

I also suspect the 710s may have differences in how they perform plus
functionality (e.g. dual voltage) which probably invalidates any use of
the 345s as a driver training tool for Overground drivers. I also guess
that MTR Crossrail (not MTU) have their hands full in training drivers
for December and all of the testing in the core.

Oops, yes, of course I should have said MTR.