All down to the long overhot summer I reckon !
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Greater Anglia Rolling Stock Updates
- Thread starter Wivenswold
- Start date
- Status
All down to the long overhot summer I reckon !
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
F Great Eastern
Established Member
In reality the short forms are many times that iand more than that a week f we simply count the number of trains that are short formed. As we've discussed before that figure that greater anglia provide clearly has a large number missing that are likely excluded for some reason.
Last edited:
306024
Established Member
That ‘some reason’ is what I explained in post #1305, but that didn’t seem to find favour.
To try again, who would care if, for example, the 09.14 Colchester to Colchester Town is a 4 car instead of an 8 Car. No one. In fact that’s a bonus (unless you need the exercise) as there is not so far to walk.
Statistics are all well and good providing they are meaningful.
To try again, who would care if, for example, the 09.14 Colchester to Colchester Town is a 4 car instead of an 8 Car. No one. In fact that’s a bonus (unless you need the exercise) as there is not so far to walk.
Statistics are all well and good providing they are meaningful.
F Great Eastern
Established Member
It isn't a reason I'm afraid. A train is either short formed or it is not.
The difference between me and you is that I deal in facts, you deal in spin.
This has absolutely no relevance because the metric on the GA website isn't how many trains were short formed that left people behind or caused people to suffer a lot, the metric is simply how many trains were short formed and that is the info that Abellio should give if that is what their website says the metric is.
That's before we consider how you measure something subjective like how much of a short form impact is too much. Facts should never include things which are subjective, just the factual stuff, anything else is spin.
The few in Abellio would be proud of you, but the many passengers who are suffering won't be so appreciative of your anti passenger agenda. I'm with the many, you stay with the few.
Last edited:
306024
Established Member
Well that touched a nerve 
All I’ve done is explain how the short forms are reported with the DfT. Not my fault if you don’t like the answer. I’m not here to side with GA, I get affected by some short forms myself, so less of the disingenuous anti-passenger nonsense thanks.
All I’ve done is explain how the short forms are reported with the DfT. Not my fault if you don’t like the answer. I’m not here to side with GA, I get affected by some short forms myself, so less of the disingenuous anti-passenger nonsense thanks.
samuelmorris
Established Member
Yeah I also disagree with that reporting method - I understand that short forms that don't impact customers aren't as important, but the measure isn't solely there for the live benefit of customers, it should also be there to provide a measurable record of fleet performance. Oh well, one can dream!
306024
Established Member
Hope you didn’t dream of train formations last night.
In the example I gave that would record as three short formations if you measure absolutely. Fair enough. So to reduce that figure perhaps the 17.34 Liverpool St to Southend should be short formed instead as that particular diagram would only result in one short form. Now the 18.05 Southend has the 18.02 Southminster right ahead of it to take most of the Wickford passengers. The 17.34 Southend only has the 17.25 Southend ahead of it. Short forming the 17.34 would, other things being equal, result in more passengers standing than on the 18.05. Appreciate that is a bit simplistic, but the point is that measuring absolutely could lead to some perverse decisions, with busier trains being short formed simply due to the way the diagrams have to be constructed.
This method of measuring short formations is to determine what size stick the DfT use to beat the TOC with when measuring compliance with their franchise agreement. Rest assured beatings do take place, just that they aren’t held in public (yet
)
Certainly when the new stock arrives, the effect of a 5 vice 10 car train will be worse.
In the example I gave that would record as three short formations if you measure absolutely. Fair enough. So to reduce that figure perhaps the 17.34 Liverpool St to Southend should be short formed instead as that particular diagram would only result in one short form. Now the 18.05 Southend has the 18.02 Southminster right ahead of it to take most of the Wickford passengers. The 17.34 Southend only has the 17.25 Southend ahead of it. Short forming the 17.34 would, other things being equal, result in more passengers standing than on the 18.05. Appreciate that is a bit simplistic, but the point is that measuring absolutely could lead to some perverse decisions, with busier trains being short formed simply due to the way the diagrams have to be constructed.
This method of measuring short formations is to determine what size stick the DfT use to beat the TOC with when measuring compliance with their franchise agreement. Rest assured beatings do take place, just that they aren’t held in public (yet
)Certainly when the new stock arrives, the effect of a 5 vice 10 car train will be worse.
Last edited:
Wivenswold
Established Member
I remain hopeful that a small legacy fleet will be kept to provide back-up for times of crisis. While hardly ideal image-wise the best candidates would be a dozen or so 317s as they're already cleared over most (if not all) of the wired GA network and if they're going for scrap anyway.....
Every attempt I make to try to fit 90% of the Aventra fleet into a rough estimate of the Dec 2020 timetable is a struggle and there seems little room for contingency and a lot of 5 car only workings.
Without wishing to prolong the debate on short forms, undoubtedly GA will short form (where possible) to minimise their exposure on the metric which almost certainly results in the same trains being short formed day after day, not surprisingly disadvantaging many of the same passenger's commute. Whilst there is logic in this, both from an operational and financial perspective for the operator personally I believe that the calibration in the regime is not properly incentivised so that the operator will not to do it. This period the numbers equate to just under 0.5% of trains and the trigger for breach this period is 0.59% so a little way to go (180 per period reported) before the penalties actually kick in and I assume that they are prepared to tough it out until the new fleet(s) arrive.
However there is a clause in the Franchise Agreement 14.2 (b) of Part 2 Service Development;
"ensuring, so far as is possible, that such excess is not unduly concentrated on any particular Route or Passenger Service; "
I do wonder if the concentration on short forms on particular trains (and routes) of late could be considered a breach of this clause?
When the new trains arrive the metric will need re-calibration (new timetable, new train formations). A 5 vice 10 will undoubtedly be worse than 8 v 12, will this be a bigger incentive not to short form or will the buck simply be passed back to Bombardier? Time will tell?
However there is a clause in the Franchise Agreement 14.2 (b) of Part 2 Service Development;
"ensuring, so far as is possible, that such excess is not unduly concentrated on any particular Route or Passenger Service; "
I do wonder if the concentration on short forms on particular trains (and routes) of late could be considered a breach of this clause?
When the new trains arrive the metric will need re-calibration (new timetable, new train formations). A 5 vice 10 will undoubtedly be worse than 8 v 12, will this be a bigger incentive not to short form or will the buck simply be passed back to Bombardier? Time will tell?
dp21
Member
- Joined
- 10 May 2017
- Messages
- 358
Part of each TSA contract states minimum availability requirements. Therefore it is technically a Bombardier/Stadler deliverable to provide availability to the required level. It will then go to contractual reviews to determine whether it was a reliability/maintenance driven issue or an operational issue. Regardless, availability drives short forms and, as such, if the maintainer doesn't provide the required resources, the buck will inevitably be passed. This won't, however, result in a public 'it's their fault' like appears to be common with NR infrastructure faults.
I say this now but we'll see...
dk1
Veteran Member
Well we all wondered if we'd ever see it again in East Anglia but it looks as if overnight 170202 has regained its centre car & a full fleet of 8 3-cars has been restored.
F Great Eastern
Established Member
How many DMUs are off service at the moment for issues?
59CosG95
Established Member
321323's returning from Doncaster to Ilford after its Renatus mods at this very moment.
Desiro360
Member
Interesting to hear that 170202 has got it's centre coach back.
Wivenswold
Established Member
Sounds like Webtac have stepped it up a bit. That's 3 in the last couple of weeks. No doubt under pressure to get them done before a 720 enters service!
RailWonderer
Established Member
It was a nice surprise to see a 360 expecting a 317 but they have returned to 317s since. They only used 360s for a couple of weeks and realtime trains still lists the 16:17 as a 317. I don't work at the depot, I can't say more.
Definitely booked 360s now, IL318/319 diagrams. Means 20 out of 21 360s required for service Monday to Friday. Clearly they don't manage it most days.
Back in April there was this press release https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/abo...be-able-go-surfing-free-greater-anglia-trains which mentions wi-if being fitted to the 360/379, Renatus 321s and some of the 317 fleet. So that might explain some of the chopping and changing of late. (Sorry can’t paste the text from iPad) .
RailWonderer
Established Member
Realtimetrains still shows it as a 317. Strange.
Last edited:
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 18,847
No, RTT shows it as timed for 317. That is not necessarily the booked traction.
dp21
Member
- Joined
- 10 May 2017
- Messages
- 358
Yup, wifi fitment is in full swing and it's resulted in some rejigging of allocated diagrams.
Although AGA trains shown as 317s in RTT usually are actually 317s. For example, the booked 317 diagram on the Stansted Express is accurately reflected in RTT.
Last edited:
306024
Established Member
True, the planners do try to reflect the stock actually diagrammed where the data exists. The recent 317 / 360 / 321 swaps have made that difficult to maintain for now as you would only change that at a timetable change providing there was sufficient notice. The embargo from NR operations planning on anything less than essential means some of this data is out of date. Doesn’t make a jot of difference to the operational railway though.
Wivenswold
Established Member
First Great Eastern tried to diagram 20 out of the 21 Desiros when they were new. It didn't go very well as I recall.
RailWonderer
Established Member
It begs the question why First Great Eastern only ordered 21 units and not more. 30 minimum seemed to make more sense. Oh well it's all in the past now.
They replaced around the same number of slam door class 312s.
306024
Established Member
Possibly because they cost money? There wasn’t a buy 21 and get 9 free deal at the time
Siemens promised 20 / 21 availability, which until recently has always been the plan.
F Great Eastern
Established Member
Because that is all that the SRA would allow them to order perhaps?
They could achieve 20 units in service at one time in the past, but the 360s too have been hit by the franchise wide downturn in rolling stock availability that has effected pretty much all classes of train.
- Status