Greater Anglia Rolling Stock Updates

[NoMorePacers]

ROSCOs have sealed new contracts because GA didn't extend leases in the first place because they operate with so little foresight and it's worrying. There should normally be a clause in the contract where stock can't be sent off if it means reliability will be decimated if it does, down to lack of rolling stock in the case of 156s and 170s. As for 360s, there is a slither of hope with EMR being an Abellio company.

Aren’t the 156s meant to be going to EMR as well?

 

[Grumbler]

Greater Anglia don't today, no, but they did have options before the new stock was procured, but the problem we are seeing once again comes back to Greater Anglia's unrealistic timetable for bringing the new trains into service which was never likely to be achieved and they gave themselves absloutely no margin for error in the delivery and comissioning of two unproven fleets of new trains.

As part of the current franchise, GA extended the lease of most of the stock, but didn't do it enough because their timescales were hopelessly optimistic, drawn up by a bidding team with little operations experience who didn't seek the input of such people and instead had an engineering director wih no rail experience.

The 360s have already been extended as a contingency to cover the late arrivals of the 720s, the fact that we're talking about them ideally needing to be kept on for longer else there might be problems ahead, despite already having their stay extended once, tells you all you need to know about the pup the operations team have been sold by the bid team.

Genuine question: why is it taking so long to bring these trains into service?
Train faults?
Staff training?
Incorrect spec (e.g. permitted levels of electrical interference from Channel Tunnel stock nevertheless upset the signalling in 1990s)

 

[Railperf]

Greater Anglia don't today, no, but they did have options before the new stock was procured, but the problem we are seeing once again comes back to Greater Anglia's unrealistic timetable for bringing the new trains into service which was never likely to be achieved and they gave themselves absloutely no margin for error in the delivery and comissioning of two unproven fleets of new trains.

As part of the current franchise, GA extended the lease of most of the stock, but didn't do it enough because their timescales were hopelessly optimistic, drawn up by a bidding team with little operations experience who didn't seek the input of such people and instead had an engineering director wih no rail experience.

The 360s have already been extended as a contingency to cover the late arrivals of the 720s, the fact that we're talking about them ideally needing to be kept on for longer else there might be problems ahead, despite already having their stay extended once, tells you all you need to know about the pup the operations team have been sold by the bid team.

How long are the 360's on extended lease for?

 

[NoMorePacers]

Genuine question: why is it taking so long to bring these trains into service?
Train faults?
Staff training?
Incorrect spec (e.g. permitted levels of electrical interference from Channel Tunnel stock nevertheless upset the signalling in 1990s)

I think it boils down to Stadler being new to the UK market and thus needing time to acclimatise to it with their brand new trains.

Bombardier however are just awful and cannot make a good quality train to save their lives.

 

[Railperf]

I think it boils down to Stadler being new to the UK market and thus needing time to acclimatise to it with their brand new trains.

Bombardier however are just awful and cannot make a good quality train to save their lives.

That's not entirely fair. Bombardier's Electrostar and turbostar trains are reliable and offer a fair travelling environment for what is essentially a commuter train layout.

The Aventra design has issues and the relatively low reliability figures for 345's and 710s confirm that. But i don't doubt they can get it right.

Class 222's are a great DMU. And could be better still if refurbished internally - but this is subjective of course. Class 222 performance and reliability places them among the best DMU's

 

[F Great Eastern]

Genuine question: why is it taking so long to bring these trains into service?
Train faults?
Staff training?
Incorrect spec (e.g. permitted levels of electrical interference from Channel Tunnel stock nevertheless upset the signalling in 1990s)

An over ambitious bid
A manufacturer highly dependent on outside contractors
Poor supplier relationships
Apparent Blame culture within Stadler
Lack of management experience in delivering such projects within GA
Too little margin for error.
A focus on PR and spin at expense of all else
Usual stock teething problems
Challenges of having old and new stock in cramped depots
Lack of stock meaning less units in use for training than desired

 

[RailWonderer]

Aren’t the 156s meant to be going to EMR as well?

Not an issue. There’s only 9 of them and by this time next year most 755s will be in service to replace them.

 

[chubs]

Is it really taking so much longer than other fleets or is it the usual bashing?

The 170's had issues with introduction to service as discussed in one of the many split off GA threads.

The 375's had issues.

Quite a few other brand new fleets currently being deployed seem to have issues. Quite a few refurbished old fleets are having issues.

It's been about 4 months and a dozen or so are in service with more imminently. Seems fairly standard?

Blah blah blah bid was overambitious armchair enthusiasts know better mk3+90's forever etc etc....

 

[F Great Eastern]

Is it really taking so much longer than other fleets or is it the usual bashing?

The problem is that Greater Anglia's plans were built around everything being delivered in super quick time, on schedule and without delay and if there were delays then GA were always going to have to start short forming trains, removing carriages and cancelling services and that's exactly what happened.

Even for established, well proven fleets and an experienced project team, the plans that GA outlined were going to be tough to deliver. If you put a group of people who have never operationally undertook such project before, an engineering director who has no background in trains, ignore your operations department and then order from a manufacturer who has never built a train for the country and order another product based on an unproven platform from Bombardier and also want everything to be on time or hell breaks use, then you're asking for trouble.

The problem is not so much the trains are late, more so that Abellio's bid expected them to simply turn up, plug in and go without any real problems or delay and not have the problems that other fleets have had like you mentioned. Thing is that the fleets that Abellio ordered were probably the least suitable for this approach, it's not like it's a follow on order for a mature Turbostar/Electrostar/IEP/Desiro UK platform.

Blah blah blah bid was overambitious armchair enthusiasts know better mk3+90's forever etc etc....

I'm no lover of the MK3s and class 90s and won't miss them when they are gone, it's not got anything to do with wide eyed feeling about the old stock, it's about the current situation to travel on every day which is not very good, it's particularly grim on the local lines. The 153s, MK3s, 317s and 156s they are well past it now and need replacing. The units I'll miss the most are the 360s as they were a step change when they were brought in.

By the way, a lot of people in the industry who I know felt that Greater Anglia's bid was overambitious and well connected people on here also have heard the same and we've also heard stuff about operational staff at GA not being involved barely at all in it, so it's not just a few enthusiasts having a moan.

 

[class379]

today I went on a Class 317, specifically a /6, and I really enjoyed the ride. Considering there age, there in decent condition but there are obviously some downsides, like the doors and the lack of air con, but I doubt that would matter in November!

 

[trebor79]

The problem is that Greater Anglia's plans were built around everything being delivered in super quick time, on schedule and without delay and if there were delays then GA were always going to have to start short forming trains, removing carriages and cancelling services and that's exactly what happened.

Needlessly so in the case of the intercity route. If they'd not stopped maintaining the current stock they wouldn't be shortforming and subbing 321s. The latter of course then leading to short forms elsewhere on the network.

 

[TheEdge]

With the (planned) introduction of ASDO on Monday and seemingly imminent roll out of 755s to Sheringham hopefully we might see some relief of the rural situation.

With the possibility of all Yarmouths being 755 operated and legacy units freed up from Sheringham hopefully that'll trickle down and less lone 153s will be about

 

[Railperf]

From a performance point of view - these are going to be challenging times for Greater Anglia commuters. Things could get a lot worse before they get better. There seems to be a time pressure to get these new trains into service, but their reliability figures are a fraction of what the existing stock is achieving. Here is the list of reliability figures using the 2018-2019 MTIN MAA figures published in January 2019

Class 360's - 77.6k
Class 379 - 76.9k
Class 90 AND MK3 Intercity sets - 62k miles
Class 321 - 21.3k
Class 170 - 16k
Class 315 - 12k
Class 317/6 - 11.7k
Class 317/3/5/7 - 11.2k
Class 156 - 9.5k
Class 153 - 6.7k
Class 37 hauled set - 3.1k

vs new train figures published in most recent Modern Railways
New Class 345 TFL - 6.1k
New Class 755 - 1.9k
London Overground Class 710's - 1.8k (similar to incoming Class 720 - which will form the backbone of the GA electric fleet)

Expect to see more 'bins' on the Norwich line Lol.

 

[TheEdge]

vs new train figures published in most recent Modern Railways
New Class 345 TFL - 6.1k
New Class 755 - 1.9k
London Overground Class 710's - 1.8k (similar to incoming Class 720 - which will form the backbone of the GA electric fleet)

And what's the got to do with the price of fish?

It's no secret that brand new fleets have teething problems and post generally poor reliability.

For a meaningful comparison what were the figures for 156s, 360s, 379s when they'd only been in service for a few months?

 

[Class 170101]

Aren’t the 156s meant to be going to EMR as well?

Correct.

 

[ashkeba]

As part of the current franchise, GA extended the lease of most of the stock, but didn't do it enough because their timescales were hopelessly optimistic, drawn up by a bidding team with little operations experience who didn't seek the input of such people and instead had an engineering director wih no rail experience.

The 360s have already been extended as a contingency to cover the late arrivals of the 720s, the fact that we're talking about them ideally needing to be kept on for longer else there might be problems ahead, despite already having their stay extended once, tells you all you need to know about the pup the operations team have been sold by the bid team.

Why not criticise DfT too for accepting an unrealistic bid and seeming to do nothing about a stream of missed due dates?

 

[ashkeba]

That's not entirely fair. Bombardier's Electrostar and turbostar trains are reliable and offer a fair travelling environment for what is essentially a commuter train layout.

Turbo stars are used on regional services that they're rubbish for. Bashed up, noisy and overcrowded.

Class 222's are a great DMU. And could be better still if refurbished internally - but this is subjective of course. Class 222 performance and reliability places them among the best DMU's

Do 222 (Meridians?) suffer from smelling like hot poo like the Voyagers?

 

[NoMorePacers]

Turbo stars are used on regional services that they're rubbish for. Bashed up, noisy and overcrowded.


Do 222 (Meridians?) suffer from smelling like hot poo like the Voyagers?

They do, but it’s more subtle. Still very much there though. And it lingers when one goes through a station as well.

 

[ashkeba]

And what's the got to do with the price of fish?

It's no secret that brand new fleets have teething problems and post generally poor reliability.

For a meaningful comparison what were the figures for 156s, 360s, 379s when they'd only been in service for a few months?

Wouldn't it be 156s, 444s and 357s to compare new fleets?

 

[samuelmorris]

And what's the got to do with the price of fish?

It's no secret that brand new fleets have teething problems and post generally poor reliability.

For a meaningful comparison what were the figures for 156s, 360s, 379s when they'd only been in service for a few months?

It's very relevant because a full fleet replacement is taking place, which means every single train on the network will be in the 'early teething problems' reliability figure range, rather than just a small proportion of the fleet if only one class was replaced (as would have been the case when 360s replaced 312s, for example). All 720s were supposed to be introduced within about 18 months, given they're over a year late that may mean they compress that period further, thus, it's highly likely the 720 fleet will be <2 years old by the time all the legacy units are withdrawn. 345s are well over 2 years into service now and still posting 6000 MTIN, and they're the simple ones without any of the Crossrail signalling gear that's proving so problematic. Ergo, I expect the average MTIN for the entire GA fleet to be between 5000 and 10,000 by the time it's all introduced, probably lower during the rollout. It's not like there's loads of spare capacity either, we've already demonstrated that arguably too few new units have been ordered. Therefore, short-forms and stock-related cancellations I suspect will be the norm until at least 2023, sadly. Furthermore, that suspicion has zero to do with any opinions about GA maintenance, that's just how it goes when a full fleet is replaced all at once by units from a manufacturer that has a rather long 'bedding in period'. The Stadler units I'm hopeful will pick up within a year or so because we don't have any data to suggest one way or the other yet, but the 720s I am not hopeful for.

 

[TheEdge]

It's very relevant because a full fleet replacement is taking place...

Snip for comfort

But the post I quoted was trying to compare them directly with long since established fleets which isn't exactly like for like.

 

[F Great Eastern]

But the post I quoted was trying to compare them directly with long since established fleets which isn't exactly like for like.

This thread is about Greater Anglia and they are replacing one full fleet of trains with another full fleet of trains and it was pretty obvious that the poster was pointing out what samuelmorris was talking about in relation to how short forms and cancellations well into three figures before this weeks cynical trick, are going to get worse before they get better when you take out trains with 80k MTIN and replace them with 6k ones.

The simple fact is that GA are replacing in full well established fleets, in some cases with very high MTIN figures, with fully brand new fleets which will have low MTIN figures at least at first so that is going to have a massive impact on the reliability of service.

That's what your average punter cares about, they don't care about the fact whether it's fair or not to compare them, they just expect to get a reliable service and if they don't then they will ask questions about Abellio's choices. We all know that new trains will be unreliable at first and the bathtub curve it exists, but Abellio made their bed and now they need to lay in it and if there is meltdown it's their fault, not an unfair expectation.

 

[RailWonderer]

Why not criticise DfT too for accepting an unrealistic bid and seeming to do nothing about a stream of missed due dates?

Because it was only an unrealistic bid that was going to win. NXEA neglected the route for so long, and suffered chronic underinvestment. GA needed a long term franchise to finish what they started with renovations and seat covers being replaced, but now it’s clear this is only the beginning and they haven’t even started.

The transition period between stock old and new will last years, and reliability will have to take a toll for the long term good. It’s inevitable, but necessary.
When SWT replaced the bulk of their trains and on a lesser scale c2c, the same concerns were there.

 

[DBrent]

Just to point a few things some of us keep mentioning:

1. "Bid managers weren't involved in a bidding process and that operational people should make decisions" - who should decide? Shunters, drivers, drivers' managers? ? Do they know financial aspects ? For example to be a CEO of a technological company or a hospital you don't have to be an engineer or a doctor.
2. "It's stadler responsible for all the train shortages, faults etc. because they've never built a train for the UK market" . I's not stadler late but bombardier late. Which one we prefer? Have we got any knowledge about stadler or any other companies building for the European market? Any knowledge about european signalling system? Just to let us know their systems are far more complex and there are no problems with aws and tpws with stadler in the UK.
3. No reason about writing about subcontractors - cameras etc. I don't want to make this post long so don't want to go into details but all companies -apple, vauxhall or train manufacturers don't produce every piece of their product. For example almost 90% of bombardier parts are from outside the UK.

 

[samuelmorris]

This thread is about Greater Anglia and they are replacing one full fleet of trains with another full fleet of trains and it was pretty obvious that the poster was pointing out what samuelmorris was talking about in relation to how short forms and cancellations well into three figures before this weeks cynical trick, are going to get worse before they get better when you take out trains with 80k MTIN and replace them with 6k ones.

The simple fact is that GA are replacing in full well established fleets, in some cases with very high MTIN figures, with fully brand new fleets which will have low MTIN figures at least at first so that is going to have a massive impact on the reliability of service.

That's what your average punter cares about, they don't care about the fact whether it's fair or not to compare them, they just expect to get a reliable service and if they don't then they will ask questions about Abellio's choices. We all know that new trains will be unreliable at first and the bathtub curve it exists, but Abellio made their bed and now they need to lay in it and if there is meltdown it's their fault, not an unfair expectation.

In fairness, the bulk of the EMU fleet is 317s and 321s which have rather mediocre MTIN figures, so I'm confident the new fleet will eventually surpass them by quite a significant margin, but yes, there will be "short" (i.e. the next 3-5 years) term pain for long-term gain, assuming someone new doesn't come along and totally change things around again!

When c2c replaced their fleet with 357s they had all sorts of hassle and had to spot-hire 317s to keep the service going (and some 321s as well if I recall?) - the issues they had were so bad that they got two entire free units off ADtranz. Being the first Electrostars, there was a lot that needed doing to get them right, but now they're pretty solid units. Their reliability is nothing special but it's not terrible. The same will be true of the Aventra eventually I'm sure.


On the MTIN front, these might need their own thread, but I had a go at making a graphical representation of the MTIN data from Modern Railways Mag so far, I obviously won't post all the raw figures as that's unfair to the publication, but figured something like this wouldn't hurt - there are some quirks, to get this month's new entries to show at all I had to copy their values to the previous month and the smoothed lines mean the actual points aren't completely accurate (about 10% out) but that's the closest I could get in a somewhat legible graph before running out of patience!
The 707's remarkable figures do rather affect the chart a bit...

https://imgur.com/a/OoEFk0W (2 images)

 

[Grumbler]

An over ambitious bid
A manufacturer highly dependent on outside contractors
Poor supplier relationships
Apparent Blame culture within Stadler
Lack of management experience in delivering such projects within GA
Too little margin for error.
A focus on PR and spin at expense of all else
Usual stock teething problems
Challenges of having old and new stock in cramped depots
Lack of stock meaning less units in use for training than desired

So most of the problems are down to the supplier. The problem of having two fleets in the same depot is because the new fleet is not yet working - no 745 has yet earned a penny in revenue service desipte the first delivery more than eight months ago.

 

[F Great Eastern]

So most of the problems are down to the supplier.

The problem of having two fleets in the same depot is because the new fleet is not yet working - no 745 has yet earned a penny in revenue service desipte the first delivery more than eight months ago.

What you're saying there is typical blame culture stuff. Blame culture doesn't get anything resolved it just breaks down working relationships and means it takes longer to sort a problem and when you've got Greater Anglia saying nothing is their fault when they made a bit on unrealistic assumptions and Stadler saying nothing is their fault and it's the supplier when the same equipment works fine on Hitachi, Siemens and Bombardier products. Everyone is so busy trying to say it's them and not me, that they're not focusing on the problem.

My gripe isn't only with Stadler for not having the units work out of the box, because there were always going to be teething problems, pretty much any rolling stock has unless it's another run of almost identical trains or a subclass from the last one, so GA turning around and blaming Stadler is symptomatic of a blame culture. A good project plan anticipates the potential problems, risk factors and possible delays that could happen and how to deal with them before any train comes anywhere near the UK, rather than just hoping that everything works out fine and blaming bad luck if it doesn't. GA seem to have a planned entry into service date as the same date that they need the units to be in service, which is a very risky.

When a blame game is going on (and this applies to Stadler, especially but also GA) people tend to be less open. Openness is critical with a project like this since it means people will have their say without fear and this promotes discussion and brainstorming, and often helps with solutions. You do that by having the people who made a system discussing it with the people implementing it into their rolling stock and other key stakeholders. Attitudes about 'them' being the problem so they need to come up with a solution aren't the answer here since if people feel that proposing something that involves the other party doing something that will help achieve their goals will be met with resistance then they won't say it and the solution will take longer to find. You need to be solution focused.

Project management isn't just about delivery, it's about solid planning, scoping out potential issues and how you would react to them if they happened, management of relationships between departments and parties and having a culture that allows problems to be overcome, openly debated where everyone feel they can speak up and make a suggestion without fear of being blamed and ensuring that everyone involved is focused on the end goal rather than trying to find someone to blame when there is a setback and stopping people looking out for their own agendas over the team goal.

It's not Greater Anglia's fault that Stadler and Bombardier are running late, but it is their fault that they put together a proposal that didn't have sufficient margin to absorb more of the effects of these things which was always likely to happen and anyone experienced with these kind of projects in practice rather than on paper and in theory would have known that. The problem was that the GA bid team wasn't experienced and it knew the theory of everything and the practice of nothing, the ED knew lots about planes and little about trains and what you're seeing is the results of flaws in the plan that an experienced team wouldn't make.

No doubt those responsible have already left having got their payday for winning the contract rather than being around to see the poor souls in operations who are probably working overtime to avoid cancelling and shortforming more services than the already too large number in cramped conditions. Abellio would need to learn the lessons that First was very honest about learning on the Class 175s in First North Western, when FGE introduced the 360s.

 

[Shunter_69]

I’m fairly confident that Stadler and Bombardier would have given the bid team assurances that they could deliver on time.

I’m sure even if operations staff were involved in the bid process they would still have been reassured of the time scales.

Late delivery is a problem that is affecting all TOC’s with new trains on order.

Hindsight is a wonderful tool and I’m sure GA would have agreed longer contracts for the existing stock if they’d know how late the new trains would be.

 

[Grumbler]

Stadler saying nothing is their fault and it's the supplier when the same equipment works fine on Hitachi, Siemens and Bombardier products.

Stadler are responsible for what they deliver, it is up to them to make sure that any components they source are up to the job.

My gripe isn't only with Stadler for not having the units work out of the box, because there were always going to be teething problems, pretty much any rolling stock has unless it's another run of almost identical trains or a subclass from the last one, so GA turning around and blaming Stadler is symptomatic of a blame culture.

Sorry, but why shouldn't new trains work straight out of the box? When colour TVs first came in they had to be adjusted by an engineer and if the customer moved it to vacuum the carpet etc. an engineer had to come back to fix it. Then we started to import TVs from Japan and they worked straight out of the box. I give you one guess as to which manufacturers survived.

 

[F Great Eastern]

I’m fairly confident that Stadler and Bombardier would have given the bid team assurances that they could deliver on time.

I’m sure even if operations staff were involved in the bid process they would still have been reassured of the time scales.

Late delivery is a problem that is affecting all TOC’s with new trains on order.

Hindsight is a wonderful tool and I’m sure GA would have agreed longer contracts for the existing stock if they’d know how late the new trains would be.

Anyone experienced in these matters would know that whatever the manufacturer says, will not be achieved in almost all cases just look at the last few rounds of rolling stock over many franchises and therefore GA should have been working off the assumption there would be a delay, but hoping that there wouldn't be.

Any good project plan involves getting a date from when the suppliers that should be the commissioning date and then adding a buffer on to when you plan to have them commissioned rather than having them both the same. Both me and you know that new stock is being delayed often, how come Abellio didn't? There was an even greater need for Abellio to realise that, because one product was from a company who never produced rolling stock for the UK and another an unproven product from a manufacturer who is well known to have bedding in issues with their products, so these problems were even more likely than in any other case.

Hindsight doesn't come into it, around about the time of the bid people were saying that this was an accident waiting to happen and was far too optimistic and I would be very surprised if some of the operational staff were not of the same opinion. The trouble was that of the senior management team, there was very little in the way of operational experience of these kind of projects, it was full of bid managers and finance people, with such a lack of experience overall, a experienced engineering director was essential, instead in the new franchise they removed a very experienced one and replaced them with someone with no railway experience at the time when an experienced engineering director was needed more than ever.