Greater Anglia Rolling Stock Updates

[KC1]

A question I’ve often mean to ask, what is the reason for not running 360s down the Southend Vic line?

 

[delticdave]

A question I’ve often mean to ask, what is the reason for not running 350s down the Southend Vic line?

Can I add a 2nd question, why don't the 360's work to Norwich, especially the weekday 1702 down / 1930 up?

 

[samuelmorris]

As far as I recall, they were incompatible with the OHLE east of Shenfield and rather than fix that, it was decided to simply stick to using 321s. Presumably the work that's been carried out over the past 5-10 years will go to rectifying that for 720s, but nobody will be willing to run through the process to certify 360s for use in that area for a short period.

 

[Alfie1014]

Can I add a 2nd question, why don't the 360's work to Norwich, especially the weekday 1702 down / 1930 up?

Country crews don’t know them? And power supply issues north of Ipswich.

 

[TheEdge]

Can I add a 2nd question, why don't the 360's work to Norwich, especially the weekday 1702 down / 1930 up?

The OHL is less than brilliant north of Stowmarket so a set of 360s plus the 90s will be too much. Also the only crews who sign both EMUs and the route north of Stowmarket are Ipswich drivers and guards so it has to be 321s.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Currently 30 short forms showing up on services departing between 17:00 and 21:00.

By my reckoning Abellio are at approx 150 for short forms for the week yet official figures show they only short formed 110 trains in the last 4 week period.

Abellio define their short form performance figures as

This is the amount of trains which have operated a service with a shorter formation of carriages than advertised.

But it certainly is not that because such figures are much higher.

Which leads me to two more questions
a) What tricks are they using to be able to exclude huge amounts of short forms from their performance figures?
b) Why do the figures measure something different to what it is claimed they measure?

If they ran advertising with such claims in they'd be hauled up before the advertising standards agency for misleading advertising unless they put the caveats in that certain trains are excluded from the figures. Why should their website figures be anything different?

The other question of course, is what does "than advertised" mean in GA's definition of short forms. If they give notice on Journeycheck that it's short formed, does that mean that it's advertised so it no longer counts as a short form? If so whoever wrote that methodology should be fired from the DFT.

 

[Wivenswold]

Someone needs to complain before it goes before ASA. Boasts on corporate websites can also be reviewed by ASA if they are considered to be misleading enough, that was certainly the position last time I checked anyway.

I complained to ASA about National Express East Anglia's boast of "new trains coming" as they were not indeed "New" or even "newer" than what had come before (it was the 17 x 321/4s). ASA considered my evidence but ruled it was not misleading because "new" could be defined as "new to this line", that is, "newly introduced". Interestingly the posters disappeared from Liverpool Street long before the units arrived and only a few days before I heard back from ASA. So I think NXEA were given "feedback".

 

[F Great Eastern]

I wouldn't consider performance figures or train lengths as advertising as such, but my point more was that if something would be banned if it was featured in advertising, why should a company be allowed to make the same claim in relation to the performance figures to their customers?

If it said

This is the amount of trains which have operated a service with a shorter formation of carriages than advertised*

*excluding services effected by service disruption

Then I'd have less room to grumble, but it says that it's simply the amount of trains which operate short formed, which suggested all short forms should be included, but they simply cannot be, because of all us here know, that Abellio are easily short forming way more than 110 a week let alone a four week period.

I've just had another look on Journeycheck and another 6 are now showing up from what were showing an hour or so ago. I wouldn't be surprised if they have been close to hitting 100 a day at some point as I generally only check morning and evening peak and then it's not been uncommon to find 40 listed during both peaks.

 

[LAX54]

The OHL is less than brilliant north of Stowmarket so a set of 360s plus the 90s will be too much. Also the only crews who sign both EMUs and the route north of Stowmarket are Ipswich drivers and guards so it has to be 321s.

So I wonder how the new units will fare over that section ! ?

 

[eastdyke]

So I wonder how the new units will fare over that section ! ?

With (?) 3 tph Norwich, plus Cambridge and Peterboroughs to Haughley and all those BMU's buzzing round the Ipswich and Norwich approaches pan-up ....
I have sort of asked about PS adequacy before.

 

[dp21]

With (?) 3 tph Norwich, plus Cambridge and Peterboroughs to Haughley and all those BMU's buzzing round the Ipswich and Norwich approaches pan-up ....
I have sort of asked about PS adequacy before.

Believe NR know about it and are addressing it. I know nothing more than that.

 

[eastdyke]

Believe NR know about it and are addressing it. I know nothing more than that.

And the reality may be (as yet unspecified) lead times and costs?

 

[Class 170101]

The OHL is less than brilliant north of Stowmarket so a set of 360s plus the 90s will be too much. Also the only crews who sign both EMUs and the route north of Stowmarket are Ipswich drivers and guards so it has to be 321s.

And Liverpool Street Drivers.

Class 360s have been to Norwich on the odd occasion but no driver signs both route and traction. So a driver who signs Class 360s has to be route conducted.

 

[MCR247]

Someone needs to complain before it goes before ASA. Boasts on corporate websites can also be reviewed by ASA if they are considered to be misleading enough, that was certainly the position last time I checked anyway.

I complained to ASA about National Express East Anglia's boast of "new trains coming" as they were not indeed "New" or even "newer" than what had come before (it was the 17 x 321/4s). ASA considered my evidence but ruled it was not misleading because "new" could be defined as "new to this line", that is, "newly introduced". Interestingly the posters disappeared from Liverpool Street long before the units arrived and only a few days before I heard back from ASA. So I think NXEA were given "feedback".

I saw an article a few days ago that the ASA told GTR that their Gatwick Express "30 mins joruney" "fastest way to London" ads wear misleading due to the number of delays that were down to the operator and not NR etc. I'll try and find it in a minute

 

[306024]

Currently 30 short forms showing up on services departing between 17:00 and 21:00.

a) What tricks are they using to be able to exclude huge amounts of short forms from their performance figures?
b) Why do the figures measure something different to what it is claimed they measure?

Difficult to explain, perhaps easiest to give an example. Let's say the following diagram is 8 v 12:
2F66 15.58 Ingatestone to Colchester
1F55 16.53 Colchester to Liverpool St
1K88 18.05 Liverpool St to Southend Vic

For operational reasons 2F66 and 1F55 are diagrammed for 12 cars, but neither train actually requires more than an 8 car to accommodate all the passengers. However 1K88 does need to be a 12 car based on the official passenger counts.

Therefore only 1K88 counts as a short form, as that is the only train that inconveniences passengers if that diagram is short formed. That seems perfectly reasonable. The alternative, which is to penalise a TOC when passengers are not inconvenienced is more perverse.

 

[465 Forever]

I would like to go fast to Norwich on a 317, is this ever likely to occur?

 

[306024]

Can I add a 2nd question, why don't the 360's work to Norwich, especially the weekday 1702 down / 1930 up?

The 17.02 / 19.30 is worked by Liverpool St drivers who don’t sign 360s, and Ipswich guards (who don’t sign 360s either) get involved too. Plus you get two peak trips out of a 360 if lucky, rather than losing a 12 car to Norwich. Add the power supply issue, and the fact a 12x321 has more seats than 12x360 and you have 5 good reasons to be going on with.

 

[306024]

I would like to go fast to Norwich on a 317, is this ever likely to occur?

For 8 weeks before Abellio took over in Feb 2012 the 17.02 / 19.30 was diagrammed for 12x317/7. Then the 317/7s were taken off lease and 321s took their place. You may have missed your chance.

 

[Class 170101]

Same problem with Class 317s as Class 360s above. No one signs both route and traction.

 

[Kite159]

Sorry if already answered, but has 321448 returned to traffic yet? Or is gathering moss at the back of Ilford alongside 317722?

 

[delticdave]

Country crews don’t know them? And power supply issues north of Ipswich.

Voltage drop?
ISTR, that the Stowmarket Feeder couldn't be used because that the local power grid couldn't cope with a large single phase load, but that info that was from the electrification team at a Colchester Open Day, so it might be out of date.

 

[306024]

Same problem with Class 317s as Class 360s above. No one signs both route and traction.

Not any more, but back in 2012 Liverpool St Norwich link drivers signed 317s.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Difficult to explain, perhaps easiest to give an example. Let's say the following diagram is 8 v 12:
2F66 15.58 Ingatestone to Colchester
1F55 16.53 Colchester to Liverpool St
1K88 18.05 Liverpool St to Southend Vic

For operational reasons 2F66 and 1F55 are diagrammed for 12 cars, but neither train actually requires more than an 8 car to accommodate all the passengers. However 1K88 does need to be a 12 car based on the official passenger counts.

Therefore only 1K88 counts as a short form, as that is the only train that inconveniences passengers if that diagram is short formed. That seems perfectly reasonable. The alternative, which is to penalise a TOC when passengers are not inconvenienced is more perverse.

That's all very well and good and I understand that may be how it is calculated from a DFT point of view when it comes to franchise commitments and penalties.

However at the end of the day the Greater Anglia performance statistics simply define a short form as "the amount of trains which have operated a service with a shorter formation of carriages than advertised" so the numbers should show just that.

The words diagram, passenger inconvenience, exclusions apply, do not feature anywhere on that page, so it should simply be the number of trains that are short formed. Otherwise the values being presented are measuring something different to what the metric actually claims.

This kind of thing would not be allowed in the advertising world because the answer to the question must be the answer to the question itself, rather than a figure with a lot of stuff excluded that isn't detailed anywhere within the actual advert itself.

 

[306024]

Perhaps they describe it that way just to keep it simple for the layman to understand. If they changed ‘advertised’ to ‘agreed with the DfT’ would that be any better? Good luck in describing a diagram and how it is constructed to the average passenger. And then trying to explain why some trains count and others don’t. Frankly most would nod off before you had finished your explanation

 

[dk1]

I think Mk3s cant stop Thetford, doors swing too near posts on platform or something?

Power doors where quoted too. No idea which or who's vehicles may be used if it happens.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Perhaps they describe it that way just to keep it simple for the layman to understand. If they changed ‘advertised’ to ‘agreed with the DfT’ would that be any better?

Or they could just be honest and if the question doesn't include exclusions, publish the answer without said exclusions? The simple fact is GA are using spin to hide the number of short forms.

The layman would understand that the performance metric meant the number of trains that are short formed because that is what the question says. As I said before, this type of thing is not allowed in advertising.

Good luck in describing a diagram and how it is constructed to the average passenger. And then trying to explain why some trains count and others don’t. Frankly most would nod off before you had finished your explanation

But the passenger doesn't need to know about these things, because the metric says that it is the number of short forms that Greater Anglia run, so the number should be just that, but it isn't...It's fundamentally dishonest.

 

[86246]

It certainly appears to have been another difficult day for the rural services.

Some of the summer Saturday additional Great Yarmouth services were cancelled. There was an occasion when the service following a cancellation was a 153.

A 153 was operating between Cambridge and Ipswich. Running this caused problems as there was racing at Newmarket today along with an Ipswich home match. I noticed on the GA journey check that the 11:50 Peterborough - Ipswich had additional stops at Thurston and Elmswell. Presumably passengers had been left behind on the platform.

Hopefully this will be the last summer of a DMU fleet which is so tight on numbers.

 

[Wivenswold]

I'm cautious about Re-nationalisation but one of the best things about running the railway under one company and having a standardised fleet was that a phone call to another area last night could have summoned up a few extra units or (back in the day) a Class 37/47 with a rake of Mk1s. We (East Ham Depot) and Ilford were frequently swapping units for that very reason. No contracts to put in place, sub-lease agreements or route approval hoops to jump through and with one livery, only an enthusiast would cotton-on that there was a fleet crisis ongoing.

Duffing Message Ends;

 

[317 forever]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned earlier in this lengthy thread, but are the 12 blue former GTR Class 317s remaining with Anglia until the whole fleet is replaced?

I imagine so. Last Saturday I rode 317 345 paired with 317 338. Apologies for forgetting which was which, but 1 unit had red doors and the other still had blue doors, and this one had Abellio not GTR seating. So yes, I reckon they will all survive together. In my 317 I saw little notices in some of the windows promising new trains next year.

 

[Alfie1014]

Interesting update on short forms on GAs latest Customer Panel minutes from July, https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/sit...N8_5s/east_panel_meeting_-_minutes_170718.pdf shame the don’t make these issues more easily available to their customers rather having to trawl through the website.

One specific item is especially interesting in that they are trying for 102% availability on the 321 fleet! Well that’s not a recipe for failure is it, or have they managed to evade the laws of physics!