Stock Not Being Built to Infrastructure

[zwk500]

Then it definitely is a lack of joined-up within the rail transport industry that needs to be addressed because of issues like the 807s not being able to run to Liverpool under their own power.

Pedantically, a bi-mode using it's Genset is travelling more under it's own power than when it's got the pantograph up. Although I thought the 807s were pure EMUs, it's the 805s that are bi-mode.

Not doing so will end up holding back traffic growth rather than enable it as I'm sure you understand.

Well that was my point. You increase both parts of the system coherently. And it's not planning, but rather delivery, that seems to be what you are objecting to it.

I was aware of the French famously ordering trains too wide for the platforms, but not so much with Germany and the Netherlands. The only one I knew of with the Dutch railway was what are now the ETR 700s being unreliable but that was an issue of just a faulty train by itself. Of course the common denominator between the problems I raised and the French one is the lack of joined-up thinking and co-operation between the relevant bodies.

I believe the ICE4 has had it's fair share of problems, and the Dutch have repeatedly delayed ETCS deployment due to combinations of infrastructure, stock and training problems.

I wasn't strictly advocating the second option rather than just putting it forward as an option. For what it's worth I appreciate the need for infrastructure upgrades and modernisation to improve the railway and make it as efficient as we can, but unfortunately as it stands there seems to be an issue actually doing that in some areas which leaves us with new stock that can't fulfil half of it's intended duties in the case of the 807s. But maybe I'm also just a little salty that Liverpool isn't getting it's second London service as soon as it should, there is that as well.

This is the key question - is the problem with planners being unrealistic or in programme managers failing to secure delivery of the outputs in time? You main beef seems to be with power supply so your ire should equally go to the National Grid (and maybe Ofgem) as it should to the railway.

 

[Trainbike46]

Then it definitely is a lack of joined-up within the rail transport industry that needs to be addressed because of issues like the 807s not being able to run to Liverpool under their own power. Not doing so will end up holding back traffic growth rather than enable it as I'm sure you understand.


I was aware of the French famously ordering trains too wide for the platforms, but not so much with Germany and the Netherlands. The only one I knew of with the Dutch railway was what are now the ETR 700s being unreliable but that was an issue of just a faulty train by itself. Of course the common denominator between the problems I raised and the French one is the lack of joined-up thinking and co-operation between the relevant bodies.

The Dutch examples I was thinking of were:
- Frequency increase for Sprinters (local trains) on the line to Leeuwarden, delayed due to insufficient power for the extra trains (so similar to the 807 to liverpool story)
- the Arriva FLIRTs for the Liege-Maastricht-Heerlen-Aachen line not being fitted with ETCS initially, despite this being a legal requirement for all new rolling stock in Belgium, leading to years of delay in introducing these trains between Liege and Maastricht

I wasn't strictly advocating the second option rather than just putting it forward as an option. For what it's worth I appreciate the need for infrastructure upgrades and modernisation to improve the railway and make it as efficient as we can, but unfortunately as it stands there seems to be an issue actually doing that in some areas which leaves us with new stock that can't fulfil half of it's intended duties in the case of the 807s. But maybe I'm also just a little salty that Liverpool isn't getting it's second London service as soon as it should, there is that as well.

I'm fully on board with wanting the second Liverpool service soon, I use the line regularly!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2024 ==

Pedantically, a bi-mode using it's Genset is travelling more under it's own power than when it's got the pantograph up. Although I thought the 807s were pure EMUs, it's the 805s that are bi-mode.

That is correct, 807 is pure EMU, 805 is bimode

This is the key question - is the problem with planners being unrealistic or in programme managers failing to secure delivery of the outputs in time? You main beef seems to be with power supply so your ire should equally go to the National Grid (and maybe Ofgem) as it should to the railway.

In this specific instance it probably would have helped if the power supply upgrade hadn't been abandoned partway through

 

[Sorcerer]

Well that was my point. You increase both parts of the system coherently. And it's not planning, but rather delivery, that seems to be what you are objecting to it.

I certainly would prefer if delivery was more efficient so the orders for new rolling stock can at least go to plan. I think we're very much on the same page of wanting more efficiency in delivering rolling stock and infrastructure upgrades.

I believe the ICE4 has had it's fair share of problems, and the Dutch have repeatedly delayed ETCS deployment due to combinations of infrastructure, stock and training problems.

The Dutch examples I was thinking of were:
- Frequency increase for Sprinters (local trains) on the line to Leeuwarden, delayed due to insufficient power for the extra trains (so similar to the 807 to liverpool story)
- the Arriva FLIRTs for the Liege-Maastricht-Heerlen-Aachen line not being fitted with ETCS initially, despite this being a legal requirement for all new rolling stock in Belgium, leading to years of delay in introducing these trains between Liege and Maastricht

Thank you for the info. At the very least it's reassuring to know it's not a uniquely British issue even if we might still be bad in some areas of running a modern railway.

This is the key question - is the problem with planners being unrealistic or in programme managers failing to secure delivery of the outputs in time? You main beef seems to be with power supply so your ire should equally go to the National Grid (and maybe Ofgem) as it should to the railway.

I suppose that would depend on the situation. It could very well be possible that panners have unrealistic goals that programme managers can't secure, but in the specific instance of the 807 delivery, the issue is on Network Rail and the power suppliers not being able to deliver the necessary upgrades. Avanti and the DfT placed the order on the provision that these upgrades would be delivered but as is to be expected with modern railway management combined with a jack of joined-up thinking, this was not the case.

 

[childwallblues]

The power capacity constraints North of Crewe relate to the capacity for additional electric services over what is currently timetabled. AIUI there would be nothing to stop Avanti substituting an 807 in a 390 diagram if they so wished from a power capacity point of view (I'm not sure if EMC has been modelled or tested North of Crewe though I would hope it has). Indeed, there is also the possibility of ad-hoc test runs being able to be accommodated providing there is no degraded electrical feeding in operation on the day.

As Iunderstand it the infrastructure dates from 1961 when Liverpool to Crewe was elecrified and some of the equipment is of the same vintage. When electrification north of Weaver Junction to Motherwell took place in 1974? they may well have not increased the power supply.

 

[Sorcerer]

As Iunderstand it the infrastructure dates from 1961 when Liverpool to Crewe was elecrified and some of the equipment is of the same vintage. When electrification north of Weaver Junction to Motherwell took place in 1974? they may well have not increased the power supply.

Was the Liverpool branch not included in the mid-2000s West Coast Modernisation? Not even between Weaver Junction and what is now Liverpool South Parkway?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

And there seems to be a lot of micromanagement within DFT that isn't in any way joined up.

DfT recently reorganised its management team and Alex Hynes (who formerly was MD Scotland's Railway) now runs a combined Rail Infrastructure and Services group.
That was under the Tory DfT plan to create GBR.
It might all change in 3 weeks' time...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2024 ==

Was the Liverpool branch not included in the mid-2000s West Coast Modernisation? Not even between Weaver Junction and what is now Liverpool South Parkway?

There were upgrades to the power supply from the grid, but apparently not to the old switchgear along the route.
The project cancelled was the Autotransformer project which was stopped part way through (you can see where some of the ATF wires are in place, but not in service).
Places like Preston are also affected.

 

[twpsaesneg]

As Iunderstand it the infrastructure dates from 1961 when Liverpool to Crewe was elecrified and some of the equipment is of the same vintage. When electrification north of Weaver Junction to Motherwell took place in 1974? they may well have not increased the power supply.

The "new" Weaver Junction feeder feeds South as far as Crewe, but in classic feeding mode. Currently the original equipment substations are in use south of Weaver, although the new ones are in place from when they were installed back in the 201x's.

There is a project underway to complete the upgrade works between Crewe and Weaver to remove constraints in this section, unfortunately the HS2 descope delayed the implementation.