Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[Blindtraveler]

It just seams to me that, love m or hate m the hundreds of electrostars appear to just roll out the factory and into traffic with minimal fuss but the last 3 consignments of stock wev had from Germany have been nothing but trouble for the first 6 to 12 months. .
Scotrails 380s, more trouble than theyr worth and still hated by drivers due to visability issues, the 350/3 and /4 subclasses caused chaos at TPE and wasnt there some spat with LM drivers not wanting to drive them to start with?

I awate the 707s over in SWT land with interst and barely concealed frustration at the inability of a major multi national to send us stock fit for purpose.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I also awate the introduction of the 800s and 385s, both ment to enter traffic in the next 12 months. Will we have a several hundred page thread of reliability issues with these too?

 

[AM9]

As I suspected then, the interaction between the trains safety systems and the surrounding infrastructure that they rely on seems to be the cause of so many 'train failures'. Going by reports on here and elsewhere, there haven't been any of the type that might beset new rolling stock, e.g. traction equipment overheating, non-functional ventilation/air conditioning, mechanical door problems, (even buttons falling off!).
The demand for more complex safety systems to mitigate against driver error has dragged many agencies into the mix including critically Network Rail. It is no longer acceptable to provide easy 'defeat mechanisms' just to keep the train moving without compromising safety by allowing mistakes to be covered up. Railway history is littered with examples of 'minor inconveniences' of safety mechanisms being routinely overridden, sometimes resulting in disasters of the kind that they were designed to prevent. A recent example, (luckily narrowly missing a catastrophy) was the releasing of the AWS system, presumably because the driver wanted to mitigate the effect on himself and his train. If the doors on class 700s weren't tied to the train's position so tightly, an inattentive driver might give a wrong side release, which on a packed DOO train could be a serious hazard.
When safety systems do impact on passenger's journeys it is understandable that they complain. I was under that impression that this forum was the place for informed discussion of rail matters, not just another place to unload one's prejudices about a TOC, Network Rail or even a new train design without accepting the whole situation (technical, safety, legal, political and economic) that the new trains are operating in. I have never had any relationship with the railway other than a fare-paying passenger, - I just read and take on board the posts here (both serious comments and irrelevant rants), recognising that RUK is not an angry commuter forum.

 

[bramling]

As I suspected then, the interaction between the trains safety systems and the surrounding infrastructure that they rely on seems to be the cause of so many 'train failures'. Going by reports on here and elsewhere, there haven't been any of the type that might beset new rolling stock, e.g. traction equipment overheating, non-functional ventilation/air conditioning, mechanical door problems, (even buttons falling off!).
The demand for more complex safety systems to mitigate against driver error has dragged many agencies into the mix including critically Network Rail. It is no longer acceptable to provide easy 'defeat mechanisms' just to keep the train moving without compromising safety by allowing mistakes to be covered up. Railway history is littered with examples of 'minor inconveniences' of safety mechanisms being routinely overridden, sometimes resulting in disasters of the kind that they were designed to prevent. A recent example, (luckily narrowly missing a catastrophy) was the releasing of the AWS system, presumably because the driver wanted to mitigate the effect on himself and his train. If the doors on class 700s weren't tied to the train's position so tightly, an inattentive driver might give a wrong side release, which on a packed DOO train could be a serious hazard.
When safety systems do impact on passenger's journeys it is understandable that they complain. I was under that impression that this forum was the place for informed discussion of rail matters, not just another place to unload one's prejudices about a TOC, Network Rail or even a new train design without accepting the whole situation (technical, safety, legal, political and economic) that the new trains are operating in. I have never had any relationship with the railway other than a fare-paying passenger, - I just read and take on board the posts here (both serious comments and irrelevant rants), recognising that RUK is not an angry commuter forum.

Lots of railway companies manage to introduce safety systems without causing the level of grief this particular one has done. It may not be your intention, but your post seems to come across as making excuses for failure.

 

[AM9]

Lots of railway companies manage to introduce safety systems without causing the level of grief this particular one has done. It may not be your intention, but your post seems to come across as making excuses for failure.

As a (retired) engineer, I fully understand the dilemma of testing products before and during service introduction. There is no easy answer in introducing equipment when:

there is only one target operational environment available, i.e. the one currently in heavy use
there is nowhere to store over 1000 cars of EMU rolling stock except on the operational railway for which it has been procured
the systems now being introduced are at a new level of complexity, driven as I said above by the drive for safety that prevents bad practice by staff creating dangerous conditions
there is not inconsiderable pressure on the introduction of additional capacity on routes into London where there is no realistic chance of wholsesale infrastructure being provided.​

This is exacerbated by the ongoing upgrade to London Bridge and not helped by the Government's policy using a TOC to make non-metro trains DOO. (That is not OT for this thread because it has an inevitable impact on TL running/loading making the passenger experience more difficult.)
I suspect that actual train failure causes will not be disclosed publicly for some time as there are commercial implications arising from the media looking for 'culprits', but it seems to me that of those that have been reported here, (mainly doors, PIS issues and the St Albans neutral section problem), they are all sytem problems rather than specific Class 700 train issues.
Comparing the Desiro City design with third or fourth batches of Electrostar and Desiro trains is pointless. These trains are the first examples of a whole new family being deployed into a victorian infrastructure with layer upon layer of 20th and 21st century add-ons, some of them done on the cheap. How many problems did the original 350s or 375/377s have? Moreover, the 387s had some issues that really shouldn't have been there after the 377/6&7s, 378s and 379s had already introduced the Electrostar/Aventra hybrids that they are.
For the record, I think that GTR is a cynical outfit that is happy to take their 3% management fee smug in the knowledge that the DfT is really running the railway and they are there to give it some semblence of 'Privatisation' - whatever that is. Some posters on here are however GTR employees, and it is unreasonable to expect them to spill the beans (or dish the dirt) unless they are authorised spokespersons for the TOC or NR.

 

[Deepgreen]

It didn't fail as such, as I caught it later on in its journey*. The driver announced a problem with the doors - he was having to open them manually at each stop. The PIS wasn't working either, and as the ASDO is linked to the PIS that suggests the problem. Also I think the train had an amended calling pattern south of the river, due to the strike' which may have contributed to the PIS not working if there was t the right code for it.

I gather Siemens are making software updates.


* for me at least it was a bonus; it was about 9/10 minutes late and I had turned up for the next one, so I actually got home 5 minutes earlier than expected. Good old 700s, beating expectations!

I refer to a train not performing as required and causing significant delay and disruption as a 'failure'. That doesn't mean that failure can't be rectified and the train continue at some point.

The 700s have gone through a long testing, training and mileage accumulation period before entering service, so it is understandable that many view a significant number of incidents/failures/problems as unacceptable. Yes, we operate in a more complex safety and systems regime than previously, but manufacturers need to respond to that to produce a robust product (and TOCs need to train staff effectively).

 

[jon0844]

Are the faults related to equipment outside the train? Even as simple as stop boards being in the wrong place (having just been chucked on any existing post nearby)?

Of course the passenger should not care what the cause of the problems is, but on here it IS interesting to know and discuss.

It doesn't mean anyone is defending the problem, just trying to understand them. What was it that was said earlier on about how openness and honesty always helps get things fixed quicker?

 

[Deepgreen]

Are the faults related to equipment outside the train? Even as simple as stop boards being in the wrong place (having just been chucked on any existing post nearby)?

Of course the passenger should not care what the cause of the problems is, but on here it IS interesting to know and discuss.

It doesn't mean anyone is defending the problem, just trying to understand them. What was it that was said earlier on about how openness and honesty always helps get things fixed quicker?

At Redhill (and other stations along the route) - quite the opposite - a forest of new posts has grown up to carry the new blue and white 'FLU' and 'RLU' signs on every platform! The offending train in question had stopped at the correct spot. In any case, I don't think there are systems in place to prevent opening doors if the stop mark is not perfectly observed - they were installed (according to previous posts here) to ensure that the disabled-access section on every train would be in the same place on the platform whether for an eight or twelve car 700 formation.

 

[bramling]

As a (retired) engineer, I fully understand the dilemma of testing products before and during service introduction. There is no easy answer in introducing equipment when:

there is only one target operational environment available, i.e. the one currently in heavy use
there is nowhere to store over 1000 cars of EMU rolling stock except on the operational railway for which it has been procured
the systems now being introduced are at a new level of complexity, driven as I said above by the drive for safety that prevents bad practice by staff creating dangerous conditions
there is not inconsiderable pressure on the introduction of additional capacity on routes into London where there is no realistic chance of wholsesale infrastructure being provided.​

This is exacerbated by the ongoing upgrade to London Bridge and not helped by the Government's policy using a TOC to make non-metro trains DOO. (That is not OT for this thread because it has an inevitable impact on TL running/loading making the passenger experience more difficult.)
I suspect that actual train failure causes will not be disclosed publicly for some time as there are commercial implications arising from the media looking for 'culprits', but it seems to me that of those that have been reported here, (mainly doors, PIS issues and the St Albans neutral section problem), they are all sytem problems rather than specific Class 700 train issues.
Comparing the Desiro City design with third or fourth batches of Electrostar and Desiro trains is pointless. These trains are the first examples of a whole new family being deployed into a victorian infrastructure with layer upon layer of 20th and 21st century add-ons, some of them done on the cheap. How many problems did the original 350s or 375/377s have? Moreover, the 387s had some issues that really shouldn't have been there after the 377/6&7s, 378s and 379s had already introduced the Electrostar/Aventra hybrids that they are.
For the record, I think that GTR is a cynical outfit that is happy to take their 3% management fee smug in the knowledge that the DfT is really running the railway and they are there to give it some semblence of 'Privatisation' - whatever that is. Some posters on here are however GTR employees, and it is unreasonable to expect them to spill the beans (or dish the dirt) unless they are authorised spokespersons for the TOC or NR.

None of this is rocket science. At the end of the day it's a train running on a railway, not some new earth-shattering concept.

On the specific issue of doors, the safety systems for correct side door enable and selective door opening are hardly novel concepts. On the other side of the wall at Farringdon, London Underground has had correct side door enable for around a quarter of a century. The S Stock also has selective door opening to cope with short platforms. All of this was introduced onto Victorian infrastructure, just like Thameslink. It is simply not that hard to design, produce, install, test and train for the operation of such a system. One wonders if Bombardier might have done better.

I also take issue with the idea this thread is full of moaning commuters. Many of those posting here, myself included, work inside the railway industry, as well as using it to travel to/from work and between places of work. I for one can see some pretty schoolboy errors being made with the design of Thameslink, and this bears fruit in the poor performance we are now seeing.

 

[AM9]

None of this is rocket science. At the end of the day it's a train running on a railway, not some new earth-shattering concept.

On the specific issue of doors, the safety systems for correct side door enable and selective door opening are hardly novel concepts. On the other side of the wall at Farringdon, London Underground has had correct side door enable for around a quarter of a century. The S Stock also has selective door opening to cope with short platforms. All of this was introduced onto Victorian infrastructure, just like Thameslink. It is simply not that hard to design, produce, install, test and train for the operation of such a system. One wonders if Bombardier might have done better.

But wrong side door opening still happens, even on wonderful Bombardier trains maybe? So that one doesn't look like it has been fixed on the mainline.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I also take issue with the idea this thread is full of moaning commuters.

Where did I say that this thread is full of moaning commuters?

 

[stut]

Where did I say that this thread is full of moaning commuters?

FWIW, I'm a moaning commuter.

 

[F Great Eastern]

As for the ongoing issues with the doors and the PIS, yes they are linked and the former is more likely to happen if a problem with the later is happening because of the way these trains are set-up since it will play an important part in ensuring the stock delivers key benefits over the longer term when everything is fixed up.

With regards to the comment about Bombardier doing better, I wouldn't be so quick to point the finger for this problem at Siemens for these issues, because you'd not only be barking up the wrong tree, you'd be in the wrong Forest.

I posted my thoughts several pages back as to what the issue was based on informed sources, from what I heard a few days ago nothing has really changed.

 

[bramling]

But wrong side door opening still happens, even on wonderful Bombardier trains maybe? So that one doesn't look like it has been fixed on the mainline.

I say with certainty that virtually every wrong side door release on LU is down to staff error, normally when the driver has to over-ride the system and then don't perform a check to see what side the platform is on. I'm not going to provide figures, but they're pretty rare. As a guide, I'd say once or twice per year, per line, at the most.

Where did I say that this thread is full of moaning commuters?

You've suggested it at least once. Comments about resembling a TOC's Twitter feed spring to mind, for a start.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wouldn't be so quick to point the finger for this problem at Siemens for these issues, because you'd not only be barking up the wrong tree, you'd be in the wrong Forest.

At the end of the day, it's irrelevant. The matter is firmly within the industry's control, that's what matters.

 

[Class377/5]

As a (retired) engineer, I fully understand the dilemma of testing products before and during service introduction. There is no easy answer in introducing equipment when:

there is only one target operational environment available, i.e. the one currently in heavy use
there is nowhere to store over 1000 cars of EMU rolling stock except on the operational railway for which it has been procured
the systems now being introduced are at a new level of complexity, driven as I said above by the drive for safety that prevents bad practice by staff creating dangerous conditions
there is not inconsiderable pressure on the introduction of additional capacity on routes into London where there is no realistic chance of wholsesale infrastructure being provided.​

This is exacerbated by the ongoing upgrade to London Bridge and not helped by the Government's policy using a TOC to make non-metro trains DOO. (That is not OT for this thread because it has an inevitable impact on TL running/loading making the passenger experience more difficult.)
I suspect that actual train failure causes will not be disclosed publicly for some time as there are commercial implications arising from the media looking for 'culprits', but it seems to me that of those that have been reported here, (mainly doors, PIS issues and the St Albans neutral section problem), they are all sytem problems rather than specific Class 700 train issues.
Comparing the Desiro City design with third or fourth batches of Electrostar and Desiro trains is pointless. These trains are the first examples of a whole new family being deployed into a victorian infrastructure with layer upon layer of 20th and 21st century add-ons, some of them done on the cheap. How many problems did the original 350s or 375/377s have? Moreover, the 387s had some issues that really shouldn't have been there after the 377/6&7s, 378s and 379s had already introduced the Electrostar/Aventra hybrids that they are.
For the record, I think that GTR is a cynical outfit that is happy to take their 3% management fee smug in the knowledge that the DfT is really running the railway and they are there to give it some semblence of 'Privatisation' - whatever that is. Some posters on here are however GTR employees, and it is unreasonable to expect them to spill the beans (or dish the dirt) unless they are authorised spokespersons for the TOC or NR.

Worthing GTR is currently spending more on the franchise that it gets paid due to poor performance.

As for any valid points, too many on here prefer making 'facts' up based on assumptions where as the real facts are dismissed. Why I'm giving up on providing insights as you just get abuse for it. I mean I'm told on here my employer has changed and I've received money because I dared to challenge a lie so the poster could dismiss me (and the truth) to justify his anger.

 

[bramling]

Why I'm giving up on providing insights as you just get abuse for it.

I would respectfully suggest that the reason you perceive receiving abuse for your insights is because you seem to believe anyone who doesn't agree with your views on a given topic is wrong, and your posting style seems to reinforce this.

Believe it or not, I do consider and respect what you post, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything.

I dared to challenge a lie

Here's a good example.

You've no evidence for suggesting another poster is telling "a lie". If, in your opinion, someone is wrong, just point out the facts, and let everyone form their own opinion. I for one would take your posts a lot more seriously then.

 

[AM9]

I say with certainty that virtually every wrong side door release on LU is down to staff error, normally when the driver has to over-ride the system and then don't perform a check to see what side the platform is on. I'm not going to provide figures, but they're pretty rare. As a guide, I'd say once or twice per year, per line, at the most.

This thread (and hence my comments) concerns National Rail and the Thameslink route specifically. Wrong-side releases have and do happen elsewhere and have involved Bombardier trains. LU is a much smaller network, has far more commonality and consequently under much closer engineering control.

You've suggested it at least once. Comments about resembling a TOC's Twitter feed spring to mind, for a start.

I did not say that "this thread is full of moaning commuters". Fortunately, most of the 5684 posts so far aren't as might be found on a TOC's Twitter feed, but there have been some that don't appear to be looking for a discussion, - more like going over the same general complaint already expressed. Continual repeating of a complaint might be better directed to a TOC, Transport Focus, the DfT or a local MP, for whom sometimes the broken record approach works, especially if there are many individuals raising the same issues. If you are actually working within the railway industry, you may have better channels through which to register your misgivings about the way the route that you currently rely on is being affected by the introduction of new trains. I'm sure that any feedback from that would be read with interest if posted here.

 

[bramling]

This thread (and hence my comments) concerns National Rail and the Thameslink route specifically. Wrong-side releases have and do happen elsewhere and have involved Bombardier trains. LU is a much smaller network, has far more commonality and consequently under much closer engineering control.

A train is a train.

The only real difference between a LU and NR application is in the amount/combinations of doors through the train needing to be affected by SDO, however with today's software-controlled trains this shouldn't be hard at all if the issue is simply to do with lack of positioning.

(A more complex issue to overcome would be how you devise a backup hardwired solution, to the necessary safety standards, for opening selected doors only on a train.)

I did not say that "this thread is full of moaning commuters". Fortunately, most of the 5684 posts so far aren't as might be found on a TOC's Twitter feed, but there have been some that don't appear to be looking for a discussion, - more like going over the same general complaint already expressed. Continual repeating of a complaint might be better directed to a TOC, Transport Focus, the DfT or a local MP, for whom sometimes the broken record approach works, especially if there are many individuals raising the same issues. If you are actually working within the railway industry, you may have better channels through which to register your misgivings about the way the route that you currently rely on is being affected by the introduction of new trains.

Already done mate.

Feedback I've had back suggests I'm by no means the only person to have raised the issues, not by a long way.

 

[The Box Photter]

Isn't it the driver's responsibility to know the length of the train he/she's driving? If so, they're also supposed to sign for the route they're driving, including which side of the train has the platform and which has a six-foot drop?

Why does this have to be controlled by a computer running windows software that has to interact with GPS satellites orbiting 300 miles above the earth's surface?

All you need is a correctly-placed sign on the platform, which the driver can see from the cab (possibly illuminated at night). The driver stops the train next to the sign and pushes one of two buttons on the train control panel to release the doors on the correct side. You could make it even easier by having the button on the right release the doors on the right hand side and the one on the left ... do I need to go on?

Put a bloody big NUMBER on the platform sign saying 12, or 8, or 10, or 6 and that would give the driver a clue as to how many doors to release on the correct side.

No need for Windows 8.1 and no need for Skynet. Surely it's obvious.

 

[ComUtoR]

All you need is a correctly-placed sign on the platform, which the driver can see from the cab (possibly illuminated at night). The driver stops the train next to the sign and pushes one of two buttons on the train control panel to release the doors on the correct side. You could make it even easier by having the button on the right release the doors on the right hand side and the one on the left ... do I need to go on?

Put a bloody big NUMBER on the platform sign saying 12, or 8, or 10, or 6 and that would give the driver a clue as to how many doors to release on the correct side.

Yes please, do go on. Could you please elucidate on the many reasons why a Driver stops short on a regular basis or the number of wrong side releases that occur on the network per quarter.

Would it also be possible to average out the number of stations stops per day a typical Metro Driver carries out and the affect on their workload management and fatigue levels.

Could you also highlight the potential risks with the platform train interface and the relevant group standards to allow the various methods of dispatch on each route GTR covers.

Pretty please, with sugar on top.

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn't it the driver's responsibility to know the length of the train he/she's driving? If so, they're also supposed to sign for the route they're driving, including which side of the train has the platform and which has a six-foot drop?

Why does this have to be controlled by a computer running windows software that has to interact with GPS satellites orbiting 300 miles above the earth's surface?

All you need is a correctly-placed sign on the platform, which the driver can see from the cab (possibly illuminated at night). The driver stops the train next to the sign and pushes one of two buttons on the train control panel to release the doors on the correct side. You could make it even easier by having the button on the right release the doors on the right hand side and the one on the left ... do I need to go on?

Put a bloody big NUMBER on the platform sign saying 12, or 8, or 10, or 6 and that would give the driver a clue as to how many doors to release on the correct side.

No need for Windows 8.1 and no need for Skynet. Surely it's obvious.

Because that's how it was done. And history has shown that sooner or later, a driver (being subject to human fallibility), will make a mistake, and either open doors on the wrong side, or stop at the wrong marker and open doors of a long train with the back end not platformed. Sooner or later someone will fall out of the door and be injured, or worse. The driver will then find him or herself in deep water, as will the company operating the trains, as they have a duty to operate a safe service.

Now you might say it's rare. It isn't. Wrong side or short stop releases happen somewhere on the my part of the network a couple of times a month. Fortunately injuries are rare. But they do happen.

 

[Failed Unit]

I know this is a bit of a tangent- but in the days of slam door stock did people step out of trains where there was no platform. I could understand them opening doors by mistake but hopefully they looked down first.

But ultimately this is a risk that technology can help remove. I would rather have a delay than a injury due to a mistake (which will ultimately make a very long delay)

 

[Bald Rick]

Are the faults related to equipment outside the train? Even as simple as stop boards being in the wrong place (having just been chucked on any existing post nearby)?

Of course the passenger should not care what the cause of the problems is, but on here it IS interesting to know and discuss.

It doesn't mean anyone is defending the problem, just trying to understand them. What was it that was said earlier on about how openness and honesty always helps get things fixed quicker?

The latest I have heard is that it is mostly software and drivers' familiarity with it; there are a few balise issues, but in my (anecdotal) experience there isn't any common pattern of where door problems arise.

Only one of my last twenty or so trips has had any door issues, and that was the other night and definitely a software issue.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know this is a bit of a tangent- but in the days of slam door stock did people step out of trains where there was no platform. I could understand them opening doors by mistake but hopefully they looked down first.
)

Yes, all the time. One of my earliest memories is of someone doing just that on a viaduct just outside Guildford one winter evening. My Dad hauled him back in,and he was lucky not to have gone over the edge.

 

[ComUtoR]

I know this is a bit of a tangent- but in the days of slam door stock did people step out of trains where there was no platform. I could understand them opening doors by mistake but hopefully they looked down first.

The problem today is not so much people alighting by accident but those that decide to jump down from the open door quite deliberately. Its very Darwinism in action but the TOC is still at fault.

But ultimately this is a risk that technology can help remove.

Precisely.

 

[Bald Rick]

A train is a train.

The only real difference between a LU and NR application is in the amount/combinations of doors through the train needing to be affected by SDO, however with today's software-controlled trains this shouldn't be hard at all if the issue is simply to do with lack of positioning.

It is a completely new train, and a completely new ASDO system. Now there is an argument that it could have be tested more throughly, in a live environment. But it is rarely possible to cover all possible scenarios.

As TfL found out when they introduced the 378s (which were, frankly, appalling in the first few months). And LU found out with the new Victoria line stock and door sensitivity.

Anyway, I have heard from someone who was at a GTR public meeting tonight that last week the 700s had reliability figures 10 times higher than the previous week. Admittedly from a low base. But a sign of improvement.

 

[tsr]

Yes, all the time. One of my earliest memories is of someone doing just that on a viaduct just outside Guildford one winter evening. My Dad hauled him back in,and he was lucky not to have gone over the edge.

There is a theme of tales from slamdoor days of someone / people / etc. who, in severe fog and upon seeing some sort of ledge or platform from their window just after noticing the train had come to a stand somewhere in London, decided they must be at Charing Cross (it was one of what are now the Southeastern termini anyway). Unfortunately it was merely an inconveniently-placed girder or viaduct, with a greyish and reasonably smooth surface, such that when they opened the door, got out and stepped more than a pace forward, they fell to their death/serious injury over the edge of said structure.

Grim - but gives an idea of the day-to-day hazards for those who do not remember them.

The problem today is not so much people alighting by accident but those that decide to jump down from the open door quite deliberately. Its very Darwinism in action but the TOC is still at fault.

To be fair this sort of deliberate incident also happens with egress handles on power-door stock. In the South East alone, and to pick just a couple of the most unfortunate incidents, this ranges from an event on the BML a couple of years back when someone exited from a train travelling at speed after also prising the doors open, resulting in a fatality, to the young person who jumped onto the third rail after becoming inebriated at Epsom Racecourse and then pulling the egress handle on a stationary service, resulting in marginally less than a fatality.

Again, very, very grim but either stupidity, misfortune or catastrophic mental health issues will often find a way to cause havoc on the railway. It's one of those places...

 

[Class377/5]

I would respectfully suggest that the reason you perceive receiving abuse for your insights is because you seem to believe anyone who doesn't agree with your views on a given topic is wrong, and your posting style seems to reinforce this.

Believe it or not, I do consider and respect what you post, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything.

Here's a good example.

You've no evidence for suggesting another poster is telling "a lie". If, in your opinion, someone is wrong, just point out the facts, and let everyone form their own opinion. I for one would take your posts a lot more seriously then.

Interesting reply. I will you at least seem able to reply with a backed up viewpoint (and your knowledge on the GN is far better than mine).

The lie one was a certain poster who claims as a passenger in the middle of the train he knew what was causing a door fault despite me stating clearly it wasn't due to x, y, z reasoning. I was told that I cannot possibly be right despite having access to all the actual evidence as the baseless opinon was correct over my fact based reply.

I regular point out the facts one such subject is a person's view on a seat is just a subjective view point. Facts are universal truths. How a person sees (or feels in this case) is not an a actual fact but a factual account of what they feel.

Another example of a lie is being as I 'work' for Siemens (news to me) my replies cannot be trusted or believed.

 

[D365]

Another example of a lie is being as I 'work' for Siemens (news to me) my replies cannot be trusted or believed.

To be fair, your current user avatar does sport a Siemens watermark...

Incidentally, I have recently had contact with Siemens myself. But that's beside the point.

 

[Class377/5]

To be fair, your current user avatar does sport a Siemens watermark...

Incidentally, I have recently had contact with Siemens myself. But that's beside the point.

Actually I'd forgotten that. Was a screen grab off the first ever picture to emerge of a 700 back in late 2013/early 2014. And it's not a watermark, it's a logo off an article in a mag.

 

[D365]

Whatever it is, it could be giving the impression that you are some sort of company rep!

 

[Deepgreen]

The latest I have heard is that it is mostly software and drivers' familiarity with it; there are a few balise issues, but in my (anecdotal) experience there isn't any common pattern of where door problems arise.

Only one of my last twenty or so trips has had any door issues, and that was the other night and definitely a software issue.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, all the time. One of my earliest memories is of someone doing just that on a viaduct just outside Guildford one winter evening. My Dad hauled him back in,and he was lucky not to have gone over the edge.

I would have expected that the seemingly-exhaustive driver familiarisation training would have reduced this problem to near zero, but obviously not. Certainly, unit 700002 at Redhill had stopped at precisely the right spot (see my photo from a couple of days ago), so that would seem not to have been the problem in that particular case.

West of London Road? That would have been messy.

 

[96tommy]

Hello, how often do 700's run through the Core (St Pancras - Blackfriars) tomorrow?

Thank You