Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[JonathanH]

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

Thank You

Based on previous weeks, it should be approximately one-third of the service from Bedford to Brighton / Three Bridges.

 

[ainsworth74]

Don't suppose we have any diagrams for tomorrow?

 

[W230]

I would have expected that the seemingly-exhaustive driver familiarisation training would have reduced this problem to near zero, but obviously not.

I'm beginning to wonder if some of the longer delays in getting doors open is related to my colleagues confidence and familiarity to resolve an issue when there is one. Anecdotally i've noticed that the younger more recently recruited drivers seem to be suffering less failures/problems with 700s than some of the old school. Those who appear more happy to embrace the new units seem to be having less problems. Speaking personally, i've had many a software issue with them and have been driving them regularly since June but there has only been one fault that would have resulted in me having to go out of service, and this fault rectified itself after 30 seconds so I was able to carry on.

I think a combination of all drivers becoming more confident with the 700s and continued software updates improving little niggles will see the major failures reduce enormously. It's like the PIS issue - I kept having faults with the doors and so despite being told we wouldn't be using the PIS system (PIS codes are entered via the DMI as we set up) i've managed to work out how to use it and re-programme the codes when faults throw up loss of PIS and the resulting door failures. Many other drivers have done the same. This has made my (and their) life a lot easier as doors will then open normally again. But we were given no training on it and have been told stopping patterns will be updated by the Three Bridges SDC at times of disruption (which they will never in a million years have the time to do!!) so many have taken it as gospel and leave a system they been told they won't be involved with alone.

I've had many of the common faults that are banded about but have always managed to get the unit going again. Then again - maybe i've just been lucky...

 

[Class377/5]

I'm beginning to wonder if some of the longer delays in getting doors open is related to my colleagues confidence and familiarity to resolve an issue when there is one. Anecdotally i've noticed that the younger more recently recruited drivers seem to be suffering less failures/problems with 700s than some of the old school. Those who appear more happy to embrace the new units seem to be having less problems. Speaking personally, i've had many a software issue with them and have been driving them regularly since June but there has only been one fault that would have resulted in me having to go out of service, and this fault rectified itself after 30 seconds so I was able to carry on.

I think a combination of all drivers becoming more confident with the 700s and continued software updates improving little niggles will see the major failures reduce enormously. It's like the PIS issue - I kept having faults with the doors and so despite being told we wouldn't be using the PIS system (PIS codes are entered via the DMI as we set up) i've managed to work out how to use it and re-programme the codes when faults throw up loss of PIS and the resulting door failures. Many other drivers have done the same. This has made my (and their) life a lot easier as doors will then open normally again. But we were given no training on it and have been told stopping patterns will be updated by the Three Bridges SDC at times of disruption (which they will never in a million years have the time to do!!) so many have taken it as gospel and leave a system they been told they won't be involved with alone.

I've had many of the common faults that are banded about but have always managed to get the unit going again. Then again - maybe i've just been lucky...

The stopping will be done by the SDC. Basic plan is to link the alteration messages to do it automatically. Means the CIS, Web, app and trains will all be update at the same time from one source. This is why the PIS is more complex than on the 377s (which cannot do this) and why the actual PIS talks to a server now.

The PIS we currently have is stage one. It's not the end product but designed about displaying the basics.

 

[bILLOO]

In the space of around thirty minutes I saw five 700 units at Blackfriars. Did not expect that!

 

[JonathanH]

Don't suppose we have any diagrams for tomorrow?

Diagrams for Saturdays have been posted twice:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2705312&postcount=5286
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2716039&postcount=5388

although it looks like there may be some variation as the second week was affected by engineering work

If we don't, just track the following on RTT:

Brighton Down Siding produces
1W06 0605 Brighton to Bedford
(and not 2W12 which seems to come from Lovers Walk Depot)
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/XBP/2016/10/15/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

Three Bridges depot produces
1W08 0635 Brighton to Bedford
2W16 0738 Gatwick Airport to Bedford
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...16/10/15/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

Bedford starters seem to be common between the two previous postings, ie
1W03 0520 Bedford to Brighton
1W05 0540 Bedford to Brighton
1W09 0640 Bedford to Brighton
2W91 0240 Bedford to Three Bridges

I would guess that there are no 700/0s because the one which ends tonight in Brighton Down Siding stays put.

Next Saturday, Brighton Down Siding appears to produce two units http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/XBP/2016/10/22/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

 

[ainsworth74]

Many thanks!

 

[Class377/5]

This weekend's working

Saturday 15th

TB401 - 700002
5W90 04+08 Three Bridges Depot to Three Bridges
2W90 04.16 Three Bridges to Bedford
2W15 06.54 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W24 09.29 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W31 12.10 Bedford to Brighton
1W42 15.05 Brighton to Bedford
2W59 17.54 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W68 20.29 Three Bridges to Bedford
5H68 22+58 Bedford to Bedford CS

TB402 - 700003
5W06 05+40 Down Yard to Brighton
1W06 06.05 Brighton to Bedford
2W23 08.54 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W32 11.29 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W39 14.10 Bedford to Brighton
1W50 17.05 Brighton to Bedford
5G50 19+44 Bedford to Bedford CS
5G79 22+26 Bedford CS to Bedford
2W79 22.40 Bedford to Brighton
5W79 01+40 Brighton to Brighton Down Yard

TB502 - 700108
5W16 07+22 Three Bridges Depot to Three Bridges
2W16 07.38 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W23 10.10 Bedford to Brighton
1W34 13.05 Brighton to Bedford
2W51 15.54 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W60 18.29 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W67 21.10 Bedford to Brighton
2W82 00.10 Brighton to Bedford
5Y82 03+20 bedford to Jowett

TB503 - 700107
5Y09 06+14 Jowett to Bedford
1W09 06.40 Bedford to Brighton
1W20 09.35 Brighton to Bedford
2W37 12.24 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W46 14.59 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W53 17.40 Bedford to Brighton
1W64 20.33 Brighton to Bedford
2W83 23.40 Bedford to Three Bridges
5W83 02+30 Three Bridges to Three Bridges Depot

TB506 - 700109
5Y03 04+52 Jowett to Bedford
1W03 05.20 Bedford to Brighton
1W14 08.05 Brighton to Bedford
2W31 10.54 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W40 13.29 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W47 16.10 Bedford to Brighton
1W58 19.05 Brighton to Bedford
1W71 21.52 Bedford to Three Bridges
5W71 00+44 Three Bridges to Three Bridges Depot

TB507 - 700102
5W08 05+45 Three Bridges Depot to Brighton
1W08 06.35 Brighton to Bedford
2W25 09.24 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W34 11.59 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W41 14.40 Bedford to Brighton
1W52 17.35 Brighton to Bedford
1W65 20.40 Bedford to Brighton
2W80 23.37 Brighton to Bedford
5Y80 02+54 Bedford to Jowett


Sunday 16th

TB402 - 700002
5G79 22+15 Bedford CS to Bedford
2W79 22.28 Bedford to Three Bridges

 

[Kite159]

Many thanks

 

[96tommy]

700108 was working 2W28 to Three Bridges, don't know what is on its booked diagram.

 

[JonathanH]

700108 was working 2W28 to Three Bridges, don't know what is on its booked diagram.

700003 in the 'long' down siding at Brighton, 700104 in the shorter one - 700111, 700008 at Three Bridges (up side), 700103 on the down side with a number of 442s.

700002 and 700109 on their planned workings.

 

[96tommy]

Managed to get 5 or 6 in 2 hours at East Croydon. Think it was 700003 I saw on an ECS (assume training run). Thank you all for your help

 

[JonathanH]

Managed to get 5 or 6 in 2 hours at East Croydon. Think it was 700003 I saw on an ECS (assume training run). Thank you all for your help

700003 terminated at Blackfriars on 2W32 and returned empty to Brighton Down Siding - back into service on 1W50 1705 Brighton to Bedford

 

[Sunset route]

700003 in the 'long' down siding at Brighton Down Main No1 Siding, 700104 in the shorter one Down Main No2 siding

My bold and italics

 

[westcoaster]

My bold and italics

Often referred to as top sidings for obvious reasons, and the down yard.

 

[Class377/5]

It's in the system as Brighton Top Yard but that has never been a name used by FCC/TL. Always been Down Yard.

 

[Crossover]

TB507 may have 700108 on it. I'm on it but forgot to check the number

EDIT: Yes, 1W65 was formed of 700108

 

[SPADTrap]

Another 700 losing all its shoegear on approach to Cambridge. When I passed it this morning the crew were looking very confused at the shoegear.

 

[asylumxl]

Another 700 losing all its shoegear on approach to Cambridge. When I passed it this morning the crew were looking very confused at the shoegear.

That doesn't sound good. Second time according to posts on this forum Nobody confirmed the cause last time though.

 

[Class377/5]

Another 700 losing all its shoegear on approach to Cambridge. When I passed it this morning the crew were looking very confused at the shoegear.

Properly because the Cambridge route has had 387s with shoe gear on it without issue.

Worth noting modern stock is designed to lose it's shoes in the event of it striking something. The incident on route to Peterborough was caused by high ballast which is an infrastructure error.

 

[AM9]

Properly because the Cambridge route has had 387s with shoe gear on it without issue.

Worth noting modern stock is designed to lose it's shoes in the event of it striking something. The incident on route to Peterborough was caused by high ballast which is an infrastructure error.

Isn't it possible for Network Rail to run a gauging train to chek the route? Surely that has to be done if they are clearing the route fo class 700s.

 

[D365]

Electrostar (such as the Class 387) have retractable shoegear. Classes 313, 700 and 717 do not.

 

[AM9]

Electrostar (such as the Class 387) have retractable shoegear. Classes 313, 700 and 717 do not.

Which post are you commenting on/answering?

 

[D365]

Which post are you commenting on/answering?

Just a general remark relating to the incident this morning with the Class 700 train.

 

[jamieP]

Isn't it possible for Network Rail to run a gauging train to chek the route? Surely that has to be done if they are clearing the route fo class 700s.

Route has been cleared but wont pick up on P/W leaving some ballast pilled slightly to high. Not that uncommon after weekend engineering work for 313s to loose a shoe or get a trip cock damaged.

 

[SPADTrap]

Properly because the Cambridge route has had 387s with shoe gear on it without issue.

Worth noting modern stock is designed to lose it's shoes in the event of it striking something. The incident on route to Peterborough was caused by high ballast which is an infrastructure error.

Lost its shoe gear by striking scrap track, not sure they intended on testing that aspect of the design...

A 387 doesn't have fixed shoe gear though. If you're saying that was their thought process, well, I'm not surprised it ended in damage again

 

[Deepgreen]

Properly because the Cambridge route has had 387s with shoe gear on it without issue.

Worth noting modern stock is designed to lose it's shoes in the event of it striking something. The incident on route to Peterborough was caused by high ballast which is an infrastructure error.

Why is that proper? I don't understand why the 387s' trouble-free passage makes it right that the 700s lose theirs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Lost its shoe gear by striking scrap track, not sure they intended on testing that aspect of the design...

A 387 doesn't have fixed shoe gear though. If you're saying that was their thought process, well, I'm not surprised it ended in damage again

So, a tangible example of the plague of abandoned scrap materials on the railway! What was the thinking behind fixed shoe gear on the 700s (or, conversely, the reverse on the 387s)? Was this the cause of both incidents, and, if so, was it not thought worth moving the scrap after the first one?!

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Why is that proper? I don't understand why the 387s' trouble-free passage makes it right that the 700s lose theirs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So, a tangible example of the plague of abandoned scrap materials on the railway! What was the thinking behind fixed shoe gear on the 700s (or, conversely, the reverse on the 387s)? Was this the cause of both incidents, and, if so, was it not thought worth moving the scrap after the first one?!

I guess the use of the word "proper(ly)" was a typo and Class377/5 meant to say probably.

I am a bit surprised to learn however that 700's don't have retractable shoegear. Do the first generation Desiros (e.g. 450/444s) have retractable shoegear?

 

[swt_passenger]

What was the thinking behind fixed shoe gear on the 700s (or, conversely, the reverse on the 387s)? Was this the cause of both incidents, and, if so, was it not thought worth moving the scrap after the first one?!

Educated guess. Leaving the shoe gear in a fixed position improves reliability, as there is no retracting gear to go wrong, and contributes to reducing overall weight.

(Which is not to say the 700 shoe gear cannot be raised at all; as it is shown in a raised position in various photos taken during delivery runs.)

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am a bit surprised to learn however that 700's don't have retractable shoegear. Do the first generation Desiros (e.g. 450/444s) have retractable shoegear?

It can be manually raised off the third rail but there is no lifting cylinder fitted to 444/450. The 350/1s have the retractable version.

Not fitting 8 sets of equipment on 170 odd units is probably a bit of cost saving...

 

[physics34]

Properly because the Cambridge route has had 387s with shoe gear on it without issue.

Worth noting modern stock is designed to lose it's shoes in the event of it striking something. The incident on route to Peterborough was caused by high ballast which is an infrastructure error.

Slight edit on your last paragraph...*I believe* 377s have actually had a mod so the shoes don't break off too easily now. A bracket of some sort I think. Please correct me if wrong.