Class 345 progress

[samuelmorris]

Could someone remind me what the RSSB derogation expiring in December is?

 

[kevin_roche]

Could someone remind me what the RSSB derogation expiring in December is?

I believe it is this one which allows the use of enhanced TPWS instead of ETCS Level 2 between Paddington and Airport Junction and between Airport Junction and Heathrow. The original plan was to use ETCS L2 for these sections of track but the installation of ETCS between Paddington and Airpoirt Junction has been delayed until Easter 2020. Testing with 345 trains has also been delayed by lack of access to the GWML for testing.

Crossrail Train Protection (Plan B) -Railway Safety Regulations 1999 Exemption Application Report

Page 2

This report explains the reasoning and justification supporting Network Rail’s application in association with Crossrail Limited and MTR Corporation (Crossrail) Limited for an exemption from the requirement under Regulation 3 of the Railway Safety Regulations (1999); that a train should be fitted with a train protection system (as defined by Regulation 2). This exemption applies between Paddington and Airport Junction on the Western Mainline where it is proposed the Train Protection will be provided by ‘Enhanced TPWS’ until European Train Control System (ETCS) is available. The exemption applies only to Crossrail services and will only be utilised should ETCS not be available for the start of Crossrail passenger operations between London Paddington and Heathrow Airport.

Page 6

This exemption is required from the start of Crossrail passenger service operation on the Western Route until ETCS is in operation. Therefore, exemption is applied for from 20 May 2018 to 31 December 2019.

 

[samuelmorris]

I believe it is this one which allows the use of enhanced TPWS instead of ETCS Level 2 between Paddington and Airport Junction and between Airport Junction and Heathrow. The original plan was to use ETCS L2 for these sections of track but the installation of ETCS between Paddington and Airpoirt Junction has been delayed until Easter 2020. Testing with 345 trains has also been delayed by lack of access to the GWML for testing.

Crossrail Train Protection (Plan B) -Railway Safety Regulations 1999 Exemption Application Report

Page 2


Page 6

Understood, thanks!

 

[kevin_roche]

Could someone remind me what the RSSB derogation expiring in December is?

I also looked at the spreadsheet of current derogations on the ORR web site but could not find that paticular one. I wonder if it has not actually been approved and brought into effect yet, though I would have thought it necessary for the current Hays and Harlington service. Can anyone else clarify that?

I did find the RSSB response to the application, which includes the following paragraph.

We note that the intention is to progress with ‘Plan A’ and fitment of ETCS as originally planned and that ‘Plan B’ is a mitigation for project risk that will only be used in the event that Plan A cannot be implemented in time. Furthermore, Plan B will only be applied for the interval until Plan A can be implemented.

I believe the real issues to be at Heathrow where GW-ATP was the only available Train Protection System and several signals and speed restrictions on the GWML where TPWS was not originally implemented. See the link to the derogation application report in the post #2492 above.

Perhaps the dates of the derogation will be set once the service to Reading and or Heathrow begins.

 

[kevin_roche]

In his 21st October 2019 letter to the London Assembly Tranport Committee Mark Wild says:

Some amendments were needed to the Network Rail submission to the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) on the exemption for enhanced signalling (TPWS) which is required for December 2019. These exemptions have now been granted.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I was present at a presentation by Network Rail to the IET on 5th September where it was said that the initial service to Heathrow with the 345 was likely to be using TPWS+ rather than ETCS. Network rail are planning to install ETCS Level 2 signalling all the way from Paddington to Heathrow but not until Easter 2020.

EDIT:
He also says:

Nine car (full-length) trains have been introduced on some services between Paddington and Hayes & Harlington. This is a further step towards using full-length trains more widely. The full plan is to use the full-length (nine-car)trains for Stage 5a in December but it is unlikely that the software updates necessary will be tested and available in time for the introduction of Stage 5a services. It is likely thatservices will start with the seven car units currently used between Liverpool Street and Shenfield and the full-length units will be swapped in when available.

So it looks like there has been no improvement since the situation was reported to the Tfl Board recently.

 

[hwl]

In his 21st October 2019 letter to the London Assembly Tranport Committee Mark Wild says:


As I mentioned elsewhere, I was present at a presentation by Network Rail to the IET on 5th September where it was said that the initial service to Heathrow with the 345 was likely to be using TPWS+ rather than ETCS. Network rail are planning to install ETCS Level 2 signalling all the way from Paddington to Heathrow but not until Easter 2020.

EDIT:
He also says:

So it looks like there has been no improvement since the situation was reported to the Tfl Board recently.

The biggest risk for 5a is still the DOO camera, comms and lighting installation completion at some stations.

Comparing the all the Jacobs and TfL stuff over time (they don't state bad news directly mostly slipped in gently.) all the signalling and train software stuff has been shifting to the right gently with physical snagging type resolutions on the ground also not helping.

Interesting that there are GSM-R issues in some of the Heathrow tunnels. Presumably the longer 9 car trains on the T4 branch not getting signal in places? or has GSM-R always been dodgy for 360s in places too but that was liveable with as they weren't using ETCS?

 

[AlexNL]

So does that mean that the entire run from Paddington to Heathrow will be done under TPWS? Or will ETCS be operational from Airport Jn to Heathrow in time for 345s?

 

[hwl]

So does that mean that the entire run from Paddington to Heathrow will be done under TPWS? Or will ETCS be operational from Airport Jn to Heathrow in time for 345s?

ETCS for the Heathrow Branch hence Easter time at the earliest for 345s. (stage 2B)
TPWS for Paddington - Reading / Maidenhead (stage 5a) from December 15th

 

[kevin_roche]

So does that mean that the entire run from Paddington to Heathrow will be done under TPWS? Or will ETCS be operational from Airport Jn to Heathrow in time for 345s?

I was told it would most likely that a Heathrow 345 service would use TPWS+ when it starts as Crossrail don't think the software will be tested in time.

 

[hwl]

I was told it would most likely that a Heathrow 345 service would use TPWS+ when it starts as Crossrail don't think the software will be tested in time.

Except TPWS isn't installed on the branch, did they mean ETCS on the branch and TPWS(+) on the GWML reliefs which would be the minimum for 345 running?

 

[rebmcr]

Except TPWS isn't installed on the branch, did they mean ETCS on the branch and TPWS(+) on the GWML reliefs which would be the minimum for 345 running?

I thought they were installing TPWS on the branch, for this very safety net.

 

[hwl]

I thought they were installing TPWS on the branch, for this very safety net.

It unclear as to what is happening some sources saying yes, some no.

 

[kevin_roche]

I was told it would most likely that a Heathrow 345 service would use TPWS+ when it starts as Crossrail don't think the software will be tested in time.

Except TPWS isn't installed on the branch, did they mean ETCS on the branch and TPWS(+) on the GWML reliefs which would be the minimum for 345 running?

My source was Paul Stanford Programme Director Network Rail Western Route. There is always a chance that he misunderstood my question, though I thought I was clear.

 

[387star]

Why are tfl 315s still running surely if Crossrail is delayed and these trains are ready they'd all be gone for shenfield to London

 

[hwl]

Why are tfl 315s still running surely if Crossrail is delayed and these trains are ready they'd all be gone for shenfield to London

( for the Nth time...)
Because they are needed to cover the 7 to 9 car lengthening en mass of 345 and the period until Liverpool Street High Level platform works closures are completed. Which was meant to have been this summer and may well be in 2021 instead.

 

[Snow1964]

( for the Nth time...)
Because they are needed to cover the 7 to 9 car lengthening en mass of 345 and the period until Liverpool Street High Level platform works closures are completed. Which was meant to have been this summer and may well be in 2021 instead.

Whilst the conversion period requires some 8 (20m) EMUs, there is no logical reason why other types that work into Liverpool Street such as 317 or 321 couldn’t do it instead if they were surplus by conversion date

I too am not really seeing an answer that explains why it must be 315 and not another type, thus justifying why the 315s cannot be replaced now.

 

[306024]

Whilst the conversion period requires some 8 (20m) EMUs, there is no logical reason why other types that work into Liverpool Street such as 317 or 321 couldn’t do it instead if they were surplus by conversion date

I too am not really seeing an answer that explains why it must be 315 and not another type, thus justifying why the 315s cannot be replaced now.

Well the MTR Elizabeth line drivers are not trained on 317s or 321s to start with.
321s cannot work all stations trains as there is no DOO equipment at six of the stations.
317s are not as good performance wise as 315s for all stations work, and the internal layout is worse for coping with the crush peak loadings.
Hope that provides some logical reasons.

 

[MatthewRead]

Why are tfl 315s still running surely if Crossrail is delayed and these trains are ready they'd all be gone for shenfield to London

The 315's are now only used during weekday peaks they no longer have any booked weekend diagrams

 

[Intellectual98]

( for the Nth time...)
Because they are needed to cover the 7 to 9 car lengthening en mass of 345 and the period until Liverpool Street High Level platform works closures are completed. Which was meant to have been this summer and may well be in 2021 instead.

Hopefully the 9>7 car conversions can be put back to 9 quite quickly, the spare carriages are sitting in Old Oak, and I assume the CBTC/ETCS computers are still in situ just disabled.

 

[Snow1964]

Hopefully the 9>7 car conversions can be put back to 9 quite quickly, the spare carriages are sitting in Old Oak, and I assume the CBTC/ETCS computers are still in situ just disabled.

They managed to lengthen the Jubilee Line fleet virtually all same time as platform doors couldn’t take mix of train lengths.

From memory was handful of new trains 7 car, then one was lengthened from 6 to 7 to test process early Autumn, these were then used to test 7 car trains worked doors etc (running out of service at quiet times) From early December removed couple of peak hour trains, then started converting few days before Christmas having cut service further (not really a problem during Christmas party season as peak hour is thin and spread). Finally did a full conversion over Christmas.

With the 345s probably only need to do about 15-20 units to allow them through tunnels (rather fewer than Jubilee line conversion), then some peak hour ones into Liverpool Street could stay as 7car until platform 16&17 get lengthened. As full 24 trains per hour timetable doesn’t start day 1 central tunnels open, I’m not sure why a relatively quick lengthening isn’t possible based around a long holiday weekend. Also if Paddington-Reading services initially don’t use tunnels then it must be possible to swap the trains (driving them at night or Sunday through the tunnel) with 7car moved to West, and 9car to East. Gives more time to lengthen them out West, as it can use either length.

So still not convinced a lengthening process can’t be made to happen without retaining 315s. The only thing stopping it would be the Liverpool Street peaks would need a dedicated temporary sub fleet of 7car trains until platforms lengthened.

 

[hwl]

They managed to lengthen the Jubilee Line fleet virtually all same time as platform doors couldn’t take mix of train lengths.

From memory was handful of new trains 7 car, then one was lengthened from 6 to 7 to test process early Autumn, these were then used to test 7 car trains worked doors etc (running out of service at quiet times) From early December removed couple of peak hour trains, then started converting few days before Christmas having cut service further (not really a problem during Christmas party season as peak hour is thin and spread). Finally did a full conversion over Christmas.

With the 345s probably only need to do about 15-20 units to allow them through tunnels (rather fewer than Jubilee line conversion), then some peak hour ones into Liverpool Street could stay as 7car until platform 16&17 get lengthened. As full 24 trains per hour timetable doesn’t start day 1 central tunnels open, I’m not sure why a relatively quick lengthening isn’t possible based around a long holiday weekend. Also if Paddington-Reading services initially don’t use tunnels then it must be possible to swap the trains (driving them at night or Sunday through the tunnel) with 7car moved to West, and 9car to East. Gives more time to lengthen them out West, as it can use either length.

So still not convinced a lengthening process can’t be made to happen without retaining 315s. The only thing stopping it would be the Liverpool Street peaks would need a dedicated temporary sub fleet of 7car trains until platforms lengthened.

But the 7 to 9 car conversion point and connection to the GEML occurs at the same time as the core service goes from 12 to 24tph.

They will also need 9 cars out west for the Heathrow branch.
Rolling back from ETCS on the other western services to TPWS(+) may not keep ORR happy.

 

[Intellectual98]

They managed to lengthen the Jubilee Line fleet virtually all same time as platform doors couldn’t take mix of train lengths.

From memory was handful of new trains 7 car, then one was lengthened from 6 to 7 to test process early Autumn, these were then used to test 7 car trains worked doors etc (running out of service at quiet times) From early December removed couple of peak hour trains, then started converting few days before Christmas having cut service further (not really a problem during Christmas party season as peak hour is thin and spread). Finally did a full conversion over Christmas.

With the 345s probably only need to do about 15-20 units to allow them through tunnels (rather fewer than Jubilee line conversion), then some peak hour ones into Liverpool Street could stay as 7car until platform 16&17 get lengthened. As full 24 trains per hour timetable doesn’t start day 1 central tunnels open, I’m not sure why a relatively quick lengthening isn’t possible based around a long holiday weekend. Also if Paddington-Reading services initially don’t use tunnels then it must be possible to swap the trains (driving them at night or Sunday through the tunnel) with 7car moved to West, and 9car to East. Gives more time to lengthen them out West, as it can use either length.

So still not convinced a lengthening process can’t be made to happen without retaining 315s. The only thing stopping it would be the Liverpool Street peaks would need a dedicated temporary sub fleet of 7car trains until platforms lengthened.

There's a lot more computer systems on these 345s, you also have the issue of installing and validating multiple new and untested signalling systems on each 7>9 car conversion. I suspect the testing of the signalling systems will take dozens of hours on each converted unit before it can be accepted into passenger service.

 

[hwl]

There's a lot more computer systems on these 345s, you also have the issue of installing and validating multiple new and untested signalling systems on each 7>9 car conversion. I suspect the testing of the signalling systems will take dozens of hours on each converted unit before it can be accepted into passenger service.

The original plan was about 3 months for the 17 planned 7 cars, but with some 315s retained and no Paddington high level to Reading / Maidenhead on the west running.

 

[Kite159]

Sorry if it's a silly question, but does anybody have a list of all the recently converted 7 coach units?

Thanks

 

[samuelmorris]

They managed to lengthen the Jubilee Line fleet virtually all same time as platform doors couldn’t take mix of train lengths.

From memory was handful of new trains 7 car, then one was lengthened from 6 to 7 to test process early Autumn, these were then used to test 7 car trains worked doors etc (running out of service at quiet times) From early December removed couple of peak hour trains, then started converting few days before Christmas having cut service further (not really a problem during Christmas party season as peak hour is thin and spread). Finally did a full conversion over Christmas.

With the 345s probably only need to do about 15-20 units to allow them through tunnels (rather fewer than Jubilee line conversion), then some peak hour ones into Liverpool Street could stay as 7car until platform 16&17 get lengthened. As full 24 trains per hour timetable doesn’t start day 1 central tunnels open, I’m not sure why a relatively quick lengthening isn’t possible based around a long holiday weekend. Also if Paddington-Reading services initially don’t use tunnels then it must be possible to swap the trains (driving them at night or Sunday through the tunnel) with 7car moved to West, and 9car to East. Gives more time to lengthen them out West, as it can use either length.

So still not convinced a lengthening process can’t be made to happen without retaining 315s. The only thing stopping it would be the Liverpool Street peaks would need a dedicated temporary sub fleet of 7car trains until platforms lengthened.

The lengthening process also includes changing from TPWS only to the full set of signalling kit does it not? That will certainly take considerable time.

 

[Bikeman78]

Well the MTR Elizabeth line drivers are not trained on 317s or 321s to start with.
321s cannot work all stations trains as there is no DOO equipment at six of the stations.
317s are not as good performance wise as 315s for all stations work, and the internal layout is worse for coping with the crush peak loadings.
Hope that provides some logical reasons.

Is that a recent thing? 317s and 321s used to chuck out in the peaks on the Shenfield stoppers when it was all the same TOC. I agree that replacing 315s with 317s or 321s would be loopy. They are not suited to stop/start workings and frequently lose time on London Overground.

 

[samuelmorris]

Is that a recent thing? 317s and 321s used to chuck out in the peaks on the Shenfield stoppers when it was all the same TOC. I agree that replacing 315s with 317s or 321s would be loopy. They are not suited to stop/start workings and frequently lose time on London Overground.

I don't ever remember seeing a 317 on a Shenfield stopper, maybe pre-privatisation perhaps. 321s served stations east of Romford, as well as I think Seven Kings on the first train of the day, but otherwise that was about it I think.

 

[sd0733]

I don't ever remember seeing a 317 on a Shenfield stopper, maybe pre-privatisation perhaps. 321s served stations east of Romford, as well as I think Seven Kings on the first train of the day, but otherwise that was about it I think.

They definitely did occasionally. I dont travel the route at all regularly but just before tfl split off I had a 317 pair from Goodmayes to Gidea Park

 

[JonathanH]

They definitely did occasionally. I dont travel the route at all regularly but just before tfl split off I had a 317 pair from Goodmayes to Gidea Park

321416 and 321426 had a spell on hire to NXEA in 2007/8 during which they predominately worked the following diagram.

321416 & 321426

ILFORD E.M.U.D. 06+42 5C61
GIDEA PARK MIDDLE SIDING 06+56 07+06 5C11
GIDEA PARK 07+08 07.09 2C11
LONDON LIVERPOOL STREET 07.39 07+46 5C79
GIDEA PARK MIDDLE SIDING 08+15 08+22 5C29
GIDEA PARK 08+24 08.29 2C29
LONDON LIVERPOOL STREET 08.58 09+06 5C46
GIDEA PARK C.H.S. 09+37 15+56 5W34
LONDON LIVERPOOL STREET 16+27 16.46 2W34
SHENFIELD 17.27 17.34 2W43
LONDON LIVERPOOL STREET 18.13 18.22 2C22
GIDEA PARK 18.49 18+51 5C22
GIDEA PARK MIDDLE SIDING 18+53 19+00 5V05
ILFORD E.M.U.D. 19+21

Indeed, my sole journey on 321416 was on 2W43 in November 2008.

Obviously it doesn't happen now.

On the matter of 345s, I have only seen reports of the following in operation. Are any other 7-cars at Old Oak or migrating over to Ilford?

Original batch 345003/5-17/22
Conversions 345029/39/40/42/44/47/49
9-cars on west side operation 345030/5/7

Other postings have suggested that 345027/8/34 are also available for 9-car passenger operation and that 345038 may be another 7-car.

 

[306024]

Is that a recent thing? 317s and 321s used to chuck out in the peaks on the Shenfield stoppers when it was all the same TOC. I agree that replacing 315s with 317s or 321s would be loopy. They are not suited to stop/start workings and frequently lose time on London Overground.

When 321s worked the diagram referred to above a guard was provided. Ilford had a small group of trainmen who worked guards duties and other odd jobs but they’ve long moved on. 321s can only operate DOO calling Stratford, Ilford, Romford and all stations.

317s can work DOO all stations, and MTR Elizabeth line drivers at Ilford kept their 317 knowledge for a while when a 317 was diagrammed to the Romford - Upminster service. However this was changed to a 315 and their knowledge lapsed.

Also MTR have a huge number of new drivers who have a lot to learn, without adding more traction for a very short period so it no longer makes sense to use anything but 315s and 345s.