Class 345 progress

[matt_world2004]

Isn’t the plan to test at 2 minute intervals (or even less, something like 1 minute 45 seconds), because there is no way every train will run exactly 2.5 minutes apart in day to day service

And from memory, I thought 27 or 30 trains per hour was an option in the specs, even if initial timetable is no more than 24 tph

I thought the signalling system was designed to cope with 32 tph trains upto 12 car trains in the core. With space to expand the platform edge doors if nessescary

 

[Peter Sarf]

At Iver on Wed 23/06/2021 between 13:20 and 18:15 were
345040
345070
345035
345063
345002
345031 not stopping
345058
345028
345030
345066

 

[ijmad]

Under traditional signalling sure, but under CBTC and ETCS it is more than possible — the Victoria and Jubilee lines achieve evenly-spaced services at much closer headways than that on a daily basis in normal times' peaks.

I think he meant (and sorry if I'm wrong) that it's unlikely the spacing will be so regular on such a complex railway, so to deal with late running or longer than average dwell times, trains may well end up running much closer than 2.5 minutes apart in some circumstances.

They talk about testing 'degraded mode' in the video, surely that must include the train in front running slow or late.

I thought the signalling system was designed to cope with 32 tph trains upto 12 car trains in the core. With space to expand the platform edge doors if nessescary

Thought the core was built for 11 rather than 12 (although a 345 11 car train would about 8 metres longer than a 12 car 700), but significant works would be required to upgrade the GWML and GEML to this platform length, and Heathrow would be painful if not impossible.

I wonder if they might consider running a mixed length service in a couple of decade when passenger volumes demand it, 9 cars from Heathrow to Abbey Wood and 11 from Reading to Shenfield.

 

[JonathanH]

There was a move from Gidea Park to Old Oak Depot around the North London Line this morning, reported to be 37800 with 345023.

In other happenings, it appears that 345031 may have made its west side passenger debut today working Hayes shuttles until 9P41 1034 Hayes & Harlington to London Paddington and then being swapped with a unit off Reading workings to go into Old Oak Depot on 5Y23 1058 London Paddington to Old Oak Depot.

[Picture shows a screen shot of output from TrackIt! with headcode '5I31' reported cancelled at berth C313 having returned from Paddington on 5Y23 1058 London Paddington to Old Oak Depot around 1115 on 24 June]

and 345053 may have also made a return to service working 5N01 1258 OLDOXRS-MDNHDCS / 5P84 1555 MDNHDCS-MAI / 5P94 1614 MAI-RDG / 9P94 1633 RDG-PAD / 9R04 1743 PAD-RDG / 9P12 1852 RDG-PAD / 5Y26 1958 PAD-OLDOXRS (after the booked unit for 9P94 was called on to replace a failure).
I note that 9P94 departed 12 minutes late and missed a load of stops.

[Picture shows a screen shot of output from TrackIt! with headcode '5I53' reported cancelled at berth C313 having returned from Paddington on 5Y26 1958 London Paddington to Old Oak Depot around 2000 on 24 June]

(OLDOXRS = Old Oak Depot, MDNHDCS = Maidenhead Carriage Sidings, MAI = Maidenhead, RDG = Reading, PAD = London Paddington)

 

[matt_world2004]

I think he meant (and sorry if I'm wrong) that it's unlikely the spacing will be so regular on such a complex railway, so to deal with late running or longer than average dwell times, trains may well end up running much closer than 2.5 minutes apart in some circumstances.

They talk about testing 'degraded mode' in the video, surely that must include the train in front running slow or late.



Thought the core was built for 11 rather than 12 (although a 345 11 car train would about 8 metres longer than a 12 car 700), but significant works would be required to upgrade the GWML and GEML to this platform length, and Heathrow would be painful if not impossible.

I wonder if they might consider running a mixed length service in a couple of decade when passenger volumes demand it, 9 cars from Heathrow to Abbey Wood and 11 from Reading to Shenfield.

It may be 11-10 wirh the 12 carriage specification length assuming a more standard size carriage. With bombardier going for a longer carriage length.

Hanwell can't be lengthened because it's a listed station and having upto six carriages locked out through selective door opening would not be practical

 

[ijmad]

It may be 11-10 wirh the 12 carriage specification length assuming a more standard size carriage. With bombardier going for a longer carriage length.

Hanwell can't be lengthened because it's a listed station and having upto six carriages locked out through selective door opening would not be practical

Yeah at some point SDO just starts looking silly, similarly if they lengthen the DLR any further they're going to be locking out half a train at Cutty Sark. Maybe someone should do a 'most doors locked out' thread and see if we can find the most egregious examples

Strongly suspect frequency uplift will come before train lengthening. I don't think one train every 5 minutes will be long term sustainable on the Canary Wharf branch, so going to 28tph or 30tph would be a logical first move when it starts getting full. Which of course may be a very long way in to the future given how far more people may stay working at home over the next decade now we've proved it can be done for many office roles.

 

[rebmcr]

Maybe someone should do a 'most doors locked out' thread and see if we can find the most egregious examples

It would be a "local door only" service, plus a lot of chatter from those wishing their suggestion was more restrictive than it actually is.

 

[Joliver]

Yes, that is quite interesting. That follows some of the other units that have operated on the east side (345043 / 345065) running some of the 5Gxx workings this week with the Tunnel shut.

It seems that the west side 9-cars (which lets say for argument are currently 345002/04/26/28-30/34/35/39/40/46-48/51/52/55/57-63/66/70) don't do the Tunnel at the moment. I have 345021/23/43/65/68 as having operated on the east side (although not at the moment) and 345010/20/24/25/27/31-33/36/44/49/50/53/54/69 as the Tunnel Trial Running Fleet with 345037/41/67 also Tunnel units but not on Trial Running.

I think these groupings are fairly constant but there may be a few units which move between them from time to time - eg 345010 reportedly in service one day but then going back on Trial Running and 345023 reported on Trial Running but then being in service east side.

Unit 025 was used for ECS runs on the West yesterday. If that helps your records?

 

[hwl]

Isn’t the plan to test at 2 minute intervals (or even less, something like 1 minute 45 seconds), because there is no way every train will run exactly 2.5 minutes apart in day to day service

And from memory, I thought 27 or 30 trains per hour was an option in the specs, even if initial timetable is no more than 24 tph

Correct, the gaps will tend to be asymmetric because having slightly longer to attempt (over carry isn't an issue) empty out a service at Paddington that is going to turning back at Westbourne is useful.

TfL always think about increasing capacity by upping the tph before they think about lengthening hence their plan A for capacity was (is?) 30tph with 32 tph potentially being used for recovery (at timetabled 24tph) hence <1m50s will need to be tested at some point for 24tph.

TrainguardMT hasn't been used for more than 20tph with long trains elsewhere hence getting to 24tph spacing is a useful check in reality. All much shorter elsewhere or long-ish but lower tph.

Capacity Plan B was to go to 11car

 

[ijmad]

TfL always think about increasing capacity by upping the tph before they think about lengthening hence their plan A for capacity was (is?) 30tph with 32 tph potentially being used for recovery (at timetabled 24tph) hence <1m50s will need to be tested at some point for 24tph.

Jubilee Line might be a counterexample there?

 

[hwl]

Jubilee Line might be a counterexample there?

They looked at frequency first and the extra car was much cheaper as first step at that point in time. Max turnback rate is a major issue on Jubilee.

With London Overground and the metro proposals they have always looked to up frequency even when this causes lots of issues on the NR side rather than length. The GBR future (already pointing this way on the NLL) and reliable timetabling is likely to see TfL being told to lengthen.

Increasing frequency tends to fill the extra capacity quicker which is why TfL are so wedded to it! but it carries increased performance risk.

 

[Gulf1159]

It may be 11-10 wirh the 12 carriage specification length assuming a more standard size carriage. With bombardier going for a longer carriage length.

Hanwell can't be lengthened because it's a listed station and having upto six carriages locked out through selective door opening would not be practical

The core is set up for 10 car working

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I have the following 345s down as not in passenger service yet -

- 001, 018, 019, 024, 025, 026, 031, 032, 033, 036, 041, 045, 046, 048, 050, 067 & 069

Have any entered service?

 

[Roger B]

I have 026 (see post #4017), 046 (see post #4143) and 048 (see post #4201) as having been in passenger service. There are also quite a few other units that have only operated in passenger service as 7-car units – and haven’t been lengthened yet. Updates are regularly posted on this thread re cl 345 status: lengthening of units, first passenger service, which units are being used for tunnel testing, etc.

 

[JonathanH]

I have the following 345s down as not in passenger service yet -

- 001, 018, 019, 024, 025, 026, 031, 032, 033, 036, 041, 045, 046, 048, 050, 067 & 069

Have any entered service?

345025 may have been in service yesterday on Heathrow workings

[Picture shows a screen shot of output from TrackIt! with headcode '5I25' reported cancelled at berth C311 having returned from Paddington on 5Y33 0044 London Paddington to Old Oak Depot around 0045 on 28 June]

and maybe also 345036.

[Picture shows a screen shot of output from TrackIt! with headcode '5I36' reported cancelled at berth C313 having returned from Paddington on 5P35 London Paddington to Old Oak Depot around 1027 on 27 June]

There was a similar report of 345031 (see post #4234) during the last week, so I think your list should be:
001, 018, 019, 024, 032, 033, 041, 045, 050, 067, 069.

 

[JN114]

The following units put in appearances at the airport yesterday:-

031, 036, 044 until approx 1000
then
031, 002, 044 until approx 2200
then
025, 020, 044 until end of service

 

[JonathanH]

The following units put in appearances at the airport yesterday:-

031, 036, 044 until approx 1000
then
031, 002, 044 until approx 2200
then
025, 020, 044 until end of service

Thanks - that is very helpful.

Those switches appear to just be 'how the timetable works' rather than units being taken out of service with two units off Heathrow services going to the depot and being replaced by the units that had worked Hayes shuttles around 10pm.

 

[59CosG95]

Am I right in assuming that 9-car running on the east side is still waiting for this latest blockade in the central section to finish?

 

[Gulf1159]

Am I right in assuming that 9-car running on the east side is still waiting for this latest blockade in the central section to finish?

Yes that’s correct

 

[Taunton]

Hanwell can't be lengthened because it's a listed station and having up to six carriages locked out through selective door opening would not be practical

It is a non sequitur that it can't be worked on because it's a Listed Building. All you need is Listed Building Consent.

And an architect who can design the extensions in complete materials sympathy with the existing structure. This is the key issue because so many seem determined to add their own little (or big) flourishes rather than follow the existing style, materials, etc.

Strongly suspect frequency uplift will come before train lengthening. I don't think one train every 5 minutes will be long term sustainable on the Canary Wharf branch, so going to 28tph or 30tph would be a logical first move when it starts getting full. Which of course may be a very long way in to the future given how far more people may stay working at home over the next decade now we've proved it can be done for many office roles.

There will be a moment here at Canary Wharf where one major bank opens up for full office, and all the rest follow. The space is all still there waiting, and more is being built right now. Speaking as not one but two Canary Wharfers, both working from home, we are heartily sick of it.

You are correct that every 5 minutes peak service at Canary Wharf Crossrail is quite soon not going to cut it. I always have felt that, although a bit of a z-bend, it was a shame the Stratford/Shenfield branch did not diverge east of Canary Wharf instead of Whitechapel. Anyway, we are where we are. The upside is that peak flow at Canary Wharf is the opposite direction to peak on the Shenfield line, giving the opportunity to run some 2 in 3, or 3 in 5, in one direction on the Abbey Wood branch, eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening. It needs siding capacity of course, and intelligent scheduling, but not insuperable.

 

[AM9]

It is a non sequitur that it can't be worked on because it's a Listed Building. All you need is Listed Building Consent.

And an architect who can design the extensions in complete materials sympathy with the existing structure. This is the key issue because so many seem determined to add their own little (or big) flourishes rather than follow the existing style, materials, etc.

Quite agree, Hanwell could easily be extended to 250m if it was wanted without any land take. The leading crossover between the eastern end and the bridge over Church Road/Greenford Avenue (which I presume is there mainly to allow the single lead access to the Greenford Branch and the sidings on the West Ealimng triangle) would be between the platforms but I doubt that would be an issue unless there were clearance issues. The down releief platform could even be extended westwards only by fencing main line access off. If the canopies were such precious pieces of our heritage, the platforms could be extended without permanent cover.

 

[Taunton]

It does seem poor that no effort whatsoever has been paid to the listed status of Hanwell station for operational items. Look at this platform-mounted camera placed in between the Victorian gas lamps

Hanwell - Google Maps

The support structure would be an engineering mess anywhere, let alone here.

 

[ijmad]

You are correct that every 5 minutes peak service at Canary Wharf Crossrail is quite soon not going to cut it. I always have felt that, although a bit of a z-bend, it was a shame the Stratford/Shenfield branch did not diverge east of Canary Wharf instead of Whitechapel. Anyway, we are where we are. The upside is that peak flow at Canary Wharf is the opposite direction to peak on the Shenfield line, giving the opportunity to run some 2 in 3, or 3 in 5, in one direction on the Abbey Wood branch, eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening. It needs siding capacity of course, and intelligent scheduling, but not insuperable.

You may well be right. Interesting thoughts on peak time scheduling, I suppose an uneven split may well work even before frequency uplift although Westbound from Abbey Wood and Woolwich may get busy when people start deciding to change off of Southeastern and shift off the DLR (which seems close to capacity in the mornings). Stratford still doesn't seem to attract that many commuters even with the Olympic Park getting more and more office space. I commuted there on the Jubilee during 2019, and it seemed like 75% of the train got off at Canary Wharf, you could sit down after that even in the peak!

 

[Horizon22]

There will be a moment here at Canary Wharf where one major bank opens up for full office, and all the rest follow. The space is all still there waiting, and more is being built right now. Speaking as not one but two Canary Wharfers, both working from home, we are heartily sick of it.

You are correct that every 5 minutes peak service at Canary Wharf Crossrail is quite soon not going to cut it. I always have felt that, although a bit of a z-bend, it was a shame the Stratford/Shenfield branch did not diverge east of Canary Wharf instead of Whitechapel. Anyway, we are where we are. The upside is that peak flow at Canary Wharf is the opposite direction to peak on the Shenfield line, giving the opportunity to run some 2 in 3, or 3 in 5, in one direction on the Abbey Wood branch, eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening. It needs siding capacity of course, and intelligent scheduling, but not insuperable.

Whilst Canary Wharf's loading will be dominated by the Elizabeth line, it will not be the only route in - you'll have anyone from South London or Surrey / Kent still going via Jubilee (or connecting at Abbey Wood)

 

[Bigbru]

Looking at Heathrow Central, trains are being locked out in about 2 to 2.5 minutes, which is a good template for timescale for turning at Paddington/Westbourne Park

 

[JonathanH]

Looking at Heathrow Central, trains are being locked out in about 2 to 2.5 minutes, which is a good template for timescale for turning at Paddington/Westbourne Park

Locking out would need to be a whole lot quicker than 2 to 2.5 minutes at Paddington - a 24tph headway has a reoccupation time somewhat less than that - that is why it is anticipated that they won't actually do a check to see that the train is empty there.

 

[Gulf1159]

I see that 345006 has appeared on the track diagrams at OOC yesterday evening, has this been converted to a 9 car?

 

[JonathanH]

I see that 345006 has appeared on the track diagrams at OOC yesterday evening, has this been converted to a 9 car?

Paths in for a move around the North London Line tomorrow might suggest that it hasn't been converted as it isn't obvious what else would be needing to be transferred via that route.

Having said that, there have been a number of times the paths have been set up without a move actually happening.

 

[ijmad]

Locking out would need to be a whole lot quicker than 2 to 2.5 minutes at Paddington - a 24tph headway has a reoccupation time somewhat less than that - that is why it is anticipated that they won't actually do a check to see that the train is empty there.

Based on this article I thought Crossrail was getting 'auto reverse' and passengers could be carried through the sidings. Plans may have changed though, quite an old article.

 

[JonathanH]

A locomotive has arrived at Old Oak Depot so there should be a move to Ilford this morning. (It didn't happen yesterday.)

1026 Old Oak Depot to Ilford E.M.U.D.
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:38977/2021-07-01/detailed

EDIT: Yet again, the move seems to gave been cancelled - the locomotive returning to Wembley without a 345.