vanillasplash
Member
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 11
a few days ago i saw a class 345 at Reading station, really suits the new station building
According to this months Modern Railways TIN watch (miles per techinical incident) class 345 is up a bit at 3266. For comparison a class 800 is 6326, a 700 is 5715, 707 9111 and a 345 is just 3266. A 30 year old pacer MTIN is 8933. Pretty poor really.
K
I'll stick with my VW golf with 66k on it and dosent break down every 3000 miles or so and has been nice and cool witb air con that aways works.But then its first of type, have to work with multiple signalling systems, still resolving many issues no doubt, and the "Superior" 700 Siemens product is hardly outstanding on those figures.
What are the reasons the 700s are failing? Besides drivers having ongoing issues releasing the doors, and many units being in the wrong location (leading to cancellations or trains starting from another station) I cannot recall a train cancelled on the GN side because of another reason.
(Answer perhaps best put in the Class 700 thread)
AC/DC changeover was a big one for a while, I don't know whether it's still the case. Would explain the difference in figures between 700 and 707 though.
I think you mean ETCS.According to someone in another thread:
The August Modern Railways (page 73)
- ECTS in the Heathrow tunnels is now installed and proven by the Class 313 test train.
- Class 345s soon will replace Class 360s, once the 345s have their ECTS equipment approval .
The big question: is that with GW-ATP turned on or off that things are working?According to someone in another thread:
The August Modern Railways (page 73)
- ECTS in the Heathrow tunnels is now installed and proven by the Class 313 test train.
- Class 345s soon will replace Class 360s, once the 345s have their ECTS equipment approval .
Eh? How does the 313 proving work with ETCS off given that the whole point was to prove ETCS!The big question: is that with GW-ATP turned on or off that things are working?
I thought the 313 proving was along time ago and with ETCS off???
Needed more Coffee, 313 ETCS tested with GW-ATP turned offEh? How does the 313 proving work with ETCS off given that the whole point was to prove ETCS!
Ah! That makes sense. Thanks.Needed more Coffee, 313 ETCS tested with GW-ATP turned off
I'm not a hardware person but how can it be that the two systems would interfere with each other enough?
IIRC ATP works off of magnetic fields whilst ETCS is more about data modulated over radio. Yes they both involve electro magnetic fields but from what I understand work in entirely different ways.
I must be missing some understanding of the two systems. As the people involved know more about these systems than I do.
Both are radio (i.e. electric field component) and both use 27.1MHz frequency band. When trying to come up with the ETCS spec and suitable frequency etc. at the very beginning 25 years ago they took the Belgian ACEC TBL1 as a good bench mark that 27.1MHz works for rail signalling applications and it worked well as political compromise. GW-ATP happens to be a modified version of ACEC (later GEC later Alstom) TBL1. The TBL 1 antannae happen to be very inefficient and emit very large magnetic field components compared to the electric field and later TBL2/2+). TBL1 development predated all the EMC regulations.
When the signalling was done for the Heathrow Tunnels they decided to double up on the ATP track antennae to improve reliability.
27.1MHz is above the waveguide propagation cut off frequency given the tunnel diameter and geometry.
You can image where this is going...
Completely unconnectedly - DfT, Heathrow, GWR HS2 and CR all signed up to a cunning plan earlier this year to remove ATP stock from the Heathrow tunnel stock by autumn next year. (all ETCS in time)
Agreed!Wouldn’t it have been better to post about the Crossrail timetable in an existing thread in the timetables section?
Don't want to start a whole new thread for this.
Just got off an ice cold 345. Due to engineering works, trains weren't stopping at goodmayes and Maryland and were terminating at Stratford rather than Liverpool street. The PIS wasn't working. The screens were blank and there were no announcements, the driver made a few manually. Can the 345s PIS not cope with service changes, they're phrases put together, not full sentences like on the bakerloo. The only reason I think this is because I recently also took one of the (I think) regular peak time services terminating at Gidea park and again, the PIS wasn't working and passengers could only 'rely' on a few manual announcements. I don't really know how these things work, just curious.
Don't want to start a whole new thread for this.
Just got off an ice cold 345. Due to engineering works, trains weren't stopping at goodmayes and Maryland and were terminating at Stratford rather than Liverpool street. The PIS wasn't working. The screens were blank and there were no announcements, the driver made a few manually. Can the 345s PIS not cope with service changes, they're phrases put together, not full sentences like on the bakerloo. The only reason I think this is because I recently also took one of the (I think) regular peak time services terminating at Gidea park and again, the PIS wasn't working and passengers could only 'rely' on a few manual announcements. I don't really know how these things work, just curious.
Ouch. I can foresee a lot more short-term replanning on Crossrail to minimise reactionary delays from the "other side" so having a hard-linked PIS seems like an issue.
Certainly, if you were trying to get this right from the start, you'd have planned to have the driver able to modify the PIS accordingly as circumstances dictate surely?
This feels like a PIS that will be regularly deviated from regular stopping patterns if ever there was one.
I've been putting the figures published by Roger Ford into a spreadsheet which you may find interesting:It'd be interesting to compare figures for the 700 at the same time last year which would represent the 2 fleets at similar timespans since first service.
The PIS system is linked to the head code and the long term timetable, so it doesn't deal very well with short term changes such as terminating at Stratford or skipping Goodmayes. We can use a manual code for an all stations service to terminate at any station on the line, however, this wouldn't work for missing stops. (We do have the option to skip a station on the PIS, however, this is done manually when the train doors are released at the station before the station being skipped).
The 315 PIS system could deal with this better, as each stopping pattern has a bespoke code which is just input on set-up.