Class 387

[JN114]

Perhaps no-one asked because it isn't a problem? I've yet to see the stampeding hoardes of panicked travellers at Farringdon or North Pole when the PIS, which they're never listening to anyway, turns off for a few minutes. It invariably comes back on by the next station anyway.

 

[jon0844]

It would still make more sense for the system to be able to remain operational during a short changeover of power.

A tiny rechargeable battery would pretty much solve the problem. Of course, retrofitting something like this now would be stupidly complicated and expensive, but maybe Bombardier could think of it for future train designs?

 

[physics34]

Perhaps no-one asked because it isn't a problem? I've yet to see the stampeding hoardes of panicked travellers at Farringdon or North Pole when the PIS, which they're never listening to anyway, turns off for a few minutes. It invariably comes back on by the next station anyway.

exactly.

I havent seen mass panic either.

It is slightly unprofessional though and annoying that wasnt thought about during the design process

 

[Bletchleyite]

exactly.

I havent seen mass panic either.

It is slightly unprofessional though and annoying that wasnt thought about during the design process

Agree it looks more than a little sloppy. Is the issue, though, more that you have to completely shut down the train to do the changeover? You don't on the 350/1s (which don't have shoes any more, but did when they were used on the MK-Clapham Jn service for a while), so PIS is not lost because general power is also not lost, other than things that can't run on the batteries.

 

[Feathers44]

It would still make more sense for the system to be able to remain operational during a short changeover of power.

A tiny rechargeable battery would pretty much solve the problem. Of course, retrofitting something like this now would be stupidly complicated and expensive, but maybe Bombardier could think of it for future train designs?

That's sort of how we do it for aircraft navigation systems (to handle the changeover from generator cart to internal power and then to get through engine start). A battery smaller than my little finger keeps enough alive in memory to get the system back after interruption.

It would clearly be possible in trains too but it would take a bit of software effort as well as putting a small battery somewhere. You have to be able to suspend processing in a safe manner so you know what state you're going to be in when you start up again. You also need to have sufficient hardware in your processing box to look at the power supply so you know when the power is about to drop.

Actually 'keeping things runiing' is a different ball game altogether, however, which takes the effort away from the software and adds the mass of whatever UPS type equipment you want to use.

Unless someone wants to put that sort of effort in, it's going to be cheaper and easier just to do a full restart on the thing.

 

[swt_passenger]

You don't on the 350/1s (which don't have shoes any more, but did when they were used on the MK-Clapham Jn service for a while),

Have a close look at the next one you are on please. Many of them do still have their shoes.

350120, 21 July 2015 at Euston attached below.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Could this not be a case for changeover to be done on the move instead of being stationary at a station?

Guess this would bump up costs though....

 

[03_179]

Todays testing run

5B89 Bletchley TMD to Bletchley TMD
387203/387206

 

[Paul180]

Have a close look at the next one you are on please. Many of them do still have their shoes.

350120, 21 July 2015 at Euston attached below.

I think the shoe has been removed and they left the support bar in place!

 

[swt_passenger]

I think the shoe has been removed and they left the support bar in place!

No it hasn't. You won't see it unless from a low viewpoint. I have other photos for comparison, including some taken from above, pointing down between train and platform edge. I can assure you that they are the pickup shoes that are visible just below the shoe beam, in the next picture the red arrow points to the raised shoe arm, and the green arrow to the pickup shoe, note the rounded end.

 

[jon0844]

Unless someone wants to put that sort of effort in, it's going to be cheaper and easier just to do a full restart on the thing.

If it's done at the design stage, I'm sure it's pretty easy and wouldn't be that expensive. I totally agree it's not going to happen now, and I get the feeling Bombardier are happy to do things as they've always done and not 'go the extra mile' for the sake of it.

If Bombardier gets to build the new trains for Moorgate, I wonder if they'll solve the issue by then?

 

[hassaanhc]

If we take Farringdon as a typica ac>DC changeover and City Thameslink as a typical DC>ac event:
DC is available by the time a train stops at Farringdon. The shoes are already in contact with the 3rd rail. Thus the trains system knows that it is a changeover rather than an OLE failure. Thus certain standby systems can be left powered. That already includes all passenger lights (as the approach is in tunnel anyway), and door controls so the display data electronics is a drop in the ocean.
At City Thameslink, the situation is not quite as easy. I assume that the act of raising the pantograph requires the DC mode to be put to standby. A fix might be to provide a timed access to the standby supply for the display data circuits, say less than one minute. If the ac mode doesn't arrive by then, it's a reboot. Assuming the 387 displays have electronics of their manufacture era rather than something from the earliest days of Electrostars, the modules could have less than 10 watts per display. That's probably less than 10% of the lighting demand.
I doubt that Bombardier couldn't arrange for the display data to be kept alive and as dual voltage Electrostars are probably only used in the UK, it is a case of 'don't ask, won't get'. For sure the priority must be for emergency supplies to be protected but the opportunity for the later builds (i.e. classes 377/6, 377/7 379 and 387 - which have been described on here as electronically a different train), maybe was missed as the first examples (class 379s) were ac only. It's the cost of changing design rather than the lack of ability to design it that is probably the driver here.

Doesn't it remain running on the 378s with LO?

 

[47802]

If it's done at the design stage, I'm sure it's pretty easy and wouldn't be that expensive. I totally agree it's not going to happen now, and I get the feeling Bombardier are happy to do things as they've always done and not 'go the extra mile' for the sake of it.

If Bombardier gets to build the new trains for Moorgate, I wonder if they'll solve the issue by then?

387's are only present on Thameslink for a short period before moving to a single voltage line so why should they go the extra mile as you put it, obviously if they build the trains for Moorgate there might be more incentive to do it although if its not in the spec why should they? its hardly of great importance.

 

[jon0844]

387's are only present on Thameslink for a short period before moving to a single voltage line so why should they go the extra mile as you put it, obviously if they build the trains for Moorgate there might be more incentive to do it although if its not in the spec why should they? its hardly of great importance.

I assume the system in use is fitted on other trains all over the world where Bombardier makes trains, and isn't specific to UK stock? Wouldn't there be other locations where power changes?

I can't see why they wouldn't simply seek to improve things as part of the gradual progress of technology.

Maybe the Moorgate trains will get the newer colour screen system that the Crossrail trains are getting (akin to the 700s) and they'll work differently anyway?

If nothing else, it will look more professional.

You can travel on the Victoria Line which gives live running info, and find that when there are a few disruptions to report, it will start giving the information and then cut short because another announcement triggers. Then there's a long gap, before it starts again and cuts short.

All little things, but if you're a company making equipment to give passengers information then it's very much a case of 'you only had one job'. That's just software and should be dead easy to fix.

To be fair, the S-Stock seems to do everything extremely well... but I'm now going well off topic.

 

[JamesRowden]

Why doesn't the CIS have a battery backup to maintain the display whilst the change over takes place?

Surely the obvious way to maintain the CIS data would be to save the active data to a hard drive before a switchover, and reload the data after the switchover.

 

[jon0844]

NVRAM could do that too. I'd actually hope something like that already happens though. The delay is rebooting, not the driver having to actually set the destination again?

 

[lewisf]

Doesn't it remain running on the 378s with LO?

It does, and they change over on the move between Shepherds Bush and Willesden Junction.

 

[ScotGG]

When will all the 387/2s be in service? Are we looking at May 2016, meaning most 319s are surplus by then as the 700s also should be entering service soon with testing now underway?

 

[JaJaWa]

How did we cope in the days before auto-announcing PA and 20 LED screens per carriage...

The disabled really didn't. Tourist numbers in London have also increased massively.

Bombardier are a clever bunch.

Are they?

Do you not think in the 15 or so years we've had Electrostars or variants thereof, that if there was a fail safe way of doing it - as in a way of doing it where the system can't accidentally mix up a power change and a genuine loss-of-power emergency - then it would have been done already.

That's strange as the government requires it from the Class 700s: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226361/trsp-manufacture-and-supply-agreement-with-schedules.pdf

TTS 10.1.6: Power supply change over shall not cause any system data loss or require system reconfiguration or re-boot.

There's a well used saying where I work - if it's simple enough for us to come up with, the experts will have thought of it long ago...

Indeed. Fortunately the experts at Siemens are building the new trains.

To be fair, the S-Stock seems to do everything extremely well... but I'm now going well off topic.

They were plagued with issues (unless your comment is sarcastic)!

 

[D365]

That's strange as the government requires it from the Class 700s: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226361/trsp-manufacture-and-supply-agreement-with-schedules.pdf

TTS 10.1.6: Power supply change over shall not cause any system data loss or require system reconfiguration or re-boot.

Presumably the same requirement is made of the Class 345, under the provision for third rail electrification - in case Crossrail is extended beyond Abbey Wood or to a London DC line north of the Thames.

They were plagued with issues (unless your comment is sarcastic)!

And it's more likely than not, that the Class 700 introduction will be hit with teething troubles. Bombardier's recent rolling stock rollouts have gone very smoothly; as far as not having heard otherwise.

 

[TH172341]

And it's more likely than not, that the Class 700 introduction will be hit with teething troubles. Bombardier's recent rolling stock rollouts have gone very smoothly; as far as not having heard otherwise.

Exactly - each train type upon introduction has some teething issues - once going the Bombardiers are very good; sure the Class 700s, 345s and Hitachi's 800s will all experience some problems, which like any new car or aircraft, will soon be resolved and refined.

 

[jon0844]

(S stock) They were plagued with issues (unless your comment is sarcastic)!

I wasn't actually referring to the reliability bit, as I know loads were sent back, but rather the PIS which works fine (IME).

Good to see the DfT see things the same as me, in that there's no reason to accept a system that can't cope with a power change when many people rely on PIS - even if they 'coped' before.

 

[Domh245]

And it's more likely than not, that the Class 700 introduction will be hit with teething troubles. Bombardier's recent rolling stock rollouts have gone very smoothly; as far as not having heard otherwise.

Exactly - each train type upon introduction has some teething issues - once going the Bombardiers are very good; sure the Class 700s, 345s and Hitachi's 800s will all experience some problems, which like any new car or aircraft, will soon be resolved and refined.

As a general rule of thumb though, Siemens stock tends to have less issues. Bombardier's recent rollouts have been smooth because they have basically been the same train! From memory, the 377/6s were problematic, but they were really the first of the DC Mk0 Aventras, the only differences with later stock being the addition of AC capabilities, the paint job, and the raised speed limit!

With the amount of testing done to the 700s at Wildenrath, and the current mainline testing, I wouldn't be surprised if the only issues with them will be caused by passengers finding inventive ways to break things ! When it comes to delivery of the 707s, I expect that they will appear in Dollands Moor on a Monday evening, be at Wimbledon Tuesday Morning, and in service by that Friday!

Hitachi is more of an uknown, but I don't recall any major issues with the 395s?

 

[southern442]

And it's more likely than not, that the Class 700 introduction will be hit with teething troubles. Bombardier's recent rolling stock rollouts have gone very smoothly; as far as not having heard otherwise.

I think that, in the words of a school teacher, Bombardier has really changed and improved with regards to introduction into service The introduction of the 377/5's was plagued with problem after problem, whereas the 387 introduction was seamless. I wonder if the 345's and 710's will be the same?

 

[TH172341]

That's true - Bombardier in regards to the Electrostar have stuck with the same design for years. Thought the 387s when first being mooted may've had the 172 front, which when it first came out, I mistakenly took to perhaps be the new standard 'gangway front', if that makes any sense! Only gripe with the 172s for a while was the buttons falling off - think LM have managed to minimise that now although see recent Bombardier stock still suffer the same issue!

Following the whole exhaust issue (the many months of waiting for them!) which turned out to be a sensor issue, the 172s came in pretty smoothly into service and have done well. Although the two fires recently highlight something could need attention. The 387s I must admit did come in very smoothly; best so far probably.

In regards to Hitachi, only issues I recall with the 395s was the ride being 'wobbly' as one article put it - essentially some sideways movement of the body. They were modified back in late 2010 if I remember correctly.

 

[D365]

The more recent Desiro fleets have has a few hiccups upon introduction, but nothing more than any Bombardier DC stock of late.

 

[Domh245]

I think that, in the words of a school teacher, Bombardier has really changed and improved with regards to introduction into service The introduction of the 377/5's was plagued with problem after problem, whereas the 387 introduction was seamless. I wonder if the 345's and 710's will be the same?

Whichever proper Aventra is introduced first will be the guinea pig, so to speak. All the problems from those units can then be learnt from and fixed (where possible) on the next ones.

 

[Class377/5]

They occasionally turn up on the Beckenham Jn - Bedford peak workings, some of which are fast BJ - Herne Hill (so depending on traffic may get up to 60, including through Penge Tunnel).

Booked to be stoppers.

Another Bletchley test via Brighton running today
Not sure which units

387206 north end, 387203 south.

When will all the 387/2s be in service? Are we looking at May 2016, meaning most 319s are surplus by then as the 700s also should be entering service soon with testing now underway?

387/2 have nothing do with 319s. They replace only the 442s.

That's strange as the government requires it from the Class 700s: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226361/trsp-manufacture-and-supply-agreement-with-schedules.pdf

TTS 10.1.6: Power supply change over shall not cause any system data loss or require system reconfiguration or re-boot.

The 700 will be different because of two reasons

A) they change on the move
B) the train is driving itself so can't do a reset

I think that, in the words of a school teacher, Bombardier has really changed and improved with regards to introduction into service The introduction of the 377/5's was plagued with problem after problem, whereas the 387 introduction was seamless. I wonder if the 345's and 710's will be the same?

Say what.

 

[southern442]

Whichever proper Aventra is introduced first will be the guinea pig, so to speak. All the problems from those units can then be learnt from and fixed (where possible) on the next ones.

That would make sense - it also explains why the S8's has to be tested on quite a bit but the S7's are being pumped out nicely onto the other lines.

 

[47802]

That's strange as the government requires it from the Class 700s: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226361/trsp-manufacture-and-supply-agreement-with-schedules.pdf

TTS 10.1.6: Power supply change over shall not cause any system data loss or require system reconfiguration or re-boot.

The point is the 700's are designed for the route and it has been specified in the spec

The 387's were always a temporary stop gap for Thameslink and it probably wasn't specified in the spec.