Could a Class 345 run from Cardiff to Norwich?

[LNW-GW Joint]

Mod note - split from:

Class 345 progress

I don’t think there’s any self-contained; no sewer work for them to do anymore - so I expect they’ll be temporarily withdrawn for embiggening Thanks for confirming. I love the word enbiggening

www.railforums.co.uk

Would I be right in thinking that a class 345, passed for three signalling systems, is potentially capable of operating from Cardiff to Norwich via the Crossrail core?
They can clearly run between Reading and Shenfield, and essentially the same electrification and signalling systems extend to Cardiff to the west and Norwich to the east.
No other stock can pass through the Crossrail core, as they lack CBTC compatibility.
345s should also be able to reach Newbury, and any of the GA electrified branches which are reachable by GA's Aventra versions; also the LTS via Barking.
9-car 345s (206m) are shorter than GA's 12-car trains (236m) and GWR's 9-car 800s (226m), so should be able to use the same platforms.
There are no viable connections allowing through running to main lines to the north, not even the Lea Valley line I think, being on the "wrong" side of Stratford station.

I'm not imagining any kind of regular service, but I would have thought an excursion would be an interesting possibility.
It would also demonstrate something like the original BR Crossrail vision (Bristol-Norwich, was it?) before TfL took charge of the project.
I'm not sure Cardiff-Norwich on a longitudinal seat would be popular though, and it's a long way without toilets or refreshments.

Apart from the training issue, are there any technical reasons why a Cardiff-Norwich 345 run is non-viable?
Finding a path in the core might be one.

 

[Horizon22]

Would I be right in thinking that a class 345, passed for three signalling systems, is potentially capable of operating from Cardiff to Norwich via the Crossrail core?
They can clearly run between Reading and Shenfield, and essentially the same electrification and signalling systems extend to Cardiff to the west and Norwich to the east.
No other stock can pass through the Crossrail core, as they lack CBTC compatibility.
345s should also be able to reach Newbury, and any of the GA electrified branches which are reachable by GA's Aventra versions; also the LTS via Barking.
9-car 345s (206m) are shorter than GA's 12-car trains (236m) and GWR's 9-car 800s (226m), so should be able to use the same platforms.
There are no viable connections allowing through running to main lines to the north, not even the Lea Valley line I think, being on the "wrong" side of Stratford station.

I'm not imagining any kind of regular service, but I would have thought an excursion would be an interesting possibility.
It would also demonstrate something like the original BR Crossrail vision (Bristol-Norwich, was it?) before TfL took charge of the project.
I'm not sure Cardiff-Norwich on a longitudinal seat would be popular though, and it's a long way without toilets or refreshments.

Apart from the training issue, are there any technical reasons why a Cardiff-Norwich 345 run is non-viable?
Finding a path in the core might be one.

They’re not fitted with ATP. Maybe theoretically as they run at a max speed of 90mph, but that would presumably require sign off from Network Rail.

It’s a bit of a moot point as it currently the only passenger stock fitted with functionality for CBTC!

Paths might be a problem also at that reduced speed, especially beyond Didcot and Swindon.

 

[Domh245]

They’re not fitted with ATP. Maybe theoretically as they run at a max speed of 90mph, but that would presumably require sign off from Network Rail.

Is that an issue beyond pathing? I thought the 387s are also not ATP fitted but can run at up to 110mph to Cardiff?

 

[JonathanH]

It would also demonstrate something like the original BR Crossrail vision (Bristol-Norwich, was it?) before TfL took charge of the project.

There was never a Bristol to Norwich vision. The 1990s proposals were Reading, Aylesbury and Chesham to Shenfield.

Other promoters touted an outer suburban vision but longer distance has never been part of any aspiration.

There is previous discussion here

Should CrossRail have been built as a interurban rail service?

Rather than a glorified tube line? I’m not sure if this has been discussed before so my apologies in advance if I’m raising an old subject. I feel that CrossRail was a missed opportunity in many ways, it should have been like Thameslink (linking Bedford to Brighton and Cambridge to Horsham) it...

www.railforums.co.uk

As for a class 345 running Cardiff to Norwich as a one-off, it would certainly be interesting, and I imagine technically possible, but difficult to see how it could be organised on the modern railway, where the safety case only goes as far as the signals slightly beyond Reading.

 

[dk1]

There was little interest in extending them to Southend Victoria let alone Norwich.

 

[JN114]

Subject to route clearance; yes it would be entirely possible at a technical level - and indeed they would be the only “mainline” trains natively capable of doing so in ordinary traffic hours if they were route cleared West of Reading and East of Shenfield.

 

[mr_moo]

The footsteps on the units are a bit higher than some 'normal' stock (says the engineer that knows full well there's not much that ever qualifies as 'normal'!) so, in one sense, clearances would be less likely to be an issue as the step would be above any errant platforms, but stepping distances to any platforms that are historically quite low may well become a problem. Probably quite feasible though.

 

[DanNCL]

In theory yes, but it would be a slow and uncomfortable journey!

 

[dk1]

In theory yes, but it would be a slow and uncomfortable journey!

You’d need to take a bottle too!!

 

[Horizon22]

Is that an issue beyond pathing? I thought the 387s are also not ATP fitted but can run at up to 110mph to Cardiff?

Not necessarily. So feasible yes, but preferable? Perhaps not! Would still be quicker to take the intercity journey and change for the central bit.

 

[43096]

In theory yes, but it would be a slow and uncomfortable journey!

As opposed to the fast(er) and even more uncomfortable journey available on the Paddington-Cardiff leg currently.

 

[AlexNL]

The maximum speed for which Class 345s are authorised is 90mph, which is enough for all the duties they do on Crossrail. I don't know whether there's actual differences with the 720s and 730s which are designed for 100mph and 110mph, respectively.

The 387s needed to have technical modifications done to them to enable 110mph operation (different pantographs), odds are that the same would need to happen on a 345.

 

[2192]

The concensus seems to be "possible but pointless"

 

[DanNCL]

As opposed to the fast(er) and even more uncomfortable journey available on the Paddington-Cardiff leg currently.

You’re in the minority if you seriously think an 80x is less comfortable than a 345!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

As opposed to the fast(er) and even more uncomfortable journey available on the Paddington-Cardiff leg currently.

According to who? Your personal taste?
Only many might oppose the idea that a train with plug sockets, tables, cycle spaces, buffet, first class, longer carriages and toilets makes for a less comfortable than one without said facilities, even if some enthusiast types will always have a vendetta against them for replacing HSTs.

 

[mr_moo]

As a regular traveller on both 80x and 345 as part of my journey to my office, I love the 345 for getting me across London quickly, once I've used the loo on Paddington to be prepared for the lack of facilities on board, but I definately prefer the travel on the IET back to Swindon where I can get my laptop out and put my bag up on the shelf and relax reasoanbly well.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

According to who? Your personal taste?
Only many might oppose the idea that a train with plug sockets, tables, cycle spaces, buffet, first class, longer carriages and toilets makes for a less comfortable than one without said facilities, even if some enthusiast types will always have a vendetta against them for replacing HSTs.

IEP's don't have anything on a MK3 for comfort.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

IEP's don't have anything on a MK3 for comfort.

Subjective. I firmly disagree.
We’ve been here before, people!

 

[fandroid]

I'm not sure Cardiff-Norwich on a longitudinal seat would be popular though, and it's a long way without toilets or refreshments.

There are (some!) forward and backward facing seats on a class 345 train. I always grab one when boarding at Reading for trips to Hayes and Harlington. A greater discomfort is how cold they are in winter on the surface legs. Walk-through trains with extra doors are too much for any heating system.

 

[DanNCL]

IEP's don't have anything on a MK3 for comfort.

Lets not go down this road again!

 

[D365]

How about my alternative proposal: Could we fit Class 90s with CBTC signalling to run Cardiff-Norwich?

 

[mr_moo]

The issue with almost any other rolling stock, perhaps not the locos but certainly with most coaching stock that it would pull behind it, is that the central section platforms are built at 1100mm high, which is 185mm higher than the standard 915mm that a 'normal' platform elsewhere would ideally be placed at. This means that some stock will have footsteps that clash with the platform edge. Gauging clearance for any such coaches would likely be problematic at best (with very reduced clearances and consequent enhanced maintenance regimes being required) and prohibitive at worst.

A different solution would be some other stock that was designed for the higher platforms elsewhere, such as the class 332, aka the former Heathrow Express rolling stock (ok, so they have been scrapped now, but we can pretend that didn't happen for the purposes of speculation!), which is much less likely to have any issues with these higher platforms. However, they might then find issues with having too high a stepping distance at some stops, but a ramp could be deployed to solve that where needed/and or, if we're completely dreaming, any very low platforms could be re-built and/or track lowered to assist...

Edit: Removed reference to track fixity - I forgot it's all slab track in there!

 

[Energy]

The issue with almost any other rolling stock, perhaps not the locos but certainly with most coaching stock that it would pull behind it, is that the central section platforms are built at 1100mm high, which is 185mm higher than the standard 915mm that a 'normal' platform elsewhere would ideally be placed at. This means the some stock will have footsteps that clash with the platform edge. Gauging clearance for any such coaches would likely be prblemattic at best and prohibitive at worst.

The platforms outside the core are at the normal height.

 

[mr_moo]

The platforms outside the core are at the normal height.

Indeed they are, and the stepping distances are higher than normal as a result.

 

[Basil Jet]

The concensus seems to be "possible but pointless"

While it could run ECS, would a train with no toilets even be allowed to run a service from Cardiff to Norwich?

 

[Dai Corner]

While it could run ECS, would a train with no toilets even be allowed to run a service from Cardiff to Norwich?

The consensus in this thread is that it would be allowed but toilet stops should be made at suitable intervals.

 

[dk1]

The consensus in this thread is that it would be allowed but toilet stops should be made at suitable intervals.

And that's just for the traincrew lol

 

[MattRat]

It does bring up the interesting possibility of new stock being made that can use the core to run long distance services through London.

 

[dk1]

It does bring up the interesting possibility of new stock being made that can use the core to run long distance services through London.

I wouldn’t imagine they’ll ever be any paths for anything like that. Would be too risk averse to inheriting extra delay to the core. I mean they don’t even like us at GA using the Electric Lines between Shenfield & Bow Jcn these days.

 

[AlexNL]

There's probably a whole bunch of other constraints for the Crossrail tunnels, for example with regards to fire safety. Then there's also the matter of door placement, all Core stations are designed for the 345s and their specific door layout. Different rolling stock designs will have different door layouts, so a call at f.e. Farringdon (to interchange with Thameslink) would not be possible.

That is assuming you can even get a path through the Core in the first place. With 24 trains per hour per direction, there's very little wiggle room.