444/450 ASDO introduction into passenger service

[hassaanhc]

I had 450558+450568 which didn't show the coach numbers, although I understand that they did correctly do SDO7 at Isleworth. The announcements at Waterloo had been updated to show "front 7 coaches".

 

[SWTuser]

Confirmed that at Isleworth the front 7 coaches of a class 450 now open and the guard actually confirmed it on the tannoy before arriving

 

[embers25]

I got a 2x444 Eastleigh splitter on Sunday from Waterloo and each coach just had its coach number on the PIS. It threw me when they didn't announce front five for Clapham followed by the usual mass panic. One interesting one was front 7 for Eastleigh...considering it splits at Eastleigh and before all 10 happily fitted!?

 

[swt_passenger]

I got a 2x444 Eastleigh splitter on Sunday from Waterloo and each coach just had its coach number on the PIS. It threw me when they didn't announce front five for Clapham followed by the usual mass panic. One interesting one was front 7 for Eastleigh...considering it splits at Eastleigh and before all 10 happily fitted!?

There's apparently a problem because the stations CIS cannot deal with Eastleigh P3 having a shorter length in the up direction, because of the up direction signal position.

As you probably know the equivalent 10 car up trains always use P2 as it is 12/10 car length, (450/444), but P3 is only 9/7 in the up direction.

(For those unfamiliar with the station there is a set of points within the length of the P3 platform, a 12 car down direction train sits over them.)

Just had another thought about the way the 'splitting' Portsmouth/Poole service might have been announced prior to the changes. Perhaps once past Clapham Junction, as Eastleigh was the first 'short' platform, as well as the splitting point, maybe it sort of got lost in the noise of those long announcements about travelling in the front part of the train for XXX stations, and the rear part of the train for YYY stations; i.e. you wouldn't have necessarily noticed Eastleigh only appearing in one list?

 

[ChampsRacing]

We've been told different!

My first ASDO train was a disaster, I had a unit with a train management system fault which kept interfering with the correct operation of ASDO!

I had trouble with a pair of 450's also Matt even though i had no ASDO stops, i arrived into Ascot and the alarms went crazy came up on the TMS as a complete ASDO failure but cleared after a few seconds. Makes the 459's seem good so far

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I'm just..

 

[BestWestern]

What an utter disaster, I feel for you guys.

Thank Christ HSTs are operated with the basic technology of a Guard who is trusted to make appropriate announcements and unlock the doors correctly. Y'know, like Guards are supposed to do...

 

[Juniper Driver]

What an utter disaster, I feel for you guys.

Thank Christ HSTs are operated with the basic technology of a Guard who is trusted to make appropriate announcements and unlock the doors correctly. Y'know, like Guards are supposed to do...

All I can say to this post is,WOW.

 

[BestWestern]

All I can say to this post is,WOW.

Wow......what?

I'm afraid my preference remains a good old fashioned bloke with a PA and a set of SDO keys all the time that this wonderful technology remains inherently problematic. How many seperate instances of incorrect door operation occured during the catastrophic initial introduction of this new kit? Now it has been dusted off and rolled back out, and still it appears from above that there are inevitable issues with both the SDO and the PIS. I have no issue with this stuff if and when it can be shown to operate safely, reliably and accurately, every time. Currently it doesn't. In my experience, manual announcements made by SWT's Guards are generally of a good quality; clear and easily understood, made using modern PA equipment on recent rolling stock. There is provision on many of SWT's units (Desiro's at the very least) for an annoucement to be made from any/every door position, where the Guard needs to be stood anyway. By contrast the PIS system is regularly confused, inaccurate or switched off. I fail to see how it offers any improvement over the manual alternative, in its current state. Its current state being the best anyone can manage despite it being years old. Perhaps the automatic SDO system will eventually bed in and the whole lot will work flawlessly. Here's hoping, because if it doesn't, everybody's journey is made more difficult, passengers and crew alike.

 

[swt_passenger]

you know the guards still operate the doors, and still open a single door before checking the rest are platformed, just as they did before? The ASDO really only allow a better fit of doors to stations,

Has the introduction actually been catastrophic overall, it never got beyond testing in 2014, there was no attempt to roll it out across the fleet.

 

[Juniper Driver]

Wow......what?

I'm afraid my preference remains a good old fashioned bloke with a PA and a set of SDO keys all the time that this wonderful technology remains inherently problematic. How many seperate instances of incorrect door operation occured during the catastrophic initial introduction of this new kit? Now it has been dusted off and rolled back out, and still it appears from above that there are inevitable issues with both the SDO and the PIS. I have no issue with this stuff if and when it can be shown to operate safely, reliably and accurately, every time. Currently it doesn't. In my experience, manual announcements made by SWT's Guards are generally of a good quality; clear and easily understood, made using modern PA equipment on recent rolling stock. There is provision on many of SWT's units (Desiro's at the very least) for an annoucement to be made from any/every door position, where the Guard needs to be stood anyway. By contrast the PIS system is regularly confused, inaccurate or switched off. I fail to see how it offers any improvement over the manual alternative, in its current state. Its current state being the best anyone can manage despite it being years old. Perhaps the automatic SDO system will eventually bed in and the whole lot will work flawlessly. Here's hoping, because if it doesn't, everybody's journey is made more difficult, passengers and crew alike.

For some reason I may have misunderstood your original post.Apologies.

Well it was 4am and I didn't sleep well before leaving for work.

Actually though I thought this system was devised to cut out the actual "human error" element.

 

[embers25]

There's apparently a problem because the stations CIS cannot deal with Eastleigh P3 having a shorter length in the up direction, because of the up direction signal position.

As you probably know the equivalent 10 car up trains always use P2 as it is 12/10 car length, (450/444), but P3 is only 9/7 in the up direction.

Never spotted that about P3 in all the times I've used it as I've always been on 5 or 8 coach trains there but that explains everything so thanks for that. I always liked one door only Shawford so it is a shame that has gone now with SDO. It did make Clapham so much less of an issue compared to old which can only be a good thing as you always seemed to end up taking someone for Gatwick to Woking as they couldn't get through to the front five with luggage.

 

[Goldfish62]

Wow......what?

I'm afraid my preference remains a good old fashioned bloke with a PA and a set of SDO keys all the time that this wonderful technology remains inherently problematic. How many seperate instances of incorrect door operation occured during the catastrophic initial introduction of this new kit? Now it has been dusted off and rolled back out, and still it appears from above that there are inevitable issues with both the SDO and the PIS. I have no issue with this stuff if and when it can be shown to operate safely, reliably and accurately, every time. Currently it doesn't. In my experience, manual announcements made by SWT's Guards are generally of a good quality; clear and easily understood, made using modern PA equipment on recent rolling stock. There is provision on many of SWT's units (Desiro's at the very least) for an annoucement to be made from any/every door position, where the Guard needs to be stood anyway. By contrast the PIS system is regularly confused, inaccurate or switched off. I fail to see how it offers any improvement over the manual alternative, in its current state. Its current state being the best anyone can manage despite it being years old. Perhaps the automatic SDO system will eventually bed in and the whole lot will work flawlessly. Here's hoping, because if it doesn't, everybody's journey is made more difficult, passengers and crew alike.

I agree in as much as an incorrect PIS is the worst situation of all, incorrect information being worse than no information. However, under PRM TSI 450s have to have a visual system identifying the next stop, so you may as add the audio to it as well.

I have to say I don't find the PIS malfunctioning/not working very much at all on SWT, but perhaps it depends which lines/stopping patterns you're on.

 

[antharro]

My journey down from London tonight was in a pair or 444s which were showing the new "Coach x of 10" on the DMIs. No automated announcements beyond one just past Wimbledon and one at Woking - the usual "Welcome on board this SWT service to ...".

 

[BestWestern]

you know the guards still operate the doors, and still open a single door before checking the rest are platformed, just as they did before? The ASDO really only allow a better fit of doors to stations,

Has the introduction actually been catastrophic overall, it never got beyond testing in 2014, there was no attempt to roll it out across the fleet.

It never got beyond testing because, as I understand it, numerous incidents immediately occured involving loaded passenger trains having doors released all over the place as the system merrily malfunctioned? I also hear that SWT actually found themselves in some deep water as this 'live' testing should not have happened in quite the way that it did - confirmation of that would be welcome, of course.

The idea of allowing individual carriages to be selected as part of SDO rather than just whole units, is obviously a welcome development; albeit one which merely corrects a poor original design feature.

 

[lewisf]

The idea of allowing individual carriages to be selected as part of SDO rather than just whole units, is obviously a welcome development; albeit one which merely corrects a poor original design feature.

Especially as Southern have had per-carriage SDO for about 10 years now on their 377s.

 

[Goldfish62]

Currently on in coach 2 of 8 on a Reading bound 450 and it's all working fine.

 

[Juniper Driver]

Currently on in coach 2 of 8 on a Reading bound 450 and it's all working fine.

You seen how it fires up with the eventual Train Sequenced? It comes up with car 1 then car 4 boot thingy on the little tiny display above the radio.Saw it this morning working an 8 car plus an 8 car on the Reading.Also on fully modded units the pis code entry display thingy goes out after thirty seconds.

As SWT passenger or whoever mentioned I realised today that the guard still has to check whether the train is accommodated.It's doesn't take any of that away just SDO error possibility.

 

[BestWestern]

You seen how it fires up with the eventual Train Sequenced? It comes up with car 1 then car 4 boot thingy on the little tiny display above the radio.Saw it this morning working an 8 car plus an 8 car on the Reading.Also on fully modded units the pis code entry display thingy goes out after thirty seconds.

As SWT passenger or whoever mentioned I realised today that the guard still has to check whether the train is accommodated.It's doesn't take any of that away just SDO error possibility.

If it works on beacons, what happens if an attempt is made to release the doors on a train overhanging the platform end?

 

[455driver]

If it works on beacons, what happens if an attempt is made to release the doors on a train overhanging the platform end?

As I understand it is a dumb system so if the train stops at a station where 6 coaches can be opened but the train is stopped at the 4 car mark then coaches 5 and 6 will have their doors released whether they are on the platform or not unless of course the guard notices before hitting the open buttons.

 

[Pumbaa]

It never got beyond testing because, as I understand it, numerous incidents immediately occured involving loaded passenger trains having doors released all over the place as the system merrily malfunctioned? I also hear that SWT actually found themselves in some deep water as this 'live' testing should not have happened in quite the way that it did - confirmation of that would be welcome, of course.



The idea of allowing individual carriages to be selected as part of SDO rather than just whole units, is obviously a welcome development; albeit one which merely corrects a poor original design feature.

Not true. No trains were loaded. 1 incident occurred on an empty test train which was a result of the infrastructure originally installed being faulty - and as such a significant replacement operation commenced.

The whole operation is safer than previous UDS (the correct term) as it removes the human error on behalf of Guard not activating the UDS correctly. The risks of coaches opening off the platform remains, and as before relies on the Driver stopping the train in the correct position. The 458/5 SDO is much safer in this respect as it individually opens the coaches as they pass over a beacon. But the downside is no link to PIS/TMS.

Overall the Desiro system is comparable to the Bombardier Electrostar and I don't recall anyone calling that unsafe?

There have been a number of issues over the last week, but they have been train crew related. Either not reading the notices properly, or not counting the BILs correctly...

 

[HarleyDavidson]

So that's why they issued a notice regarding a "fault" which isn't actually a fault, because it's actually the system looking for a balise after a split.

It's a fault that shouldn't appear at all. It should be suppressed by the driver when they acknowledge the configuration. The TINs for ASDO issues must be getting worryingly high after a week!

 

[Helvellyn]

As I understand it is a dumb system so if the train stops at a station where 6 coaches can be opened but the train is stopped at the 4 car mark then coaches 5 and 6 will have their doors released whether they are on the platform or not unless of course the guard notices before hitting the open buttons.

It's designed to allow 444 and 450 trains release the maximum number of fully accommodated coaches on a short platform (such as Clapham P9 - now 9 on a 10-car 444 instead of 5). Removing the human error element of a Guard not activiating the SDO is a side product. I hope they remove the blanking panel on the former 444 LDO positions soon so that we can use those as normal door positions again (which was a basic fix to stop us Guards releasing all doors at stations where we had to do local door).

ASDO on 444/450 units isn't designed to stop doors opening if a Driver stops short. I prefer it this way, because it is still the Guard releasing the doors and having to know the train is accommodated. If it was a coach by coach system I'd be more worried it was a step closer to DOO.

 

[Monty]

It's designed to allow 444 and 450 trains release the maximum number of fully accommodated coaches on a short platform (such as Clapham P9 - now 9 on a 10-car 444 instead of 5). Removing the human error element of a Guard not activiating the SDO is a side product. I hope they remove the blanking panel on the former 444 LDO positions soon so that we can use those as normal door positions again(which was a basic fix to stop us Guards releasing all doors at stations where we had to do local door).

ASDO on 444/450 units isn't designed to stop doors opening if a Driver stops short. I prefer it this way, because it is still the Guard releasing the doors and having to know the train is accommodated. If it was a coach by coach system I'd be more worried it was a step closer to DOO.

I've been told they will be removed in due course, so it will happen supposedly.

 

[BestWestern]

Not true. No trains were loaded. 1 incident occurred on an empty test train which was a result of the infrastructure originally installed being faulty - and as such a significant replacement operation commenced.

The whole operation is safer than previous UDS (the correct term) as it removes the human error on behalf of Guard not activating the UDS correctly. The risks of coaches opening off the platform remains, and as before relies on the Driver stopping the train in the correct position. The 458/5 SDO is much safer in this respect as it individually opens the coaches as they pass over a beacon. But the downside is no link to PIS/TMS.

Overall the Desiro system is comparable to the Bombardier Electrostar and I don't recall anyone calling that unsafe?

There have been a number of issues over the last week, but they have been train crew related. Either not reading the notices properly, or not counting the BILs correctly...

Well that clears a few things up. My understanding of Electrostars was that they use a GPS system though?

As for 'UDS', you've lost me there I'm afraid....?! I would have thought SDO is the 'correct term', seeing as the whole system is called Automatic Selective Door Opening?!

 

[Juniper Driver]

As I understand it is a dumb system so if the train stops at a station where 6 coaches can be opened but the train is stopped at the 4 car mark then coaches 5 and 6 will have their doors released whether they are on the platform or not unless of course the guard notices before hitting the open buttons.

Exactly this of which I came to realise quite quickly.

 

[Monty]

Well that clears a few things up. My understanding of Electrostars was that they use a GPS system though?

As for 'UDS', you've lost me there I'm afraid....?! I would have thought SDO is the 'correct term', seeing as the whole system is called Automatic Selective Door Opening?!

Unit DeSelect, which I suppose is a more accurate term than SDO as you are basically locking out an entire unit(s) rather than individual coaches. AS I understand it LM use the term UDS rather than SDO when working on the similar 350s?

 

[BestWestern]

Unit DeSelect, which I suppose is a more accurate term than SDO as you are basically locking out an entire unit(s) rather than individual coaches. AS I understand it LM use the term UDS rather than SDO when working on the similar 350s?

Ah I see. So many terms for the same things, gotta love the deeply fragmented modern railway network... BIL is one that I've only come across fairly recently, it's always been - and usually still is - a Hazard Light, which seems fine to me!? :roll:

 

[Monty]

BIL? That's a new one on me that's for sure, always known it as a hazard light too!

 

[swt_passenger]

Not true. No trains were loaded. 1 incident occurred on an empty test train which was a result of the infrastructure originally installed being faulty - and as such a significant replacement operation commenced.

Thanks for entering the discussion, because although I felt sure a situation was being described that had never actually happened, only an insider would know for sure.

Am I right in thinking that a 100% change of the balises took place, clearly those fitted now are physically different (shorter and fatter) compared to those originally fitted?

When comparing the SWT and SN versions of the 'Tracklink' system, I feel the question of GPS vs Balise is a bit of a red herring, because on SN's version they also use a balise to override GPS wherever it is necessary to differentiate between different adjacent platform lengths, or whenever the GPS is 'shielded' - such as in a main terminus like Victoria. So in comparison, SWT's version is simply skipping the GPS location stage and going straight to the more specific track mounted balise.