London Midland Great Escapes

[wellwhatitis]

I saw them say on Twitter they could use SDO but their are level crossings in the way. Would it not be possible for half the train to be stopped outside the station (on the non level crossing side) and use SDO?


Talking about overcrowding though London Midland on the Snow Hill lines will often only put out 2 & 3 coach trains! As frequency is reduced from 3tph to 1tph it makes services really busy as unfortunately the timetable doesn't keep up with modern day Sunday demand.

Point 1 - on 350's you can only open the doors forward of the cab using UDS, there is no option to deselect the front and open the rear. (If that's what you meant)

Point 2 - December timetable change on Snow Hill lines will eradicate 2 car workings on Sundays.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I saw them say on Twitter they could use SDO but their are level crossings in the way. Would it not be possible for half the train to be stopped outside the station (on the non level crossing side) and use SDO?

Someone else has said not (but would it really be a problem to block a level crossing for 2 minutes for a station stop?) - another option might be to portion work, with 4 running direct to Crewe and 4 running the other way, splitting/joining at Stafford.

Or, as others have suggested, remove the "wobble" from the Crewe service and add it to one of the Liverpools. Though those are dangerously near to needing 8 cars too. There really is very little left on any of LM's 350-operated network on which 4 are adequate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Point 2 - December timetable change on Snow Hill lines will eradicate 2 car workings on Sundays.

And there really is *very* little left anywhere in the UK where 2 cars are sufficient, other than a few little branch lines where there remain times of day when they still aren't.

We really do need a major rolling stock building (DMU and EMU) and platform lengthening project across the country. It'd be money better spent than going any further than Brum on HS2...

 

[gray1404]

The LM services on the Crewe to Euston route are normally 4 cars, but sometimes they make them 8 at peak times. It is ever so helpful when they do this. I personally think a lot more of the services on that route need to be 8 cas as standard (given it is only an hourly service).

 

[centraltrains]

Point 1 - on 350's you can only open the doors forward of the cab using UDS, there is no option to deselect the front and open the rear. (If that's what you meant)

Point 2 - December timetable change on Snow Hill lines will eradicate 2 car workings on Sundays.

Argh! That's annoying. At least I know why they can't do that now.
Glad they are removing 2 coach trains on Sundays! Is very annoying to get on an overcrowded 2 coach 172 and then go past a full Tyesely.

And there really is *very* little left anywhere in the UK where 2 cars are sufficient, other than a few little branch lines where there remain times of day when they still aren't.

We really do need a major rolling stock building (DMU and EMU) and platform lengthening project across the country. It'd be money better spent than going any further than Brum on HS2...

Do the Chiltern 121s get overcrowded?

Is there any reason why it is very uncommon for extra coaches to be ordered for trains? Why can't LM just order say 2 or 3 extra coaches per Class 350 like Virgin did for allot of their 390s (though personally I'd prefer them and XC to do this on their voyagers!)?

 

[Pumbaa]

Improving the service would only serve to increase demand further. They need to get UDS approved for those stations.

It's not the UDS that's the issue. It's the junctions at Kidsgrove and Stone. In the short term at least, 8 car splitting at Stafford isn't an option as the franchise extension doesn't allow for an uplift in resources (eg the extra drivers). We'll have to wait and see what the Direct Award looks like when it's announced.

 

[hassaanhc]

Is UDS already authorised for use at Stone, Kidsgrove, and Alsager? If not, then current rules appear to prohibit any usage of a manually-controlled SDO system at new locations.

GM/RT2473: Power Operated External Doors on Passenger Carrying Rail Vehicles

B2.2 Compliance requirements
B2.2.1
The vehicle design requirements set out in this document are to be complied with
from 07 September 2013.
B2.2.2
Action to bring existing power operated external doors into compliance with the
requirements of this document is not required.

B12.2.2
Manual arrangements that rely solely on the train crew to control the release of
individual doors shall not be permitted as part of a SDO system, during normal
service operation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do the Chiltern 121s get overcrowded?

No, but I think I would put that in the definition of "quiet branch lines". Bedford-Bletchley is another one. But any even vaguely main or commuter line doesn't work with 2 or even 3 cars these days.

Is there any reason why it is very uncommon for extra coaches to be ordered for trains? Why can't LM just order say 2 or 3 extra coaches per Class 350 like Virgin did for allot of their 390s (though personally I'd prefer them and XC to do this on their voyagers!)?

I think the production line has finished now, but even if it hadn't (a) adding a coach to the 350s wouldn't improve much because it would cause your maximum length to top out at 10 rather than 12, and (b) there isn't the money.

If there was the money, I would suggest a build of approximately 20-30 4x20m Desiro City derivatives (provided they are coupling compatible with 350s) would solve LM's overcrowding problem by allowing the abolition of 4-car working other than those routes where there is an infrastructure constraint.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is UDS already authorised for use at Stone, Kidsgrove, and Alsager? If not, then current rules appear to prohibit any usage of a manually-controlled SDO system at new locations.

Do those rules not apply to new vehicles rather than new uses of existing ones? It reads like that to me.

 

[centraltrains]

Doesn't B2.2.2 just suggest that old train don't have to be made to the rules specified in the document (Such as Class 150s which don't have SDO)

Doesn't the document sort of contradict itself though?

B12.1 Provision of a selective door operation system
Where there are no alternative means to accommodate all doors on a train within the length of a passenger station platform, a system of selective door operation (SDO) shall be adopted. SDO shall be provided with controls to automatically allow for release only of those doors that are within the available platform length.

B12.2.1
The system of SDO shall automatically provide permission to enable a limited number of train doors to be unlocked that are within the length of the platform.

B12.2.2
Manual arrangements that rely solely on the train crew to control the release of individual doors shall not be permitted as part of a SDO system, during normal service operation.

Aren't controls manual?
With the selector knob, is that automatic because depending on the position it says which doors can/can't be opened, or is it manual because crew have to select it's position?

I would assume from that it means that it can be done by someone turning the knob as automatic but if the guard was to lock the doors out of use to open a selective range of doors that would be manual. But I don't know much about this area.

But then it also says...

The relevant platform length information shall be provided by either:
a) Track based equipment.
And / or
b) A location based system using an on-board Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) (GPS) type system to identify the location.

The Class 350/3 was built in 2014 so it should be complaint with these rules and would assume they either have GPS or track side equipment to operate their SDO. If it is GPS then wouldn't it mean it would be allowed for only the 350/3s to operate in multiple with SDO here?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Class 350/3 was built in 2014 so it should be complaint with these rules and would assume they either have GPS or track side equipment to operate their SDO. If it is GPS then wouldn't it mean it would be allowed for only the 350/3s to operate in multiple with SDO here?

I very much doubt it, they are basically identical to the previous builds of 350.

 

[centraltrains]

I very much doubt it, they are basically identical to the previous builds of 350.

But then they wouldn't be compliment with those rules.

On this video I seem to remember them saying they had to do some upgrading to make them compliant for new builds. Maybe this is one of those features?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv1FlFiDYLo (1:50)

 

[Bletchleyite]

But then they wouldn't be compliment with those rules.

On this video I seem to remember them saying they had to do some upgrading to make them compliant for new builds. Maybe this is one of those features?

Not ones that are listed. Is it perhaps the case that because it is an existing design they could just build more effectively as-is?

 

[centraltrains]

The list on the video only says "Key Changes" so I'd agree that it might not be as I would imagine that would be quite a major change.

> Any class 350/3 drivers here?