Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[AM9]

The class 700s have Siemens's new SF7000 frameless bogies designed for better performance over small radius curves and much lower axle loads, thereby improving train performance (for a given traction package) and reducing track impact for lower track charges. The bogies have inside frames and bearings, so there is nowhere to mount collector shoes beams. An internally mounted arm has been incorporated for the class 700 3rd rail requirement, but it has no in-service raising/lowering of the shoes hence the problem arising now they are being run over non-Thameslink ac lines. If the shoes were raised for the transfer from Germany to Three Bridges, I imagine that was achieved by a manual operation. Clearly that would be wise anyway as clearing the route for 3rd rail shoes right through Germany, Belgium and France to the Chunnel and to Dollands Moor would be ridiculously wasteful in paperwork, let alone any physical track gauging/adjustment.
The fact is that Network rail have not covered all aspects of clearance for class 700s, irrespective of when the ballast was last disturbed. This dropoff (or failure in communications) clearly needs to be fixed asap as it will delay the training of drivers on the GNR routes and potentially the introduction of through services.

 

[DerekC]

The Train-Infrastructure Interface Spec for the Class 700 was signed off in 2012, I believe. It was based on the design proposal from Siemens which had fixed shoegear, for all the good reasons explained by AM9. There really isn't any excuse for NR.

 

[westcoaster]

On the TL we have had shoes knocked of 319s due to new rails being dropped to close to the edge of sleepers, even old rail cut up and not moved clear also causes shoes being knocked off.

Does anyone know the track guage designation for lines where the shoe overhang area has to be kept clear.

 

[Paynetrain]

On the TL we have had shoes knocked of 319s due to new rails being dropped to close to the edge of sleepers, even old rail cut up and not moved clear also causes shoes being knocked off.

Does anyone know the track guage designation for lines where the shoe overhang area has to be kept clear.

http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GLRT1212 Iss 1.pdf

Section 2.10 they state 75mm and 25mm

 

[AM9]

http://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GLRT1212 Iss 1.pdf

Section 2.10 they state 75mm and 25mm

They are not applicable to OLE only lines. An approximation of the clearance needed for fixed shoes can be drawn from the data for the 3rd rail position. That would also require data of the kinematic envelope of the 700s added to the collector shoe itself when bottomed out within its support assembly. Whether gravity or a spring mechanism lowered, the clearance would eat into the 75mm that the 3rd rail is nominally higher than the running rail, thus there should be no obstructions higher than the running rail out to over 400mm from the gauge face.
All that would be simple to check after any track work had taken place.

 

[leomartin125]

Are there any Class 700 diagrams for tomorrow? Thanks.

 

[Deepgreen]

They are not applicable to OLE only lines. An approximation of the clearance needed for fixed shoes can be drawn from the data for the 3rd rail position. That would also require data of the kinematic envelope of the 700s added to the collector shoe itself when bottomed out within its support assembly. Whether gravity or a spring mechanism lowered, the clearance would eat into the 75mm that the 3rd rail is nominally higher than the running rail, thus there should be no obstructions higher than the running rail out to over 400mm from the gauge face.
All that would be simple to check after any track work had taken place.

The fact that this has now apparently happened at least twice is quite alarming, given the amount of planning, testing, trial running and so on which has preceded the 700s' introduction. On another thread quite a while ago ('Network Rail's Linear Scrapyard') I bemoaned the state of the line-side from a safety and environmental perspective, and it appears (though I may be corrected) that my fears were justified.

Meanwhile, NR are quite happy to slap copious gauge restrictions on steam charters on a 'better to be safe than sorry' basis, when they have created/allowed real infringements like this, with costly results.

If I have the facts wrong here I'll soak up the corrections!

 

[swt_passenger]

They are not applicable to OLE only lines. An approximation of the clearance needed for fixed shoes can be drawn from the data for the 3rd rail position. That would also require data of the kinematic envelope of the 700s added to the collector shoe itself when bottomed out within its support assembly. Whether gravity or a spring mechanism lowered, the clearance would eat into the 75mm that the 3rd rail is nominally higher than the running rail, thus there should be no obstructions higher than the running rail out to over 400mm from the gauge face.
All that would be simple to check after any track work had taken place.

What is quite scary is that the lowered shoe is still within the overall length of the sleeper, so the implication is that any obstructions are overlapping or very close to the sleeper ends? Wouldn't that be seen as an area to avoid in normal circumstances anyway?

 

[Domh245]

Meanwhile, NR are quite happy to slap copious gauge restrictions on steam charters on a 'better to be safe than sorry' basis, when they have created/allowed real infringements like this, with costly results.

Have these incidents been particularly costly? Sure, they will have required replacement of the 'sacrificial' shoegear, and there'll have been slight disruption whilst the incident was investigated, but it hasn't been a show stopper, it can just make it's way back to Hornsey and be repaired there. If there was an incident like this once you have trains going from the ECML to the core, then yes it could be quite costly in terms of stopping the job to get the shoeless units back to the depot for repairs and making sure that other trains aren't about to have their shoes removed.

 

[AM9]

Have these incidents been particularly costly? Sure, they will have required replacement of the 'sacrificial' shoegear, and there'll have been slight disruption whilst the incident was investigated, but it hasn't been a show stopper, it can just make it's way back to Hornsey and be repaired there. If there was an incident like this once you have trains going from the ECML to the core, then yes it could be quite costly in terms of stopping the job to get the shoeless units back to the depot for repairs and making sure that other trains aren't about to have their shoes removed.

Sounds like you are playing down the potential hazard of uncontrolled intrusion into the kinematic loading gauge of a trunk railway route. Forget how simple it was to get the stock back, the cause of the decapitation was neglect by the track team and Network Rail was deliquent in applying the clearance checking safeguards. It hasn't been stated how fast the 700s travel in this introduction phase but the trains can reach their 100mph maximum speeds very quickly and the ECML would seem a likely line for that. At those speeds, it is possible that once struck by a fast moving train that debris could move sufficiently to strike less forgiving parts of the train and possibly moving it into the path of trains passing on other lines.
This could be a disaster waiting to happen and the RAIB should be taking notice of it.

 

[SPADTrap]

Sounds like you are playing down the potential hazard of uncontrolled intrusion into the kinematic loading gauge of a trunk railway route. Forget how simple it was to get the stock back, the cause of the decapitation was neglect by the track team and Network Rail was deliquent in applying the clearance checking safeguards. It hasn't been stated how fast the 700s travel in this introduction phase but the trains can reach their 100mph maximum speeds very quickly and the ECML would seem a likely line for that. At those speeds, it is possible that once struck by a fast moving train that debris could move sufficiently to strike less forgiving parts of the train and possibly moving it into the path of trains passing on other lines.
This could be a disaster waiting to happen and the RAIB should be taking notice of it.

Very well put, I fully agree.

 

[jon0844]

Very well put, I fully agree.

Likewise, workers on the track or even passengers at nearby station platforms probably don't want things being knocked off trains and flying about.

 

[leomartin125]

Okay well thanks for the diagrams....

I'll just go and see what turns up.

 

[Class 466]

Okay well thanks for the diagrams....

I'll just go and see what turns up.

TB4xx are 8 cars, TB5xx are 12.

TB401
5W84 01+04 Three Bridge Depot to Three Bridges (Monday only)
2W84 01.16 Three Bridges to Bedford
5G84 03+46 Bedford to Bedford CS
5G04 04+33 Bedford CS to Bedford
1W03 04.46 Bedford to Brighton
1W12 07.48 Brighton to Bedford
1W25 10.40 Bedford to Brighton
1W36 13.35 Brighton to Bedford
1W49 16.26 Bedford to Brighton
1W60 19.33 Brighton to Bedford
1W73 22.22 Bedford to Brighton
5W73 01+14 Brighton to Down Yard

TB402
5W01 05+20 Down Yard to Brighton
1W04 05.44 Brighton to Bedford
1W17 08.40 Bedford to Brighton
1W28 11.35 Brighton to Bedford
2W45 14.24 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W52 17.05 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W63 19.40 Bedford to Brighton
5W62 22+22 Brighton to Three Bridges Depot

TB501 SX
5Y91 02+14 Jowett Sidings to Bedford
2W91 02.40 Bedford to Brighton
1B00 05.47 Brighton to London Bridge
1B05 07.12 London Bridge to Brighton
1B10 08.27 Brighton to London Bridge
1B15 09.42 London Bridge to Brighton
1B22 11.02 Brighton to London Bridge
1B25 12.12 London Bridge to Brighton
5B25 13+29 Brighton to Down Yard
5B38 14+42 Down Yard to Brighton
1B38 15.02 Brighton to London Bridge
1B41 16.12 London Bridge to Brighton
1B48 17.32 Brighton to London Bridge
1B51 18.42 London Bridge to Brighton
5W51 20+06 Brighton to Three Bridges Depot

TB502
5W93 05+10 Three Bridges Depot to Three Bridges
2W94 05.20 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W13 07.34 Bedford to Brighton
1W24 10.35 Brighton to Bedford
2W41 13.24 Bedford to Three Bridges
5W92 15+41 Three Bridges to Three Bridges Depot
5W92 15+56 Three Bridges Depot to Three Bridges
1W92 15.59 Three Bridges to Bedford
2W61 18.24 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W66 20.43 Three Bridges to Bedford
5Y68 23+00 Bedford to Jowett Sidings

TB503
5Y11 06+32 Jowett Sidings to Bedford
1W11 06.58 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W22 09.11 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W29 11.40 Bedford to Brighton
1W40 14.35 Brighton to Bedford
2W57 17.20 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W62 19.43 Three Bridges to Bedford
5Y62 22+00 Bedford to Jowett Sidings

TB504
5W02 05+07 Brighton Down Yard to Brighton
1W02 05.30 Brighton to Bedford
2W21 08.24 Bedford to Three Bridges
5W30 10+41 Three Bridges to Three Bridges Depot
5W30 10+56 Three Bridges Depot to Three Bridges
2W30 10.59 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W37 13.40 Bedford to Brighton
1W96 16.35 Brighton to Bedford
5Y96 19+03 Bedford to Jowett Sidings

TB505
5Y01 03+47 Jowett Siding to Bedford
1W01 04.16 Bedford to Brighton
1W82 07.22 Brighton to Bedford
1W23 10.10 Bedford to Brighton
1W34 13.05 Brighton to Bedford
1W45 15.50 Bedford to Brighton
1W56 18.35 Brighton to Bedford
5Y69 21+14 Bedford to Jowett Sidings
5Y69 21+27 Jowett Sidings to Bedford
1W69 21.40 Bedford to Brighton
5W69 00+25 Brighton to Down Yard

TB506
5W06 05+10 Three Bridges Depot to Brighton
1W06 06.06 Brighton to Bedford
2W23 08.54 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W32 11.29 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W39 14.10 Bedford to Brighton
1W80 17.01 Brighton to Bedford
5Y80 19+33 Bedford to Jowett

TB507
5Y93 07+04 Jowett to Bedford
1W93 07.30 Bedford to Brighton
1W22 10.05 Brighton to Bedford
2W39 12.54 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W48 15.29 Three Bridges to Bedford
2W59 18.00 Bedford to Gatwick
2W64 20.18 Gatwick to Bedford
2W81 23.10 Bedford to Three Bridges
5W81 01+36 Three Bridges to Three Bridges Depot

 

[leomartin125]

TB4xx are 8 cars, TB5xx are 12.

TB401
5W84 01+04 Three Bridge Depot to Three Bridges (Monday only)
2W84 01.16 Three Bridges to Bedford
5G84 03+46 Bedford to Bedford CS
5G04 04+33 Bedford CS to Bedford
1W03 04.46 Bedford to Brighton
1W12 07.48 Brighton to Bedford
1W25 10.40 Bedford to Brighton
1W36 13.35 Brighton to Bedford
1W49 16.26 Bedford to Brighton
1W60 19.33 Brighton to Bedford
1W73 22.22 Bedford to Brighton
5W73 01+14 Brighton to Down Yard

TB402
5W01 05+20 Down Yard to Brighton
1W04 05.44 Brighton to Bedford
1W17 08.40 Bedford to Brighton
1W28 11.35 Brighton to Bedford
2W45 14.24 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W52 17.05 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W63 19.40 Bedford to Brighton
5W62 22+22 Brighton to Three Bridges Depot

TB501 SX
5Y91 02+14 Jowett Sidings to Bedford
2W91 02.40 Bedford to Brighton
1B00 05.47 Brighton to London Bridge
1B05 07.12 London Bridge to Brighton
1B10 08.27 Brighton to London Bridge
1B15 09.42 London Bridge to Brighton
1B22 11.02 Brighton to London Bridge
1B25 12.12 London Bridge to Brighton
5B25 13+29 Brighton to Down Yard
5B38 14+42 Down Yard to Brighton
1B38 15.02 Brighton to London Bridge
1B41 16.12 London Bridge to Brighton
1B48 17.32 Brighton to London Bridge
1B51 18.42 London Bridge to Brighton
5W51 20+06 Brighton to Three Bridges Depot

TB502
5W93 05+10 Three Bridges Depot to Three Bridges
2W94 05.20 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W13 07.34 Bedford to Brighton
1W24 10.35 Brighton to Bedford
2W41 13.24 Bedford to Three Bridges
5W92 15+41 Three Bridges to Three Bridges Depot
5W92 15+56 Three Bridges Depot to Three Bridges
1W92 15.59 Three Bridges to Bedford
2W61 18.24 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W66 20.43 Three Bridges to Bedford
5Y68 23+00 Bedford to Jowett Sidings

TB503
5Y11 06+32 Jowett Sidings to Bedford
1W11 06.58 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W22 09.11 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W29 11.40 Bedford to Brighton
1W40 14.35 Brighton to Bedford
2W57 17.20 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W62 19.43 Three Bridges to Bedford
5Y62 22+00 Bedford to Jowett Sidings

TB504
5W02 05+07 Brighton Down Yard to Brighton
1W02 05.30 Brighton to Bedford
2W21 08.24 Bedford to Three Bridges
5W30 10+41 Three Bridges to Three Bridges Depot
5W30 10+56 Three Bridges Depot to Three Bridges
2W30 10.59 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W37 13.40 Bedford to Brighton
1W96 16.35 Brighton to Bedford
5Y96 19+03 Bedford to Jowett Sidings

TB505
5Y01 03+47 Jowett Siding to Bedford
1W01 04.16 Bedford to Brighton
1W82 07.22 Brighton to Bedford
1W23 10.10 Bedford to Brighton
1W34 13.05 Brighton to Bedford
1W45 15.50 Bedford to Brighton
1W56 18.35 Brighton to Bedford
5Y69 21+14 Bedford to Jowett Sidings
5Y69 21+27 Jowett Sidings to Bedford
1W69 21.40 Bedford to Brighton
5W69 00+25 Brighton to Down Yard

TB506
5W06 05+10 Three Bridges Depot to Brighton
1W06 06.06 Brighton to Bedford
2W23 08.54 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W32 11.29 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W39 14.10 Bedford to Brighton
1W80 17.01 Brighton to Bedford
5Y80 19+33 Bedford to Jowett

TB507
5Y93 07+04 Jowett to Bedford
1W93 07.30 Bedford to Brighton
1W22 10.05 Brighton to Bedford
2W39 12.54 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W48 15.29 Three Bridges to Bedford
2W59 18.00 Bedford to Gatwick
2W64 20.18 Gatwick to Bedford
2W81 23.10 Bedford to Three Bridges
5W81 01+36 Three Bridges to Three Bridges Depot

Thank you my friend. Really appreciate it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Sounds like you are playing down the potential hazard of uncontrolled intrusion into the kinematic loading gauge of a trunk railway route. Forget how simple it was to get the stock back, the cause of the decapitation was neglect by the track team and Network Rail was deliquent in applying the clearance checking safeguards. It hasn't been stated how fast the 700s travel in this introduction phase but the trains can reach their 100mph maximum speeds very quickly and the ECML would seem a likely line for that. At those speeds, it is possible that once struck by a fast moving train that debris could move sufficiently to strike less forgiving parts of the train and possibly moving it into the path of trains passing on other lines.
This could be a disaster waiting to happen and the RAIB should be taking notice of it.

No doubt it is a hazard. However I question the severity of it.

In the 319 days it used to happen quite frequently on the MML, even with a couple of decades experience for the track guys. It was happening almost weekly at one point. It also happened routinely on the WCML when the 319s were up there, not least on the first day. It also happens on 3rd rail routes, where rail or other obstructions are left on the offside to the con rail.

I can think of scores of these incidents, and I can't recall any causing secondary damage to infrastructure, trains, or people.

 

[AM9]

No doubt it is a hazard. However I question the severity of it.

In the 319 days it used to happen quite frequently on the MML, even with a couple of decades experience for the track guys. It was happening almost weekly at one point. It also happened routinely on the WCML when the 319s were up there, not least on the first day. It also happens on 3rd rail routes, where rail or other obstructions are left on the offside to the con rail.

I can think of scores of these incidents, and I can't recall any causing secondary damage to infrastructure, trains, or people.

I think that casual attitudes to track safety are less tolerated than twenty years ago and in the event of a more serious foreign object strike, the fact that it had been repeatedly ignored could start a media firestorm that would be difficult to supress without heads rolling.
Besides, just why are track workers leaving materials in hazardous places, are they too busy, too lazy or just unaware of the potential. I can't believe that trackworkers' training doesn't cover the safety issues of leaving materials in gauge when handing access back, so is there a lack of governance here causing a regression to mean by individual workers.

 

[bramling]

No doubt it is a hazard. However I question the severity of it.

In the 319 days it used to happen quite frequently on the MML, even with a couple of decades experience for the track guys. It was happening almost weekly at one point. It also happened routinely on the WCML when the 319s were up there, not least on the first day. It also happens on 3rd rail routes, where rail or other obstructions are left on the offside to the con rail.

I can think of scores of these incidents, and I can't recall any causing secondary damage to infrastructure, trains, or people.

A dubious advert for integrating a wholly AC network with the 3rd-rail system then!

No doubt Great Northern can look forward to the timetable falling apart at the slightest hint of ice and snow too, something its users haven't previously had to worry too much about.

 

[Class377/5]

A dubious advert for integrating a wholly AC network with the 3rd-rail system then!

No doubt Great Northern can look forward to the timetable falling apart at the slightest hint of ice and snow too, something its users haven't previously had to worry too much about.

Since when has the GN been a wholly AC network? You do realise units with none moving shoes already use large parts of the GN so there is zero excuse for staff not being aware of it.

 

[sd0733]

700114 has failed in St Pancras on the 12:54 to Bedford and been cancelled. Currently blocking the North bound platform so causing chaos with bi-di working round it.

 

[Deepgreen]

Does the railway really now regard repeatedly losing all the shoes from units owing to careless track maintenance as acceptable losses?! Quite apart from any possible safety implications, I had been under the impression that the 700s have the phenomenal power-to-weight ratio that they do because their high acceleration is required to ensure the core timetable can be maintained. If they are to lose shoes every so often, surely the resultant delays, even if small (and I don't believe the loss of all shoes will not cause a significant delay) will be very costly in terms of train service breakdown?

Perhaps I am wrong and it really is better to leave old rails around randomly and just re-fit trains each time they hit them.

 

[Class377/5]

Does the railway really now regard repeatedly losing all the shoes from units owing to careless track maintenance as acceptable losses?! Quite apart from any possible safety implications, I had been under the impression that the 700s have the phenomenal power-to-weight ratio that they do is because their high acceleration is required to ensure the core timetable can be maintained. If they are to lose shoes every so often, surely the resultant delays, even if small (and I don't believe the loss of all shoes will not cause a significant delay) will be very costly in terms of train service breakdown?

Perhaps I am wrong and it really is better to leave old rails around randomly and just re-fit trains each time they hit them.

In a word, no. Just this is why you send units to test prior to passenger service to ensure everything is right. You could be talking about the smallest error which has caused this.

Those incharge will be sorting the issues out. That I am sure of.

 

[bramling]

Since when has the GN been a wholly AC network? You do realise units with none moving shoes already use large parts of the GN so there is zero excuse for staff not being aware of it.

OK I'll give you the point for the 313s.

*However*, as someone who travels from further out and has no requirement to use Moorgate they are basically irrelevant to me, along with many others.

Problems with third-rail icing at Drayton Park won't directly affect me today, but a problem on the Brighton line most certainly would in the future.

 

[D365]

Since when has the GN been a wholly AC network? You do realise units with none moving shoes already use large parts of the GN so there is zero excuse for staff not being aware of it.

Not beyond Letchworth/Hitchin though - I can forsee the Class 700s running into trouble again on the Peterborough branch. Remember the Class 319s when they used to run all the way out to Rugby.

 

[Deepgreen]

In a word, no. Just this is why you send units to test prior to passenger service to ensure everything is right. You could be talking about the smallest error which has caused this.

Those incharge will be sorting the issues out. That I am sure of.

Indeed so, but I had thought the 700s' testing had been extensive and frequent. Not enough, perhaps. It may be wise to avoid dumping anything so close to the running rails that they could cause this sort of problem (anywhere on the network, not just where shoe gear-equipped stock may run).

 

[itfcfan]

Is the rear section of first class still declassified on the class 700s? If so, is there anything official from GTR to say this? I'm currently on the 1611 service from West Hampstead towards Bedford and there's no sign on the PIs (or elsewhere) to indicate the rear 1st class is declassified (so I assume it's not).

 

[Mike395]

Is the rear section of first class still declassified on the class 700s? If so, is there anything official from GTR to say this? I'm currently on the 1611 service from West Hampstead towards Bedford and there's no sign on the PIs (or elsewhere) to indicate the rear 1st class is declassified (so I assume it's not).

It certainly was when I travelled on Monday - the screens in the rear section advise of the declassification at the same point in the rotation as all the other screens show the CCTV notice.

 

[itfcfan]

It certainly was when I travelled on Monday - the screens in the rear section advise of the declassification at the same point in the rotation as all the other screens show the CCTV notice.

I see. I can confirm this is still the case. I'm sitting in the standard class section in the rear carriage - "our" PIS shows the normal CCTV message, but looking through the 1st class door I can see the PIS in there shoes "standard class ticket holders may use this area" (or similar).

 

[AM9]

OK I'll give you the point for the 313s.

*However*, as someone who travels from further out and has no requirement to use Moorgate they are basically irrelevant to me, along with many others.

Problems with third-rail icing at Drayton Park won't directly affect me today, but a problem on the Brighton line most certainly would in the future.

Oh dear, yet another 'Bramling centric post'. Maybe the administrators could offer an official account to GTR so that they can give a TOC response to these misdirected comments.

 

[bramling]

Oh dear, yet another 'Bramling centric post'. Maybe the administrators could offer an official account to GTR so that they can give a TOC response to these misdirected comments.

I see. So anything which threatens to increase the risk of disruption to a very busy railway system is centric to me only?

I take it you've nothing to offer on the subject in hand, namely that a railway that is currently not vulnerable to the inadequacies of the third-rail system will be from 2018.

As things stand, the service from my local station is generally pretty reliable during winter weather - on the same days when the south-of-London network often falls apart.

Oh, how silly of me, anything which expresses a negative view about Thameslink is somehow selfish. Back to the real world...