IET's grounded - what would you run?

[JN114]

Would it be possible to sandwich 4 car HEx sets between 2x GWR 387s, to allow the Paddington - Didcot, (and hopefully soon Paddington - Swindon) sets to go from 8 cars to 12, so keeping conventional cabs on the ends, and allowing them to be driven by GWR drivers, or are the HEx sets no longer compatible?

The HEx sets are no longer compatible. Even if they were, you’re screwing yourself over if something crops up and you need to uncouple for any reason

 

[Bletchleyite]

The HEx sets are no longer compatible.

The railway loves foolish design decisions, doesn't it?

 

[JN114]

How are the cabs different?

The whole driving desk, and almost all it’s controls are replaced with a giant touch screen. They are very different to drive; and count as a completely separate competency. (well, technically 2; if you are or are not using ETCS Level 2)

Even if you could route conduct or route train from the small pool of GWR (not HEx) drivers who can drive them, the Heathrow sets are not spare. They can only be operated on Heathrow Branch as 8 cars at the moment (safety case restriction), so 10 (5 pairs) are needed for traffic without cancellations. Heathrow Express are not likely, IMO, to countenance that.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

The railway loves foolish design decisions, doesn't it?

Not necessarily by choice - the Heathrow branch was fitted with ATP and not TPWS (as 387s had) so it was either fit a small number of 387s with ATP or convert the branch to the newer ETCS system that will ultimately replace ATP on Western. Either way the 387s would be non-standard.

What do you suggest was done with the 387s to keep them common and able to run to Heathrow?

 

[JN114]

The railway loves foolish design decisions, doesn't it?

The underlying train control software architecture had to be changed massively to implement ETCS.

You might get them to talk with certain systems isolated - we’ve a whole process document for rescuing a HEx 387 with a classic one - but then we’re back in isolating systems to run a service territory. Not going to happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not necessarily by choice - the Heathrow branch was fitted with ATP and not TPWS (as 387s had) so it was either fit a small number of 387s with ATP or convert the branch to the newer ETCS system that will ultimately replace ATP on Western. Either way the 387s would be non-standard.

What do you suggest was done with the 387s to keep them common and able to run to Heathrow?

Make sure that the interface between the units was backwards compatible. Fit TPWS as well as ATP.

 

[JonathanH]

Make sure that the interface between the units was backwards compatible. Fit TPWS as well as ATP.

Sometimes backwards compatibility just isn't possible because the technological enhancement is too great - the explanations above clearly demonstrate why.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sometimes backwards compatibility just isn't possible because the technological enhancement is too great - the explanations above clearly demonstrate why.

I don't agree. It will just have been cheaper not to.

 

[JN114]

Anyway I’ve been a negative ninny too much on this thread.

If I had a magic wand to make anything I want happen (not saying any of it is practical!):-

> contract Rail Ops Group and their 360/2s to supplement the GWR hourly Paddington to Didcot/Swindon shuttle up to half-hourly; 2x 10 car pairs.

> contract LSL and/or other charter operators to run a Paddington to Cardiff Loco-Hauled service - you’d need 5 sets for hourly.

> redeploy the few IETs that are good for service onto a Reading - Exeter service for West Country. If we’re still on a fleet of 3 then that’s broadly 1tp2h; although as sets come good that could be increased

> Stick with existing Turbo/158/Castle vice IET arrangements that were already implemented over the weekend.

 

[HSTEd]

Sometimes backwards compatibility just isn't possible because the technological enhancement is too great - the explanations above clearly demonstrate why.

The AAR multiple working standard kind of undermines this argument.

 

[JN114]

I don't agree. It will just have been cheaper not to.

You cynic you...

I suspect it’s more that it wasn’t seen as necessary - Heathrow Express were happy otherwise to throw a lot of money at them.

While still owned/operated by GWR, they are HEx’s fleet. There is no need, other than rescue when you can start isolating bits and piece to get them to talk, for a HEx unit to couple to a GWR unit - ever. The GWR sets are useless on the Heathrow Branch, no ETCS. And contractual arrangements strictly prohibit use of HEx units on GWR trains.

It would be possible - if HEx agreed to release them - to use them to Swindon as HEx 8 cars. But Heathrow would have to agree to cancelling half their services to free up 2x 8 car sets; and the pool of GWR drivers that sign HEx 387s does not overlap with the pool of GWR drivers who sign Swindon.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The AAR multiple working standard kind of undermines this argument.

It's not a valid argument at all, you can make anything talk like anything else, it's just an IT/electronics problem. It was just cheaper not to, and possibly (like the way NSE modded their 159s) was considered desirable so in cases like this GWR couldn't nick HEx's units.

 

[RobShipway]

You cynic you...

I suspect it’s more that it wasn’t seen as necessary - Heathrow Express were happy otherwise to throw a lot of money at them.

While still owned/operated by GWR, they are HEx’s fleet. There is no need, other than rescue when you can start isolating bits and piece to get them to talk, for a HEx unit to couple to a GWR unit - ever. The GWR sets are useless on the Heathrow Branch, no ETCS. And contractual arrangements strictly prohibit use of HEx units on GWR trains.

It would be possible - if HEx agreed to release them - to use them to Swindon as HEx 8 cars. But Heathrow would have to agree to cancelling half their services to free up 2x 8 car sets; and the pool of GWR drivers that sign HEx 387s does not overlap with the pool of GWR drivers who sign Swindon.

While I don't disagree with what you are saying, it then begs the question as to how did the class 345 get approval as I believe they are fitted with TPWS and are not fitted with ATP?

 

[JN114]

While I don't disagree with what you are saying, it then begs the question as to how did the class 345 get approval as I believe they are fitted with TPWS and are not fitted with ATP?

They are fitted with ETCS

 

[JonathanH]

While I don't disagree with what you are saying, it then begs the question as to how did the class 345 get approval as I believe they are fitted with TPWS and are not fitted with ATP?

You will note that 7-car 345s don't go to Heathrow or in the tunnel and never have. ETCS on the 9-car units for Heathrow operation and a transition at Heathrow Tunnel Junction which caused no end of trouble for a while.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You will note that 7-car 345s don't go to Heathrow or in the tunnel and never have. ETCS on the 9-car units for Heathrow operation and a transition at Heathrow Tunnel Junction which caused no end of trouble for a while.

Ah, so that's the reason for the software issues with the 9-car sets, not the fact that they're 2 coaches longer?

 

[AndrewE]

It's not a valid argument at all, you can make anything talk like anything else, it's just an IT/electronics problem. It was just cheaper not to, and possibly (like the way NSE modded their 159s) was considered desirable so in cases like this GWR couldn't nick HEx's units.

Someone said upthread that there is a problem when there are 2 totally different control philosophies and you can't map the functions of one onto the other. Isn't that what stopped the "upgrade " or replacement of Stockport's manual signalboxes too?

 

[JonathanH]

Ah, so that's the reason for the software issues with the 9-car sets, not the fact that they're 2 coaches longer?

Yes, someone posted a very interesting presentation in the class 345 thread which shows how the 7-car and 9-car units are set up, illustrating that the software set up is very different - totally worth looking at from about 26 minutes in if you want to understand why 7-car 345s replaced 9-car 345s on Reading services between June and December 2020 (and perhaps, to be a bit more on topic, why the interface for ETCS 387s and normal ones is different).

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-345-progress.120221/page-122#post-4771677

 

[warwickshire]

Yes but they aren't allowed any more. It has already been mentioned, maybe not in this thread however. Moreover it is now nearly four years ago since they were the stock on that route.

The reported problem is that the DOO monitors have been decommissioned.

How about using train dispatchers some tocs ie train operating companies even employ agency ones. Possibly option?.

 

[RobShipway]

They are fitted with ETCS

Okay thanks.

I am posting this here rather than in the class 800 thread, as it is speculation on my part. But I am wondering if https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/24508/2021-05-10/detailed is MK3 coaches that can be hauled by locomotives?

If it is Mk3 coaches that can be hauled by locomotives, it could be that they could be hauled by Class 57's which GWR has in it's fleet and has drivers with route knowledge of the GWML from doing the sleeper service trains. Tell me where is the GWR Sleeper service based now?

 

[43096]

Okay thanks.

I am posting this here rather than in the class 800 thread, as it is speculation on my part. But I am wondering if https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/24508/2021-05-10/detailed is MK3 coaches that can be hauled by locomotives?

If it is Mk3 coaches that can be hauled by locomotives, it could be that they could be hauled by Class 57's which GWR has in it's fleet and has drivers with route knowledge of the GWML from doing the sleeper service trains. Tell me where is the GWR Sleeper service based now?

It’s reported formed of 5 slam door HST trailers.

 

[RobShipway]

It’s reported formed of 5 slam door HST trailers.

Okay, other than the castle class 43's, does GWR other any other 43's as spare?

 

[43096]

Okay, other than the castle class 43's, does GWR other any other 43's as spare?

Only for spares/component recovery.

At a guess, GWR are considering combining pairs of castle sets and using the slam door set to backfill on castle diagrams, which doesn’t require any extra power cars.

 

[RobShipway]

Only for spares/component recovery.

At a guess, GWR are considering combining pairs of castle sets and using the slam door set to backfill on castle diagrams, which doesn’t require any extra power cars.

Thanks 43096, that is what I thought was the case.

 

[C37]

Clearly unacceptable for the same reasons put forward for MML HSTs. The days on slam door stock being acceptable to substitute are over, whatever the circumstances.

What's that?
Slam door stock on its way to the GWR?

Train ID : 42587L2L10

railcam.uk

 

[JonathanH]

What's that?
Slam door stock on its way to the GWR?

Yes, doesn't mean it should be acceptable. What happens when people go near the windows - it is just going to be a 'froth magnet' and that is the last thing needed when there is limited capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, doesn't mean it should be acceptable. What happens when people go near the windows - it is just going to be a 'froth magnet' and that is the last thing needed when there is limited capacity.

So it's better to strand people* than to have the odd muppet sticking their head out, something which while dangerous wasn't actually a particularly frequent cause of accidents?

There's a world of difference between buying new stock with droplights and odd use of it to solve a problem.

* Or have them going by car, which is a lot more likely to cause them to be injured

 

[C37]

So it's better to strand people* than to have the odd muppet sticking their head out, something which while dangerous wasn't actually a particularly frequent cause of accidents?

There's a world of difference between buying new stock with droplights and odd use of it to solve a problem.

* Or have them going by car, which is a lot more likely to cause them to be injured

All the experts on here the other day telling me "it can't be done"...... turns out it can be done after all.

 

[Leyland155]

So it's better to strand people* than to have the odd muppet sticking their head out, something which while dangerous wasn't actually a particularly frequent cause of accidents?

There's a world of difference between buying new stock with droplights and odd use of it to solve a problem.

* Or have them going by car, which is a lot more likely to cause them to be injured

Well said. Whilst there are of course inherent risks with droplights, the very slim risk of injury is far outweighed by the benefit to regular passengers. It should be said, however, that I in no way condone those who do recklessly window hang. Perhaps in future, fitting bars to windows (as DRS did with their MkIIs on the Cumbrian coast) would be beneficial, though obviously this depends on the coaching stock owners, and when they are expected to be used for charters etc.

 

[RobShipway]

All the experts on here the other day telling me "it can't be done"...... turns out it can be done after all.

You will probably find that the LSL HST trailers will be used to back fill either one or two castle sets, with the castle trailers being operated to or/from either Swindon or Reading. I would be very surprised if they are allowed to go into London Paddington, which is what you where suggesting over the weekend. The other point will be, is if any of the Laira based class 43 drivers have current knowledge further East than Swindon or Reading.

The only other alternative would be is if the LSL HST trailers could be hauled while in passenger use by class 57's?