Alstom win order for ten new class 345s

[ThameslinkUser]

by next election anyone??

The next election to take place in the UK is July 4th 2024. They will not be in service by then.

 

[DaveyJones]

Surprising how a small order of just 10 trains will keep up to 2000 people in work.

Does much actual manufacturing happen in Derby or is it just a giant flatpack assembly plant?

BBC Two - Inside the Factory, Series 7, Trains

Gregg Wallace learns how a whole 187-tonne train is made.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Hophead]

Long enough for Alstom to theoretically win any of the upcoming tenders for SE, TPE, Northern, Chiltern.

Long enough for the future of Litchurch Lane to be a problem for the next government

 

[NSEWonderer]

Off topic but it makes sense that the Lizzy would get 10 more trains rather than at one point an 11 car extention for the OOC addition. I do find it strange that most COS stations are built for possible 11 car 345s but Paddington itself isn't.

Custom House I'm also aware is quite short however it does have a longer run off area.

I do wonder if they ever consider 11 car trains would they restrict them only to the COS running as I'd assume they'd be fouling the lines on east and west on the short platforms.

 

[Notchapple]

Slightly off topic but why can't the trains be extended to 11-car even though TfL built stations with this option in mind?

 

[NSEWonderer]

Slightly off topic but why can't the trains be extended to 11-car even though TfL built stations with this option in mind?

Haha the timing of your post

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jun 2024 ==

Slightly off topic but why can't the trains be extended to 11-car even though TfL built stations with this option in mind?

Paddington comes to mind as it's only able to fit 9 cars at the moment

 

[stuu]

Slightly off topic but why can't the trains be extended to 11-car even though TfL built stations with this option in mind?

The surface stations are mostly not long enough, and neither is the stabling. Probably would need signalling changes too

 

[swt_passenger]

The surface stations are mostly not long enough, and neither is the stabling. Probably would need signalling changes too

Heathrow is a problem according to earlier discussions.

Correct me if it changed at some stage, but wasn’t this order originally for FIVE trains to meet Old Oak Common requirements? Is there another extension on the cards, eg more trains to Reading or Heathrow?

 

[D365]

Will they be designated 345/1 or 345071-080

As far as I’ve seen, these vehicles are not yet confirmed in the public domain to be Class 345.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

As far as I’ve seen, these vehicles are not yet confirmed in the public domain to be Class 345.

What else would they be though?
Would they really do a full redesign when they can just grab the 345 instructions from 4 years ago and find some new suppliers.

 

[Horizon22]

As far as I’ve seen, these vehicles are not yet confirmed in the public domain to be Class 345.

But they will be. Anyway I imagine it will be 071-080 as they will need to embed with the current fleet.

The only noticeable difference I expect is they’ll have public USB slots from the off (current fleet is having them retrofitted).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jun 2024 ==

Heathrow is a problem according to earlier discussions.

Correct me if it changed at some stage, but wasn’t this order originally for FIVE trains to meet Old Oak Common requirements? Is there another extension on the cards, eg more trains to Reading or Heathrow?

The Central section can (theoretically!) run 24tph, 11-car trains.

So it might be an order with a) Old Oak Common in mind, b) more Abbey Wood - Paddington services in the interim & c) a few for greater stock resilience on a very extensively used fleet.

 

[RUK]

Correct me if it changed at some stage, but wasn’t this order originally for FIVE trains to meet Old Oak Common requirements? Is there another extension on the cards, eg more trains to Reading or Heathrow?

TfL wanted 5 more trains for OOC, but Alstom told the Government that the minimum order quantity to keep Derby open until they might get more orders was 10 trains. The original Class 345 order had an option for a further 18 trains - 5 had already been taken up in 2018 (345 066 - 345 070), and this is for 10 more, so I guess TfL have capacity for another 3 on the Elizabeth line that they could find uses/have ideas of uses for. The London Reconnections blog has an article with ideas for uses for the extra 5 trains on top of what’s needed for OOC.

 

[Iskra]

Long enough for Alstom to theoretically win any of the upcoming tenders for SE, TPE, Northern, Chiltern.

What’s the TPE upcoming tender? Why do they need trains when they’ve just handed some back?

 

[RUK]

What’s the TPE upcoming tender? Why do they need trains when they’ve just handed some back?

As part of the Transpennine Route Upgrade, but they won’t be ordered until next year, for delivery in 2029, so a long way off yet: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/29-new-trains-for-transpennine-express.258762/

 

[swt_passenger]

TfL wanted 5 more trains for OOC, but Alstom told the Government that the minimum order quantity to keep Derby open until they might get more orders was 10 trains. The original Class 345 order had an option for a further 18 trains - 5 had already been taken up in 2018 (345 066 - 345 070), and this is for 10 more, so I guess TfL have capacity for another 3 on the Elizabeth line that they could find uses/have ideas of uses for. The London Reconnections blog has an article with ideas for uses for the extra 5 trains on top of what’s needed for OOC.

Thanks - here’s a link to the London Reconnections article:

With, amongst other things, disquiet from MPs in the Derby area, the government really needed a way out. The solution, similar to an early episode of Yes, Minister, appears to be to find a need for a facility by creating a demand for it, so that it is no longer an embarrassment. It seems that the government are offering 10 Crossrail trains to TfL providing they can make a business case for them. One suspects TfL will ultimately have to pay for at least some of the trains eventually, but without government support they would not be able to place the order.

Bonus Trains for Crossrail? - London Reconnections

The leading source for independent news and analysis about transport in London and beyond. Award-winning coverage of transport infrastructure and politics alongside stories about the history of the Capital's transport networks.

www.londonreconnections.com

 

[Iskra]

As part of the Transpennine Route Upgrade to replace the Class 185s, but they won’t be ordered until next year, for delivery in 2029, so a long way off yet: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/29-new-trains-for-transpennine-express.258762/

Thanks

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What’s the TPE upcoming tender? Why do they need trains when they’ve just handed some back?

Both TPE and Northern will need new EMUs for the TRU wiring as it progresses.
Before then some more bi-modes would be useful to TPE, filling the gap left by the MK5s.
But really it's the Northern order which should come first - to eliminate the remaining Sprinters and start EMU/battery operation, well before TRU is done).

 

[Iskra]

Both TPE and Northern will need new EMUs for the TRU wiring as it progresses.
Before then some more bi-modes would be useful to TPE, filling the gap left by the MK5s.
But really it's the Northern order which should come first - to eliminate the remaining Sprinters and start EMU/battery operation, well before TRU is done).

Interesting times, thank you.

 

[Taunton]

It's far from a mere assembly plant. It's a full research, design and manufacture facility. The only one left in the UK.

Clearly no research or design is involved in trains "the same as before". Unless we are told they have thrown the drawings away and have to start again.

It would be good though for research/design to come up with a final fix for the regular failure to make the transition from one signalling system to the other at Paddington eastbound, which STILL is a recurrent issue and blows the service.

Also the extension to Old Oak Common following HS2 construction and the recent news that OOC will eb the HS2 terminus for some time lead to some very real concerns about overcrowding of the Elizabeth Line as train loads of people make the "last mile" into Central London.

The one place I notice where there are crowding issues is on the inner suburban west, beyond Old Oak, inbound in the morning peak. But these regular overloads seem to be almost wholly where the western service, one arm, the other, or down into the core, is disrupted, and crowds develop on the inbound platforms. But this seems principally due to service intervals breakdown, and not so much to a shortage of scheduled trains. Something building additional trains is not going to fix.

It would be nice to see an actual statement of which services the additional trains are going to provide. I presume someone, somewhere, has actually worked this out.

With the 50% of service terminating currently at Paddington, now to be extended to Old Oak, the HS2 passengers boarding there will be doing so to empty trains every few minutes

The 345 fleet is extensively used - only a few units of the entire fleet which are not used in the peak.

I have written here before about noticing the number of units standing idle in Old Oak depot at the height of the peak, number varies but around half a dozen is typical. Would be nice to sometimes see those sent out in use to overcome service gaps. If there are no crews available for them, that's a different issue, that spending £430m on rolling stock does not resolve.

 

[stuu]

Heathrow is a problem according to earlier discussions.

True, I should have said non-core stations

 

[Trainman40083]

What else would they be though?
Would they really do a full redesign when they can just grab the 345 instructions from 4 years ago and find some new suppliers.

There was a suggestion that the extra 5 was to cover for the section from OOC to Euston not being open in time, when HS2 starts. I guess few really know where users will change trains. That said, if the Elizabeth line is packed now, it is going to get very cosy in a few years

 

[NSEWonderer]

There was a suggestion that the extra 5 was to cover for the section from OOC to Euston not being open in time, when HS2 starts. I guess few really know where users will change trains. That said, if the Elizabeth line is packed now, it is going to get very cosy in a few years

Well it has the option of 11 car running eventually if need be

 

[PGAT]

Well it has the option of 11 car running eventually if need be

I thought that wasn’t possible because the sidings at Old Oak Depot aren’t long enough

 

[NSEWonderer]

I thought that wasn’t possible because the sidings at Old Oak Depot aren’t long enough

Platform wise with 90% of the COS it is. But assuming if it ever happened yes the OOC would need extension of sorts at least on some roads, unless Ilford has the length accommodation.

 

[hwl]

I thought that wasn’t possible because the sidings at Old Oak Depot aren’t long enough

Platform wise with 90% of the COS it is. But assuming if it ever happened yes the OOC would need extension of sorts at least on some roads, unless Ilford has the length accommodation.

All soluble by moving car parking spaces, access road and losing grassed area within the existing footprint.

 

[RUK]

I presume that with this, TfL or some other part of government will own the 10 new units outright. With this, could the 10 new units be sold and leased back, like with the 70 existing units, to raise money for use for other things, such as some of the money for new Tube trains for the Bakerloo line, just as was done with the existing Class 345s to raise money to buy the new Piccadilly line trains?

I suppose the 5 extra units on top of the 5 which are needed for Old Oak Common could form a source of carriages for reformation and lengthening of some of the 75 other units if necessary in the future, if fewer, longer trains were to be seen as being more useful than the 5 extra units in the future.

 

[stuving]

Slightly off topic but why can't the trains be extended to 11-car even though TfL built stations with this option in mind?

The requirement for the trains did not call for extension to 11 cars as an option so they were not designed for it. The electrical power system in particular would need significant redesign from scratch to cope with at last one more powered bogie per "half". Whether anyone at Alstom has in fact looked into what would be involved is another matter, but it seems unlikely any serious design work has been done.

If you think about the design lifetimes of stations and trains, and how hard it is to extend platforms in underground stations, the logic of this becomes obvious. Stations have to be designed for several generations of trains running well into the future, so they were built longer than the first fleet of trains ordered at the same time.

 

[Horizon22]

I have written here before about noticing the number of units standing idle in Old Oak depot at the height of the peak, number varies but around half a dozen is typical. Would be nice to sometimes see those sent out in use to overcome service gaps. If there are no crews available for them, that's a different issue, that spending £430m on rolling stock does not resolve.

You’re surely getting confused with North Pole? >90% of the Elizabeth line fleet is in use during the peaks (disruption not withstanding). You’d barely see more than a few trains at Old Oak, and they’d all be there for maintenance. The units regularly cycle too, so one arrival is being supported by one departure to Paddington to form a Shenfield service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jun 2024 ==

Platform wise with 90% of the COS it is. But assuming if it ever happened yes the OOC would need extension of sorts at least on some roads, unless Ilford has the length accommodation.

Will be tricky considering flats are built up right next to it! It’s not impossible to extend by a little bit to the west and I think there’s passive provision but it won’t be loads.

 

[Taunton]

The requirement for the trains did not call for extension to 11 cars as an option so they were not designed for it. The electrical power system in particular would need significant redesign from scratch to cope with at last one more powered bogie per "half". Whether anyone at Alstom has in fact looked into what would be involved is another matter, but it seems unlikely any serious design work has been done.

If you think about the design lifetimes of stations and trains, and how hard it is to extend platforms in underground stations, the logic of this becomes obvious. Stations have to be designed for several generations of trains running well into the future, so they were built longer than the first fleet of trains ordered at the same time.

The logic was obvious, and ALL the underground station platforms in the Core were built to the 11-car length. The extra car length at each end is not currently provided with platform edge doors. Quite apparent when you look at them. I'm pretty sure that people at Bombardier understood what was being done here.

The issues are elsewhere. There are already surface stations in the suburbs with two cars locked out. The ORR would never accept four cars locked out. I also believe the Old Oak sidings cannot be extended by another two cars; there was spare ground there at the start of the project, but somebody sold off the land for flats to be built there right up to the buffers .

 

[NSEWonderer]

The logic was obvious, and ALL the underground station platforms in the Core were built to the 11-car length. The extra car length at each end is not currently provided with platform edge doors. Quite apparent when you look at them. I'm pretty sure that people at Bombardier understood what was being done here.

The issues are elsewhere. There are already surface stations in the suburbs with two cars locked out. The ORR would never accept four cars locked out. I also believe the Old Oak sidings cannot be extended by another two cars; there was spare ground there at the start of the project, but somebody sold off the land for flats to be built there right up to the buffers .

Not all Underground stations. Only Paddington lower level is 9 car Length. Unless of course it has any extra space hidden behind the platform end walls.