377-v-378

[notadriver]

From the spec lists. O L Leigh also worked it out last year. It is not exactly half as powerful but it is around that mark. 485Kw to around 850Kw?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Edit: 3 car 377 is 1000 kW. 4 car is 1500 kW.

I did a post last year too.

A 4 car class 377 has 6 motors each rated at 250 kW

A class 379 has 6 motors rated at 200 kW.

 

[Pumbaa]

Indeed my apologies - you are correct! I was using the railway centre technical data pages.

 

[OxtedL]

Given as it is quite clear that some of this is coming from wikipedia, I should point out that the 600kW is quoted per driving car. A 378 has 3 (according to wiki), making a 377 about 1500kW vs 1800kW for the 378, using wikipedia. I don't trust that, particularly given as a 378 apparently weighs less.

I appeal for someone who works in this field to come forward.

 

[notadriver]

You read correctly. A 378 far from being half the power of a 377 is endowed with 9 * 200 kW motors giving 1800 kW making it the most powerful Electrostar in service!

 

[Yew]

If I posted something saying that Siemens planned to team up woth CSRE to provide brand new versions of Class 156 units for pacer replacement after buying the old plans off Bombardier would you beleive that?

That's probably not the silliest idea the dft have made

 

[O L Leigh]

Incidentally, tractive effort is rated not in kilowatts (kW) but in kilonewtons (kN). The power outputs being quoted are simply the maximum continuous rating of the motors themselves.

But I'm intrigued by this claim that Cl378s have an odd number of traction motors as I've never yet come across any train that has two motors on one bogie and only one on the other. Surely this must make them dynamically unstable. Can someone point to an authoritative source for this (not Wikipedia)?

O L Leigh

 

[Pumbaa]

My apologies for mistakenly noting kW and kN. I am digging through sheets at the moment.

Incidentally it has revealed that they will mechanically couple to many other classes in a basic fashion including the 377s and 375s but will not talk.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Railway Technical suggests 6 motors at 200kW. RSSB won't shed any further light! Quite irritating but hopefully someone can confirm either way soon.

 

[notadriver]

Well the closest thing you've got is me as I've seen the underside of the train in a depot. As a 3 car set as they were originally each DMOS has 2 motors under the innermost bogie and 1 motor on the outer bogie. Thus the driver can hear the motor whine in the cab of a 378. When the 4th coach was added it was a MOS vehicle with the same configuration as a DMOS.

Why so much power ? The nature of the service requires good acceleration and the East London Line has grades as steep as 1 in 33. The climb from Whitechapel to Shoreditch High Street is quite steep.

Talking of tractive effort, i noted the same output from all three traction packages. Up to 25 mph they give 50 kn each though this can be exceeded.

 

[Skoodle]

Incidentally, tractive effort is rated not in kilowatts (kW) but in kilonewtons (kN). The power outputs being quoted are simply the maximum continuous rating of the motors themselves.

But I'm intrigued by this claim that Cl378s have an odd number of traction motors as I've never yet come across any train that has two motors on one bogie and only one on the other. Surely this must make them dynamically unstable. Can someone point to an authoritative source for this (not Wikipedia)?

O L Leigh

They most definately do have 9 motors. See the attached picture (quickly knocked up from my training notes). The 378s are designed for fast acceleration and decceleration. They are very good at what they do, especially when carrying heavier loads. Pulling in to Canada Water at 8:26am on a Weekday morning, the crammed and packed train empties almost completely, you then pull away and there is no difference in tractive effort than when you pulled away at Surrey Quays when it was completely full.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Oh! I'm surpirsed! I can see the benefits of longitudal seating on the London Overground network (although I prefer conventional seating).

If TfL have any sense they will use the same style of seating on Cross Rail too.

 

[Nym]

No, they won't... Please no, proper seating on Crossrail!

It's also not 100% controlled by TfL...

 

[Class377/5]

No, they won't... Please no, proper seating on Crossrail!

It's also not 100% controlled by TfL...

True but once completed it will be the same as the Overground (with TfL having overall responsibility) so expect TfL to spec the stock.

That said even TfL and Crossrail have said the Thameslink trains won't be completely what they need but silmar. Expect less seating than a Thameslink train but more than a 378.

 

[RichmondCommu]

No, they won't... Please no, proper seating on Crossrail!

Why do you say that? The trains, especially in central London will be very busy with lots of people getting on and off (similar to the ELL) and many of the journeys will be of a relatively short nature (certainly much shorter than Thameslink).

Plus there is very little to see on that route and most commuters are too tied up in their own thoughts to want to gawp out the window. We're not talking a day trip on the Settle & Carlisle here!

 

[swt_passenger]

Why do you say that? The trains, especially in central London will be very busy with lots of people getting on and off (similar to the ELL) and many of the journeys will be of a relatively short nature (certainly much shorter than Thameslink).

You obviously aren't a paid up member of the 'Crossrail to Reading' club then...

 

[Nym]

You see, I'm a member of the Crossrail will provide a heck of a lot more than just going to Maidenhead, if it where to be a combination of longitudinal and standard seating that would be fine, so long as there is 2+2 seating available for longer distance pax, something along the lines of 450HC style could work, but provide say, 1 or 2m of enhanced standing space (and luggage racks), possibly cycle space, either side of the doors, with standard 2+2 all airline seating (maybe some tables) inbetween, and the same layout in most coaches, the exception being DDA and cycle coaches. That personally I would have dead centre, then a reverse formation doesn't screw up the works.

 

[RichmondCommu]

You see, I'm a member of the Crossrail will provide a heck of a lot more than just going to Maidenhead, if it where to be a combination of longitudinal and standard seating that would be fine, so long as there is 2+2 seating available for longer distance pax, something along the lines of 450HC style could work, but provide say, 1 or 2m of enhanced standing space (and luggage racks), possibly cycle space, either side of the doors, with standard 2+2 all airline seating (maybe some tables) inbetween, and the same layout in most coaches, the exception being DDA and cycle coaches. That personally I would have dead centre, then a reverse formation doesn't screw up the works.

The thing is though given the need to a run an intensive service, passengers need to be able to get on and off quickly and that’s much easier to do with cl378 style seating. You've made a valid point with a mixture of seating but of course tables mean fewer seats! I'm not sure what DDA means but I presume you mean that you would have cl378 style in the middle of the train close to the exits? That would make sense if there was to be a mixture of seating types.

The other thing to remember is that people are going to be dragging cases on to trains and that is much more easily done with longitudinal seating. In fact I’m surprised that the Heathrow Express trains weren’t designed with this in mind.

Finally, would a mixture of seats not drive up the cost of building the trains? That said I'm not an engineer!

 

[Nym]

DDA in simple terms means disabled areas toilets etc.

And one design I'm thinking of at the moment, if it is only going to be Reading - Shenfeild / Abbey Wood etc. would be to have 1/3 and 2/3 doors, the ends of each of the carriage between the doors and ends being 2+2 (I'm assuming siemens seating) you can fit 16 2+2 seats between the doors and ends, thats 32, knock off 4 for a standard toilet and you have 28 comfy seats (assuming one toilet per carriage).

Between the doors have LU style seating, at a rough guess that's another 20 seats, but massess of standing space. Now we need to consider luggage space, easy, loose another four seats next to a door (on the outside bits) so now we have 24 comfy, 20 sideways seats, a big luggage rack, double width, and a toilet, per unit.

For the DDA/Cycle carriges, all the modifications would be in the 'end areas' I'd be looking at modifying it so that the 'toilet end' has space for two wheelchairs, working off the space useage in a 185, that would mean a whole end bit for the disabled toilet, for the wheelchair placement, place tip up seating in the centre part of the unit with an open partition to park them against, et voalla, space for four wheelchair users. The other half of the centre segment retains standard layout with seats and sideways seats.
The bike carriage is a similar deal, but the modification would be to remove the seats from half of one of the outer ends (possibly in the same carriage as the disabled area) and replace the nice seats with a bike and enhanced luggage area (like we see on Northern 150 units with the shelf that bikes go under) the seats on the oppo side would need to be replaced with the usual arrangement.

Next up, 1st class, we don't need much initally so lets have a small area of it at either far end, I get about 15 1st seats in 1/2 of a carriage, partitioned in the middle with a standard layout on the other side.

So, we now have 3 carriage layout designs

F = First Seat, S = Standard Seat (2+2), M = Metro Seat (Sideways), D = Disabled Area, B = Bike Space (Standing Space, approx)


Standard: 24S 20M (50)
Combined: 15F 10S 10M (25)
DDA/Bike: 18M 4D 4B (30)

So, 10 car formation if you please....

Driving Combined - 3 * Standard - 2* DDA/Bike - 3* Standard - Driving Combined

Gives us....

30 First Class Seats
164 Standard Class 2+2 Seats (Maybe some tables)
176 Sideways Seats concentrated either side of the middle
8 Wheelchair parking spots (also available for buggies?)
8 Full size bike spaces, may need rules about alighting in C London...?

~410 Standees

So a standard class capacity of....

750, with 30 First Class...

Now you can add more first for the cost of some standard, but I think the gist is available here as to what I'd have as the layout.

If the services are only say, 30 - 40% loaded outside of the core 1hr journey time, then most of them people get a nice seat.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Blimey Nym, you don't do things by halves do you! I'm impressed! I like the bicycle idea and old Boris is really pushing that idea in London at the moment. However, in all my years as a commuter I've never seen anyone carry a bicycle down an escelator so it might prove to be rather more trouble than its worth!

In all honesty, if I was travelling from Reading into London I would rather take a HST into Paddington and then change onto Cross Rail for the rest of my journey. Whether you worked in the West End, the City or Canary Wharf it would still be much quicker than pre Cross Rail and for this reason I don't see the point in extending Cross Rail from Maidenhead to Reading. However I do accept that changing trains mid journey is not for everyone.

 

[Minstral25]

Great detailed planning but please don't start working for DfT though, god knows they need some intelligence but longitudinal seats should only be on short hop metro services.

Longitudinal seats on longer distance services don't work. I used to travel from Dalston to Norwood Junction daily on the 378's. At Dalston you could stretch your legs but after Shoreditch or Whitechapel you had lots of people in front of you, generally constantly standing on your toes and falling into you most of the way to Norwood. ELL trains have to be this way because they can only run 4 coach trains but Crossrail doesn't.

The reason most Crossrail trains will be 10 coach is so they can squeeze people on in the central zone - the majority of the people using them will be on much longer distance services.

Crossrail and Thameslink are outer suburban routes not Metro services so should not have any longitudinal seating nor should they be full of abysmal airline style seats. Proper Seats with proper tables please.

 

[Nym]

The design refinement would depend on the predicted loadings at certain stations on route, if only 20 - 30% of pax will be travelling on these units for more than 30mins then that seating layout allows all of these pax a decent seat, 21.66% in 2+2 seating to be exact. But either way, there needs to be some big standing areas.

And just for you to dread whats coming, I am applying to work for TfL...

PS: I just don't know off and on peak pax loadings off Reading and Shenfeild, if anyone could provide these, and current service levels, I can design whatever layouts you like...

 

[RichmondCommu]

Crossrail and Thameslink are outer suburban routes not Metro services so should not have any longitudinal seating nor should they be full of abysmal airline style seats. Proper Seats with proper tables please.

Yes but tables means less seats and given the choice people would rather sit than stand. Not only that but even if the service is extended to Reading anybody with any travel nous will take a HST to Paddington and then change to Crossrail.

 

[Nym]

Unless of course the Crossrail stock can run in fast paths at 100, 110 or maybe even 125 and actually run fast from say, Maidenhead into Paddington. The pint being at the moment, no-one really knows what the service patterns will be...

 

[ushawk]

I think the crossrail stock should be a mixture of longitudinal and "normal" seating. The middle of the cars could be longitudinal and the ends could be normal, basically the seating of the 378 and the 172 merged together.

Or it could just be 2+2 throughout so theres plenty of room for standing and seating.

 

[notadriver]

Crossrail stock will have a top speed of 100 mph.

 

[Minstral25]

The design refinement would depend on the predicted loadings at certain stations on route, if only 20 - 30% of pax will be travelling on these units for more than 30mins then that seating layout allows all of these pax a decent seat, 21.66% in 2+2 seating to be exact. But either way, there needs to be some big standing areas.

And just for you to dread whats coming, I am applying to work for TfL...

PS: I just don't know off and on peak pax loadings off Reading and Shenfeild, if anyone could provide these, and current service levels, I can design whatever layouts you like...

No dread, good luck in fact. They need some bright people

However I will still disagree with your view - hauling vast open spaces out to Maidenhead in trains that no-one will want to use because they have longitudinal seats. Put there so that a few rush hour trains have extra capacity between a few stations in Central London during the rush hour.

The ELL stock is already like this - tumble weed could flow most of the day and standing packed occurs for an hour every day each way. But families and groups don't like using them because they can't sit and chat so in the end they don't!

Same is about to occur on the outer reaches of the District Line and Metropolitan line when the S Stock takes over. Longer distance passengers will hate the trains, no matter how good they are for short hops in Central London. Short Hops are not the main characteristics of these lines and nor is it on Crossrail.

Crossrail is two Outer-suburban routes joined together by a line through Central London

 

[Nym]

Aye, but you'll notice that nearly half of the seating by numbers is 2+2 airline seating, and there wouldn't be much issue in fitting table seats in lieu of some of these, whatever happens you need the space for C London commuters, but I fear that I may have over allocated the sideways seating, but again, I'd need to see pax numbers on/off peak and loadings on the central line before I could comment on the best combination of seating configurations for the route.

 

[Minstral25]

You should listen to the passengers as well as it is not just how many you can squeeze in on the busiest trains but how they can use the train when its not so busy - which is much of the day.

I'll always plump for a table seat as I can't work in airline seat and I use my commute as part of my work time (or I drink coffee which also prefers a proper table)

Also, if Crossrail trains are also going to travelling at 70 mph plus, surely there may be an issue with forces on individuals sitting in Longitudinal seats. When travelling from Dalston to Norwood (over 40 minutes with many stops) I often ended up with a pain in my neck caused by the constant side forces on my head through the journey. Not a massive issue but may be a problem when trains are going faster, accelerating more etc.

 

[Nym]

Yeah, but if I listen to pax they all either want Mk1s back, LHCS everywhere, or a non-stop service from their home station to their workplace. I have never had one pax come up with a sensible request.

I'd be intrested to see what happens with the Thameslink stock, as I understand it will be 2+2 and some tables, with plenty of milling space and grab handles in the vestibules, and no matter how much anyone says "Crossrail is special" it isn't, it's pretty much exactly the same pax demographic and useage.

Thameslink: 2 NR stops between London termini
Crossrail: 3 NR stops between London termini

It all depends on if pax use TL and XR for interlondon journies or not, and to what extent.

In an ideal world, I'd have them layed out like 185 or 350/1 units, 2+2 seating, mix of tables, disabled and cycle areas, and run enough so everyone can always have a seat. That won't happen.

A nice compromise could be to remove a row of seats either side of the vestibule and move the partition back by that much (putting some glass between commuters sweaty pits and my face) and then grab handling up the vestibule areas, you'd loose 16 seats per unit, but gain a lot of standing space, and you can fit tip up seats to the patitions.

 

[ert47]

How about the layout of a class 376?

Well... with a major rethink of the perchy bits by the doors

 

[notadriver]

I like that but I think walk through carriages are a must.