City Thameslink OHLE

[transmanche]

I'm sorry but a 12 car train will not fit in smithfields without fouling the main line, the max coaches in there Is 8 car lenght, or any length less than 8. I know this as I've been in there many times, you have about 5-10 meters between an 8 car and the exit signal.

So why does Network Rail's Network Change Document specifically state that Class 376 trains are permitted into Smithfield sidings up to a maximum of 10 cars?

 

[Class377/5]

I'm sorry but a 12 car train will not fit in smithfields without fouling the main line, the max coaches in there Is 8 car lenght, or any length less than 8. I know this as I've been in there many times, you have about 5-10 meters between an 8 car and the exit signal.

I'm going off what Network Rail and FCC are saying personally. Never been in Smithfield myself tho past the thing a fair few times. And as for the Network Rail change document, fact a 376 is allowed but a 375 isn't sounds dodgy. Especially as they have the same body frame.

 

[westcoaster]

So why does Network Rail's Network Change Document specifically state that Class 376 trains are permitted into Smithfield sidings up to a maximum of 10 cars?

You are miss reading what is printed, those 3 points are for the line of route between b-friars and farringdon and as such each point is separate

R1 states a different speed for specific units between which 2 points
R2 Means upto 10 cars between briars and farringdon I.e 5 & 10 cars ok but 15 not ok due to platform length.
R3 means only allowed between city and smithfields.

 

[swt_passenger]

Especially as they have the same body frame.

The same body frame doesn't mean they haven't got different things sticking out on the roof. The problem might just be slightly different physical shape, or position, of a particular radio aerial...

This is possibly why DC 377s are banned as well - they'll similarly have the same basic body shape as a 377/2 or 377/5.

 

[DXMachina]

This is possibly why DC 377s are banned as well

Probably true but couldn't it alternatively be also due to their not having been 'cleared' and / or not being able to drive out of the core route northwards in case of incident due to lack of AC equipment?

I suspect the safety case for any given stock includes assessment of how far it can go before getting stuck

 

[swt_passenger]

Probably true but couldn't it alternatively be also due to their not having been 'cleared' and / or not being able to drive out of the core route northwards in case of incident due to lack of AC equipment?

I suspect the safety case for any given stock includes assessment of how far it can go before getting stuck

Fair point, but the table in the document surprisingly includes an approval for 455s (DC only) as far as Farringdon, albeit with a speed restriction.

I guess we'll never know the full reasoning behind all this - and is it important anyway...

 

[Class377/5]

Fair point, but the table in the document surprisingly includes an approval for 455s (DC only) as far as Farringdon, albeit with a speed restriction.

I guess we'll never know the full reasoning behind all this - and is it important anyway...

I wonder what the situation is with a 317 now as they were able to go to Farringdon.

 

[ole man]

The normal traction changeover point from AC to DC in the down direction will be Farringdon.

If the traction changeover fails in the down direction the driver must inform the signaller at Victoria ASC before leaving Farringdon. The train will be signalled into City Thameslink station using AC traction power so the driver can change ends and be signalled back towards Farringdon.

The normal traction changeover point from DC to AC in the up direction will be City Thameslink.

If the traction changeover fails in the up direction the driver must inform the signaller at Victoria ASC before leaving City Thameslink. The train will be signalled into either Farringdon (so the driver can change ends and be signalled back towards City Thameslink), Smithfield Sidings or back towards Blackfriars using DC traction power.

 

[swt_passenger]

...and that's the procedure that's been in the Thameslink rolling stock spec since it was published, and in all the various NR change notices quoted, so available to me as a member of the public for about two years now.

The problem for me is that every time I've mentioned it, a load of replies have attempted to explain why it won't ever happen. In this thread for instance, your starting point was:

"I have been recently told that the wiring form Farringdon to City Thameslink will never be made live."

and then westcoaster:

"Incorrect change over will always be at farringdon, this has been confirmed to us on numerous occasions..."

As I've said before, why would they spend £millions on this and not use it?

 

[ole man]

As previously mentioned somewhere, Network Rail illegally wired from Farringdon to City Thameslink, they dont own the Smithfield Tunnel, the city of london own it, and they didnt want heavy steel work put onto the tunnel.

All the current electrical diagrams we use still say that between Farringdon and City Thameslink is Perm Earthed.

 

[Tommy3000]

Out of interest, why don't the City want steel work put into the tunnel?

 

[ole man]

I have no idea, i can only assume its because its a old tunnel and didnt want it weakening

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm going off what Network Rail and FCC are saying personally. Never been in Smithfield myself tho past the thing a fair few times. And as for the Network Rail change document, fact a 376 is allowed but a 375 isn't sounds dodgy. Especially as they have the same body frame.

The same body frame doesn't mean they haven't got different things sticking out on the roof. The problem might just be slightly different physical shape, or position, of a particular radio aerial...

This is possibly why DC 377s are banned as well - they'll similarly have the same basic body shape as a 377/2 or 377/5.

Could just be a paperwork issue. They wanted 377/2 and 377/5 cleared because Thameslink needed to use them, but didn't worry about any others because it wasn't needed. They may have expected to use 376s up there and got the paperwork done, but never considered the 375s.

 

[John55]

As previously mentioned somewhere, Network Rail illegally wired from Farringdon to City Thameslink, they dont own the Smithfield Tunnel, the city of london own it, and they didnt want heavy steel work put onto the tunnel.

All the current electrical diagrams we use still say that between Farringdon and City Thameslink is Perm Earthed.

It's a bit late as the tunnel is cut and cover and the roof is made out of steel girders!

The appropriate Statutary Instrument - The Network Rail (Thameslink 2000) Order 2006 allowing the Thameslink works to be undertaken specifically allows OHLE to be installed in the Snow Hill (Smithfield) Tunnel so how can it be illegal?

 

[swt_passenger]

It's a bit late as the tunnel is cut and cover and the roof is made out of steel girders!

The appropriate Statutary Instrument - The Network Rail (Thameslink 2000) Order 2006 allowing the Thameslink works to be undertaken specifically allows OHLE to be installed in the Snow Hill (Smithfield) Tunnel so how can it be illegal?

Also, it seems to me that the word 'permanent' is only being used in this context to describe the quality of the earthing during this period that is clearly documented as being a 'temporary' situation...

In other words, when ole man reports that it is 'permanently' earthed, it doesn't mean it will be forever... IYSWIM

 

[ole man]

The latest Isolation diagrams show that the OLE south of Farringdon is Earthed, this of course will not be forever, but i dont decide when it's energised.

The story regarding the OHLE on Smithfield tunnel was told to by FCC and NR in a meeting regarding the resignalling that has just been finished

 

[Class377/5]

Could just be a paperwork issue. They wanted 377/2 and 377/5 cleared because Thameslink needed to use them, but didn't worry about any others because it wasn't needed. They may have expected to use 376s up there and got the paperwork done, but never considered the 375s.

That was my thinking. Not that the SDO works on either 375 or 376's at City of course.

As previously mentioned somewhere, Network Rail illegally wired from Farringdon to City Thameslink, they dont own the Smithfield Tunnel, the city of london own it, and they didnt want heavy steel work put onto the tunnel.

All the current electrical diagrams we use still say that between Farringdon and City Thameslink is Perm Earthed.

What ever the diagrams state has been proven wrong on various occasion where FCC have run trains on AC into City.

However northbound this was the case until recently.

Although recently (like last week) a late notice was issued for drivers to continue the change river northbound at Farrindon.

 

[68000]

The GSM-R antenna position will have to be redesigned on the Class 377/2 & 377/5 units. Southern had fitted all their 377/2 antennas and had to remove 6 of them off the 3 units subleased to FCC. GSM-R installation on the 377/5 has not yet started.

 

[Smoggy]

The latest Isolation diagrams show that the OLE south of Farringdon is Earthed, this of course will not be forever, but i dont decide when it's energised.

The story regarding the OHLE on Smithfield tunnel was told to by FCC and NR in a meeting regarding the resignalling that has just been finished

May I suggest you obtain the latest Isolation diagrams which clearly show that section 601C is no longer permanently earthed, and the OLE section is now live all the way to the termination at City Thameslink and has been since the beginning of May!!!
We also ran a test train as part of section proving that weekend after we lowered the wire to bring it into operational use.

 

[ole man]

I wasn't aware that new diagrams had been issued, though was aware of the test run, i know now who you work for.
Did you sort out the lack of registration at City Thameslink?