• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Class 345 progress

Status
Not open for further replies.

Malcolmffc

Member
Joined
19 Mar 2017
Messages
310
I believe the article stated that it was a long term objective of network rail to get hex onto the reliefs. Not that there was a definite plan for hex to be on the reliefs. I believe the original article stated that. rolling stock increase of four trains was more than required to provide the additional services to Reading. I believe the additional reading services also come at the expense of the west drayton terminators.

The reading line is quite crowded. A service reduction of 2tph by running less gwr services to provide more services to terminal 5 would be unacceptable.Especially as the heathrow loadings are quite low

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/final-result-crossrail-heads-terminal-5/


No, the original article definitely said HX would use the reliefs until it was pointed out this was nonsense and the article was amended.

LR has some good articles but there is a definite "know it all" tone from the authors and regular commentators which isn't always justified.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
As has been posted on the londonreconnections website the reason for the separation is to ensure as far as possible that any disruption on the GE lines does not affect the GW and vice versa. Thus disturbances on the GW will be confined to the Abbey Wood branch (as it is isolated from the Great Eastern and does not use South Eastern metals at all) and disturbances on the GE will not get past Paddington.

For the price of getting off one train, staying in the same place on the platform and getting back onto another a couple of minutes later, that seems quite a good solution.

This is straying off topic a bit for which I apologise, but I wonder if perhaps the concerns regarding the Thameslink programme are starting to take hold among the crossrail team? None of the explanations for these changes are anything I disagree with, it's just come as a surprise that now the project is starting to near completion, these changes are suddenly appearing.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,157
This is straying off topic a bit for which I apologise, but I wonder if perhaps the concerns regarding the Thameslink programme are starting to take hold among the crossrail team? None of the explanations for these changes are anything I disagree with, it's just come as a surprise that now the project is starting to near completion, these changes are suddenly appearing.

What changes have there been? I don't think that the Shenfield branch services were ever proposed to terminate much further west than Paddington. Plus it makes understanding the service patterns a whole lot easier by only extending the 12tph from Abbey Wood.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
8,240
What changes have there been? I don't think that the Shenfield branch services were ever proposed to terminate much further west than Paddington. Plus it makes understanding the service patterns a whole lot easier by only extending the 12tph from Abbey Wood.
Exactly no real change in service patterns.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,276
I agree, the thought of one stuck freight train at Stratford causing delays to Overground, Crossrail, GA and GWR doesn't bear thinking about.

Any impact on GWR is likely to be limited, simply due to the fact that precious few GWR services will be left on the relief lines most of the day once the full Crossrail service is running.

In the interim period from May 2018 to December 2019, there will only be the Heathrow services shuttling up and down to the mainline station at Paddington in place of Heathrow Connect, so no risk of imported disruption at all.

I expect they have all sorts of contingency plans worked out for what to do when there is a problem at either end of the tunnels or further out.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,237
Any impact on GWR is likely to be limited, simply due to the fact that precious few GWR services will be left on the relief lines most of the day once the full Crossrail service is running.

In the interim period from May 2018 to December 2019, there will only be the Heathrow services shuttling up and down to the mainline station at Paddington in place of Heathrow Connect, so no risk of imported disruption at all.

...and because the existing Paddington to Hayes/Harlington shuttles is included in TfL Rail's service (extended to Heathrow in the other 2 paths of a 4 tph pattern), the services should potentially be more reliable as they'll not have those two crossing moves into the Hayes Bay platform either...
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
I don't think this policy is new for the 345s. I expect it's because TfL believe onboard cleaners during turnrounds are a better idea, as on the 378s, and most tube routes.

There's really no need for them to be mutually exclusive. The only reason I can think of is if they're still concerned about the terrorism risk. It's a bit like having a bin on the deep tube.

D365 said:
What changes have there been? I don't think that the Shenfield branch services were ever proposed to terminate much further west than Paddington. Plus it makes understanding the service patterns a whole lot easier by only extending the 12tph from Abbey Wood.
Until that article, my assumption was the draft service pattern which had been dumped on the wiki page - citing that GEML services would run to Reading and Maidenhead, and that Abbey Wood services would run to Heathrow. I've no idea where that originates from. It has yet to be edited.
 

class387

Established Member
Joined
9 Oct 2015
Messages
1,580
315845 + 315848 are on today's round of 2Zxx moves. Rather disappointing.

Yes, I was there. Quite a few annoyed bashers (and me!). What was the problem?

There was also an additional 2Z08. What was this for?
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,237
...Until that article, my assumption was the draft service pattern which had been dumped on the wiki page - citing that GEML services would run to Reading and Maidenhead, and that Abbey Wood services would run to Heathrow. I've no idea where that originates from. It has yet to be edited.

Shenfield to GWML was definitely there in the early track access options, I linked to the document in one of the other Crossrail threads, but as I suggested there it is at least ten year old information and probably of very little relevance nowadays:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3023584&postcount=48
 

macaronlover

Member
Joined
30 May 2016
Messages
55
Just noticed this online (forgot the url). Any opinions?
 

Attachments

  • 345 infoscreen mockup.png
    345 infoscreen mockup.png
    47.7 KB · Views: 148

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
It's interesting. Displaying the carriage number is probably only of any value for SDO, unless there would be a separate accompanying screen for loading data etc. (though I thought that was only going to be displayed at stations).

Where would the 'change for' info be displayed on such a screen for stations that had it?
e.g. what would that format look like if the next station was, for example, Paddington?
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
19,810
Location
East Anglia
Spotted a 345 picking up at Maryland yesterday around 12:40. Destination Gidea Park & several passengers on board.
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
Here's my updated version:

I think that's probably too tall for the aspect ratio of the screen - they're too wide for that. I think if you're going to denote other Elizabeth line services on the change points, just 'services to' would probably be appropriate. Not how TfL currently do it, but 'Elizabeth line services to' is a lot of text for such a small box, and as far as I know has only ever been used in print form at this point, not a display which may not be so easy to read with small text.

Also, that's not actually what I meant by showing the interchange points. I was really referring to, how would the 'change for' indications be displayed for the next station, not the upcoming ones? As far as I'm aware, don't PRM-TSI rules dictate that the on-screen message has to match what is stated audibly, with regard to the next station?

Not to shoot down your ideas or anything, what you've drawn up there is still quite neat :P
 

CyrusWuff

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
5,430
Location
London
Looking on RTT, planned workings for next Monday to Friday are:
  • 2Z03 0951 Gidea Park - Liverpool Street (arr 1027)
  • 2Z04 1035 Liverpool Street - Shenfield (arr 1120)
  • 2Z05 1139 Shenfield - Liverpool Street (arr 1227)
  • 2Z06 1235 Liverpool Street - Gidea Park (arr 1305)
  • 2Z07 1419 Gidea Park - Liverpool Street (arr 1455)
 

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
21,830
Location
Nowhere Heath
Here's my updated version:

Worth noting that I saw no mention of interchange onto National Rail at Ealing Broadway there.

I've been away from this thread a fair bit lately, but a quick flick back reveals no answer to the following question:

In terms of deliveries, how are they progressing?

I've yet to hear of any 345s numbered higher than 345007 so far. Not complaining at that so far of course, I'm not down that way anywhere near enough for it to impact me. Just curious really.

Not sure Shenfield to Paddington is the most suitable use there, equally I'd rather not send them all the way to Heathrow either. One assumes a turnback siding will be installed somewhere in the Paddington area, can't see a crossover from the westbound to the eastbound tracks being considered appropriate somehow.

Rather looking forward to giving the 345s another spin soon :)
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,157
Not sure Shenfield to Paddington is the most suitable use there, equally I'd rather not send them all the way to Heathrow either. One assumes a turnback siding will be installed somewhere in the Paddington area, can't see a crossover from the westbound to the eastbound tracks being considered appropriate somehow.

Westbourne Park turnback sidings. How it works is very clever actually :)
 

Mordac

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2016
Messages
2,386
Location
Birmingham
Worth noting that I saw no mention of interchange onto National Rail at Ealing Broadway there.

I've been away from this thread a fair bit lately, but a quick flick back reveals no answer to the following question:

In terms of deliveries, how are they progressing?

I've yet to hear of any 345s numbered higher than 345007 so far.
Not complaining at that so far of course, I'm not down that way anywhere near enough for it to impact me. Just curious really.

Not sure Shenfield to Paddington is the most suitable use there, equally I'd rather not send them all the way to Heathrow either. One assumes a turnback siding will be installed somewhere in the Paddington area, can't see a crossover from the westbound to the eastbound tracks being considered appropriate somehow.

Rather looking forward to giving the 345s another spin soon :)

345008 reported elsewhere as just having been accepted, actually!
 

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
21,830
Location
Nowhere Heath
Westbourne Park turnback sidings. How it works is very clever actually :)

One makes an assumption then that 345xxx goes into said siding, waits for one (maybe two) services from the west to come through then comes back into the station to head back to Shenfield. Similar to Piccadilly terminators on Metrolink, although now 2CC is open that may not be the same.

Mordac, good news on another 345 now accepted!
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
8,240
One makes an assumption then that 345xxx goes into said siding, waits for one (maybe two) services from the west to come through then comes back into the station to head back to Shenfield. Similar to Piccadilly terminators on Metrolink, although now 2CC is open that may not be the same.

Mordac, good news on another 345 now accepted!

Even better than that! The trains and signalling system drive the unit during the entire turn back manoeuvre so the driver can walk from one cab to the other during the trip to the sidings from Paddington.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,157
Even better than that! The trains and signalling system drive the unit during the entire turn back manoeuvre so the driver can walk from one cab to the other during the trip to the sidings (and back!) from Paddington.

The 'auto reverse' facility is talked about in some detail here.
 

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
2,108
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
As has been posted on the londonreconnections website the reason for the separation is to ensure as far as possible that any disruption on the GE lines does not affect the GW and vice versa.

There are these two alternative approaches. One is that you don't run cross-city services because they transfer problems from the network on one side to the network on the other. The second is that you do run them so as to provide better connections for passengers, which in the London context means they don't have to transfer to the Underground and back again.

Up till the 1980s the first view had prevailed in London for decades. Then Thameslink was introduced. After that London Overground was developed, which links several networks, though I'm not aware that it suffers from or causes serious or frequent delays elsewhere. We're about to have an expanded Thameslink service, where concerns are once again being expressed about the potential operational difficulties. And now (almost) we have Crossrail being sufficiently concerned that it proposes a service pattern to separate GEML problems from the GWML, and vice versa, but at the expense of some of the direct connections that everybody will have supposed Crossrail would bring.

Which of these approaches is the best way to go probably depends on the infrastructure involved, but it's certainly interesting to see the way Crossrail is moving.
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
Fundamentally, the vast majority of the benefits for passengers as far as direct services are concerned will be direct services, for example:
- From GEML stations like Romford and Ilford to stations further into London, such as Farringdon, Tottenham Court Road and Bond Street
- From GWML stations like Maidenhead and West Drayton to stations further into London, such as Tottenham Court Road, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf
- Provide links from Heathrow Airport into numerous parts of London (including Canary Wharf) without requiring change of train

As disappointed as I am to lose some/all of the direct connections from my neck of the woods to stations west of Paddington, honestly the increase to 10tph off-peak is going to benefit me far more - not just in terms of convenience, but also because when not travelling from a Crossrail-served area, it makes using GA fast services to Shenfield and running back to Brentwood more viable. As it stands now, if I have to wait 7-8 minutes at Shenfield for the service back, I often barely gain 30-40 seconds over having trundled down on the 315 from Stratford. The main reason I do it is to avoid crowds, rather than save any time. However, with a maximum 6 minute interval between services even off-peak, it'd be much more likely for doing that to be advantageous.
Of course, in Summer 2018 it's probably going to see little use given I'd be foregoing an air-conditioned 345 for a stuffy 321, but from that point forwards, it does open my options up, never mind all the journeys the direct interchange at Farringdon simplifies.
 

Lockwood

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2013
Messages
1,243
Even better than that! The trains and signalling system drive the unit during the entire turn back manoeuvre so the driver can walk from one cab to the other during the trip to the sidings from Paddington.

Dey tuk err jerbs!
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,315
Location
Reading
There are these two alternative approaches. One is that you don't run cross-city services because they transfer problems from the network on one side to the network on the other. The second is that you do run them so as to provide better connections for passengers, which in the London context means they don't have to transfer to the Underground and back again.

Up till the 1980s the first view had prevailed in London for decades. Then Thameslink was introduced. After that London Overground was developed, which links several networks, though I'm not aware that it suffers from or causes serious or frequent delays elsewhere. We're about to have an expanded Thameslink service, where concerns are once again being expressed about the potential operational difficulties. And now (almost) we have Crossrail being sufficiently concerned that it proposes a service pattern to separate GEML problems from the GWML, and vice versa, but at the expense of some of the direct connections that everybody will have supposed Crossrail would bring.

Which of these approaches is the best way to go probably depends on the infrastructure involved, but it's certainly interesting to see the way Crossrail is moving.

This post probably is probably more appropriate for one of the other Crossrail threads but in view of the direction of the discussion I'll post it here!

I suggest that the splitting of the trains service so all the Shenfields terminate at Paddington and all the Abbey Woods go to the GW is due to the very tight performance regime imposed by TfL on MTR. This is discussed here but the critical part is this:

The available papers rather nicely lay out what performance measures the operator will be judged on, providing an interesting insight into current franchise thinking within TfL. Broadly speaking, the measures are broken down into three categories – Headway, Delay and Capacity.
Headway is the temporal gap between a train and the one preceeding it. On Crossrail, every train which passes through the Central Operating Section between Paddington and Whitechapel will be subject to the Headway Measure. If that train exceeds by 40% or more the timetabled headway between services then the operator will be fined.

40% may initially sound like a generous measure, but it is worth remembering that for trains on the central section, particularly during peak hours, that timetabled headway is going to be very small – often around 2.5mins. This means that every train which is a minute late through the central section will be subject to a fine.

The baseline fine is currently set at £150 per minute, rounded to the nearest second, per train. When the headway increase is the result of an identified delay, that figure will be modified by whose fault the delay is – if it is the fault of the operator then they’ll pay 110% of that baseline figure. If it’s someone else’s fault (e.g. Network Rail) then the operator only pays 10% of the baseline figure.
Handily, TfL include some examples of how this might play out in reality:

a peak service operating 6 minutes headway at a recording point due to a passenger action where timetabled headway is 2.5 minutes – in this example, the delay is attributed to the Operator who incurs a headway deduction of £577.5; that is, 3.5 minutes over the timetabled headway of 2.5 minutes multiplied by £150 per minute plus ten per cent.

And:

three peak services operating 3.5 minutes headway at a recording point due to a fault with the train doors where timetabled
headway is 2.5 minutes – in this example, delay is attributed to the RSP but the Operator incurs a headway deduction of £45; that is 3 lots of 1 minute over the timetabled headway of 2.5 minutes multiplied by £150 per minute multiplied by 10 per cent.

Including the Headway Measure makes sense when you consider what one of TfL’s biggest concerns with Crossrail is likely to be, which is that Crossrail is effectively a service that has to mix both metro and regional services. TfL are clearly looking to ensure that the metro element – close headways through the central section – is taken very seriously indeed. This is necessary to minimise the risk of overcrowding on platforms and to cater for the fact that in the Central Section it effectively needs to be “like the Underground” as that’s how people interacting with it there will treat it.

In this context, headway is really important as passengers don’t judge the Underground’s performance on how strictly it runs to its timetable (although one naturally exists in the background), they judge it on how long they have to wait until the next train.

So one way to minimise potential delays is to separate the flows. QED!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top