Class 345 progress

[MCR247]

They're two line, what's wrong with that? The resolution of that is huge compared to the ones fitted to a lot of modern generation stock, even the 700s I believe. 'Liverpool Street' fits comfortably in only half of one line - that name doesn't even fit on most external dot matrix displays!

Having an LCD exterior display wouldn't really work in my opinion - the viewing angles it needs are too great and it has to compete with direct sunlight, reflections etc. - the only colour outdoor displays that really work are those retina burning LED pixel boards, which apart from being too big to fit to the side of a train, also aren't really that clear up close. No, as far as I'm concerned it pretty much looks like they've nailed the side destination display on the 345, as long as they program it correctly and there are enough of them.

I didn't want an LCD exterior display. Yes the resolution is good, but would a screen that allows for bigger text really have caused so much trouble? I'm struggling to see much difference to the side displays of original class 377s - which yes do the job well enough, but couldn't we strive for a bit more for crossrail?

 

[swt_passenger]

I didn't want an LCD exterior display. Yes the resolution is good, but would a screen that allows for bigger text really have caused so much trouble? I'm struggling to see much difference to the side displays of original class 377s - which yes do the job well enough, but couldn't we strive for a bit more for crossrail?

Perhaps the platform edge doors in the core tunnels affect the design decision? Detailed service info is going to have to be given on the platform side of the screens there anyway.

 

[Domh245]

Perhaps the platform edge doors in the core tunnels affect the design decision? Detailed service info is going to have to be given on the platform side of the screens there anyway.

I had that thought as well. If there is enough information on the platforms, then the need for information on the side of the train is less important. As you note, the platform edge doors in the core will limit visibility of the side displays, although that shouldn't limit the design.

 

[MCR247]

Perhaps the platform edge doors in the core tunnels affect the design decision? Detailed service info is going to have to be given on the platform side of the screens there anyway.

I had that thought as well. If there is enough information on the platforms, then the need for information on the side of the train is less important. As you note, the platform edge doors in the core will limit visibility of the side displays, although that shouldn't limit the design.

Good point, I hadn't considered the platform edge doors.

 

[spark001uk]

Good point, I hadn't considered the platform edge doors.

What made tfl go for PE doors, they haven't been worried about them on anything other than the jubilee?

 

[MCR247]

Ventilation probably, and they've not really have much chance to have they?

 

[spark001uk]

Well, and LUL before them I mean. Actually thinking about it I'm guessing cost and engineering has to be considered if they were to try and retro fit to other lines.

 

[AM9]

Well, and LUL before them I mean. Actually thinking about it I'm guessing cost and engineering has to be considered if they were to try and retro fit to other lines.

I would imagine that any new stretch of railway line will have to meet modern passenger safety standards which means PEDs at underground stations where more than a couple of stops are involved. I can't understand why anybody has a problem with them.

 

[MCR247]

Well, and LUL before them I mean. Actually thinking about it I'm guessing cost and engineering has to be considered if they were to try and retro fit to other lines.

Well retro-fitting is a completely different story than fitting them on brand new stations on a brand new line

 

[NotATrainspott]

Full-height PEDs such as on the Jubilee and Elizabeth lines are particularly useful for ventilation. Since the tunnel air is separate from the station air, you don't need to go and clean out all of the dust and litter that ends up in the tunnels causing problems. It also helps with smoke ventilation, which all new tunnels need to be designed to handle. That it prevents people from jumping or falling onto the tracks is helpful, but it's not like it's actually necessary. The surface stations on both the Jubilee and Elizabeth lines lack PEDs, even on the brand new purpose-built sections like West Ham and Custom House, respectively. PEDs can be fitted out in the open but it's slightly harder to implement, as stopping distances are harder to guarantee when the weather can affect the railhead and there would be additional complex essential machinery fitted out in the open.

As far as I'm aware PEDs are part of the New Tube for London project, which will replace all but the 95/96/09/S stock. This is because full UTO is the end goal for these lines, and it's easier to implement it with PEDs, especially on existing infrastructure (unlike the purpose-built DLR). London Reconnections have talked about the NTfL project and they've confirmed that there will be changes to the timetable and service patterns purely as a result of the PEDs being fitted out on surface sections. Turnham Green station sees only a very limited Piccadilly line service today but fitting PEDs is expensive, so they have a choice of stopping either every train (and so justifying the cost of PEDs) or none of them (so that no expense is needed). They've decided to stop all of them, and so will be fitting PEDs to a legacy surface station.

 

[rebmcr]

What made tfl go for PE doors, they haven't been worried about them on anything other than the jubilee?

Every single new tunnelled station in London since the 1990s has been fitted with platform doors. (Yes that's just the JLE and Crossrail, but it remains a continuous — and continuing trend.)

Full-height PEDs such as on the Jubilee and Elizabeth lines are particularly useful for ventilation.

The JLE does not feature ventilation-separating full-height Platform Screen Doors like Crossrail will. It only has Platform Edge Doors, which allow tunnel air to circulate over the top of the barrier wall.

Turnham Green station sees only a very limited Piccadilly line service today but fitting PEDs is expensive, so they have a choice of stopping either every train (and so justifying the cost of PEDs) or none of them (so that no expense is needed). They've decided to stop all of them, and so will be fitting PEDs to a legacy surface station.

I sincerely doubt that John Bull is correct about that single uncited point. Platform doors are simply not suitable for outdoor stations, and there has been absolutely zero indication (other than this one sentence from 2014) that they are under consideration. Turnham Green's change in service level will be enabled by efficiency increases from new rolling stock and new signalling.

 

[samuelmorris]

Agreed, PEDs at outside stations offer pretty much no benefits other than a slight reduction in accidental 'person on the track' incidents - it will not stop deliberate ones, or provide any ventilation benefits. The cost just isn't justified. Performance of newer stock, especially with ATO, will easily provide sufficient time to stop all trains at Turnham Green and still offer an improvement on journey times. I'm very curious to see, however, how they'd intend to fit them to the likes of Waterloo on the Bakerloo or Bank on the Central line.

 

[bluegoblin7]

As far as I'm aware PEDs are part of the New Tube for London project

NTfL has been superseded by the Deep Tube Upgrade project.

This is because full UTO is the end goal for these lines

Not really. There are many, many challenges to be overcome, not least things such as the shared running on the Bakerloo and Piccadilly lines.

changes to the timetable and service patterns purely as a result of the PEDs being fitted out on surface sections.

The changes will come about as a result of resignalling. PEDs are nothing to do with that, but would be required if UTO happens (a separate, further upgrade; initially the goals will be ATO, which won't be easy when all the issues with the SSR upgrade [sorry, 4LM] are being considered).

Turnham Green station sees only a very limited Piccadilly line service today but fitting PEDs is expensive

Stopping trains at Turnham Green has nothing to do with PEDs and is simply down to capacity. Remember that there are also fast line platforms at Ravenscourt Park and Stamford Brook (and Barons Court, and Hammersmith, and Acton Town, and the locals at the latter two and Ealing Common... and what about the entirety of the Heathrow & Uxbridge branches, and at the east end... :roll

 

[simple simon]

So I get to LST a min or two after the 345 at 1357 leaves, so I think ok I'll nip up to Stratford and see it on its way back. So what does it do? Comes back as far as Ilford and turns into the depot. #@&£!!

Will it come back out today I wonder? Probably not knowing my luck!

On Friday 19th I went somewhere near to Seven Kings in the hope of seeing the 13:57. Alas, without success. I waited something like 45 minutes, which would have been ample time for it to get to where I was. From the point of view of a camcorder session however my trip was worthwhile, Footage for 'stock' - not just class 315's but also 321's and more.

I walked home via the footbridge which has the corrugated metal sides. I noticed a brand new section of corrugated sheet metal - it seems that the route down to where the paint shop is has been sealed off.

Simon

 

[simple simon]

Agreed, PEDs at outside stations offer pretty much no benefits other than a slight reduction in accidental 'person on the track' incidents - it will not stop deliberate ones, or provide any ventilation benefits. The cost just isn't justified. Performance of newer stock, especially with ATO, will easily provide sufficient time to stop all trains at Turnham Green and still offer an improvement on journey times. I'm very curious to see, however, how they'd intend to fit them to the likes of Waterloo on the Bakerloo or Bank on the Central line.

The French managed to do this at a station which has sharply curved platforms. This is on the Paris Metro Line 1 - the station name eludes me at present, I think it might be Bastille but I am not sure. What they fitted - to the entire Line 1 and without closing the system down - was platform gates, not doors which go all the way up. Singapore retrofitted platform gates to all stations which did not have them from new. Again at open air stations they installed half height gates.

What concerns me here in London is that the work will be done in a way that causes much disruption.

I'd be amazed if either platform doors or gates were fitted to Crossrail station platforms which are also used by other trains. Since the 'other' trains would likely have different door spacings it would effectively prevent them from using the platform. This wont be acceptable on routes where the ability for trains from several TOC's to call at the same platform faces is a required feature.

Simon

 

[Techniquest]

Not wishing to add fuel to the fire, but round in this neck of the woods, the North beat us to it - 333s have side dot matrix displays, but 357s don't and certainly neither did any of the BR stock.

As long as the information on the platform is correct, the need for side-screens on trains isn't super important anyway. I seem to recall PIS at stations has improved quite a lot up north over the years since the 333s arrived.

This thread has reminded me of that program on BBC2 about CrossRail, I must have a look later and set a reminder on my Sky box for it.

 

[Uzair]

The French managed to do this at a station which has sharply curved platforms. This is on the Paris Metro Line 1 - the station name eludes me at present, I think it might be Bastille...

It is Bastille.

 

[AM9]

The French managed to do this at a station which has sharply curved platforms. This is on the Paris Metro Line 1 - the station name eludes me at present, I think it might be Bastille but I am not sure. What they fitted - to the entire Line 1 and without closing the system down - was platform gates, not doors which go all the way up. Singapore retrofitted platform gates to all stations which did not have them from new. Again at open air stations they installed half height gates.

What concerns me here in London is that the work will be done in a way that causes much disruption.

I'd be amazed if either platform doors or gates were fitted to Crossrail station platforms which are also used by other trains. Since the 'other' trains would likely have different door spacings it would effectively prevent them from using the platform. This wont be acceptable on routes where the ability for trains from several TOC's to call at the same platform faces is a required feature.

Simon

Hence the trend of segregation of services by tracks allowing some stations to only have to deal with one type of stock. This is particularly true in London, where traffic is such that most of the lines through the suburbs are four or more tracks wide. The other 'through the core' line, Thameslink, with all class 700s, would probably have platform edge safety measures if the Farringdon curves could be handled, (and maybe the slight curve at the southern end of St Pancras).
PEDs on the Crossrail core was an obvious choice.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

NTfL has been superseded by the Deep Tube Upgrade project.

I thought that was just a new name for the same scheme?

 

[simple simon]

It is Bastille.

Thanks. Yes, its Bastille.

These links lead to a few photos.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Metro_Paris_Ligne_1_Bastille_portes_palieres.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M%C3%A9tro_de_Paris,_station_Bastille,_ligne_1_01.jpg

btw, in an earlier message I mentioned 'half height' platform gates. This term means that the gates only reach as high as the train, not 'all the way up'.

Here are links to some more examples.

Paris:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ligne-13-Saint-Lazare-2.jpg

Hong Kong - I think this was included when the station was built:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HK_MTR_DisneyResortLine_Sunny_Bay_platform_trains.JPG

Japan - a colourful alternative to stainless steel:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Platform_screen_doors_001.JPG

These might also be of interest:
Hong Kong - full height, retrofitted after the system had opened; note how the train has not stopped accurately!
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PSD_in_Central_Station.jpg

Singapore, full height, installed when the station was first built - a photo I took in 1988
http://citytransport.info/PhotoCD/1322_100a.jpg

Simon

 

[simple simon]

Hence the trend of segregation of services by tracks allowing some stations to only have to deal with one type of stock. This is particularly true in London, where traffic is such that most of the lines through the suburbs are four or more tracks wide. The other 'through the core' line, Thameslink, with all class 700s, would probably have platform edge safety measures if the Farringdon curves could be handled, (and maybe the slight curve at the southern end of St Pancras).
PEDs on the Crossrail core was an obvious choice.

Yes but for Crossrail the plan is that at times of weekend maintenance on the existing mainline routes (these all have 4 tracks) the maintenance will be confined to one pair of tracks whilst services continue on the other pair of tracks. Especially at stations like Stratford and Romford this will mean trains with different door configurations using the same platform face.

Simon

 

[spark001uk]

I would imagine that any new stretch of railway line will have to meet modern passenger safety standards which means PEDs at underground stations where more than a couple of stops are involved. I can't understand why anybody has a problem with them.

Who is saying they've got a problem with them?

 

[birchesgreen]

These might also be of interest:
Hong Kong - full height, retrofitted after the system had opened; note how the train has not stopped accurately!
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PSD_in_Central_Station.jpg

I was in HK when they were fitting the PEDs on the TST line, they fitted it literally overnight!

 

[class387]

Is it still planned for the 345s to enter service tomorrow, given how quiet it has been on the actual entry into service front?

 

[samuelmorris]

I can't find the tweet they replied to stating a service entry of the 23rd, though it's difficult to filter through the twitter feed from the past week given all the disruption. The most recent tweet I can find is from the 19th stating 'late May but no specific date' - so it's hard to tell how to interpret that. As far as I'm aware it was never going to be tomorrow, but either Tuesday or Wednesday.

 

[class387]

Tweet from the @tflrail account yesterday reads as below. First official mention of a date that I'm aware of?


Replying to @andrewstokes1
Hi, new class 345 trains are not in service as yet they will be from 22nd May. Have a good day.

This post says that they will enter service tomorrow, but I did think it would be around the date, not on it. The main question is whether it will be pushed back further to not be this month.

 

[Class 170101]

I'm not holding my breath it wll be this week. I had heard that not all the tests were done for them.

Also I can imagine TfL doing a big launch for them saying here is your new trains the Class 315s days are numbered on the GE.

 

[spark001uk]

How many units are available to enter service immediately, do we know? It could give some idea of how many will be 345 vice 315?

To furnish a full 6tph each way to Shenfield on the new timetable, taking into account dwell times, would take 11 units by my calculations.

Another possibility is they'll only run them in the peaks initially, as we've seen GWR do with the 387s for example.

 

[Class 170101]

I haven't seen many there at the moment though with Ilford Depot still looking like a building site I doubt there is enough room for many of them

 

[ctom_s]

Judging by the Twitter feed "there's no confirmed date" for the new trains but it's "expected to be this month".