Class 365 and third rail

[pethadine82]

Can someone please explain why new trains have been ordered for the TLGN route when 365 are capable of 3rd rail operation, but have had their shoes removed.

Would it not have been cheaper?
FCC are refreshing their class 365s so I guess they plan to use them for a lot longer.

 

[westcoaster]

Can someone please explain why new trains have been ordered for the TLGN route when 365 are capable of 3rd rail operation, but have had their shoes removed.

Would it not have been cheaper?
FCC are refreshing their class 365s so I guess they plan to use them for a lot longer.

Because they are needed on the GN lines plus there is no physical connection for them to use at the moment, and when it will be ready there is no capacity train wise.

 

[ac6000cw]

Can someone please explain why new trains have been ordered for the TLGN route when 365 are capable of 3rd rail operation, but have had their shoes removed.

Would it not have been cheaper?
FCC are refreshing their class 365s so I guess they plan to use them for a lot longer.

The 365's have never had 3rd rail capability - a dual-system Networker was a technical possibility i.e. was allowed for in the basic design, but BR never ordered any (as far as I know, and I've been watching/riding on 365's ever since they were introduced).

 

[westcoaster]

The 365's have never had 3rd rail capability - a dual-system Networker was a technical possibility i.e. was allowed for in the basic design, but BR never ordered any (as far as I know, and I've been watching/riding on 365's ever since they were introduced).

365's used to work on dc in Kent until transferred to the gn.
A 2 second google throws up

http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Pages EMU/Recognition EMU/IllusEMU_365.html

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The 365's have never had 3rd rail capability - a dual-system Networker was a technical possibility i.e. was allowed for in the basic design, but BR never ordered any (as far as I know, and I've been watching/riding on 365's ever since they were introduced).

365 501 to 365 516 inclusive used to run on the 3rd rail between Victoria and Ramsgate / Margate; they were based at Ramsgate depot.

 

[OxtedL]

When this last came up it was claimed that 365's do not have the capability to quickly transition from AC to DC and vice versa - the implication being they needed some work done to change mode. If true this would mean they could not be suitable for Thameslink without substantial rewiring.

 

[ac6000cw]

I stand corrected , but also note (quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_365 )

"Although specified as a dual-voltage unit, Class 365s have never operated with this capability since they were built with only one system of traction current pickup. Units 365501 to 365516, which worked briefly for Network SouthEast before the franchise was given to Connex South Eastern, were originally supplied only with DC shoe gear for use on the 750-volt third-rail system"

From what people have said on other threads, the intention is that the new 700's will only operate as far north as Cambridge and Peterborough, so the 365's will continue on the London - Kings Lynn services post-Thameslink extension. (At the rate that passenger numbers have been increasing on the Cambridge line, they'll need most of them just to keep pace with demand....on a Saturday morning, 6 ticket windows + 4 ticket machines + a portable machine in use still results in queues 'out the door' at Cambridge station, and 12-car off-peak trains sometimes)

 

[chubs]

They actually looked quite good in Connex colours.

 

[jopsuk]

Part of the idea is that (once they're all introduced) all trains through then core will class 700, be they 8 or 12 car, simplifying operations. The new trains will be driven by computer through the core to improve headways.

The 365s will be kept busy. Longer off peak Express services would be good. It'll take more units to run the half hourly Kings Lynn service. Non-Thameslink Peterborough services will also be able to be strengthened and the 321 and 317 fleets will be released.

 

[MCR247]

I was told that 365s have never actually been dual voltage: they've been AC and DC before, but they've never been both at the same time as they made so that they could run on both easily, but they weren't made to be able to changeover in service

 

[Rich McLean]

There could be a possibility that a few 365s may be released onto the GWML once electrified

 

[ac6000cw]

It's possible that if BR had lasted long enough to complete the (then) 'Thameslink 2000' project, some of the 365's might have been modified to have true dual-system capability.

That said, BR never seemed to be that keen on large-scale conversions, so it's more likely they would have been cascaded somewhere else and replaced with the next generation dual-system Networkers.

(As an aside, the 365's were partly 'political' trains - there was a election coming up, the impending closure of York works was a hot issue locally, and the 'west anglian' politicians were keen to get improved Cambridge/Ely/Kings Lynn services, so BR's arm got twisted to order more Networkers....)

 

[A-driver]

Can someone please explain why new trains have been ordered for the TLGN route when 365 are capable of 3rd rail operation, but have had their shoes removed.



Would it not have been cheaper?

FCC are refreshing their class 365s so I guess they plan to use them for a lot longer.

365s are not cleared for the Sussex lines. They are too wide for the platforms so would only be any use on some southeastern routes.

Plus there is still GN work for them post Thameslink and post new trains.

 

[ac6000cw]

There could be a possibility that a few 365s may be released onto the GWML once electrified

Maybe, but by the time Thameslink longer-distance 'GN' services start running (in 2018) they'll be nearly 25 years old, have no air conditioning, and will have run a lot of miles (shuttling up and down the GN mainline at 100 mph all day means they must accumulate mileage somewhat faster than their south-of-the-Thames cousins).

 

[edwin_m]

Even if it was able to be fitted with ATO and have dual voltage capability activated, the doors and interior layout of the 365 probably wouldn't allow the very short dwell times that will be needed on the Thameslink core. Keeping them on Kings Cross services provides a reasonable level of comfort on the semi-fasts rather than expecting passengers to Kings Lynn or Peterborough to travel in what is basically a metro environment on a 700.

 

[Class 170101]

The 321s and 317s will almost certainly leave the TSGN franchise being small sub fleets within said franchise.

 

[ac6000cw]

The 321s and 317s will almost certainly leave the TSGN franchise being small sub fleets within said franchise.

Yes, once the new 700's come on stream it's going to trigger some major stock movements (and tidying up, like the above oddments). At least FCC tries to use the 317/1's mostly on the stopping trains - they are some of the oldest EMUs around (built for the original 'Bed-Pan' electrification scheme in 1981-82).

 

[jopsuk]

Innadveantly got one of the "extras" laid on fro Cambridge United fans last weekend- stopping at Royston, it was a 12-car 317 formation! Packed in like sardines at the back, in the front carriage there were four of us. Driver even urged people to move through the train after departure.

 

[Bald Rick]

(As an aside, the 365's were partly 'political' trains - there was a election coming up, the impending closure of York works was a hot issue locally, and the 'west anglian' politicians were keen to get improved Cambridge/Ely/Kings Lynn services, so BR's arm got twisted to order more Networkers....)

They weren't just political. They were the first example of passenger train leasing as Govt had 'allowed' BR to lease trains worth £150m IIRC. Govt did it to get more trains in for busy routes into London as a forerunner to privatisation, but then InterCity West Coast almost scuppered it with a proposal for 10 or so IC225s to run key Manchester an Scotland services. We, sorry ICWC, even did a couple of trial runs. The business case was great. But politics won in the end!

 

[Hadders]

As a regular user of the 365's I think they're great trains.

While they're able to operate on AC or DC I don't think they're cleared to run through the Thameslink tunnels as there's no cab front door allowing emergency evacuation. This was (and suspect still is) a requirement for trains running through the Thameslink tunnels.

 

[Class 170101]

That appears to have fallen as the 700s have no end doors in them. I don't think the 365s can fit through the Thameslink anyway.

 

[TEW]

End doors were a requirement for the single bore Moorgate tunnels, not the rest of the Thameslink route.

 

[ac6000cw]

End doors were a requirement for the single bore Moorgate tunnels, not the rest of the Thameslink route.

An important consideration now, but not something that BR and it's predecessors worried too much about when they sent loco-hauled sets of non-corridor suburban stock through the Kings Cross 'Widened Lines' connecting tunnels to Moorgate (pre-GN suburban electrification). The up & down tunnels were on opposite sides of the station, so I assume they would have been single-bore. (Note this is not the current route to Moorgate from Finsbury Park - that was part of LU back then - it's this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widened_Lines).

 

[A-driver]

An important consideration now, but not something that BR and it's predecessors worried too much about when they sent loco-hauled sets of non-corridor suburban stock through the Kings Cross 'Widened Lines' connecting tunnels to Moorgate (pre-GN suburban electrification). The up & down tunnels were on opposite sides of the station, so I assume they would have been single-bore. (Note this is not the current route to Moorgate from Finsbury Park - that was part of LU back then - it's this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widened_Lines).

Back in those days things were more relaxed and with loco hauled trains front facing doors was impossible. A lot of fire regulations didn't come in until a lot later when risks were considered and addressed.

Back in the old days loco hauled deep level tube trains had no emergency exits but generally the world was a more dangerous place-a fire in a deep level tunnel would be almost certain death then!

 

[jopsuk]

Quite. It was of course British Rail that introduced the end door requirement for trains to Moorgate (it was the tunnels between Farringdon and Moorgate that were considered the "problem"), with the first stock that had them being the 317s introduced when the line was electrified. The 319s (built for BR) have the end door for this specific reason.

 

[D7666]

Quite. It was of course British Rail that introduced the end door requirement for trains to Moorgate (it was the tunnels between Farringdon and Moorgate that were considered the "problem"), with the first stock that had them being the 317s introduced when the line was electrified. The 319s (built for BR) have the end door for this specific reason.

All correct, but don't forget those 'tunnels' that caused this problem were actually built AFTER non-gangway DMU and non-gangway LH stock were introduced.

It was the 1960s new building works around Barbican and Moorgate that put these single bore (they are not bores actually but built up) tunnels in place.

So 317s and 319s did not introduce an issue that was not there previously, they fixed something that was not on previous stock.

Yes yes i know it is all H&S nonsense anyway but let's at least try and get the nonsense in the right time sequence.

--
Nick

 

[Carlisle]

Yes, once the new 700's come on stream it's going to trigger some major stock movements (and tidying up, like the above oddments). At least FCC tries to use the 317/1's mostly on the stopping trains - they are some of the oldest EMUs around (built for the original 'Bed-Pan' electrification scheme in 1981-82).

Were the original Bed-Pan 317s not initially equipped for additional 3rd rail operation as the moorgate branch was originally going to be electrified this way due to clearance issues

 

[edwin_m]

Were the original Bed-Pan 317s not initially equipped for additional 3rd rail operation as the moorgate branch was originally going to be electrified this way due to clearance issues

I'd be very surprised if this was true. As far as I know the 317s have thyristor phase angle control which is fundamentally incompatible with a DC supply. If they were intended for DC they would have had camshaft control like the 313s, or some kind of chopper like the 319s (though not identical as the GTO thyristor wasn't around at the time).

 

[ac6000cw]

I'd be very surprised if this was true. As far as I know the 317s have thyristor phase angle control which is fundamentally incompatible with a DC supply. If they were intended for DC they would have had camshaft control like the 313s, or some kind of chopper like the 319s (though not identical as the GTO thyristor wasn't around at the time).

That's my take on the situation too.

 

[68000]

The Class 365 is now foul of the gauge for the Thameslink core with the changes to Snow Hill tunnel reduced height OHL and the addition of a GSM-R antenna on the 365 roof