Crossrail livery and interior revealed by TfL

[RobShipway]

Any train can look 'quite good' if you paint it nicely. Can't see how that relates to it being 'good' though, in regards to performance.

It relates, in the fact that the video shows an interior of a train that looks that it is going to suit the purpose that it is designed for, which is to be used on journeys of no more than an hour.

The question will be, if the GWML electrification program will be complete up to Reading by December 2018 when the trains are introduced?

 

[D365]

It relates, in the fact that the video shows an interior of a train that looks that it is going to suit the purpose that it is designed for, which is to be used on journeys of no more than an hour.

The question will be, if the GWML electrification program will be complete up to Reading by December 2018 when the trains are introduced?

Your posting, I found to be a bit 'woolly'.

Electrification to Maidenhead was guaranteed as part of Crossrail works before the GWML electrification was announced. It would be disastrous for delays to hurt the timely delivery of Crossrail operation, however I don't see that happening.

 

[47802]

Note, the Thameslink sliding doors were determined by the supplier, not the specifier/purchaser. Similarly for Crossrail, sliding plug doors were not specified. Usually, thrains are specified in terms of door width and opening/closing times.

Plus even if a plug door takes slightly longer, this may be more than made for by 27 doors per side compared with 20 doors per side on an equivalent length thameslink train, plus door opening/closing time are also going to be depend on the platform doors in the case of Crossrail

 

[swt_passenger]

I quite like it, it looks very swish.

Regarding the yelllow 50% rule, how do steam locomotives get away with not having that?

Something generally referred to as 'grandfather rights', i.e. they were never subject to retrospective application of the current rules. The new build 'Tornado' has its own dispensation from the current rules.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The question will be, if the GWML electrification program will be complete up to Reading by December 2018 when the trains are introduced?

Why wouldn't it be? They have over two years left to do it.

 

[RobShipway]

Your posting, I found to be a bit 'woolly'.

Electrification to Maidenhead was guaranteed as part of Crossrail works before the GWML electrification was announced. It would be disastrous for delays to hurt the timely delivery of Crossrail operation, however I don't see that happening.

I do see there being a delay, as the electrification between London, Oxford and Newbury was suppose to be in place by September next year so that the Class 387/365 trains could be used in these routes prior to Crossrail trains arriving to Maidenhead/Reading in 2018.

Something generally referred to as 'grandfather rights', i.e. they were never subject to retrospective application of the current rules. The new build 'Tornado' has its own dispensation from the current rules.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



Why wouldn't it be? They have over two years left to do it.

Have you read the thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=123412 as it does not paint a promising picture, as the equipment brought to make the electrification quicker does not work!!

 

[AM9]

.... Also, the interior, looks to me like the best configuration for such stock. Makes me wonder why Thameslink isn't adopting the same principle. At least the seats on these look wide enough to fit a normal sized human. Thameslink are much further down the delivery line so seeing as so many people have complained about the lack of armrests, seat back tables and wide enough seats, will they be modified?

Strangely enough, the seating arrangement is not dissimilar to that on the GE original electric stock, (class 306) with a mix of transverse and longtitudonal seating.

How can 2 seemingly identical railway routes have their trains and interiors designed so differently?

Those routes are nothing like each other. Crossrail is a maximum of just over 60 miles and has a station about every 1.8 miles. Thameslink main traffic runs over 103 miles with stops averaging nearly 5 1/2 miles apart. Hence the toilets, all transverse seating and first class.
Crossrail is functionally just a slightly longer distance Overground service, hence the mix of Overground and Suburban seating.

 

[swt_passenger]

Have you read the thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=123412 as it does not paint a promising picture, as the equipment brought to make the electrification quicker does not work!!

Yes I have, and I've also travelled from Didcot to Reading, and Reading to Paddington very recently, and I still say they'll definitely get the wires up in two years.

 

[Starmill]

I think it's a mistake building these trains without loos! The lack of sockets is also annoying given I'd expect the average journey time to e long enough to justify both of these.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it's a mistake building these trains without loos! The lack of sockets is also annoying given I'd expect the average journey time to e long enough to justify both of these.

I suspect sockets will join payphones and at-seat audio in becoming less useful over time - already we have charger battery packs (I usually carry one of those but not always a plug in charger) and the premium end of the laptop market offering an entire working day's battery life (my Macbook Pro does, for instance). I find I use them very rarely. Just as wi-fi is a big thing at the moment but I expect blanket 5G coverage to replace it long-term other than for companies with specific data security issues.

As an aside - USB sockets specifically are a stupid idea as the standard won't last as long as the trains do (the new reversible USB C uses a different plug replacing the present standard USB A) - they either need to be modular/replaceable or just use normal 13A sockets which aren't going away any time soon.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The front end of the 345 looks very reminiscent of the Gautrain version of the Electrostar which Bombardier delivered to Johannesburg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautrain
Like the Siemens class 70x and Hitachi 395, they look so much more attractive than EMUs with corridor connections.

 

[RobShipway]

I think it's a mistake building these trains without loos! The lack of sockets is also annoying given I'd expect the average journey time to e long enough to justify both of these.

There is no need for a toilet for journeys that where most people will be travelling an hour at most.

Yes I have, and I've also travelled from Didcot to Reading, and Reading to Paddington very recently, and I still say they'll definitely get the wires up in two years.

Personally, with electric trains services outside of the Crossrail services expected to start next year, I cannot see how that can be achieved and since it has taken about 2 - 3 years to get to where we are now, it is going to take a super human push to get the wires up before Crossrail starts in 2018.

The only way that I can see any progress happening is if the route between Reading and Slough is closed for a week over Christmas/New Year to be the wires in place, then over the Easter weekend do the wires from Slough to Southall.

 

[hwl]

Note, the Thameslink sliding doors were determined by the supplier, not the specifier/purchaser. Similarly for Crossrail, sliding plug doors were not specified. Usually, thrains are specified in terms of door width and opening/closing times.

Exactly they have both looked at the performance spec. carefully and come up with different viable solutions.
Crossrail has 3 sets of "current" 2 person width sized doors where as Thameslink has 2 sets of extra wide 3 person width doors hence door opening and closing speed is a far bigger issue for wider openings as the difference between opening and closing speed between door types makes far more difference in total time terms.

 

[Marklund]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. LUL and just about every European railway manages without them.

Headlights dear boy, headlights.

Yet they're ineffective in bright sunlight, unlike the yellow warning panel...

 

[47802]

I think it's a mistake building these trains without loos! The lack of sockets is also annoying given I'd expect the average journey time to e long enough to justify both of these.

This is Tfl they don't do Toilets. My view its a good idea must be a significant saving in not having to maintain toilets especially when you can not flush it onto the track anymore which of course you couldn't do anyway with Crossrail tunnels, could adopt it on more short distance services in my view after all Light Rail/Trams and Buses don't usually have Toilets.

 

[AM9]

Yet they're ineffective in bright sunlight, unlike the yellow warning panel...

Given that they are brighter in broad daylight and dimmer at night, the lights are bright enough even in sunlight. Unlike road vehicles, approaching trains are viewed along the path of travel which means less than one or two degrees of the boresight of the headlamp beam. Even on a sharp curve, (where the train will be travelling slower anyway) the eyes of the viewer will be well within the highly illuminated area of these lamps. If the sun is directly behing the train, it will be very low in the sky, and it's colour temperature will be way below that of the train's headlamp(s), whether HIDs or (soon) high power LEDs.

 

[Marklund]

Err, I know how headlights on trains work. I've only been looking out for them to keep me safe for almost 30 years now...

And again, I'll point out, bright headlights, even ones on newer (introduced in the last 10 years) are ineffective in bright sunlight.
This is even much more apparent when the line is on a slight curve, (it doesn't have to be a sharp one with low linespeed) where at the first sighting point, it is the yellow end that is noticed, not a headlight.

 

[MarkyT]

Grandfather rights, I expect. If it was built without one, and is liveried as it was when it was not required, it can continue not to have one.

Tornado is a new locomotive which clearly was not required to have yellow ends, although it might have been argued that if an original example of the post-war A1s had survived then it would have had an exemption just like older main line steam which never had such a thing. Most steam engines also have red buffer beams which helps to improve their short range visibility, although some don't, notably the streamlined A4s.

 

[sng7]

I think the fact that steam engines are noisier, normally have a large plume of steam helping visibility and are limited to 75mph maximum help there case as well

 

[AM9]

Err, I know how headlights on trains work. I've only been looking out for them to keep me safe for almost 30 years now...

And again, I'll point out, bright headlights, even ones on newer (introduced in the last 10 years) are ineffective in bright sunlight.
This is even much more apparent when the line is on a slight curve, (it doesn't have to be a sharp one with low linespeed) where at the first sighting point, it is the yellow end that is noticed, not a headlight.

Well we'll just have to disagree about whether headlamps give enough visibility vis a vis dirty yellow painted ends in appropriate conditions. Clearly the RSSB seem to think that they are adequate. Time will tell.

 

[RobShipway]

Well we'll just have to disagree about whether headlamps give enough visibility vis a vis dirty yellow painted ends in appropriate conditions. Clearly the RSSB seem to think that they are adequate. Time will tell.

I have to agree with Marklund, headlights on a train are about as effective as headlights on a car in bright sunshine, next to useless in comparison to brightly coloured frontage whether it be yellow or any other colour.

However, I don't think that there is a need to bright yellow frontage as people working on or nearby anyway railway will be wearing bright protective clothing so that they can be seen by the driver nowadays by law anyway.

 

[Marklund]

Well we'll just have to disagree about whether headlamps give enough visibility vis a vis dirty yellow painted ends in appropriate conditions. Clearly the RSSB seem to think that they are adequate. Time will tell.

Fair enough, chap.
The RSSB aren't infallible. The rulebook changes over the years for on track staff are nothing short of a disgrace, and all approved by, err the RSSB.

And as for Safe Work Leader? :roll:

 

[XCTurbostar]

I agree with everyone saying that the headlights are in-effective.

Was surveying in Scotland on a single track line near Culloden and a pair of 158s approached on a straight section. First thing you see is the Yellow front. I'm frankly quite worried about the idea that this may be removed.

Why is a hazard control measure being removed when it is not causing any harm to retain this surplus to risk assessment? It's not like an additional cost is implied because of the yellow front??

I think the most concerning aspect here is the possibility that a train may be able to blend into the surrounding scenery and potentially appear invisible to a lookout until it's too late.

Thanks,
Ross

 

[bramling]

I agree with everyone saying that the headlights are in-effective.

Was surveying in Scotland on a single track line near Culloden and a pair of 158s approached on a straight section. First thing you see is the Yellow front. I'm frankly quite worried about the idea that this may be removed.

Why is a hazard control measure being removed when it is not causing any harm to retain this surplus to risk assessment? It's not like an additional cost is implied because of the yellow front??

I think the most concerning aspect here is the possibility that a train may be able to blend into the surrounding scenery and potentially appear invisible to a lookout until it's too late.

Thanks,
Ross

Must admit it does seem surprising in today's safety-conscious world that a simple zero-cost safety measure is being actively withdrawn.

Would be interesting to know who kicked this process off, hopefully not just because one TOC, ROSCO or other fancied a more sexy front to give a 'wow' factor. Does anyone think 'wow' whentheir train arrives in the platform?

 

[507021]

Very nice livery, I think it suits the Aventra design really well.

 

[LLivery]

Just looks like a new model of a Networker to me. Even the interior is grey! Though I think that is a bit of a mistake to go back to grey. The dark interiors of the Networkers/Turbos isn't great - that's why its been ditched for brighter colours in refurbs.

I think the livery is quite good and will look better in reality; the use of black reminds me of the RER. I would have liked a bit more 2+2 seating, but at least its better than none. I doubt the Shenfield Metro commuters will be happy with the huge loss of seating per train but if the timetable in practice is as frequent as planned then it shouldn't be much of a problem. Disagree that a toilet isn't needed - lots people may not be travelling from Reading to Central London but they will be from Twyford and Maidenhead. I've used toilets on London Bridge to Sydenham (15 mins) and Windsor to London Waterloo services. How many XR stations will actually have toilets? I'm thinking almost zero between Shenfield and Stratford.

 

[JaJaWa]

Mod request: split posts about yellow front ends no longer being required into new thread.

Here's an image of Class 399 for Sheffield which also won't have them.

 

[RobShipway]

The class 707's will not have toilets either I believe that will be moving to the Windsor to Waterloo route and will be no different then trains such as the class 455 trains that do inner suburban routes up to an hour or more.

If a toilet is needed, then you will have the class 387/365 doing GWR local services that will have toilets on board going into Paddington.

With regards to XR stations having toilets, you have Twyford, Maidenhead, Burnham, Slough, Langley, Iver, West Drayton, Southall and Ealing Broadway.

 

[JaJaWa]

With regards to XR stations having toilets, you have Twyford, Maidenhead, Burnham, Slough, Langley, Iver, West Drayton, Southall and Ealing Broadway.

30/37 stations will have them:

A Crossrail spokesman said: “As Crossrail will be a high-frequency metro-style service, where the vast majority of journeys will be of a short duration, it is not intended that toilets will be provided on Crossrail trains.

“Of the 37 stations on the Crossrail route, passengers will have access to a toilet facility in 30 of them.”

Crossrail said that plans for the toilets were cancelled for a number of reasons – including that they would take up space equivalent to 600 passengers per hour.

http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/brentwood_rail_campaigner_calling_for_toilets_on_board_crossrail_after_unearthing_original_plans_1_1787312

 

[Mike395]

As the first mockup of a train which does not require yellow ends, it's inevitable there will be some discussion on this! However, please can we try and keep discussion here related to Crossrail and take any further general discussion on the regulations changing regarding yellow cab ends into a new thread. Thanks!

 

[AM9]

I think that the front looks smart and functional, and should keep clean looks in service. The interior is a reasonable blend of metro and suburban space which will get the inevitable complaints, but not from those who may have been unable to board at all on current services.