• 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!

Heathrow Express GWR Contract

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,821
Lets say worse case the train is always full, as long as I can phyiscally get on board then this is fine. Remember travelling between Paddington and Kings Cross you don't always have this luxary. Then I would expect even with the extra stops speed will be king.

However you do raise a good point, the loss of people to Crossrail may make the tube more bearable on both routes, so it could be a case of going back to it.

You don't always get a seat on HEx, weekend in particular when a 4 coach train turns up.

I never have a problem with the padd - Cross journey going either circle or vic/bakerloo if im honest but you still dont know if you will be able to get on at farringdon for maybe 1 or 2 trains until the service is up and running.

I never fly on a sat/sun either unless im returning from Scotland on a sunday evening so ill take your word for it being busy then but it still has its place currently and imi happy so far that it will be continuing.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,524
Perhaps in future all speculation should be first directed to our helpful colleague. I have just spent a long time reading above what in 30 seconds reading from Clarence Yard has made clear. :)

Ah but where’s the fun in that!
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
22,744
Location
West of Andover
Cue the head scratching when eventually the first 769 breaks out of the workshop for real world testing, it turns out to be absolute rubbish in gaining any sort of speed due to the added weight (after-all 319s are not the fastest off the mark, and that is before you added the engines/fuel)
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,981
Ah but where’s the fun in that!
Well indeed. Actually, I found the correspondence most interesting, although sometimes a bit difficult for someone with not much knowledge (such as I) to follow. I suspect that if employees follow discussion on here, perhaps a point is sometimes raised that get those profs rethinking, so it may not be a bad thing.
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,850
Location
UK
Quick question - why are they going for class 769 vehicles which are getting on in years when there will be 350/360/379s becoming free soon that are much more modern?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,255
Quick question - why are they going for class 769 vehicles which are getting on in years when there will be 350/360/379s becoming free soon that are much more modern?
Because they intend using most of them on their un-electrified branches, and the un-electrified north downs line?
 

Siemens Staines

Established Member
Joined
30 Jul 2015
Messages
1,492
The North Downs is exactly where they are heading - all 9 diagrams eventually. The 19 cl.769 units will be replacing the bulk of the remaining Reading Turbo diagrams, probably 16 out of the remaining 23 (post Dec 2018) Turbo diagrams. The Turbos will then head west. Their exact use in the west will be subject to the new GWR DA negotiations ("DA3") which are due to start shortly.

A lot of work has been done by FG/GWR to assess both their suitability for the North Downs route and the internal alterations needed to operate the Gatwick service.

So I guess the 7 remaining turbo diagrams will be from the 10 2-cars that were not planned to go West. Are there any plans to get what will be the remaining LTV routes cleared for RHM units? If not the 20 2-car units will have to operate as two microfleets.
 

Non Multi

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2017
Messages
1,190
With Mk3 derived 3rd rail DEMUs on the North Downs line, why should Gatwick-Reading remain with the GWR franchise?
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,850
Location
UK
Because they intend using most of them on their un-electrified branches, and the un-electrified north downs line?

Yes but they are withdrawing a whole batch of 332s so I assume that the need of 769s is because of cascade of other diesel stock to services currently operated by electric stock which is going to be redeployed on Heathrow Express?

Why can they not keep the status quo as it is until some proper modern electric stock becomes avaliable and then cascade the electrostars to HeX and replace the electrostars with other modern electric stock.

To me it seems a little strange we're withdrawing a batch of 332s to start a massive internal stock cascade and bring back trains that are over 30 years old when if they waited a bit longer there would be far less effort needed and a far newer fleet that would be much younger.
 

Non Multi

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2017
Messages
1,190
Quick question - why are they going for class 769 vehicles which are getting on in years when there will be 350/360/379s becoming free soon that are much more modern?
If Siemens (or another 3rd party) could convert them to tri-mode, I'm sure there would be interested parties.

Yes but they are withdrawing a whole batch of 332s so I assume that the need of 769s is because of cascade of other diesel stock to other services from what they are running on now?
There's also the Crossrail 345s which will shortly take over the inner suburban duties from the 387s.
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,850
Location
UK
If Siemens (or another 3rd party) could convert them to tri-mode, I'm sure there would be interested parties.

Yes but where is this extra need for tri-mode stock coming from?

From what I understand it is because of the fact that
- 332s are being withdrawn
- 387s are replacing 322s
- 387s are being replaced by existing diesel stock
- Existing diesel stock is being replaced by 769s

I just don't understand why there is a need for additional diesel stock than now.

If you are having electric 387s replacing electric 332s then surely you can just back fill with the electric 387s going to HEx with more electric trains and there's no need to bring any class 769s in which are getting on in years to put it lightly.
 
Last edited:

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,288
With Mk3 derived 3rd rail DEMUs on the North Downs line, why should Gatwick-Reading remain with the GWR franchise?

Is there a good reason why it shouldn't? It will be sharing stock with other GWR routes - the 3tph service should make connections from the rest of the GWR routes at Reading more attractive, SWR won't have Mark 3 derived units before too long and it isn't as if the 455s with Southern have that long ahead of them.
 

Non Multi

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2017
Messages
1,190
Yes but where is this extra need for tri-mode stock coming from?

From what I understand it is because of the fact that
- 332s are being withdrawn
- 387s are replacing 322s
- 387s are being replaced by existing diesel stock
- Existing diesel stock is being replaced by 769s

I just don't understand why there is a need for additional diesel stock as it is now?
DfT/GWR want to send 90mph Turbos west as originally planned. GW electrification cannot be completed as originally planned and has to rely on bi/tri-modes to cascade Turbos. All the 166s will go west if/when this 769 plan happens.
 
Last edited:

Non Multi

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2017
Messages
1,190
Is there a good reason why it shouldn't? It will be sharing stock with other GWR routes - the 3tph service should make connections from the rest of the GWR routes at Reading more attractive, SWR won't have Mark 3 derived units before too long and it isn't as if the 455s with Southern have that long ahead of them.
The southern region depots have experience of these 3rd rail EMUs (to be DEMUs), the route is in 'southern' territory, shared with both operators. It would be GWR's only electric 3rd rail service.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,581
It would be a delicious irony if first cancelled heathrow services to make up for disruption in their franchised services.
 

IrishDave

Member
Joined
30 Jun 2009
Messages
471
Location
Brighton
I suspect there may also be a desire to replace the 332s sooner rather than later, due to the differences between ATP (automatic train protection) and ETCS (European train control system).

At present (or at least until recently), all trains operating on the Heathrow branch are required to be fitted with ATP. However, Crossrail's 345s will not be fitted with ATP, but rather the newer ETCS. 387s are, I believe, fitted with both. By getting rid of the 332s, the Heathrow branch can go entirely over to ETCS without the need to either maintain ATP on the branch, or retrofit the 332s with ETCS.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,524
At present (or at least until recently), all trains operating on the Heathrow branch are required to be fitted with ATP. However, Crossrail's 345s will not be fitted with ATP, but rather the newer ETCS. 387s are, I believe, fitted with both. By getting rid of the 332s, the Heathrow branch can go entirely over to ETCS without the need to either maintain ATP on the branch, or retrofit the 332s with ETCS.

All trains operating on the Airport branch in passenger service must be ATP fitted. In-service failure of ATP on a 332/360 is an out-of-traffic at next station failure. ETCS is considered an equivalent system. TPWS is not (and not fitted on the branch anyway).

387s are fitted with neither; but can be fitted with ETCS (passive provision was made for it during construction) with relative ease.

332s/360s are ATP fitted; but neither can be ETCS equipped for various electrical reasons I don’t really understand.

There are presently compatibility issues between ETCS and ATP - to the extent I do not believe they have successfully had both systems live simultaneously. TfL are hiring the entire Class 360 fleet from Heathrow Express from May to operate 2tph Paddington to Heathrow vice Heathrow Connect. Substituting 332s with ETCS-fitted 387s would enable an almost overnight switchover from 332/360 +ATP operation to 387/345 +ETCS operation.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
8,249
I suspect there may also be a desire to replace the 332s sooner rather than later, due to the differences between ATP (automatic train protection) and ETCS (European train control system).

At present (or at least until recently), all trains operating on the Heathrow branch are required to be fitted with ATP. However, Crossrail's 345s will not be fitted with ATP, but rather the newer ETCS. 387s are, I believe, fitted with both. By getting rid of the 332s, the Heathrow branch can go entirely over to ETCS without the need to either maintain ATP on the branch, or retrofit the 332s with ETCS.
Agreed it will allow ATP to be retired relatively sooner than otherwise planned on the inner GWML
 

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
2,009
To release all turbos

Greenford - Transfer to Chiltern

Electrify TV branches if cancelled/delayed

Marlow - New chord and station at Bourne End - Existing station site/yards redeveloped.

Banbury to Oxford - transfer to Chiltern

Cotswold stopper - Transfer to WMR - Worcester to Oxford
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Has the branch been fitted with ETCS yet?

It is being/has been fitted, but they are having problems getting it working properly, which is why crossrail are having to put their backup plan of retaining some 360s to operate Heathrow Connect services instead of putting 345s on them.
 

jamieP

Member
Joined
27 Feb 2012
Messages
310
It is being/has been fitted, but they are having problems getting it working properly, which is why crossrail are having to put their backup plan of retaining some 360s to operate Heathrow Connect services instead of putting 345s on them.

Makes sense. Thanks.
 

Non Multi

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2017
Messages
1,190
It is being/has been fitted, but they are having problems getting it working properly, which is why crossrail are having to put their backup plan of retaining some 360s to operate Heathrow Connect services instead of putting 345s on them.
Excerpt below from a recent London Reconnections article - Crossrail: Cutting it Fine

Trouble in the Heathrow Tunnel
Whilst the thought of the phrase ‘explosion on Crossrail’ appearing in print probably gave Crossrail’s engineers (or at least their Press Office) a few sleepless nights, the problem really worth watching seems to have been emerging further down the line for TfL.

For months, Howard Smith has been telling the TfL Board that the biggest concern is the signalling in the Heathrow tunnel. Part of the concern was the lack of engineering possessions available for testing the tunnel-based European Train Control System (ETCS) signalling equipment.

ETCS is a European signalling specification for the safe operation of trains. In fact it is used throughout the world, especially in China. The current National Rail standard, Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS), is very safe. TPWS is largely responsible for the incredible safety record achieved in recent years. It is not, however, 100% fail-safe in all circumstances and does not always protect against human error. For example, it won’t always prevent a buffer stop collision at a terminal – not the sort of thing you want to happen on a terminal platform in an underground tunnel at, say, Terminal 4.

The problem is that whilst very reliable once working properly, ETCS is known to be a fickle beast. Like all electronic signalling systems, it is very susceptible to hostile electrical environments. Unfortunately, it seems that a hostile electrical environment is exactly the sort of thing one finds in a round bored tunnel with a 25kV, 50Hz AC catenary running alongside it, with the added complication of a similar but different signalling system already present. Which is an accurate description of the Heathrow tunnels.

To make matters worse, the ETCS system installed at Heathrow is not exactly the ‘out-of-the-box’ version typically installed on a brand new railway today. Heathrow has the bolt-on edition tacked onto an existing signalling system (ATP) and ETCS was not around when it (ATP) was first conceived. The new track to train signalling being put in place for Crossrail also still needs to work in conjunction with existing trains that know nothing about ETCS and which were built in the days when regulations concerning electromagnetic interference were a world away from today’s tight, rigorously-enforced standards.

It seems this has indeed caused issues. Howard Smith’s comment to the TfL Board perhaps sums the current situation perfectly:
"It performed as expected as in functionally it works, but the reliability needs a lot of work before we’d be happy with it as a passenger service."

Worryingly, the impression given is that things now work when adverse factors (such as other trains) are isolated out, but they just don’t in the real-world environment. These means that even if these initial tests had worked perfectly, there would have still been a long way to go.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,288
To release all turbos

Greenford - Transfer to Chiltern

Electrify TV branches if cancelled/delayed

Marlow - New chord and station at Bourne End - Existing station site/yards redeveloped.

Banbury to Oxford - transfer to Chiltern

Cotswold stopper - Transfer to WMR - Worcester to Oxford

You would need to release some Turbos to each of these operators to run the services so I'm not sure it is necessary to transfer the services.

Why would another operator want to run one train a day from Worcester to Oxford with GWR running the rest of the service?

As for the line to Marlow, a short look at a map would explain why you simply couldn't install a new chord at Bourne End.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,288
The southern region depots have experience of these 3rd rail EMUs (to be DEMUs), the route is in 'southern' territory, shared with both operators. It would be GWR's only electric 3rd rail service.

Er, 319s were latterly maintained at Bedford. I'm sure there are some clever enough engineers at Reading depot who can learn how to maintain a different type of train - after all they have had to learn 387s and seem to be managing.

On the subject of traction knowledge it will be interesting to know whether Redhill Southern drivers maintain competency on Turbos.

As for the in 'southern territory' I think the line would be in a much less favourable position if South West Trains had run it for the last 20 years.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,283
Why would they install an overlay in the Heathrow tunnels if this is such a reliability issue?
Wouldn't it have been better to simply gut the signalling system and install a new one from the ground up?
Its only a couple few miles of track and risking the entire scheme for it seems silly.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Why would they install an overlay in the Heathrow tunnels if this is such a reliability issue?
Wouldn't it have been better to simply gut the signalling system and install a new one from the ground up?
Its only a couple few miles of track and risking the entire scheme for it seems silly.

Up until this morning (in the public domain at least) the long term plan had been for Heathrow Airport Holdings to continue to run HEx with their trains, which were fitted with ATP and no ETCS, over their own infrastructure. I don't see why H.A.H. should have had to go the expense of refitting all of their own stock with ETCS to run over their own infrastructure, although of course today's announcement means that the ATP equipment can come out once the last 332 service has been run, although by that time the Crossrail service should have been running properly to Heathrow for a while.
 

Non Multi

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2017
Messages
1,190
On another note, Slough Council will be delighted that the plan for the HEX depot at Langley, Berks has been dropped. AIUI they had earmarked the site for housing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top