Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[jon0844]

OK I'll give you the point for the 313s.

*However*, as someone who travels from further out and has no requirement to use Moorgate they are basically irrelevant to me, along with many others.

Problems with third-rail icing at Drayton Park won't directly affect me today, but a problem on the Brighton line most certainly would in the future.

A tiny part of the 3rd rail section on GN is outdoors, so I am not sure that bad weather will affect it that much, compared to everything south of Farringdon/City Thameslink (well Blackfriars, as again that's mostly covered).

It will be interesting to see how the 700s cope with bad weather, as coping was definitely part of the specification.

 

[bramling]

A tiny part of the 3rd rail section on GN is outdoors, so I am not sure that bad weather will affect it that much, compared to everything south of Farringdon/City Thameslink (well Blackfriars, as again that's mostly covered).

It will be interesting to see how the 700s cope with bad weather, as coping was definitely part of the specification.

Indeed.

Of course, it won't just be how the 700s cope -- as if they're stuck behind an Electrostar somewhere south of Blackfriars then it won't make much difference how good the 700 is or isn't.

In reality there comes a point where if the 3rd-rail is sufficiently iced up then the train simply doesn't get current. There are all sorts of mitigations which can be used, de-icing fluid being the most common, but it only takes one train to get stuck and your whole railway is shut down until someone turns up with an ice scraper - meanwhile now you're shut down chances are the remaining sections of juice rail aren't getting cleaned by trains as frequently or at all, so ice up more quickly - now things have turned into a vicious circle...

 

[D365]

I believe there is a long-term ambition to convert the Brighton line to 25kV AC, however the timescale for that remains to be seen. This is just an observation of mine.

 

[AM9]

I see. So anything which threatens to increase the risk of disruption to a very busy railway system is centric to me only?

I take it you've nothing to offer on the subject in hand, namely that a railway that is currently not vulnerable to the inadequacies of the third-rail system will be from 2018.

As things stand, the service from my local station is generally pretty reliable during winter weather - on the same days when the south-of-London network often falls apart.

Oh, how silly of me, anything which expresses a negative view about Thameslink is somehow selfish. Back to the real world...

The problem being discussed over the last two days is that of Network Rail's neglect in maintaining the gauge for which the line has been cleared. There is nothing particularly difficult in keeping a trackbed clear of obstructions at running rail height to some 500mm outside of track gauge face. That would be a fairly basic requirement for a metro route. For track regularly used by trains travelling at 100-125mph, it must be considered critical to safety. The fact that trains with non-retracting shoegear are using the track is irrelevant, they have been authorised by NR engineering and ultimately physically allowed onto the network by NR signallers so it is purely an NR error, either by negligence or incompetence.
I have no dependence on GN GTR services so could quite easily say "as it doesn't affect me I don't give a damn" - much as you did about the 313 issues, but as can be seen from all my posts on this specific subject, it is a safety lapse that could result in a very serious incident, and I am concerned that it doesn't appear to be taken seriously. Well, that's my interest in the topic which is about bad practice, and only discovered because the new trains have shoe assemblies that detach easily.
Then you came along with your broken-record line of why you don't like the Thameslink programme because it affects you, (oh, and others who happen to have similar travel patterns to yours of course).

 

[SpacePhoenix]

As the train was running in "AC mode" would the driver have gotten any indication in the cab that she shoes had been ripped off or would the first the driver had known about it been either when someone has contacted him or it's failed to detect/pickup the 3rd rail when it comes to switching over?

 

[D365]

... or it's failed to detect/pickup the 3rd rail when it comes to switching over?

It wouldn't have been switching to third rail on the Great Northern route currently.

 

[jon0844]

It wouldn't have been switching to third rail on the Great Northern route currently.

During testing, and until NR can confirm the lines are clear, would it not make sense to remove the shoes? Until they go through to the core, they don't need them anyway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Just to reiterate - shoes being knocked off third rail trains happens regularly, most commonly on 3rd rail routes (obviously - as that is where most 3rd rail trains operate). In my experience it happens somewhere a couple of times a month. It is normally high ballast; occasionally rail left near the sleeper ends - often due to thermal expansion causing the rail to move into the loading gauge area.

It is a safety issue, but not a serious one. There are far more important safety issues regarding parts of the track system damaging passing trains or people. In 15 years of being involved with DC lines I have never known any injury due to shoes being knocked off. In the same time, as an example, I have known several injuries from ballast falling off passing trains either landing on passengers at stations, or breaking windows / windscreens of passing trains. Indeed such an incident happened today, thankfully without injury.

I think the reason the incident with the 700 has gained prominence here is simply that it was a 700 on a certain line for the first time. Worth noting that the first 319 to Rugby lost its shoes, as did the first 313 to Peterboro (or at least, the first one up there for a long time).

Yes you might think lessons would be learned, and yes it's not good enough. But it is a performance issue rather than a serious safety issue, and there are certainly more serious safety things to worry about.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

During testing, and until NR can confirm the lines are clear, would it not make sense to remove the shoes? Until they go through to the core, they don't need them anyway.

The issue is that the lines were thought to be clear - they had been surveyed - but something was put in the way at short notice.

 

[Failed Unit]

Indeed.

Of course, it won't just be how the 700s cope -- as if they're stuck behind an Electrostar somewhere south of Blackfriars then it won't make much difference how good the 700 is or isn't.

In reality there comes a point where if the 3rd-rail is sufficiently iced up then the train simply doesn't get current. There are all sorts of mitigations which can be used, de-icing fluid being the most common, but it only takes one train to get stuck and your whole railway is shut down until someone turns up with an ice scraper - meanwhile now you're shut down chances are the remaining sections of juice rail aren't getting cleaned by trains as frequently or at all, so ice up more quickly - now things have turned into a vicious circle...

Mr 2p here. If the brown stuff hits the fan on the 3rd rail on great northern they divert into kings cross. Will that happen when we get linked into the unreliable Brighton mainline. That said Welwyn viaduct does GN no favours.

 

[Minstral25]

Mr 2p here. If the brown stuff hits the fan on the 3rd rail on great northern they divert into kings cross. Will that happen when we get linked into the unreliable Brighton mainline. That said Welwyn viaduct does GN no favours.

Is it just me but its not a problem I am worrying about. I'm more worried about the unreliable knitting coming down as it does with regularity and means all our Thameslink trains down south take a holiday up north.

I hope they have plans that if one side or the other collapse to keep the other side running by turning at a convenient point. However with the current lack of planning or management on anything to do with Thameslink I think I may be being optimistic.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is it just me but its not a problem I am worrying about. I'm more worried about the unreliable knitting coming down as it does with regularity and means all our Thameslink trains down south take a holiday up north.

I hope they have plans that if one side or the other collapse to keep the other side running by turning at a convenient point. However with the current lack of planning or management on anything to do with Thameslink I think I may be being optimistic.

Yes there are plans for all sorts of scenarios. One caveat - obviously you need a confirmed timetable before you can confirm your contingency plans.

However in principle the ECML is the easiest of the lot; if there is a problem in the core or south thereof, trains affected will be terminated at Kings X or Finsbury Park. If the latter they will be run empty to the Canal Tunnels to reverse.

 

[jon0844]

I'd hope there's a plan b whereby trains can avoid the core, perhaps by terminating at London Bridge or Blackfriars, and trains at the other end terminating at King's Cross - with people using the Northern Line or buses to get through the blocked core.

I assume there will be such an emergency timetable once everything is finalised, so it's not worth worrying or moaning about just yet. I definitely have concerns about what's going to happen in the future, and have this fear that the GN trains will never be as reliable as they have been.

Thankfully GTR has been getting us prepared with the disruption for much of the year.

 

[physics34]

I'd hope there's a plan b whereby trains can avoid the core, perhaps by terminating at London Bridge or Blackfriars, and trains at the other end terminating at King's Cross - with people using the Northern Line or buses to get through the blocked core.

I assume there will be such an emergency timetable once everything is finalised, so it's not worth worrying or moaning about just yet. I definitely have concerns about what's going to happen in the future, and have this fear that the GN trains will never be as reliable as they have been.

Thankfully GTR has been getting us prepared with the disruption for much of the year.

Well there will be more capacity at London Bridge platforms 10-15 than there is now... but will they have the flexibility with staff, i.e Spares at London Bridge?!

 

[AM9]

Yes there are plans for all sorts of scenarios. One caveat - obviously you need a confirmed timetable before you can confirm your contingency plans.

However in principle the ECML is the easiest of the lot; if there is a problem in the core or south thereof, trains affected will be terminated at Kings X or Finsbury Park. If the latter they will be run empty to the Canal Tunnels to reverse.

Although with a new timetable (presumably) there will be more services meaning that even with Kings Cross and Finsbury Park maxed out, it may be necessary to reduce the number of GN trains.
Similarly, with the core shut, the available 3rd rail turning points will struggle to cope with an extra 24 tph so there will be a significant reduction in Thameslink's contribution to BML's capacity.

The proven option to push/pull failed trains out from the core would hopefully be used as quickly as possible to keep all options open, providing there isn't a derailment there. OLE obstruction is much less likely with the Rigid Conductor Bar installed.

 

[asylumxl]

Although with a new timetable (presumably) there will be more services meaning that even with Kings Cross and Finsbury Park maxed out, it may be necessary to reduce the number of GN trains.
Similarly, with the core shut, the available 3rd rail turning points will struggle to cope with an extra 24 tph so there will be a significant reduction in Thameslink's contribution to BML's capacity.

The proven option to push/pull failed trains out from the core would hopefully be used as quickly as possible to keep all options open, providing there isn't a derailment there. OLE obstruction is much less likely with the Rigid Conductor Bar installed.

I can tell you from experience, Finsbury Park struggled to cope with the number of passengers disembarking from East Coast services (either last Christmas or the year before, I can't remember) when engineering works between it and Kings Cross overran. It wouldn't cope well at all with 700s offloading more frequently.

 

[bramling]

Yes there are plans for all sorts of scenarios. One caveat - obviously you need a confirmed timetable before you can confirm your contingency plans.

However in principle the ECML is the easiest of the lot; if there is a problem in the core or south thereof, trains affected will be terminated at Kings X or Finsbury Park. If the latter they will be run empty to the Canal Tunnels to reverse.

Assuming, of course, there's space to put them at King's Cross. I have visions of, in reality, massive blocking back into King's Cross waiting for platform space, and Thameslink trains blocking up the platforms whilst crewing arrangements are resolved.

What are the plans for crews? Will crews from the Southern Region be working north of the river, and vice versa?

 

[AM9]

Assuming, of course, there's space to put them at King's Cross. I have visions of, in reality, massive blocking back into King's Cross waiting for platform space, and Thameslink trains blocking up the platforms whilst crewing arrangements are resolved.

What are the plans for crews? Will crews from the Southern Region be working north of the river, and vice versa?

I agree with that caveat, which to me is recognition that Kings Cross could not deal with the number of trains needed in the near future to cope with the expected volume of passengers on a normal peak, - were it not for the ability to send at least 8 tph through Thameslink rather than try and accomodate them in the maxed-out space that is Kings Cross. The only alternative would be to expand Kings Cross by 4-6 platforms. Problems there:
a) how, 12-cars, (not more short platforms)?
b) where, (not exactly empty fields around there)?
c) how to pay for the land and construction (including throat expansion)?

 

[bramling]

I agree with that caveat, which to me is recognition that Kings Cross could not deal with the number of trains needed in the near future to cope with the expected volume of passengers on a normal peak, - were it not for the ability to send at least 8 tph through Thameslink rather than try and accomodate them in the maxed-out space that is Kings Cross. The only alternative would be to expand Kings Cross by 4-6 platforms. Problems there:
a) how, 12-cars, (not more short platforms)?
b) where, (not exactly empty fields around there)?
c) how to pay for the land and construction (including throat expansion)?

I have definitely seen official plans in the past for extending platforms 9-11 to take 12 cars, plus adding at least one extra platform alongside 11. One obvious snag is the decision to build the new concourse where it is.

More trains could definitely be fitted into King's Cross if turnround times were reduced. There are still some pretty generous, compared to elsewhere, turnround times during the peaks, and the use of technology (e.g. automated reservation systems instead of having to place paper tickets) on newer Intercity trains should only improve matters in that respect.

 

[Deepgreen]

It wouldn't have been switching to third rail on the Great Northern route currently.

No, but will do on its return run south through the core.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

just a thought...
Obviously, some ex-Cambridge and some ex-Peterborough services can be sent into Kings Cross, and some ex-Bedford services can be terminated at St Pancras high-level.

I assume the lines passing through Platforms A and B at St Pancras International (low-level) are equipped for bi-directional running ?
If so, does this mean that, if the core were blocked somewhere south of St Pancras, but not blocked at St Pancras itself, a contingency plan could (theoretically) include running some ex-Bedford services into the Southbound Platform A, and after calling there, reversing towards Canal Tunnels and out onto the GN to run to Cambridge or Peterborough ?
Likewise, some trains arriving into Platform B from the GN could call at St Pancras and then reverse and head off towards St Albans / Bedford. There would be no conflicting movements in the station itself...

It would be weird, though, to board a train at Welwyn Garden City that had St Albans and Luton listed among it's calling points !

 

[W230]

It's turning in to all doom and gloom on this thread isn't it.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

It's turning in to all doom and gloom on this thread isn't it.

and there's me thinking this thread was just about the 700s....

 

[swt_passenger]

I have definitely seen official plans in the past for extending platforms 9-11 to take 12 cars, plus adding at least one extra platform alongside 11. One obvious snag is the decision to build the new concourse where it is.

It only really needed that one obvious snag to have removed the possibility completely. The distance between the platform ends and the tunnels is about 120m, and there is new construction just outside the tracks on the down side, so nowhere to have any sort of 'throat' to deal with the extended platforms, let alone an extra one.

However it might be doable if the third tunnel was brought into use and a six track approach re-instated. But that's probably getting way off topic, and I think has been covered at length in earlier discussions anyway.

 

[swt class 450]

I went on 700 019 yesterday on the 22:22 Bedford to Brighton 01:03 service. The announcements and screens were all either switched off or not working. Also this service did not call at Balcombe and Haywards Heath and Wivelsfield for some reason. Does anyone know why this was?

 

[louis97]

I went on 700 019 yesterday on the 22:22 Bedford to Brighton 01:03 service. The announcements and screens were all either switched off or not working. Also this service did not call at Balcombe and Haywards Heath and Wivelsfield for some reason. Does anyone know why this was?

Looks like the last train through before buses start, so presume runs fast to get through the area before engineering possessions are taken.

 

[Supercoss]

just a thought...
Obviously, some ex-Cambridge and some ex-Peterborough services can be sent into Kings Cross, and some ex-Bedford services can be terminated at St Pancras high-level.

I assume the lines passing through Platforms A and B at St Pancras International (low-level) are equipped for bi-directional running ?
If so, does this mean that, if the core were blocked somewhere south of St Pancras, but not blocked at St Pancras itself, a contingency plan could (theoretically) include running some ex-Bedford services into the Southbound Platform A, and after calling there, reversing towards Canal Tunnels and out onto the GN to run to Cambridge or Peterborough ?
Likewise, some trains arriving into Platform B from the GN could call at St Pancras and then reverse and head off towards St Albans / Bedford. There would be no conflicting movements in the station itself...

It would be weird, though, to board a train at Welwyn Garden City that had St Albans and Luton listed among it's calling points !

The 'core' area south of Dock Junction (Camden Road Tunnel) is all bidirectional signalled and all those moves you mention are possible and currently available to empty stock trains to perform but some quite long sections involved if St Pancras low level used s a terminus from the North , also separate overhead line feeds to consider in the event of incident.
Both bores of canal tunnels also Bi-Di signalled you could even parallel run ecml to St Pancras low level change ends then return to either ecml or towards Thameslink North area
Only class 700 stock route cleared for canal tunnels currently but that will change shortly

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Can we open a book now for the first GN 365 to make a "triumphal" arrival at St Pancras Low level southbound ?

Much like a SE 4EPB (loaded) made it to Farringdon one morning in 1988.....

 

[Class377/5]

OK I'll give you the point for the 313s.

*However*, as someone who travels from further out and has no requirement to use Moorgate they are basically irrelevant to me, along with many others.

Problems with third-rail icing at Drayton Park won't directly affect me today, but a problem on the Brighton line most certainly would in the future.

Doesn't change the fact you mentioned something untrue.

Not beyond Letchworth/Hitchin though - I can forsee the Class 700s running into trouble again on the Peterborough branch. Remember the Class 319s when they used to run all the way out to Rugby.

Note the reply was over Bramling's post stating the GN is wholly AC only. Not true unless you believe Letchworth to Kings Cross via WGC or Hertford is mot part of the GN network which has dv units with none retracting shoes.

Indeed so, but I had thought the 700s' testing had been extensive and frequent. Not enough, perhaps. It may be wise to avoid dumping anything so close to the running rails that they could cause this sort of problem (anywhere on the network, not just where shoe gear-equipped stock may run).

How do you test for track obstructions without going to over the track?

Oh dear, yet another 'Bramling centric post'. Maybe the administrators could offer an official account to GTR so that they can give a TOC response to these misdirected comments.

Don't you know the world of the railway must be run purely for his benefit. He's happy for Thameslink not to serve his route but another others.

A tiny part of the 3rd rail section on GN is outdoors, so I am not sure that bad weather will affect it that much, compared to everything south of Farringdon/City Thameslink (well Blackfriars, as again that's mostly covered).

It will be interesting to see how the 700s cope with bad weather, as coping was definitely part of the specification.

Should be interesting to see how they cope.

Yes there are plans for all sorts of scenarios. One caveat - obviously you need a confirmed timetable before you can confirm your contingency plans.

However in principle the ECML is the easiest of the lot; if there is a problem in the core or south thereof, trains affected will be terminated at Kings X or Finsbury Park. If the latter they will be run empty to the Canal Tunnels to reverse.

Recently had a bunch of colleague declare 24tph is unworkable and that where do you put those trains if something goes wring. Once I went through service by service, it was quite easy to turn everything around on the existing infrastructure. By the end the belief 24tph cannot be dealt with is gone.

Too many see 24tph and somehow think each section must deal with 24tph which is untrue as Thameslink is effectively two trunks on either side (3 on the suth if you count the Rainham services so each one needs to cope with less.

Assuming, of course, there's space to put them at King's Cross. I have visions of, in reality, massive blocking back into King's Cross waiting for platform space, and Thameslink trains blocking up the platforms whilst crewing arrangements are resolved.

What are the plans for crews? Will crews from the Southern Region be working north of the river, and vice versa?

A valid point. personally I believe if you sign the Core you should sign Cricklewood and Hornsey depot to Three Bridges Depot + Selhurst depot.

It's turning in to all doom and gloom on this thread isn't it.

That's because we are going around in circles and many of us who actually gave reasoned defence are fed up of the constant belief of guess work over facts that seems to be taking place.

Can we open a book now for the first GN 365 to make a "triumphal" arrival at St Pancras Low level southbound ?

Much like a SE 4EPB (loaded) made it to Farringdon one morning in 1988.....

I doubt it. The Canal Tunnels can reverse trains plus the system will be set up not to allow non ETCS trains through.

 

[grid56126]

Can we open a book now for the first GN 365 to make a "triumphal" arrival at St Pancras Low level southbound ?

Much like a SE 4EPB (loaded) made it to Farringdon one morning in 1988.....

Were they not booked for one timetable period? 455s certainly were.

 

[asylumxl]

While on my way to work this morning I encountered an old gentleman with rather heavy luggage, whom I assisted by carrying it down to the platform and lifting it on to the train, which got me thinking.

Presumably all Thameslink services will be formed of 700s in the future. Are there any plans, at the core stations at least, to raise the platforms up to allow for level access from the 700s?