|
|
Post by superteacher on Aug 4, 2016 13:18:26 GMT
Plug doors can be (almost?) as quick as sliding ones, and they have big advantages for things like aircon, such that I believe plug doors were investigated for the S stock (correct me if I'm wrong, prjb ?). The reason they were not used is that, at the time, no manufacturer was able to guarantee the reliability over the number of operating cycles the specification called for. That Crossrail uses them suggests either that the specification or the technology has changed. Interesting that the Thameslink Class 700 trains don't have plug doors. |
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Aug 4, 2016 13:43:04 GMT
Plug doors can be (almost?) as quick as sliding ones, and they have big advantages for things like aircon, such that I believe plug doors were investigated for the S stock (correct me if I'm wrong, prjb ?). The reason they were not used is that, at the time, no manufacturer was able to guarantee the reliability over the number of operating cycles the specification called for. That Crossrail uses them suggests either that the specification or the technology has changed. Interesting that the Thameslink Class 700 trains don't have plug doors. IIRC, the specification for them was locked down in 2008, so it was again based on whatever was best then. It's also why we are seeing a lot of furore about the lack of plugs and wifi on them now - back in 2008 they wouldn't have even been considered. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Aug 4, 2016 13:49:06 GMT
So will the 345's have Wi Fi?
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 4, 2016 15:19:31 GMT
So will the 345's have Wi Fi? I believe they will. |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Aug 4, 2016 15:47:55 GMT
<<One of the problems the UK seems to have is a poorly educated and uninterested low productivity workforce with the result that people from elsewhere are attracted here and have the skills and education that UK employers require.>>
What skills and education do you need to be a barista, bartender, or bed-maker?
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Aug 4, 2016 16:00:38 GMT
<<OK, final reminder. Any more off topic posts will be deleted.>>
|
|
|
|
Post by will on Aug 4, 2016 16:16:47 GMT
So will the 345's have Wi Fi? I believe they will. They will also have 4G mobile connectivity. In relation to "plug" doors will there have to be a larger gap between the PEDS and the train to allow the doors to swing open and will "plug" doors be suitable for obstacle detection systems like sensitive edges. Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 4, 2016 17:53:47 GMT
<<OK, final reminder. Any more off topic posts will be deleted.>> I have deleted all of mine which "wandered". |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 5, 2016 1:07:40 GMT
I believe that the Crossrail core has the possibility to be upgraded to 30 tph if demand warrants it, so the argument about the frequency not being enough to justify calling it a tube line isn't really valid. I can honestly see both sides of this argument, but it's all about meeting the demands of the majority. In that sense, you will never be able to please everybody. Crossrail in the core section Paddington - Abbey Wood/Stephany Green Junction is being signalled using CBTC and will be capable of running a frequency of 30tph if required with a likely increase of 3tph on the eastern branches.
With the seating it does seem sensible to provide some groups of 4 seats as on the S8 stock, but unlike the Metropolitan Line where there are a group of 4 seats on one side of the train and the normal transverse seats on the other side this doesn't look to be the case on the class 345's. I really hope this doesn't have too much of a detrimental effect on station dwell times, as while this wont be much of an issue outside the core it will be a significant issue in the core. Other systems that have groups of seats i.e Merseyrail and Washington Metro have constant problems with long dwell times due to there being little space initially when people have boarded the train to move inside and people boarding and alighting in some cases in single file.
The whole debate about what is it a tube or NR line isn't really important as the fact is the line is being treated as a tube line and rightly so as this is how many of those using it will perceive it to be. Its a relatively high frequency line that will have deep level stations in central London, will appear on the tube maps, will have tube style signage and will be fully integrated with the tube in the cases of interchanges and station staffing arrangements at locations such as TCR.
Firstly, the service frequency may well go to 30tph through the core but here is no way that is sustainable west of Paddington without the installation of 2 dedicated tracks in addition to the present 4 at least as far as the junction to Heathrow (and I have doubts over 15tph east of Stratford too). As I said before Crossrail is not a tube line - you show me a tube line that has to also handle several heavy stone trains a day and also cope with InterCity and regional trains during disruption. Appearing on the tube map doesn't somehow imbibe a line with magic proprieties to do what is not possible (or illegal in terms of NR discriminating against other operators to give Crossrail priority access) - and no amount of PR will change that. As Endfield line users are finding out, the competing needs of the national rail network simply do not allow anything close to a 'tube style frequency' to be provided due to the need to accommodate other TOCs needs - regardless of whether it happens to feature on the 'tube' map, have TfL roundels, etc. TfL can say and print what they like, but its not 'their' railway outside of the Royal Oak - Pudding Mill Lane / Abbey Wood, however much they pretend it is. Secondly with Respect you are taking London centric view. Reading, Twyford, Maidenhead, Taplow or Burnham are a significant distance from London and if they are to be served by Crossrail then Crossrail should be considering their needs as well. To effectively tell users "we couldn't care less about you" is pretty disgraceful - particularly as unlike the residents of the GLA area , they have no way of making their views known through the electoral system. Had Crossrail gone no further west than Heathrow or Slough and thus truly been a London centric railway then a total high density layout would have been far more acceptable. As things stand however the decision was made to extend Crossrail out as far as Reading and that should come with consequences in respect of train design - however much Londoners might not like them. |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Aug 5, 2016 2:36:33 GMT
Anyone travelling from Reading to London will be unlikely to use the half hourly service on Crossrail. They have faster options.
It may be used for intermediate journeys where the trains will not be crush loaded.
The longitudinal seats on the North London line trains seem to improve the art of conversation too.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 5, 2016 10:53:05 GMT
Anyone travelling from Reading to London will be unlikely to use the half hourly service on Crossrail. They have faster options. It may be used for intermediate journeys where the trains will not be crush loaded. This is quite true - but please show me where Crossrail are saying this? The Crossrail promotional material is effectively 'me, me, me' in tone and waxes lyrical about how great its service will be (including journey times that simply don't stack up according to industry insiders familiar with GWML timetabling) when for stations on the outer GWML the truth is rather different. If you are a commuter from Twyford or Langley who currently has an on board toilet, transverse seating and possibly has the opportunity to travel first class you are unlikely to be impressed by the Crossrail offering - even if the trains are longer and powered by electricity - A semi-fast GWR service would be far more to the users taste (and some will be retained post Crossrail - which is another reason this talk of 30tph is not realistic) yet very little is said about this option. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 18:22:34 GMT
They look great, I was expecting some horrible bright coloured hand rails inside, not dark grey/light grey. I hope the comments on London Reconnections are right, and they don't have to suddenly throw a bucket of yellow paint onto the front! Yes, me too, I think the trains will look so much smarter without the yellow! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 18:29:29 GMT
The interior walls and floor look very functional, like the NY subway. The moquette hurts my eyes - genuinely, I wonder whether that's the best they could come up with. The four seater configuration is going to cause a few problems. Oh dear! I think that the dark floor and grab-handles make the train look like a NY subway train. I see where your coming from! |
|
|
|
Post by will on Aug 5, 2016 18:42:39 GMT
Crossrail in the core section Paddington - Abbey Wood/Stephany Green Junction is being signalled using CBTC and will be capable of running a frequency of 30tph if required with a likely increase of 3tph on the eastern branches.
With the seating it does seem sensible to provide some groups of 4 seats as on the S8 stock, but unlike the Metropolitan Line where there are a group of 4 seats on one side of the train and the normal transverse seats on the other side this doesn't look to be the case on the class 345's. I really hope this doesn't have too much of a detrimental effect on station dwell times, as while this wont be much of an issue outside the core it will be a significant issue in the core. Other systems that have groups of seats i.e Merseyrail and Washington Metro have constant problems with long dwell times due to there being little space initially when people have boarded the train to move inside and people boarding and alighting in some cases in single file.
The whole debate about what is it a tube or NR line isn't really important as the fact is the line is being treated as a tube line and rightly so as this is how many of those using it will perceive it to be. Its a relatively high frequency line that will have deep level stations in central London, will appear on the tube maps, will have tube style signage and will be fully integrated with the tube in the cases of interchanges and station staffing arrangements at locations such as TCR.
Firstly, the service frequency may well go to 30tph through the core but here is no way that is sustainable west of Paddington without the installation of 2 dedicated tracks in addition to the present 4 at least as far as the junction to Heathrow (and I have doubts over 15tph east of Stratford too). As I said before Crossrail is not a tube line - you show me a tube line that has to also handle several heavy stone trains a day and also cope with InterCity and regional trains during disruption. Appearing on the tube map doesn't somehow imbibe a line with magic proprieties to do what is not possible (or illegal in terms of NR discriminating against other operators to give Crossrail priority access) - and no amount of PR will change that. As Endfield line users are finding out, the competing needs of the national rail network simply do not allow anything close to a 'tube style frequency' to be provided due to the need to accommodate other TOCs needs - regardless of whether it happens to feature on the 'tube' map, have TfL roundels, etc. TfL can say and print what they like, but its not 'their' railway outside of the Royal Oak - Pudding Mill Lane / Abbey Wood, however much they pretend it is. Secondly with Respect you are taking London centric view. Reading, Twyford, Maidenhead, Taplow or Burnham are a significant distance from London and if they are to be served by Crossrail then Crossrail should be considering their needs as well. To effectively tell users "we couldn't care less about you" is pretty disgraceful - particularly as unlike the residents of the GLA area , they have no way of making their views known through the electoral system. Had Crossrail gone no further west than Heathrow or Slough and thus truly been a London centric railway then a total high density layout would have been far more acceptable. As things stand however the decision was made to extend Crossrail out as far as Reading and that should come with consequences in respect of train design - however much Londoners might not like them. I wasn't suggesting that Crossrail is a tube line in anyway but that it is being treated by many and is being designed in a way to make it to customers look like a new tube line and rightly so as that's how the vast majority of customers will see it. Even the existing sections of railway such as the Sheffield branch will likely to be treated tube line like by customers who use it now and will in the future as although branding doesn't change the reality that the line isn't NR it will be treated less like an NR line as soon as the Elisabeth line is running. Crossrail running 24tph will have a service frequency that is very similar to many tube lines i.e the Piccadilly & Northern lines that both also operate 24tph. Actually it is TFL's railway as they are the party that have allowed MTR the future operators to run the concession for the line and MTR operates the railway on their behalf. Also don't TFL own most of the central London infrastructure admittedly not the eastern and western branches.
I also wasn't suggesting that all groups of seats are to be dispensed with due to the needs of central London passengers just that they should use the Metropolitan Line where there are a group of 4 seats on one side of the train and the normal transverse seats on the other side this doesn't look to be the case on the class 345's that likely will increase dwell times and will cause delays for all customers not just those in central London.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 5, 2016 20:40:59 GMT
ianvisits' latest post in an interesting comparison of seating vs standing capacity as a proportion of the total capacity of Class 345s vs other current tube stocks. The 345s will have 450 seats per train, more than any tube line, and the 70% standing is decidedly mid-table (Bakerloo and Northern 69%, Jubilee 76%). It doesn't though compare with NR stocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 5, 2016 22:52:50 GMT
Actually it is TFL's railway as they are the party that have allowed MTR the future operators to run the concession for the line and MTR operates the railway on their behalf. Also don't TFL own most of the central London infrastructure admittedly not the eastern and western branches. To be pedantic Crossrail / the 'Elizabeth Line' not TFLs railway regardless of what the PR may tell you. Its a joint venture - and in terms of route miles NR has responsibility for far more of it than TfL does. TfL only own, and thus have ultimate rights over the section from Royal Oak to Pudding Mill lane / Abbey Wood - which does admittedly cover the busiest and most costly part of the Crossrail scheme. From Stratford eastwards signalling, electrical control, regulation of services, etc will be done by Liverpool Street IECC or Romford ROC - i.e. totally under control of NR. From Old Oak westwards signalling, electrical control & regulation of services, etc will be done by the TVSC at Didcot - again a 100% NR operation. West of Paddington and East of Stratford Crossrail is simply just another TOC and has to confirm to the rules pertaining to all TOCs using Network Rail infrastructure. Between Paddington and Pudding Mill Lane / Abbey Wood TfL have control and can set the rules because it does not form part of the national railway infrastructure. This is how the East London line is operated. North of New Cross Gate it is a TfL owned and operated railway. South of there it is a 100% Network rail owned and operated system. When disruption occurs on the Network Rail side then the normal response of TfL is to turn everything round at New Cross Gate and stop running into NR. When Crossrail opens I expect the same thing will apply - problems / Engineering work on the GWML will see most or all Crossrail services curtailed at Paddington while problems / Engineering work on the GEML could see everything sent to Abbey Wood (remember Crossrail will connect to the GEML before Stratford station - which remains NR infrastructure). Thus if TfL want 30tph then infrastructure constraints and the need to accommodate other operators on the GWML / GEML means that the extra trains will have to be confined to a relatively small part (admittedly the busiest) sections of the Crossrail operation. All in all not very tube like - regardless of what the publicity material says. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,763
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 5, 2016 22:57:27 GMT
Actually that sounds exactly like the Bakerloo line suspending north of Queen's Park whenever there is a fault on NR's infrastructure and nobody is arguing that isn't a tube line.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Aug 5, 2016 23:00:18 GMT
Anyone travelling from Reading to London will be unlikely to use the half hourly service on Crossrail. They have faster options. It may be used for intermediate journeys where the trains will not be crush loaded. This is quite true - but please show me where Crossrail are saying this? The Crossrail promotional material is effectively 'me, me, me' in tone and waxes lyrical about how great its service will be (including journey times that simply don't stack up according to industry insiders familiar with GWML timetabling) when for stations on the outer GWML the truth is rather different. If you are a commuter from Twyford or Langley who currently has an on board toilet, transverse seating and possibly has the opportunity to travel first class you are unlikely to be impressed by the Crossrail offering - even if the trains are longer and powered by electricity - A semi-fast GWR service would be far more to the users taste (and some will be retained post Crossrail - which is another reason this talk of 30tph is not realistic) yet very little is said about this option. The outer stations do have toilets which are being maintained (I was charged with managing the maintenance of the MTR Crossrail station toilets out east for the first 6 months) and commuted from Paddington to Hayes and Harlington for 18 months before that. The new trains will be appreciated by most passengers as a big step up from the existing trains. The penalties for individual toilets being out of use are severe and cut in after 1 hour. When I say I commuted from Paddington, I actually live near Woolwich and with walks and connections the journey took 2 hours. This time will be halved and a seat all the way compared with today. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 5, 2016 23:12:39 GMT
Crossrail running 24tph will have a service frequency that is very similar to many tube lines i.e the Piccadilly & Northern lines that both also operate 24tph. Actually it is TFL's railway as they are the party that have allowed MTR the future operators to run the concession for the line and MTR operates the railway on their behalf. Also don't TFL own most of the central London infrastructure admittedly not the eastern and western branches. Thameslink will also run 24tph through the core - but that is not being treated as a tube line despite the fact that between places like London Bridge and St Pancras it will have just as many trains and be just as attractive to north - south users as Crossrail will be for east - west movements Crossrail cannot run much more than 12 tph to Stratford and destinations further east while the western branch on the GWML is similarly constrained - yet most tube lines have more than 24tph well into the suburbs. If frequncy is your yardstick then outside the central area Crossrail actually performs quite poorly compared to the tube. Furthermore various London Overground services operate at anything from 2tph up to 6tph and do appear on the tube map alongside tube services running at a much grater frequency - do people think of the Overground as tube lines too? If so what does that say about using frequency as the defining characteristic Crossrail (and Thameslink) in reality deserve their own distinctive service grouping precisely because they are very different from the traditional tube network. Paris makes a clear distinction between its RER network and its metro system - why is it not possible for London to do the same? |
|
Dom K
Global Moderator
The future is bright
Posts: 1,831 
|
Post by Dom K on Aug 5, 2016 23:17:42 GMT
Members, I am the 2nd Mod to get involved in this thread. You have been advised to not stray off topic on more than one occasion, however there is still persistent arguing the toss about whether it's a tube line or not, and that is not what this thread is for. You have been warned, now the thread will be locked. We are all for good and mature discussion, but ignoring the advice from the staff here is never wise. Please take this as some good advice that you should stick to the topic. We have now seen the Crossrail stock, therefore this thread is now locked. Thanks
|
|
