Class 387 coming to Thames Valley - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

The Ribena bods are "Ambassadors"

[Adelante_CCT]

Just need to see what happens on P13 between 1754 and 1820 this evening (maybe 2R53 and 2P71 are only 4 car), but it looks like the inherently less than optimally safe practice of platform sharing (ie trains sharing a platform without the protection of controlled signals) at Reading may have come to an end.  Hurray!

Well it would appear both the arrivals from Oxford and Paddington use P13, so I'm guessing 2R53 is only a 4 car?

[ITGuy]

As a longtime Maidenhead-Paddington commuter who's been lurking here for a few months I thought I'd join in on this week's fun.

The 0733 actually arrived at MAI^▸ (Maidenhead station) on time this morning (1st time this week). It was packed as expected - looked like a dozen free seats per car. I got onto car 7 and stood for the trip. We arrived ~7 mins late. The previous version of this service was about 50% full (people stood when it was a 4 car 387). Prior to that it was a 6 car turbo (Henley train) that was always packed by the time it arrived at MAI. So after £millions spent we're back to where we started. Air con probably trumps comfy seats/1st class in the summer.

Evenings I get the 1819. This was only 8 cars this evening but as others have commented the rear 4 are largely a waste of time if they're not going to be platformed at MAI or TWY^▸ (Twyford station). I don't know how many people would use this train to go from PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) to Reading but I wouldn't have thought many. Either they need to extend the platforms or move the signal so that cars 3-10 are platformed instead of 1-8. That would allow the rear set to be useful and so spread people out. Never going to happen I know. Space wise it's the same crush as the 1818 this replaces.

What does look to be an improvement is that the abysmal 1842 PAD-MAI (ne Bourne End) has finally been killed off and replaced with a proper fast service. It's almost like having the long lamented 1833/1836 re-instated. Not sure about the 18:48 replacing the 1906.

[Timmer]

A very warm welcome to the forum ITGuy and many thanks for your report on how things went for you this week.

[Electric train]

Evenings I get the 1819. This was only 8 cars this evening but as others have commented the rear 4 are largely a waste of time if they're not going to be platformed at MAI^▸ (Maidenhead station) or TWY^▸ (Twyford station). I don't know how many people would use this train to go from PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) to Reading but I wouldn't have thought many. Either they need to extend the platforms or move the signal so that cars 3-10 are platformed instead of 1-8. That would allow the rear set to be useful and so spread people out. Never going to happen I know. Space wise it's the same crush as the 1818 this replaces.

What does look to be an improvement is that the abysmal 1842 PAD-MAI (ne Bourne End) has finally been killed off and replaced with a proper fast service. It's almost like having the long lamented 1833/1836 re-instated. Not sure about the 18:48 replacing the 1906.

Maidenhead is planned to have extensions for 12 car trains, Twyford I do not believe is getting platform 4 extended due to the road bridge and connection to the branch, not sure about plat 3 if that is in the plan

[stuving]

Maidenhead is planned to have extensions for 12 car trains, Twyford I do not believe is getting platform 4 extended due to the road bridge and connection to the branch, not sure about plat 3 if that is in the plan

Twyford P3 is already 244 m long. Oddly, P2 is only 187 m long. P4 I think could be stretched just a little from its current 180 m, but the benefit/cost curve doesn't really support it (let alone 240 m).

PS: I see that P4 in the TPR^▸ (The Pensions Regulator) is 250 m long, presumably only available for a train coming off the branch. That's not mentioned in the Sectional Appendix, and does seem a bit - theoretical. More than that, isn't that curving platform edge not only useless but dangerous? Even if the carriages at that end don't open their doors, a passenger might want to lean across and try to open them. I'm surprised that part of the platform edge hasn't been taken up and fenced off; as I say it's not as if it's even going to be needed - or is there a plan for extending Henley to take a 12-car? (And of what stock?)

[IndustryInsider]

With the signal on platform 3 at Twyford moved to the end of the platform, and a small extension which is ongoing it should be good for 12 cars within a few months (it virtually is now).  The same for platforms 1 and 2 where work is ongoing.  Platform 4 would cost an awful lot to extend as has been said - the only way to do it would be to replace the bridge at the London end, so it will probably stay as it is.  Like Stuving, I am surprised it is not fenced off.

So, with platform three already able to hold a 12 car (or, 11 at least) the only reason it is still SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) 8 is the length of other platforms, as the full ASDO^▸ (Automatic Selective Door Operation) system which automatically recognises what platform a train is at hasn’t been installed so the system limits it to 8 because of the length at other platforms.  Presumably that system will be deployed on 387s eventually otherwise the unextended platform 4 will continue to restrict them to SDO 8 regardless of platform.

Maidenhead has yet to see any extension works, ditto Slough (except for platform 4), So it will be a while yet before anything will change there.

If I was a commuter on the 17:49 or 18:19 for Maidenhead and Twyford I’d be getting a seat in carriage 9 or 10 and walking through.

[didcotdean]

P3 at Didcot will also be able to take a 12-car 387 when the extension to it is completed, although this work was originally aimed at 2*5 IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train).

[Electric train]

With the signal on platform 3 at Twyford moved to the end of the platform, and a small extension which is ongoing it should be good for 12 cars within a few months (it virtually is now).  The same for platforms 1 and 2 where work is ongoing.  Platform 4 would cost an awful lot to extend as has been said - the only way to do it would be to replace the bridge at the London end, so it will probably stay as it is.  Like Stuving, I am surprised it is not fenced off.

So, with platform three already able to hold a 12 car (or, 11 at least) the only reason it is still SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) 8 is the length of other platforms, as the full ASDO^▸ (Automatic Selective Door Operation) system which automatically recognises what platform a train is at hasn’t been installed so the system limits it to 8 because of the length at other platforms.  Presumably that system will be deployed on 387s eventually otherwise the unextended platform 4 will continue to restrict them to SDO 8 regardless of platform.

Maidenhead has yet to see any extension works, ditto Slough (except for platform 4), So it will be a while yet before anything will change there.

If I was a commuter on the 17:49 or 18:19 for Maidenhead and Twyford I’d be getting a seat in carriage 9 or 10 and walking through.

My sources tell me that the platform extension work Maidenhead and west there off is being done by GWEP^▸ (Great Western Electrification Program) and not Crossrail.

I assume the reason nothing is done about the curved part of platform 4 at Twyford is the max length of passenger train cleared for the Henley branch, which I assume is a 5 car 165/6

[stuving]

My sources tell me that the platform extension work Maidenhead and west there off is being done by GWEP^▸ (Great Western Electrification Program) and not Crossrail.

I assume the reason nothing is done about the curved part of platform 4 at Twyford is the max length of passenger train cleared for the Henley branch, which I assume is a 5 car 165/6

But that's precisely why I though that curve was not needed. If a 5-car 165 won't (quite) fit in P5 (110m), it will in P4 without stopping round the bend. If it's going on- or off-shift to Reading, it needs to be clear of the points anyway. It's almost impossible to platform a train using the curve unless it has 12 carriages and is going to/from Henley.

As for who is responsible for the work - or more accurately who is responsible for not doing it - it's unclear and may not matter. Weren't NR^» (Network Rail - home page) doing the "on-network" work for Crossrail anyway? The NR delivery plan isn't much help since it's so out of date (June 2016 for the "Thames Valley Electric Multiple Unit Capability Works"). However, it does say (and this dated June 2017) "The Crossrail project will deliver a new integrated railway route through central London from Reading and Heathrow in the west to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east". Which isn't what I understood, but as I say does it matter if neither has done it?

[BBM]

I went to TWY^▸ (Twyford station) late this morning for a quick lunchtime trip to RDG^‡(resolve) intending to get the 1202 departure (2N31 1115 PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains)). I was rather surprised to see it come to a halt with the front of the train just ahead of the DR to UR crossover to the east of the station. At the same time 2P45 1155 RDG-PAD was approaching from the west but it came to a stand just before the points to the Henley branch.

There were no announcements at the station but checking GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) Twitter it appeared that the delay was due to a 'safety inspection on a train'. Eventually 2P45 moved forward and departed P4 some 20 minutes late at slow speed past 2N31. A few minutes later that train moved forward into P3 with a lowered pantograph on the front unit. After another delay the train finally left TWY some 30 minutes late and terminated at RDG with the pantograph still down on the front unit.

Anyone know what happened?

[a-driver]

I went to TWY^▸ (Twyford station) late this morning for a quick lunchtime trip to RDG^‡(resolve) intending to get the 1202 departure (2N31 1115 PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains)). I was rather surprised to see it come to a halt with the front of the train just ahead of the DR to UR crossover to the east of the station. At the same time 2P45 1155 RDG-PAD was approaching from the west but it came to a stand just before the points to the Henley branch.

There were no announcements at the station but checking GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) Twitter it appeared that the delay was due to a 'safety inspection on a train'. Eventually 2P45 moved forward and departed P4 some 20 minutes late at slow speed past 2N31. A few minutes later that train moved forward into P3 with a lowered pantograph on the front unit. After another delay the train finally left TWY some 30 minutes late and terminated at RDG with the pantograph still down on the front unit.

Anyone know what happened?

ADD^▸ (Automatic Dropping Device) activiation on 2N31. Driver had to inspect the pantograph on 2N31 for damage and I believe the driver of the following train carried out an OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) inspection followed by an inspection by overhead line engineers.  No damage was found.

[didcotdean]

From journey check a 387 has been turbo-stuted today: 'more trains than usual needing repairs at the same time' ...

[a-driver]

From journey check a 387 has been turbo-stuted today: 'more trains than usual needing repairs at the same time' ...

41 387’s are required with a fleet size of 42.

[Timmer]

41 387’s are required with a fleet size of 42.

That's way too tight. Are there still more to come from Derby?