stuving
|
|
« Reply #1245 on: November 09, 2019, 13:36:43 » |
|
Even before that rescheduling announcement, I wondered if there was anything in TfL» board meeting (or similar) minutes worth looking for. But, before doing that I checked on London Reconnections to see what they have to say. And I found that Pedantic of Purley has written a detailed report and commentary on the 23rd October meeting of the Programmes & Investment Committee (with someone who attended). Obviously it's long and complicated (like Crossrail), but tells us that Mark Wild said the tunnel opening (phase 3) date was already up against the right-hand window frame. The announcement follows on from that by demolishing enough of the adjoining wall to insert a new window at least as wide as the old one. Two other points I note from that article (without checking its source): first that lower priority is being given to how soon the tunnel is in use, and more to completing the full testing process. Put like that it sounds like a false distinction doesn't it? Curtailing testing was surely never going to be an option offered to TfL. Perhaps it should say a lower priority given to promising an early date for the core opening. The other point is about signalling: One of the bits of good news was that Mark was confident that TfL could be running Class 345 trains to Heathrow Terminal 4 in “the early part” of 2020 now that issues with the signalling have been identified as solvable – if not already solved. I never could see how this was an EMC▸ problem, just a "normal" difficult environment for which solutions can be found. Incidentally, I just found the formal application from Network rail for an exemption from RSAR199 covering " GW▸ 0 to 12mp", i.e. out to Airport Junction. It allows enhanced TPWS▸ to be used on 345s and 387s from service start (2019 - at least in the text) to 2023, in place of the promised ETCS▸ which is still not quite ready.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CyclingSid
|
|
« Reply #1246 on: November 10, 2019, 10:25:50 » |
|
The one thing that struck me from that report was the fact that the new trains have a reliability of 500 miles between failures (MTBF), as opposed to 20,000 or 60,000 on other stock. That is about a dozen trips between Paddington and Reading. My relaibility engineering is far to rusty to produce figures to cover that sort of reliability, but I would imagine they would need a lot of spare trains. Also might make the December timetable "interesting",
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #1247 on: November 11, 2019, 14:54:44 » |
|
My relaibility engineering is far to rusty to produce figures to cover that sort of reliability, but I would imagine they would need a lot of spare trains. Also might make the December timetable "interesting",
Not going through the tunnels means there are more than enough spare 345s as can be seen lined up at OOC▸ . If pushed there's 5 more at Worksop! I've alsways said since this Crossrail was announced to Maidenhead that it didn't work West of Pdd or to cinceed a little the airport.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
stuving
|
|
« Reply #1248 on: November 11, 2019, 15:02:38 » |
|
The one thing that struck me from that report was the fact that the new trains have a reliability of 500 miles between failures (MTBF), as opposed to 20,000 or 60,000 on other stock. That is about a dozen trips between Paddington and Reading. My relaibility engineering is far to rusty to produce figures to cover that sort of reliability, but I would imagine they would need a lot of spare trains. Also might make the December timetable "interesting",
Given they are still, if not formally testing, then trying out as well as training drivers, I suspect the category "failures" includes a lot of things that won't arise later on. Of course they do need to cope with real failures at the expected initially high rate too, and make sure they slide well down into their bathtub.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #1249 on: November 25, 2019, 08:48:46 » |
|
From BuildingTroubled Bond Street now ‘likely’ to open when rest of Crossrail does, boss says
By Jordan Marshall, 25 November 2019
Station had been due to finish after rest of central section
Crossrail has said that Bond Street station is now likely to open when the rest of the line does.
The station had been due to open after the rest of the line – which had been given an opening window of between October next year and March 2021.
Earlier this month the railway said it wouldn’t open at all next year with chief executive Mark Wild promising an update on when it would early next year, adding that the “central section will be substantially complete by the end of the first quarter in 2020, except for Bond Street and Whitechapel stations where work will continue”.
But Wild told a Transport for London board meeting last week it was now “increasingly likely” the station, being built by a Costain/Skanska joint venture, will be ready at the same time as the rest of the route.
He did not say whether this was because the central section has slipped so much it will now match Bond Street’s opening date or whether the station has managed to catch up with the rest of the route having been handed extra manpower and money. My bolding. I like Jordan's analysis.
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
|
|
|
ray951
|
|
« Reply #1250 on: November 25, 2019, 09:05:48 » |
|
tfl Trains 'soft' launched from Reading today, the first service being the 9P17 0732 Reading to Paddington
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gordon the Blue Engine
|
|
« Reply #1251 on: November 25, 2019, 09:47:05 » |
|
I'm sitting On 345 011, which is to-day operating the 0948 Reading - Padd. Just been announced as a Tfl service. At least 2 security guards on board. UPDATE later.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gordon the Blue Engine
|
|
« Reply #1252 on: November 25, 2019, 10:26:40 » |
|
Hopped off at Slough. 345's are bright, have a very good ride, very sure footed with no wheelslip despite quite hard acceleration. In this respect better than 387's. Also motor noise almost imperceptible, again better than 387's. There were a few surprised passengers. SO this was a Crossrail owned train, operated by Tf l, with MTR drivers, operated on behalf of GWR▸ .
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BBM
|
|
« Reply #1253 on: November 25, 2019, 11:39:39 » |
|
Geoff Marshall of 'All The Stations' fame has posted some photos in his Twitter account. Apparently the 16.56 PAD» - MAI▸ and the 18.42 PAD- RDG‡ will be 345s tonight.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #1254 on: November 25, 2019, 11:42:34 » |
|
tfl Trains 'soft' launched from Reading today, the first service being the 9P17 0732 Reading to Paddington
A very sensible thing to do. I'm sure mountains of paperwork and virtual paperwork were required mind you.
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
|
|
|
Celestial
|
|
« Reply #1255 on: November 25, 2019, 11:48:20 » |
|
Geoff Marshall of 'All The Stations' fame has posted some photos in his Twitter account. Apparently the 16.56 PAD» - MAI▸ and the 18.42 PAD- RDG‡ will be 345s tonight. Given those services would normally have toilets, I wonder whether GWR▸ is advising people of the lack of facilities before they board.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
broadgage
|
|
« Reply #1256 on: November 25, 2019, 12:03:38 » |
|
I can foresee a lot of complaints about the lack of toilets. Some people might consider this to be a downgrade, withdrawing a facility previously available. And yes I know that it is a different operator, but to the average passenger "old trains had toilets. New trains do not have toilets"
I can also foresee a lot of arguments over fares. IIRC▸ the plan is that lower fares between Paddington and Reading will apply on the downgraded TFL▸ services and higher fares on the GWR▸ services. A significant number of passengers may try to pay the lower fare but use the better GWR trains.
|
|
|
Logged
|
A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard. It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc. A 5 car DMU▸ is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
|
|
|
onthecushions
|
|
« Reply #1257 on: November 25, 2019, 12:07:28 » |
|
A notice appeared at Reading trying to explain to us simple Berkshire country folk the changes that TfL» will make in December. Apart from free rides for Freedom pass holders (but not for us) and four of their ominous offspring, the enigmatic phrase "TfL train" was used without explanation.
This has the potential for many tears with the subtle differences in ticketing etc. Many travellers will not hold current Ian Allan Certificates and are likely to miss the difference between a white and green train, at least in the short term.
It would help if a colour poster showing the differences (and seat plans) were displayed.
OTC
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #1258 on: November 25, 2019, 13:01:09 » |
|
I can foresee a lot of complaints about the lack of toilets. Some people might consider this to be a downgrade, withdrawing a facility previously available. And yes I know that it is a different operator, but to the average passenger "old trains had toilets. New trains do not have toilets"
I agree. Comparison is made with longer tube journeys that have never had toilets to justify the decision, and of course having toilets costs more in terms of maintenance and depot facilities, but on balance I think the wrong decision has been made. Potential problems with stranded trains, current passengers being used to having them ( IIRC▸ correctly even the Class 117s that pre-dated the Turbos had them), and quite significant journey times are all counter reasons. There needn't have been lots of them - just three on a 9-car train would have been fine, one Universal Access Toilet next to the disabled spaces in the centre (fifth) carriage of the train and two standard design toilets at the inner ends of the second and eighth vehicles. In other words a very modest sacrifice of seating/standing room would have been needed.
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
|
|
|
Reading General
|
|
« Reply #1259 on: November 25, 2019, 13:13:14 » |
|
Spot on, on the cushions. Much like buses people don’t necessarily see the difference between types of train or train operators. Once ‘inside’ the barriers people see everything as the same, they look at a departure board, see the name of where they want to go and head for that platform regardless of what turns up. The idea from the industry that everyone is railway operation minded is what’s caused the public to assume that crossrail is a brand new right of way to london, rather than a tunnel in the middle of London, as it doesn’t get mentioned in any adverts or reports on it. It is quite amazing how many people I have spoke to who were under that impression, two estate agents included. The public shouldn’t be held accountable for not knowing the difference between train operators it’s the governments fault. We are supposed to be aiming for a unified system, rather than pitting operators against each other with different rules. As I’ve said before I can’t see how it’s fair and within the rules as one company can subsidise it’s fares the other can’t. A take over of the relief line is what i see.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|