Will Crossrail Open To Reading in 2019?
The latest rather dodgy date for the opening of Crossrail’s Core Tunnel is Autumn 2019.
In the January 2019 Edition of Modern Railways, there is an article, which is entitled Crossrail Can’t Commit To Autumn Opening.
This a paragraph from the article.
TfL also says that it is exploring with DfT the possibility of beginning to operate Reading to Paddington services ahead of the completion of the Elizabeth Line to help provide a boost in revenue.
This is a very interesting possibility.
How Much Work Is Still To Be Done To The West of Hayes & Harlington?
This is the key factor as to whether Western Branch of Crossrail can be opened.
- The biggest problem is that Class 345 trains can’t run to Heathrow as there are signalling issues to eradicate.
- There are also several stations, that need to be completed.
There is no work-round to the first problem, but trains seem to be able to call at the unfinished stations.
It would appear, that for TfL’s proposal to be taken fully forward, the signalling issues to and from Heathrow, must be dealt with.
The stations can be finished later.
The Current Proposed Crossrail Service To Reading And Maidenhead
These are the proposed services shown on Wikipedia, so they could have been updated.
Reading To Paddington – Limited Stop
This service will be run at two trains per hour (tph) in the Peak with no trains in the Off-Peak.
Stops are Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, West Drayton and Ealing Broadway.
Reading To Paddington – All Stations
This service will be run at two tph all day.
The service will call at all stations except Hanwell and Acton Main Line.
Maidenhead To Paddington
This service will be run at two tph all day.
The service will call at all stations except Hanwell and Acton Main Line.
A Summary Of Peak/Off Peak Calls
Adding these service up, gives the following numbers for Peak and Off Peak calls in trains per hour (tph)
- Reading – 4,2
- Twyford – 4,2
- Maidenhead – 6,4
- Taplow – 4.4
- Burnham 4,4
- Slough – 6,4
- Langley – 4,4
- Iver – 4,4
- West Drayton – 6,4
- Hayes & Harlington – 4.4
- Southall – 4,4
- Hanwell – None to Reading/Maidenhead
- West Ealing – 4.4
- Ealing Broadway – 6,4
- Acton Main Line – None to Reading/Maidenhead
- Paddington – 6,4
Note.
- 4,2 means 4 tph in the Peak and 2 tph in the Off Peak.
- It would appear that all stations except Reading and Twyford have at least four tph all day.
- Stations between Hayes & Harlington and Ealing Broadway will get another six tph all day going to Heathrow.
- Acton Main Line station will get another four tph all day going to Heathrow.
This gives the following frequencies.
- Reading – 4,2
- Twyford – 4,2
- Maidenhead – 6,4
- Taplow – 4.4
- Burnham 4,4
- Slough – 6,4
- Langley – 4,4
- Iver – 4,4
- West Drayton – 6,4
- Hayes & Harlington – 10,10
- Southall – 10,10
- Hanwell – 6,6
- West Ealing – 10,10
- Ealing Broadway – 12,10
- Acton Main Line – 4,4
- Paddington – 12,10
I can draw these conclusions from the figures.
- Every station has a good service from Crossrail.
- But could Reading and Twyford have another two tph in the Off-Peak to make the services four tph all day?
- Paddington station would need perhaps two or three platforms dedicated to Crossrail to handle twelve tph.
- The maximum frequency of 12 tph should be easily handled with conventional signalling and could be increased with modern digital signalling.
It looks like running the Western services of Crossrail from Paddington could be a possibility.
Consider.
- The Reading and Maidenhead services will be run on routes with mainly conventional signalling.
- The Class 345 trains, which each can hold 1,500 passengers would give a massive capacity boost to the outer Crossrail stations.
- Heathrow services can be run with Class 345 trains, when the signalling problems are solved.
- Higher frequencies to and from Paddington may enable trains to provide a better interchange with branch line services, at West Ealing, Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford.
But I think that separating these services initially from Crossrail will have substantial operational and development benefits.
- Paddington to Reading is essentially a self-contained railway, with a major branch to Heathrow and four small branch lines worked by diesel shuttle trains.
- The route, with the exception of the Heathrow branch, has conventional signalling.
- The signalling problems of the Heathrow branch can be solved independently.
- The Western branches of Crossrail could be fully debugged before trains start running through the Core Tunnel.
I also wonder, if the route could be useful for mileage accumulation, driver training and certification of newly-delivered trains.
Is It Just About The Money?
The original Modern Railways extract said that the proposal was to help provide TfL with extra revenue.
It must bring in revenue and especially when the Heathrow Branch is working reliably to plan.
Faster Journeys
Modern Class 345 trains have the following advantages over the current British Rail-era Class 156 trains.
- They are slightly faster.
- They have better acceleration.
- They are modern trains designed for short dwell times at stations.
It would be very likely, that journey times between Paddington and Reading, will improve..
Passenger Behaviour
But passengers may change their behaviour .
- Will passengers use Crossrail as a lower-cost alternative to Heathrow Express?
- Will passengers use Crossrail as a faster alternative to the Piccadilly Line?
- Will passengers, going between Heathrow and the West and Wales, use Crossrail to and from Reading, with a change at Hayes & Harlingon?
- Will passengers on branch lines find the extra capacity helpful, when travelling to London or Reading?
In addition, as I said earlier, I think opening Paddington to Reading early,, could make finishing the Crossrail project easier.
If nothing else, it shortens the to-do list!
GWR Might Object
Will GWR object to losing their local services between Reading and London to Crossrail?
Consider the following issues.
Heathrow Express
GWR have taken over the lucrative Heathrow Express.
- Heathrow Express will be run using 110 mph Class 387 trains in an Airport Express configuration.
- Will these trains be less of a block on the line, than the 100 mph Class 332 trains currently running the service?
- Currently both Class 332 and Class 800 trains take nine 9½ minutes to go between Paddington and Heathrow Airport Junction.
Perhaps GWR could squeeze in extra trains, by replacing the Class 332 trains with faster Class 387 trains?
The more trains they could squeeze into Paddington, the larger their revenue.
Reading, Bedwyn and Oxford Services
I am not sure, but it does appear that GWR services to places like Bedwyn and Oxford will in future be run using the new five-car Class 802 trains.
- The trains will surely use electric traction on the fast lines to Paddington.
- Will passengers going between Bedwyn/Oxford and stations between Reading and Paddington, be happy to change at Reading?
As it appears that Bedwyn/Oxford services might not need to use the slow lines, these will be used exclusively by Crossrail and the occasional freight.
Could Bedwyn And Oxford Services Be Combined?
There is also the possibility that to save paths on the fast lines between Reading and Paddington, that hourly Bedwyn and Oxford services could be combined and split at Reading.
- GWR already splits and joins Class 387 trains at Reading.
- Class 800/802 trains are designed to be split and joined quickly.
- Timings to the two destinations are about the same, being around 75 minutes.
Two five-car Class 802 trains with one running to Bedwyn and one to Oxford might be a good idea. Especially, as it saves one high-speed path between Paddington and Reading and possibly a few trains.
It does look, that Oxford and Bedwyn services could be moved out of the way of Crossrail services.
Will There Be Enough Class 800/802 Trains?
In Huge Increase In Capacity On GWR As Final Class 800 Enters Traffic, I wrote that there are now only fifteen trains of a total fleet of 93 trains to be delivered.
I suspect that GWR can find enough trains to run Bedwyn/Oxford services to London.
Too Many Class 387 Trains!
But it does strike me that GWR will have too many Class 387 trains, if Crossrail takes over local services to Reading and Class 802 trains take over services to Bedwyn and Oxford.
Twelve Class 387 trains are being converted to take over Heathrow Express services, but that still leaves GWR with 33 trains to find a use for.
It seems like Greater Anglia’s twenty Class 379 trains, they could become homeless orphans.
Will The Class 769 Trains Get In The Way?
Original plans talked about using 100 mph Class 769 trains to back up the Class 387 trains, whilst twelve of these were updated to Heathrow Express standard.
But it appears now from Wikipedia and other sources on the Internet, that these trains will concentrate on the following services.
- Reading To Gatwick Airport
- Reading to Oxford
I can’t find any reference of them continuing to serve Paddington, so it looks like they should keep out of the way.
Serving The Henley And Marlow Branches
Henley-on-THames station on the Henley Branch Line and Bourne End station on the Marlow Branch Line are having their Peak services to London gradually withdrawn.
If Crossrail took over services between Reading and Paddington, the frequencies in the Peak at the interchange stations would be.
- Maindenhead for the Marlow Branch Line – 6 tph,
- Twyford for the Henley Branch Line – 4 tph
Two tph at each interchange station run limited stop to and from Paddington.
The trains will each hold 1,500 passengers.
Could it be that GWR feel that the increased frequencies and reduced journey times to and from Paddington mean that there is a lesser need to run a direct diesel service.
But I could see the following.
- A four-car shuttle train, which could be a Class 769 bi-mode, at two tph on the Henley Branch Line.
- Two tph on the Marlow Branch Line.
At least GWR have the trains to provide a service to match customer demand.
I also wouldn’t be surprised to see a radical plan for these branches.
No Diesel Running Into Paddington
Every train run by GWR and Crossrail, between Paddington and Reading, would use electric traction.
- Now that large numbers of Class 800/802 trains have been delivered, it can’t be long before the last InterCity 125 runs into Paddington on a regular service.
- Class 165 and Class 166 diesel trains will be refurbished and sent to the West Country.
- Bedwyn and Oxford services will be run by Class 800/802 trains.
In addition all GWR trains running into Paddington will be 125 mph units running on electricity.
What is that worth as a marketing hook?
Conclusion
It looks to me, that running a full Western Branch service for Crossrail could be a good move.
So will it happen in 2019?
I think it all depends on solving the signalling issues on the Heathrow Branch!
But I feel, it should be possible, otherwise TfL wouldn’t have suggested it!
To Ely In A Class 387 Train
I’ve not used one of the Class 387 trains on this route before.
It was nice to get a table to be able to lay my paper flat.
I was going via Ely to Ipswich for two reasons.
- Yet again, there was no direct service between Liverpool Street and Ipswich.
- Ely makes a change from Cambridge and I wanted to photograph the level crossing.
These are some of the pictures I took.
Note.
- With a bit of smartening up, the Class 387 train makes the newer Class 700 train, look very ordinary.
- The Ely by-pass is coming on.
- The level crossing by the station is one of the UK’s worst.
Ely is becoming a much more important interchange, with five train operating companies using the station.
GWR Announces Plans To Replace Class 332s As It Takes Over Heathrow Express Service
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on Global Rail News.
In some ways, I was surprised that Heathrow Airport are handing over the running of Heathrow Express to Great Western Railway (GWR).
But.
- It seems, that the main problem, in that HS2 want their depot for construction of their new line.
- GWR will use twelve Class 387 trains to run the service as opposed to the the current fourteen Class 332 trains.
- The new trains will be updated with First Class, high speed wi-fi and more luggage space.
- The deal seems to run to 2028.
I do think, that the main reason could be, that this gives FirstGroup or MTR Corporation a say in all the railways, serving or going near Heathrow Airport.
- GWR is owned by FirstGroup.
- Crossrail is operated by MTR on begalf of Transport for London.
- South Western Railway is a joint venture between FirstGroup and MTR.
The operation of Heathrow Express by GWR completes the set.
My post; MTR Vying To Join Heathrow Southern Rail Bid, could link MTR to the proposed Heathrow Southern Railway, who are hoping to create a link into Heathrow Airport from the South.
One of the plans of Heathrow Southern Railway is to create a new Basingstoke/Guildford – Woking – Heathrow – Paddington service.
- This would have a frequency of two trains per hour (tph) between Paddington and both Basingstoke and Guildford.
- This would mean there would be a four tph Frequency between Paddington and Woking via Heathrow Terminal 5, Heathrow Terminal 2/3 and Old Oak Common.
- Creating the new service by extending Heathrow Express, means that the new service can take-over the paths used by Heathrow Express, to and from Paddington.
- It is also worth noting that the Class 387 trains, that GWR are proposing to use on Heathrow Express are dual-voltage and can run on tracks with third-rail electrification.
Heathrow Express will become a double-ended service, in much the same way that Gatwick Express takes passengers from both London and Brighton to the airport.
GWR taking over Heathrow Express must make the operation of trains to and from Heathrow Airport easier.
Why Change The Trains?
I think there are various reasons.
Operation And Maintenance
Obviously, if GWR uses only Class 387 trains on their shorter electrified routes from Paddington, this gives advantages in terms of operation, maintenance and staff utilisation and training.
I suspect too, that GWR have the depot space and sidings, to accommodate all the Class 387 trains they need.
Increasing Fleet Size
There are two published plans y to increase rail services to Heathrow.
- Heathrow Southern Railway would like to extend Heathrow Express to Woking and ultimately to Basingstoke and Guildford.
- Western access to Heathrow could also be a route for Heathrow Express to perhaps Reading and Oxford.
In the future there could be other services.
- Developments could mean that a Heathrow-Gatwick service could be possible and worthwhile.
- There is speculation in the media, about a direct service between Heathrow and Southampton.
Any expansion of services would probably need more trains.
If they need more Class 387 trains in the future, there are two operators, who have small fleets of Class 387 trains.
- Great Northern have twenty-nine trains.
- c2c have six trains.
Some of these might become available, as the operators consolidate and update their fleets.
Acquiring more Class 332 trains could be problematical.
The Class 387 trains route, means that Heathrow Express will remain a fleet of identical trains.
Operation On Routes With Third Rail Electrification
Any expansion of Heathrow Express to the Western side of Terminal 5 could connect to the extensive network of third-rail electrification.
For this reason, a Heathrow Express fleet without the capability to use third-rail electrification, would be limited in its market.
The Class 387 trains have been designed as dual voltage units and could work on third-rail networks by adding third-rail shoes.
Can Class 332 trains work on third-rail routes?
Operating Speed
The Class 387 trains are also 110 mph trains, whereas the operating speed of the Class 332 trains is 100 mph.
The faster operating speed must help operation on the busy fast lines to and from Paddington, where the Class 800 trains are 125 mph capable.
Train Length Issues
Consider.
- The current Class 332 trains, run as nine-car trains, consisting of one four-car and one five-car trainset.
- Class 387 trains are basically a four-car trainset, which can run as four, eight or twelve-car trains.
- To complicate matters, Crossrail, which will use the same platforms at Heathrow are planning to nine-car Class 345 trains, but these could be lengthened to ten or even eleven cars.
These probably cause no problems with the current service, as running eight-car Class 387 trains would probably provide enough capacity.
Would a twelve-car Class 387 train need some platforms to be lengthened?
A four-car Class 387 unit is 80.77 metres long, so a twelve-car train would be 243 metres long.
This compares with the following.
- Heathrow Express Class 332 – Nine cars – 206 metres.
- Crossrail Class 345 – Nine cars – 205 metres
- High Speed Train running with eight carriages – 220 metres
- Inter-City 225 running with nine carriages – 246 metres
- Two five-car Class 444 trains running togeyther – 230 metres
- Two five-car Class 800 trains running together – 260 metres
A twelve-car Class 387 train is long, but not wildly out of line.
As the pairs of Class 800 trains work into Paddington,, I suspect twelve-car Class 387 trains can do the same.
If there is a problem, it will be in the Hathrow stations.
Alternatively, could some extra cars be built by Bombardier to create five-car trains, that would work as ten-car units, which would be around two hundred metres long?
Joining And Splitting Of Trains
Could Heathrow Express benefit from trains with the ability to split and join?
When there are more than one route to the West from Terminal 5, there may be advantages for trains to split and join in Terminal 5 station, to serve more than one destination to the West of the airport.
This picture was taken, as I watched two Class 387 trains joining together.
Note the driver in the cab on the right, controlling the process.
There is also a gangway between the two Class 387 trains, which the Class 332 trains don’t have.
Updating The Trains
The production of Class 387 trains has only just finished at Derby, but the Class 332 trains were built twenty years ago.
So could it be, that creating a modern fleet with all the features needed is easier with the later trains?
Suitability For Use With Heathrow Southern Railway Proposal
There are various issues here.
These concern fleet size and capacity
- Any extensions to the South and West will need more trains.
- If express services between Basingstoke, Guildford and Woking, and Paddington via Heathrow are successful, this could lead to calls for more services and other destinations, which could need more trains.
- If five-car units were needed, then Bombardier could probably oblige.
- There may be a need to lengthen platforms at the Heathrow stations.
Expanding a Class 387 train fleet would be easier.
There are also line speed issues.
- What would be the design operating speed of Heathrow Southern Railway’s tracks alongside the M25? – 90, 100 or even 125 mph!
- Could the operating speed of the Chertsey Branch Line be increased to the same speed, as there are only two stations; Chertsey and Addlestone?
The 110 mph maximum speed of a Class 387 could be a serious advantage, as speed sells!
How Many Trains Would Need To Be Converted?
Currently, there are fourteen Class 332 trains working Heathrow Express services.
They usually work in pairs, so there are seven trains.
If these are replaced by twelve-car Class 387 formations, that means up to twenty-one trains will be needed for the airport services from their current fleet of forty-five trains.
Eight-car formations would need fourteen trains.
Conclusion
It appears to me, that it is good decision to change the fleet for Class 387 trains.
Overall Conclusion
It’s all coming together for Heathrow Southern Railway.
Regenerative Braking On A Dual-Voltage Train
Yesterday, I found this document on the Railway People website, which is entitled Regenerative Braking On The Third Rail DC Network.
Although, the document dates from 2008, it is very informative.
Regenerative Braking On 25 KVAC Trains
The document says this.
For AC stock, incoming power from the National Grid at high voltage is stepped down by a transformer. The AC power is transmitted via OHL to the trains. When the train uses regenerative braking, the motor is used as a generator, so braking the axle and producing electrical energy. The generated power is then smoothed and conditioned by the train control system, stepped up by a transformer and returned to the outside world. Just about 100% of regenerated power is put back into the UK power system.
But I have read somewhere, that you need a 25 KVAC overhead electrification system with more expensive transformers to handle the returned electricity.
Regenerative Braking On 750 VDC Trains
The document says this.
After being imported from the National Grid, the power is stepped down and then AC power is rectified to DC before being transmitted via the 3rd rail. Regenerated Power can not be inverted, so a local load is required. The power has to be used within the railway network. It cannot be exported.
So the electricity, is usually turned into heat, i there is no train nearby.
The Solution That Was Applied
The document then explains what happened.
So, until such time as ATOC started to lobby for a change, regenerative DC braking was going nowhere. But when they did start, they soon got the backing of the DfT and Network Rail. It takes a real combined effort of all organisations to challenge the limiting assumptions.
In parallel, there were rolling stock developments. The point at which all the issues started to drop away was when the Infrastructure Engineers and Bombardier, helped out by some translating consultants (Booz & Company), started to understand that new trains are really quite clever beasts. These trains do understand what voltage the 3rd rail is at, and are able, without the need to use any complicated switch gear – just using software, to decide when to regenerate into the 3rd rail or alternatively, use the rheostatic resistors that are on the train.
Effectively, the trains can sense from the voltage if the extensive third-rail network can accept any more electricity and the train behaves accordingly.
As most of the electric units with regenerative braking at the time were Bombardier Electrostars, it probably wasn’t the most difficult of tasks to update most of the trains.
Some of the Class 455 trains have recently been updated. So these are now probably compatible with the power network. Do the new traction motors and associated systems use regenerative braking?
This document on the Vossloh-Kiepe web site is entitled Vossloh Kiepe enters Production Phase for SWTs Class 455 EMU Re-Tractioning at Eastleigh Depot and describes the updating of the trains. This is said.
The new IGBT Traction System provides a regenerative braking facility that uses the traction motors as generators when the train is braking. The electrical energy generated is fed back into the 750 V third rail DC supply and offsets the electrical demands of other trains on the same network. Tests have shown that the energy consumption can be reduced by between 10 per cent and 30 per cent, depending on conditions. With the increasing cost of energy, regenerative braking will have a massive positive cost impact on the long-term viability of these trains. If the supply is non-receptive to the regenerated power, the generated power is dissipated by the rheostatic brake.
So thirty-five year old British Rail trains now have a modern energy-saving traction system.
Has The Solution Worked On The Third-Rail Network?
The Railway People document goes on to outline how they solved various issues and judging by how little there is about regenerative braking on the third-rail network, I think we can assume it works well.
One Train, Two Systems
If you have a train that has to work on both the 25 KVAC and 750 VDC networks, as Thameslink and Southeastern Highspeed trains do, the trains must be able to handle regenerative braking on both networks.
So is there a better way, than having a separate system for each voltage?
In Do Class 800/801/802 Trains Use Batteries For Regenerative Braking?, I investigated how Hitachi’s new Class 800 trains handle regenerative braking.
A document on Hitachi’s web site provides this schematic of the traction system.
Note BC which is described as battery charger.
The regenerative braking energy from the traction motors could be distributed as follows.
- To provide power for the train’s services through the auxiliary power supply.
- To charge a battery.
- It could be returned to the overhead wires.
Hitachi’s system illustrates how using a battery to handle regenerative braking could be a very efficient way of running a train.
Hitachi’s diagram also includes a generator unit or diesel power-pack, so it could obviously fit a 750 VDC supply in addition to the 25 KVAC system on the Class 800 train.
So we have now have one train, with three power sources all handled by one system.
What Has Happened Since?
As the Hitachi document dates from 2014, I suspect Hitachi have moved on.
Siemens have produced the Class 700 train for Thameslink, which is described in this Siemens data sheet.
Regenerative braking is only mentioned in this sentence.
These new trains raise energy efficiency to new levels. But energy efficiency does not stop at regenerative braking.
This is just a bland marketing statement.
Bombardier are building the first batches of their new Aventra train, with some Class 345 trains in service and Class 710 trains about to enter testing.
Nothing has been said about how the trains handle regenerative braking.
But given that Bombardier have been experimenting with battery power for some time, I wouldn’t be surprised to see batteries involved.
They call their battery technology Primove and it has its own web site.
There is also this data sheet on the Bombardier web site.
Class 387 Trains
There is another train built by Bombardier, that is worth investigating.
The Class 387 train was the last and probably most advanced Electrostar.
- The trains have been built as dual-voltage trains.
- The trains have regenerative braking that works on both electrification types.
- They were built at around the time Bombardier were creating the Class 379 BEMU demonstrator.
- The trains use a sophisticated propulsion converter system called MITRAC, which is also used in their battery trams.
On my visit to Abbey Wood station, that I wrote about in Abbey Wood Station Opens, I got talking to a Gatwick Express driver about trains, planes and stations, as one does.
From what he said, I got the impression that the Class 387/2 trains, as used on Gatwick Express, have batteries and use them to keep the train and passengers comfortable, in case of an electrification failure.
So do these trains use a battery to handle the regenerative braking?
How Big Would Batteries Need To Be On A Train For Regenerative Braking?
I asked this question in a post with the same name in November 2016 and came to this conclusion.
I have a feeling that using batteries to handle regenerative braking on a train could be a very affordable proposition.
As time goes on, with the development of energy storage technology, the concept can only get more affordable.
Bombardier make a Primove battery with a capacity of 50 kWh, which is 180 mega-Joules.
So the braking energy of what mass of train could be stored in one of these batteries?
I got these figures.
- 100 mph – 180.14 tonnes.
- 110 mph – 148.88 tonnes.
What is the mass of a Class 387 train?
This is not available on the Internet but the mass of each car of a similar Class 378 train averages out at 32 tonnes.
Consider these points.
- A Class 387/2 train, has 219 seats, so if we assume each passenger and baggage weighs eighty kilograms, that adds up to 17.5 tonnes.
- As the Class 387 trains have a maximum speed of 100 mph on third-rail electrification, it would appear that a Primove 50 kWh battery could handle the braking energy.
- A Primove 50 battery with its controller weighs 827 Kg. according to the data sheet.
It all looks like using one of Bombardier’s Primove 50 batteries on a Class 387 train to handle the regenerative braking should be possible.
But would Bombardier’s MITRAC be able to use that battery power to drive the train in the most efficient manner? I suspect so!
If the traction layout is as I have outlined, it is not very different to the one published by Hitachi in 2014 on their web site for the Class 800 train.
Conclusion
Hitachi have got their traction layout right, as it can handle any number of power sources.
The 10:35 From Liverpool Street To Shenfield
I took these pictures on the untimetabled 10:35 TfL Rail service between Liverpool Street and Shenfield stations and on the return to Liverpool Street.
As you can see it is a new Class 345 train.
There were a lot of Crossrail and Transport for London staff about, talking to passengers.
These are my thoughts on various issues.
Ride Quality
This is up with the best or the legendary British Rail Mark 3 coach, which was designed in the 1960s.
One of the Crossrail staff was wearing stiletto heels close to four inches and she was walking up-and-down with no difficulty.
For someone who suffered a bad stroke, my balance is good and I had no difficulty walking along the seven-car train.
Cabin Height And Width
I don’t know how Bombardier have done it, but the cabin seems higher and wider than any other train I’ve ridden in the UK.
Next time, I ride one, I’ll take a couple of tall guys and a tape measure.
Information
The current on-train information is simple, but then as I suspect the screens are software driven, any degree of required complication can be added.
I don’t know whether it is deliberate but everything is large and easy to read. There is also no maps or exhortations about security.
Long may it stay that way!
Simple is efficient!
Seats
Not everybody was completely satisfied with the seats, but I found them much more comfortable than those in the Class 700 trains on Thameslink.
There were some good points.
- The sets of four seats were arranged as they were in the original InterCity 125 around a large window.
- The metro-style seating had a wide aisle in the middle, that would satisfy a basketball team.
- An amply-proportioned man, thought the seats comfortable.
- Most seats had well-designed armrests.
- There was plenty of space under the seats for airline-size carry-on baggage or a labrador.
On the other hand, there were no cupholders, tables or litter bins. But there aren’t any on the Class 378 trains or London Underground‘s S Stock.
Entry And Exit
I feel that trains should be a level step across from the platform.
This train wasn’t as good as a Class 378 train on many Overground stations, but it was better than some.
As many Crossrail stations will be one train type only there is probably scope to get this better.
I regularly see a lady in a simple wheel-chair on the Overground and I feel she would probably be able to wheel herself in and out, which she does at Dalston Junction station with ease.
It should be noted that each coach has three sets of wide double doors and a large lobby, so perhaps a mother with triplets and a baby in a buggy would find entry easier than any train on the Underground.
Walking Up And Down The Train
I found this very easy on a train that was no more than a third full, as it was an extra service to introduce the train to passengers.
There were numerous hand-holds and vertical rails in the centre of the lobbies. Unlike on some trains in France, Italy or Germany, the rails were very simple. They also borrowed heavily from the Overground’s Class 378 trains.
Wi-Fi And 4G
I didn’t try the wi-fi, as it is not something I use very often.
But I was getting a strong 4G signal all the way to and from Shenfield. Was this direct or was I picking up a booster in the train? I suspect it was the latter at some points close to Liverpool Street.
Windows
The windows on the train are large and well-positioned.
The simple seat and window layout, seems to appeal to all classes of rail user.
A Train For Families
When Celia and I had three children under three, with two able to toddle-along (they had too!) and the youngest in his McClaren, I could imagine us taking a train from Barbican station to perhaps go shopping on Oxford Street, sitting in one of those set of four seats by that large window.
A Train For Commuters
The Class 378 trains of the Overground cram them in and the metro layout of much of the Class 345 train will accommodate large numbers of commuters.
I would question, if there are enough seats, but the proof should be apparent by the end of the year, as eleven of the current seven-car trains will be in service between Liverpool Street and Shenfield.
For the full Crossrail service, they will be lengthened to nine cars and there is a possibility of adding a tenth.
A Train For Shoppers
If say, I’d been to Eastfield at Stratford and was coming back to Moorgate heavily loaded with shopping to get a bus home, I could probably put some bags under the seat. Try that on the Underground!
A Train For The Not-So-Young
From what I saw today, I couldn’t make too many observations, as the train wasn’t crowded, but the few older travellers that I did see were smiling at the experience.
A Train For The Disabled
As I’m not disabled, I can’t comment and would love to hear from those who are.
A Train For The Tall
Compared to other trains in London, the headroom seemed to be generous, but then I didn’t see anybody who was much more than six foot.
A Train For The Airport
Class 345 trains will serve Heathrow Airport. I feel they will cope, as the metro layout of the Class 378 trains, seems to accommodate large cases well!
Comparison With A Class 700 Train
The Thameslink Class 700 trains are designed for running over a longer distance at a higher speed and they have toilets.
But for a thirty minute journey through a busy part of London, there is no doubt in my mind, as to which train I would choose.
The Class 345 train, with its large windows, more comfortable seating, space for bags, uncluttered views and the appearance of more space, is undoubtedly in my view a better designed train.
Incidentally, for every metre of a nine-car Class 345 train, 7.31 passengers can be accommodated, as opposed to 7.07 in an eight-car Class 700 train.
I think we can put all this comparison down to Derby 1 – Krefeld 0!
Comparison With A Class 387 Train
The trains will be compared with Bombadier’s last Electrostar, the Class 387 train, which will be in service with GWR between Paddington and Reading, alongside the Class 345 train.
Passengers will be able to take whichever train they want on this route.
Will they choose the Class 387 train, with its tables, very comfortable seats and toilets or the Class 345 train?
I’d choose the Class 387 train, as I like to lay out my newspaper for reading.
No matter what happens Derby wins again.
Moving Forward On Approach To Liverpool Street
I was surprised how many people walked to the front as we approached Liverpool Street.
But were they only demonstrating the Londoners’ ducking and diving ability of getting to the right place for exit.
Regular passengers on regular routes will anticipate their stops and I will be interested to see how much passenger behaviour increases the capacity of the train.
Conclusion
This first Aventra feels like it is a very good train.
Consider how Bombardier improved the Electrostar since it was first produced in 1999.
So what will an Aventra be like in 2035?
A Design Crime – Train Platform Interface At St. Pancras Thameslink
Frank Grdner has been complaining at the problems of travelling on planes in a wheelchair.
I took these pictures of the step between platform and train at St. Pancras Thameslink station.
All of the trains including the 1980s built Class 319 trains seem to require the same step-up into the train.
As the Platforms at the station were built after the Class 319 trains became the most numerous trains on the route, this a real design crime of the highest order.
It would appear that Merseyrail will offer roll-across access with their new trains, so why isn’t Thameslink.
But then in an ideal world, St. Pancras station needs a substantial rebuild underground.
Crossrail Has Power To Maidenhead
This article on Rail Technology Magazine is entitled Crossrail minister rides train as electrification and testing milestones passed.
This is said.
Meanwhile, Crossrail confirmed that electricity is now running on 12 miles of railway between Maidenhead and Heathrow junction (pictured). Over 80% of the wiring programme has now been completed, with 800 workers installing over 1,400 piled foundations and 834 overhead line structures.
So that means, that Crossrail is now live all the way from the main line station at Paddington to Maidenhead.
Will we be seeing GWR’s Class 387 trains to Maidenhead from Paddington in the near future?
The Definitive Branch Line For An Electric Train With On Board Energy Storage
In Curious Rail Construction At Ipswich Station, I described how the current five-car Platform 1 has been electrified and given an electrified route of a few hundred metres to the Felixstowe Branch Line.
I then outlined how an ow an electric train with on-board energy storage, could work the Ipswich-Felixstowe service.
- I’ll assume that a fully-charged train starts from the new depot at Manningtree or some other suitable overnight stabling.
- The train positions early in the morning for the first service from Felixstowe, using overhead power to Ipswich and on-board power on the branch.
- Passengers load at Felixstowe and the train proceeds to Ipswich under on-board power to the current Platform 1 at Ipswich.
- The train would sneak into the platform on the North side of Ipswich Freight Yard, well out of the way of the Great Eastern Main Line and any freight movements.
- If the platform was busy and the train had to wait at a signal, it could even up pantograph to start the recharging of the on-board energy storage.
- Once in Platform 1, the train would either start or continue the charging process.
- The pantograph would be lowered, when the charging was complete or at any time before the train left for Felixstowe.
The process would continue all day.
But things don’t always go to plan, so what happens at Ipswich, if Platform 1 is blocked by a failed train?
As the train will be approaching Ipswich on a dedicated line, it would stop at a signal and wait. As the overhead wire to the station will be continuous, it would immediately up pantograph to start the charging process, to make certain, it wasn’t stuck with a flat battery.
There has been a lot of thought, in how trains with on board storage should be operated.
Similar layouts seem to be being installed at other places.
Maidenhead and the Marlow Branch Line
Maidenhead station is where the Marlow Branch Line connects to the Great Western Main Line.
Platform assignments after Crossrail will probably be.
- Down Fast
- Up Fast
- Down Slow – Crossrail
- Up Show – Crossrail
- Marlow Branch
Note that Platform 5 has recently been extended to the full Crossrail length of 200 metres, so could this platform be shared between the Marlow Branch trains and the Class 387 trains that will start to shuttle between Maidenhead and Paddington in mid-2017.
These are pictures taken at Maidenhead station.
Note the platform 5 for the Marlow Branch and the first couple of hundred metres of the branch are being electrified.
Trains with on-board energy storage between Maidenhead and Bourne End stations could certainly use the same procedure as the one I outlined for trains between Ipswich and Felixstowe. They would probably come into Platform 5 at Maidenhead, as the Marlow Branch trains currently do.
But they also have the advantage at Maidenhead of a very long two hundred metre Platform 5.
Note that four-car Class 387 trains couldn’t go past Bourne End station, so the remainder of the branch to Marlow would probably be served by a diesel shuttle.
On November 25th, 2016, I took this picture from a passing train.
Note.
- I was looking directly down the Marlow Branch.
- The two lines join around the position of the last gantry and the nearest one goes into Platform 4, with the farthest one going into Platform 5.
- You can’t really see it too well in the picture, but the overhead wire appears to be only above the line into Platform 5.
This Google Map shows a close-up of the Western \end of Platforms 4 and 5 and the start of the Marlow Branch.
Hopefully, it will be clearer than mud now!
Note the two-car train in Platform 5.
So why is there no connecting electrification between Platform 4 and the Marlow Branch Line?
It could be that it hasn’t been erected yet, but on the other hand, it could be that it isn’t needed.
- All trains arriving at Maidenhead from Bourne End would use Platform 5.
- These trains would only use the wiring to the West of Platform 5, if say the platform was blocked, by say a failed train.
- Trains between Bourne End and Paddington, after arriving at Platform 5 would up pantograph and after leaving the platform, they would use an existing crossover to access the Up Slow line for Paddington.
- Trains between Paddington and Bourne End would probably use the existing crossovers to stop in Platform 5 after arriving on the Up Slow. Once in Platform 5, they would down pantograph and continue to Bourne End under on-board power.
So a second electrified line not being needed, could be the explanation of only one being created.
Note that when Crossrail starts, Crossrail trains will use Platforms 3 and 4 and will reverse using a reversing siding to the West of the station..
So the Marlow Branch and Crossrail will effectively be two separate systems with their own tracks, trains and arrangements.
Slough And The Slough to Windsor & Eton Line
Slough station is where the Slough to Windsor & Eton Line connects to the Great Western Main Line.
As I passed through Slough station, I noticed that the gantries are such, that just as at Maidenhead, the bay Platform 1 could have a short length of overhead wiring installed, so that the shuttle to Windsor and Eton Central station could be run using an electric train with on-board energy storage.
This small add-on to the electrification, would create a branch line independent of the main line.
- It would be worked as a single train shuttle.
- The train would be electric with on-board energy storage.
- The train would charge at Slough station.
- It would have dedicated platforms in the two terminal stations; Slough and Windsor and Eton Central.
- The train could be worked using the principle of only one train on the line at a time or One Train Working.
- Trains would enter and leave the dedicated branch tracks for servicing and other tasks, as they do now, through a connection to the Fast lines at Slough station.
Unlike the Marlow Branch, it would not need protection for failed trains, as there is only one train.
I would suspect that capacity at the Windsor end of the branch would limit any expansion unless a scheme like the Windsor Link Railway was brought forward and that a four-car electric shuttle train would be sufficient to work the line for many years.
Twyford And The Henley Branch Line
Twyford station is where the Henley Branch Line connects to the Great Western Main Line.
I wrote about using trains with on-board energy storage on the Henley Branch in Twyford Station And The Henley Branch and came to the conclusion, that electric trains of this type could serve this short branch of just four miles in length, with very little change to the infrastructure
Installing a short length of electrification in the bay platform 5 at Twyford station and for a short distance on the branch could be used to charge the trains.
As on the Marlow Branch and the Slough to Windsor and Eton Line, this would create a branch line independent of the main line.
I doubt that this line will ever be fully-electrified.
Certainly, as I passed the line today, there was no sign of any electrification.
West Ealing And Greenford Branch Line
West Ealing station is where the Greenford Branch Line connects to the Great Western Main Line.
But seeing as the last direct train from Greenford to Paddington seems to be on the 23rd of December 2016, the Greenford Branch Line will become an independent branch line with its own bay Platform 5 at West Ealing station, where passengers will have to change to and from Paddington.
In West Ealing Station – 12th October 2016, I showed the progress a couple of months ago and as at Slough gantries are in place, that could be used to electrify the new bay platform.
Once the wires were in place at the platform, all it would need to provide a quality service to Greenford, would be suitable electric train with on-board energy storage.
- The journey would take around ten minutes.
- Trains would charge their storage at West Ealing.
- Two trains per hour would be possible with one train.
- Four trains per hour would be possible with two trains, as the branch has a lot of double-track to allow passing.
The only infrastructure needed, other than the electrification might be some platform lengthening for the new trains.
As I passed the line today, there was some evidence of wires going up, but they probably can’t be completed until the new station is finished at West Ealing station.
Surely, if the branch was going to be run in perpetuity by diesel trains, there would be no evidence of electrification in the bay platform 5 and at the start of the Greenford Branch.
The Emerging Design
If you look at all these examples, most of which are ongoing projects, they have a series of common features.
- The branch line is fairly simple, often just a shuttle between two dedicated terminal platforms.
- The branch line is within the range of an electric train with on-board energy storage, to go out and return.
- Some branches are worked using the principle of only one train on the line at a time or One Train Working.
- At least one terminal platform will be electrified, so that the on board energy storage can be charged.
- The branch line is within the range of an electric train with on-board energy storage.
The only feature not common to all the detailed examples, is where the electrified platform could be shared as at Ipswich and Maidenhead,
In these cases, provision must be made for another train failing in the station.
If Network Rail can get this philosophy right, it has the following advantages.
- New or refurbished environmentally-friendly electric trains can replace elderly diesel trains on suitable routes.
- As the electric trains will typically be four-cars or more, there will be large capacity increases.
- There will be very little infrastructure work, except for platform lengthening and possibly electrifying an extra platform in a station on an already electrified line.
- Network Rail will gain a bit of credibility.
As an example, Ipswich Felixstowe could go from an hourly single -car Class 153 train to an hourly five-car modern Aventra with Wi-fi and lots of space.
Is It Bi-Modes And Battery Trains To The Rescue?
This article in Rail Technology Magazine is entitled Further delays to GWML electrification as schemes deferred indefinitely.
The delayed schemes include.
- Bristol Parkway to Bristol Temple Meads
- Bath Spa to Bristol Temple Meads
- Oxford to Didcot Parkway
- Henley Branch
- Windsor Branch
There is no mention of the Marlow Branch or the Greenford Branch.
The article also quotes the Rail Minister; Paul Maynard, as saying.
Introducing newer trains with more capacity in these areas could be done without costly and disruptive electrification,
Is this a meaningless platitude or is there substance behind it?
A mix of Class 801 electric trains and Class 800 bi-mode electro-diesel trains were originally ordered for GWR.
But this is said in the Wikipedia entry for the Class 800 train.
In July 2016, it was announced that GWR’s intended fleet of Class 801s were to be converted from pure EMUs to bi-mode units. Subsequently these were reclassified as Class 800s.
So will we see bi-mode trains working the Bristol Temple Meads routes, which are numbered 1 and 2 above?
That would certainly allow the Minister to bathe in the glory of a run to Bristol via Bath and back via Bristol Parkway.
Five-car Class 800 trains could also work route 3, thus giving Oxford trains, that would increase capacity and run on electric power between Didcot and Paddington.
But what about the four branch lines; Greenford, Henley, Marlow and Windsor?
Note.
- The Minister used the word newer not new.
- He also said capacity would be greater.
- When I passed the Marlow branch a few weeks ago, it appeared electrification had started.
- All branches are short, with the Marlow Branch the longest at 7.25 miles.
- The Henley Branch has a 50 mph speed limit.
It should also be noted that the Mayflower Line, where the battery train trial was conducted in 2015 is just over eleven miles long.
So would it be possible to fit batteries to the Class 387 trains to fulfil the Minister’s statement?
- The Class 387 trains are very similar to the Class 379 trains used in the trial on the Mayflower Line.
- They are newer with greater capacity, than the current trains on the branch lines.
The answer could be yes! I reported on Rumours Of Battery-Powered Trains in August 2015. At that time Network Rail were calling the trains Independently Powered Electric Multiple Units or IPEMUs.
The possibility also exists that Class 387 trains with batteries could also work the lines between Didcot Parkway and Oxford, Reading and Basingstoke and Reading and Bedwyn.
Network Rail needs to convert a serious loss of face into at least a score-draw!
If the Great Western does use this approach, they’ll only be taking a similar route to the Germans, as I wrote about in German Trains With Batteries.
c2c’s Class 387/3 Trains On Test At Crewe
I took these pictures of two Class 387 trains destined for c2c at Crrwe, as my train passed through on the way to Liverpool.
They were numbered 387301 and 387302 and their destination boards said they were going to Wembley Central.
Now that would make an interesting route for c2c!
Why Number The Trains As Class 387/3?
Seriously, though, I’m curious why the c2c trains are numbered as Class 387/3 trains, whereas the trains for Great Western Railway are all numbered as Class 387/1 trains.
This is said in Wikipedia about these trains.
In April 2016, c2c announced that it would operate six of the 20 additional units ordered by Porterbrook until a fleet of 68 new carriages are delivered in 2019.
So as they are a short term fleet, that will do the rounds of various operators, who are short of trains, perhaps starting a new group of numbers is good for housekeeping purposes at Bombardier?
On the other hand if c2c and its customers and staff like the new trains and c2c see that an all-Electrostar fleet has advantages for operational reasons, perhaps the extra 68 new carriages will be Class 387/3 trains.
After all, the highest number for a Class 387/1 is 387174, which only allows for another 25 trains in the sequence, before the numbers interfere with the Class 387/2 numbers.
Which all points to sensible housekeeping, as there is nothing on the Internet, to say there is any differences between the Class 387/1 and Class 387/3 trains.
Could The Class 387/3 Trains Have Batteries?
There are several well-publicised reasons for adding batteries to an electric multiple unit.
- Handling regenerative braking.
- Depots and stabling sidings without overhead wires.
- Train recovery in case of overhead power failure.
- Remote train start-up, ready for the driver.
- Extending routes over lines without electrification.
Note.
- The current Class 357 trains and all Class 387 trains have regenerative braking, so c2c routes can obviously handle it.
- c2c’s depot at Barking is crowded, but would they want the expense of building a second depot anyway.
- Train recovery could be very valuable, especially if a whole fleet was fitted.
- Remote train start-up is available for Aventras and I’ve met a couple of drivers, who would love it!
c2c likes to take a strong green stand as this page on their web site shows.
So the main serious reason we have left is route development.
