|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Apr 27, 2022 20:04:16 GMT
345018 became the final unit of the fleet to be accepted into traffic today. A handful of units (042/056/064) have remained in 7-car formation on TfL Rail West to make full use of the shortest platforms at Paddington.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Jun 14, 2024 18:06:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jun 16, 2024 18:12:51 GMT
a lovely phrase - its so good to hear good news - its time to start on Crossrail line 2
re: the line's success ... overcrowding and passengers being left behind is happening again
maybe the solution is ETCS or CBTC all the way to Shenfield?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jun 16, 2024 21:35:03 GMT
Many commentators foresaw overcrowding problems on the E.Line well before the line opened.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Jul 10, 2024 10:57:52 GMT
Mod comment [goldenarrow] - Recent posts relating to upcoming service increases have been moved to the 'Elizabeth Line service increase again?' here
|
|
|
|
Post by kaym315 on Oct 23, 2024 9:26:52 GMT
Would this mean that there's only 3 trains left to build from it's original order. I know initially it was meant to be 65 but then they took up an extra 5 to make it 70 and now another 10 to come |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 23, 2024 20:40:46 GMT
Mod comment [goldenarrow] - Recent posts relating to upcoming service increases have been moved to the 'Elizabeth Line service increase again?' here sorry but the link brings me back to this page |
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Oct 23, 2024 20:51:36 GMT
Fixed now
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 23, 2024 21:03:11 GMT
The latest order for 10 more trains includes an option for 3 further trains, I believe. Some reported that it was with an option for 13 further trains. As London Reconnections put it: the document refers to “a change to the existing contract to extend the backstop date allowing TfL to exercise further options up to 13 more class 345 trains”. It is not clear if this means 13 more trains in addition to the 10 already ordered, or that it includes the 10 already ordered so up to three more trains could be ordered in future. It seems that the latter is more likely. source
The TfL Programmes and Investment Committee meeting on 6 December 2023 heard a proposal for 5 more trains, including a service spare, to extend as many Paddington reversers as possible to Old Oak from its opening in 2030. It was thought that this would be between 6 and 12 tph depending on network capacity, availability of paths and performance on the western route. It was subsequently learnt that the Alstom Derby works was at risk of closure without an immediate order for 10 trains. Presumably this includes a spare train, and the TfL Board meeting was told that these trains could provide 6tph to reverse at Old Oak Common as well as boosting the service to the east or the west, but not both. Since the new trains arrive from 2026, it would seem that they could boost services at both ends until Old Oak Common is available. Then a further 3 trains option could provide 6tph reversing there, since 4 plus a spare could possibly have provided up to 12tph there under the original proposal. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewbsstock on Nov 2, 2024 15:08:56 GMT
do we know if it they will be a subfleet 0r 345071 to 345081
|
|
|
|
Post by kaym315 on Nov 2, 2024 20:35:39 GMT
do we know if it they will be a subfleet 0r 345071 to 345081 That would be the logical choice unless they want to have it as 345101-345110 |
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Nov 2, 2024 20:48:54 GMT
do we know if it they will be a subfleet 0r 345071 to 345081 That would be the logical choice unless they want to have it as 345101-345110 345/1 would imply some heavy modifications to the original design - do we know if those are planned? |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 4, 2024 11:27:54 GMT
One change that is already underway is the fitting of USB power sockets - a few days ago I spotted these on a Class 345 train, but only in some carriages - not them all - which I found to be somewhat curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Nov 4, 2024 13:05:07 GMT
That would be the logical choice unless they want to have it as 345101-345110 345/1 would imply some heavy modifications to the original design - do we know if those are planned? A different sub-class doesn't necessarily imply heavy modifications. Several types of unit have a different sub-class depending on either which ROSCO owns them or which operator runs them. e.g. there is no fundamental difference between a 350/3 and 350/4 except the first was ordered for initial operation by London Midland, whilst the second by TPE. For the 345s even if there are only minor differences in the components used and given the time between the orders, a sub-class may make more sense from a maintenance point of view. |
|
