|
|
Post by d7666 on Nov 29, 2020 17:56:23 GMT
Wasn't sure where to put this, under "rolling stock" forum or "crossrail" or under the existing "345 introduction" thread, so mods might want to shunt it ? Anyway, the question :
Looking at a Bombardier document on 345s, the wheel arrangements (and hence car types) are different to information published in the public domain (e.g. Platform 5 ABC spotting book).
The number of motor bogies is the same 10 of 18 for a FLU [9car] in both cases, but in different cars. Especially Bombardier document shows the end cars as driving trailers :
Four columns below compare the two -
1 Bombardier wheels
2 Bombardier car type
3 P5 wheels
4 P5 car type
1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4
22 ... DT ... 2Bo ... DMS
BoBo ... PM ... Bo2 ... PMS
BoBo ... M1 ... BoBo ... MS
Bo2 ... mW ... Bo2 ... MS ... removed from RLU
22 ... TW ... 22 ... TS
2Bo ... m ... 2Bo ... MS ... removed from RLU
BoBo ... M2 ... BoBo ... MS
BoBo ... PM ... 2Bo ... PMS
22 ... DT ... Bo2 ... DMS
Anyone able to confirm from an authoritative source which is correct ? Listening to 345s moving internally or externally is impossible to tell.
Also, the same document shows for both ends of each unit that the two end most cars are fitted with 750 V DC shoe gear TPL. Is this correct too ?
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Nov 29, 2020 19:43:57 GMT
The class 345 are 3rd rail capable like most of the Aventra fleet but are not fitted with shoe gear since they are expected to spend most if not all of their service career under the wires. From memory I think the shoes would be fitted on the two DMS's and nearest MS's from both ends.
|
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Nov 30, 2020 13:12:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Nov 30, 2020 18:32:47 GMT
Ta  that helps, at least it's an official source, and it must be where P5 etc have got their gen from as it matches. The thot plickens however, as the drawing I have is all but the same, but, is embedded in a larger pdf file, and the date and drawing details unfortuneately clipped off. The drawing I have appears to use T trailer M motor (both bogies) and m motor (one bogie). The motor layout (i.e. BoBo or Bo2) comes from a different box diagram in the same pdf. Perhaps I might try a FOI for the 345 motor layout ....... One step forwards anyway, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Dec 1, 2020 9:42:45 GMT
d7666.....Based on my knowledge of train configurations, the layout described in the Platform 5 document makes logical sense. I know for a fact that the bogie under driving cabs is a trailer bogie. Therefore the bogie at the other end is a motor bogie. It is therefore logical for the adjacent bogie on the PMS also to be a motor bogie, minimising cabling lengths and so on. It's also logical for the other bogie on the PMS to be a trailer bogie helping to manage weights as that car will have a heavy transformer. It also makes sense for the MS1 car to have two motor bogies otherwise there would have been a performance deficit on RLUs. Ans using the same logic as for DMS/PMS, it makes sense for the outer bogie on the MS2 car to be a motor bogie. Sorry it's not facts, but informed speculation apart, that is, from the trailer bogie under driving cabs.
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Dec 1, 2020 16:11:25 GMT
d7666.....Based on my knowledge of train configurations, the layout described in the Platform 5 document makes logical sense. I know for a fact that the bogie under driving cabs is a trailer bogie. Therefore the bogie at the other end is a motor bogie. It is therefore logical for the adjacent bogie on the PMS also to be a motor bogie, minimising cabling lengths and so on. It's also logical for the other bogie on the PMS to be a trailer bogie helping to manage weights as that car will have a heavy transformer. It also makes sense for the MS1 car to have two motor bogies otherwise there would have been a performance deficit on RLUs. Ans using the same logic as for DMS/PMS, it makes sense for the outer bogie on the MS2 car to be a motor bogie. Sorry it's not facts, but informed speculation apart, that is, from the trailer bogie under driving cabs. I don't dis-agree with your logic at all, what I'm puzzled over is what this drawing is that I have, which one is right, or, indeed, possibly yet another permutation somewhere. The power and weight distribution in the drawing I do have is equally balanced and low cable lengths - and also results in fewer inter-car connections, hence equally logical. Had it not been for the fact this drawing I have is from the maker, I'd not have questioned it, but what I do have now is two drawings from the maker, that dis-agree. It is possible the one I have is some kind of intermediate alternative proposal concept, but if so, the document it is embedded in does not say that, and, given that the all older Electrostar and newer Aventra are (well nearly all as makes no difference) both based on motor cars with two axles motored, why would the layout I have come up? I've been in an inspection pit under a 700 (Thameslink unit) at Hornsey ... perhaps I should try and get under a 345 and go count the motors and where they are myself ! |
|
|
|
Post by 100andthirty on Dec 1, 2020 17:29:34 GMT
d76666 Are you able to provide a link to the drawing? As to your last point, there's no substitute for "go look see". I was recently looking for drawings of a train for another professional project and even the operator didn't have them. Instead they used a tape measure directly on the train!
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Dec 1, 2020 20:47:29 GMT
d76666 Are you able to provide a link to the drawing? As to your last point, there's no substitute for "go look see". I was recently looking for drawings of a train for another professional project and even the operator didn't have them. Instead they used a tape measure directly on the train! I'd like to share it but it's not one I can do that with and have to respect that. |
|
that helps, at least it's an official source, and it must be where P5 etc have got their gen from as it matches.
