Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[phil-b259]

On 08/11/2023 at 17:51, adb968008 said:

 

Then theres the mystery of terminating Overground at West Croydon for want of a 5 minute spin to Sutton.

 

 

It might only be a 5 minute spin to Sutton but Sutton station itself is a bit constrained! It only has one pseudo bay platform (one of the Epsom Downs ones) and no loops or turn back siding - plus a frequent Southern & Thameslink service to boot.

 

Of course that 5 minutes running time may well also eat into drivers rest periods (so more drivers needed) and would likely need an extra train or two as well.

 

In an ideal world rather than running to Sutton having the Overground running to East Croydon would probably be more useful (particularly as DfT mandated cuts have caused the removal of Southern stopping services between East Croydon and Sydenham therefore requiring two changes to get between Forrest Hill and East Croydon where their used to be a direct train. However much like Sutton, East Croydon doesn't have the platform space to do this - but West Croydon has its bay and the turnback siding...

[phil-b259]

On 08/11/2023 at 17:38, adb968008 said:

Yo sushi, Burger King, Upper Crust etc dont seem to have that problem.

 

I suspect it may have to do with where said signs are fitted.

 

A burger King sign on a modern refreshment facility (which is not  a listed building) would potentially be viewed rather differently than a big purple roundel hanging from the listed trainshed roof or fixed to the listed GWR offices alongside platform 1 in planning terms...

[RJS1977]

Just out of interest, when the wires come down like that, what tends to cause it?

 

It's been said that a train "brought down the wires" - but how does that happen?

[phil-b259]

25 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

Just out of interest, when the wires come down like that, what tends to cause it?

 

It's been said that a train "brought down the wires" - but how does that happen?

 

Four ways....

 

(1) Something in the OLE structure / Catenary / Headspan breaks and the contact wire becomes displaced from its usual position. That might mean its hanging down where it shouldn't, be pushed / pulled off to one side, hanging a bit lower than normal or a combination of both. The offending bit of OLE then catches on a trains photograph as it passes and the train then pulls at the damaged part yanking it down (much like a person might catch a broken finger nail on something and rip it clean off )

 

(2) The OLE is fine but something else is caught up in it - a plastic bag, a helium balloon bits of wind blown litter etc and said object gets scouped up by the photograph of a train as it passes pulling the OLE down as above

 

(3) The photograph of a train becomes defective in some way or has something caught up in it (e.g. vegetation, wind blown debris) - and exerts unusual forces on the contact wire causing the wire or components in the OLE to break and get wrapped round said photograph

 

(4) A train damages the OLE because (2) BUT the damage is not enough for THAT particular train to suffer an issue. However because of the damage caused when the NEXT train comes through its photograph gets tangled up in the OLE and brings it down

 

Headspans usually perform badly in dewirements because the OLE over each track is only held up by a set of interlinked cables and the yanking of one of them is very likely to distort the whole headspan structure pulling all OLE equipment over all lines out of position / breaking it .

 

Where portal structures are fitted however de-wirements are usually much less severe as contact wire for each line is seperatly supported of a robust steel structure which doesn't deform when one tracks OLE gets yanked about and thus adjacent lines tend to be unaffected

 

Portal structures are however more expensive to install so in order for British Rail to get funds for electrification from the anti-rail HM Treasuary it was forced to adopt the 'lightweight' OLE designs and in particular headspans wherever possible....

 

Network Rail by contrast would much rather put up portal structures as the delays and general chaos de-wiremnts cause is much less than headspans despite the grater upfront cost.

 

Inwards of Airport Junction BR used their headspans and lightweight OLE. From Heathrow junction westwards Network Rail used their much more robust portal based system.

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by phil-b259

[melmerby]

You need to check youir spill chucker as it thinks trains have photographs on top😁

[Ron Ron Ron]

16 minutes ago, melmerby said:

You need to check youir spill chucker as it thinks trains have photographs on top😁

Aah ! Does that explain the “Flash” you see sometimes ?

 

 

.

[RJS1977]

45 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Four ways....

 

(1) Something in the OLE structure / Catenary / Headspan breaks and the contact wire becomes displaced from its usual position. That might mean its hanging down where it shouldn't, be pushed / pulled off to one side, hanging a bit lower than normal or a combination of both. The offending bit of OLE then catches on a trains photograph as it passes and the train then pulls at the damaged part yanking it down (much like a person might catch a broken finger nail on something and rip it clean off )

 

(2) The OLE is fine but something else is caught up in it - a plastic bag, a helium balloon bits of wind blown litter etc and said object gets scouped up by the photograph of a train as it passes pulling the OLE down as above

 

(3) The photograph of a train becomes defective in some way or has something caught up in it (e.g. vegetation, wind blown debris) - and exerts unusual forces on the contact wire causing the wire or components in the OLE to break and get wrapped round said photograph

 

(4) A train damages the OLE because (2) BUT the damage is not enough for THAT particular train to suffer an issue. However because of the damage caused when the NEXT train comes through its photograph gets tangled up in the OLE and brings it down

 

Headspans usually perform badly in dewirements because the OLE over each track is only held up by a set of interlinked cables and the yanking of one of them is very likely to distort the whole headspan structure pulling all OLE equipment over all lines out of position / breaking it .

 

Where portal structures are fitted however de-wirements are usually much less severe as contact wire for each line is seperatly supported of a robust steel structure which doesn't deform when one tracks OLE gets yanked about and thus adjacent lines tend to be unaffected

 

Portal structures are however more expensive to install so in order for British Rail to get funds for electrification from the anti-rail HM Treasuary it was forced to adopt the 'lightweight' OLE designs and in particular headspans wherever possible....

 

Network Rail by contrast would much rather put up portal structures as the delays and general chaos de-wiremnts cause is much less than headspans despite the grater upfront cost.

 

Inwards of Airport Junction BR used their headspans and lightweight OLE. From Heathrow junction westwards Network Rail used their much more robust portal based system.

 

 

Thanks for this. ASLEF seem to be making quite a thing of this, claiming that it happened because GWR used a driver manager to run the train, when to their way of thinking GWR "should" have cancelled all trains and not attempted to run a service at all. You have confirmed my thoughts - that the dewirement was in no way the responsibility of the driver.

 

One small point though - as I understand it, it was BAA, not the Treasury, who paid for the electrification from Paddington to Heathrow.

[Ron Ron Ron]

5 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

…..Inwards of Airport Junction BR used their headspans and lightweight OLE. From Heathrow junction westwards Network Rail used their much more robust portal based system.

 

IIRC, quite a number of the headspans and old masts between Heathrow Junction and Paddington, were replaced with more robust, series 1 type masts and portals, during the upgrade work, in preparation for the introduction of the Elizabeth Line.

This was done at the same time as the electrification work, west of Heathrow Junction, with series 1 OHLE.

Unfortunately, they didn’t replace all of it, although there was supposed to have been a programme to upgrade the original wires, to make it more robust and resilient, in preparation for intensive use with the changeover to a mostly electric line ( 345’s, IET’s and 387’s)

 

A few of the places where you can see the newer OHLE arrangements, are west of Hayes & Harlington, where major changes were made to the track layout, to accommodate the new, 2nd Airport Junction flyover,  around the Acton dive under and between Acton Main Line station and the western end of Old Oak Common.

There are also a lot of new gantries and masts from the eastern end of OOC to Paddington, where a lot of new track work was introduced for the EL and the turn back sidings.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Ron Ron Ron

[adb968008]

11 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

It might only be a 5 minute spin to Sutton but Sutton station itself is a bit constrained! It only has one pseudo bay platform (one of the Epsom Downs ones) and no loops or turn back siding - plus a frequent Southern & Thameslink service to boot.

No it isnt.

your out of date. 455’s on Vic to Sutton are long gone.

It has two platforms (3&4) that only sees 1 passing train in each every half hour (18 & 49 past).

Its also signalled to fit two trains on both platforms, one in platform, one beyond. both platforms are turnbacks. Further the Banstead section is signalled in such manner that one could be turned back on the downs branch by locking one in at Epsom, not that theres any reason to, as you could turn back in either platform.

 

you could easily add another 4 an hour using both, and still have an 8 minute turn around.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by adb968008

[Oldddudders]

The earlier comment about NR personnel on the GWR main line ignoring stuck train passengers and their needs is an unfortunate effect of the balkanisation of the industry. Paying passengers are not customers of NR, except when on or about the NR-managed Major Stations. The passengers are TOC/TfL customers, and were NR staff to give assistance or well-meant advice that turned out to be wrong, or at worst, dangerous, NR would be liable.

 

Nobody wins from this ridiculous situation. 

[adb968008]

Andrew Haines himself was stuck on one of the trains.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/elizabeth-line-trains-travel-delays-suspended-overhead-wire-damage-b1125595.html#:~:text=Writing on LinkedIn%2C Mr Haines,We failed as a system.

 

Will it change anything ?

perhaps ?

maybe they will get a limo on standby for him in future so he doesnt have to suffer it again.

 

This has been an issue for over a decade, no one cares, passengers are a pain in the neck, passengers who complain are even worse. Dealing with rat infestations is more desirable than helping passengers.

 

When passengers start self egressing, or needing toilets, blame the passenger for making the job harder.

 

imagine this was middle of july in a heatwave, sealed stock at 5pm in rush hour, no ventilation no AC… People could start dying on board.

Its an almost monthly occurrence that the job stops and passengers are held hostage against their will in medieval prison conditions, it only makes news, when the train is political.

 

in job stops situations, it should be pretty clear the severity in the first few minutes. If its clear the power has gone and isnt coming back There should be train evacuation plans pre-canned ready to execute… Stations do have emergency water bottles..ive seen them. Staff should be able to mobilse to an emergency evacuation plan. Twitter feeds can become informative tools, or even an incident blog page… which can be used to display the plan and assertain urgent passenger requirements. 

Knowing your 5th train in line to be evacuated, is better than not knowing if the drivers gone, the train abandoned and know one knows you are there.

 

Similarly have an every 15 minute update, naming your train, even if that update is “nothing changed” is better than no update at all.

 

The last thing that should happen is staff becoming invisible, sadly its the first thing that happens, followed by silence.

 

The worst part of a 3.5 hour delay, is not knowing it will be 3.5 hours.. just standing there watching every minute pass wondering if the next minute will be the last… and when no one tells you anything.. then your a captive prisoner against your will… thats when people start taking their chances and survival instinct kicks in.

When they got home, I wonder how many got the added bonus of a penalty fare from tfl to deal with as well.

Compensation ? Yea of course, you get your £7 delay repay back, but your going to have to fight for that, after youve fought off the penalty fare.

 

Delays happen, its how you handle it that counts… I see this morning the unions, GWR, TFL wasted no time with the blame game, not a constructive suggestion amongst them.

Uber is the winner here, someday the lawyers will hit the jackpot too.

Edited December 9, 2023 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

12 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Thanks for this. ASLEF seem to be making quite a thing of this, claiming that it happened because GWR used a driver manager to run the train, when to their way of thinking GWR "should" have cancelled all trains and not attempted to run a service at all. You have confirmed my thoughts - that the dewirement was in no way the responsibility of the driver.

Before completely dismissing ASLEFs statements it’s worth remembering that a management / driver instructor will probably be less familiar with the line than a regular driver (though not to an intrinsically unsafe level)

 

Therefore it is certainly possible that a regular driver might be much more familiar with the OLE in the area and could potentially spot something amiss (particularly if it seems relatively trivial) and report it..

 

That in turn might cause the signaller to caution the following train and defects on the OLE be spotted / the line blocked to electric traction before a train pulls the whole lot down.

 

As I know from my own railway career, the value of ‘local knowledge’ of a particular area should never be underestimated when it comes to the ability to spot things which aren’t quite right - which is why this obsession with slashing staff and making those which are left cover ever wider areas is a mistake

Edited December 9, 2023 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

12 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

One small point though - as I understand it, it was BAA, not the Treasury, who paid for the electrification from Paddington to Heathrow.

Possibly - one of the problems is the origional project got changed as a result of the Tories privitisation agenda

 

Originally the Heathrow project was a 50:50 partnership between British Rail and BAA - just as the rail link into Stansted airport was.
 

In this version of events BR would own all the infrastructure (including the tunnels to the airport) electrify the Airport junction - Paddington section and operate the trains themselves with BAA basically stumping up cash to build the Heathrow tunnels and buy the trains.

 

However because completion wouldn’t happen till after the privatisation bill had been passed, HM Treasuary and the DfT forced a restructure of the project. This saw BAA take a much grater stake in the project (thus enabling HM Treasuary to slash BRs financial contribution) and saw BAA take on many of the elements BR would have handled.

 

IIRC the only thing which BR (I.e. HM Treasury) was left to finance was the resignalling and electrification from Paddington - Airport junction, something which could easily be transferred to Railtrack as part of the Privatisation process.

 

[Mike_Walker]

31 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Before completely dismissing ASLEFs statements it’s worth remembering that a management / driver instructor will probably be less familiar with the line than a regular driver (though not to an intrinsically unsafe level)

 

Therefore it is certainly possible that a regular driver might be much more familiar with the OLE in the area and could potentially spot something amiss (particularly if it seems relatively trivial) and report it..

 

That in turn might cause the signaller to caution the following train and defects on the OLE be spotted / the line blocked to electric traction before a train pulls the whole lot down.

 

As I know from my own railway career, the value of ‘local knowledge’ of a particular area should never be underestimated when it comes to the ability to spot things which aren’t quite right - which is why this obsession with slashing staff and making those which are left cover ever wider areas is a mistake

In this case it was dark, the train would have been travelling at up to 60mph which would make it difficult to spot any OLE damage. 

 

GWR DMs are fully qualified drivers in their own right and are just as familiar with the route.  I understand the person involved in this incident was a former Bristol HSS driver of long standing, promoted due to his abilities and would therefore be very conversant with the route.  Please don't cast aspersions about the abilities someone you do not know.

 

Bear in mind too, that Driver-Managers at all TOCs routinely take the seat to maintain their own competency and licenses.  This has absolutely nothing to do with cost savings.  It is just another tiresome example of ASLEF trying to justify their indefensible (in)actions.

[keefer]

Presumably RAIB will be taking great interest in this, there have been a few incidents in fairly recent years where passengers started detraining themselves - with all the risks that poses, be it getting out of & off the train or whether the adjacent lines are still 'live' (as in trains running).

Regardless of causes of the shut-down, I suspect there will be a very close look into why the passengers were not evacuated sooner.

I know I wouldn't want to be a Driver or TM being left to deal with a full train of stranded passengers for an indefinite time. They can only pass on the info they have and after a certain length of time, they must surely be worried for their own safety as frustrations boil over.

[adb968008]

16 minutes ago, keefer said:

Presumably RAIB will be taking great interest in this, there have been a few incidents in fairly recent years where passengers started detraining themselves - with all the risks that poses, be it getting out of & off the train or whether the adjacent lines are still 'live' (as in trains running).

Regardless of causes of the shut-down, I suspect there will be a very close look into why the passengers were not evacuated sooner.

I know I wouldn't want to be a Driver or TM being left to deal with a full train of stranded passengers for an indefinite time. They can only pass on the info they have and after a certain length of time, they must surely be worried for their own safety as frustrations boil over.

Unfortunately this is said many times and nothing ever happens…

 

Someone on the line.. job stopped, windy weather… job stopped, fatality job stopped.

Eurostars been doing this routinely for 3 decades, passengers pop the windows to breathe.

 

its an intrinsic weakness of electric trains, lack of power.

 

Remember the great power surge that knocked out all the 700’s for 6 hours in 2019, including stranding inside thameslink tunnels until gone midnight, from 6pm… no, neither does raib… no one cares, not even with the big headline events after they passed…

 

even the ORR investigation didnt give a toss about the delays and inconvienience to passengers.., except how much compensation they avoided paying.. passengers health wasnt even mentioned.

 

in two weeks time it will be forgotten, and by year end another train will end up stranding passengers for hours, its institutional malaise.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by adb968008

[Mike_Walker]

Questions are already being asked within GWR as to why a whole generation of electric trains have been provided by Bombardier (and others), 345s and 387s, that have no form of back-up supply to at least keep the lighting, a/c and pa working when the main power goes down.  At least the IET had auxiliary power available and was able to get itself back to Paddington once the OLE had been isolated, made safe, and removed from its roof!

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

IIRC, quite a number of the headspans and old masts between Heathrow Junction and Paddington, were replaced with more robust, series 1 type masts and portals, during the upgrade work, in preparation for the introduction of the Elizabeth Line.

This was done at the same time as the electrification work, west of Heathrow Junction, with series 1 OHLE.

Unfortunately, they didn’t replace all of it, although there was supposed to have been a programme to upgrade the original wires, to make it more robust and resilient, in preparation for intensive use with the changeover to a mostly electric line ( 345’s, IET’s and 387’s)

 

A few of the places where you can see the newer OHLE arrangements, are west of Hayes & Harlington, where major changes were made to the track layout, to accommodate the new, 2nd Airport Junction flyover,  around the Acton dive under and between Acton Main Line station and the western end of Old Oak Common.

There are also a lot of new gantries and masts from the eastern end of OOC to Paddington, where a lot of new track work was introduced for the EL and the turn back sidings.

 

 

 

 

.

Not exactly.  It was stated that the headspans etc would be replaced - I think all the way from Airport Jcn o somewhere around Acton (can't be sure on thaht) but they weren't although some work was done.  Work is going on currently to convert the OHLE east of Old Oak Common (and possibly further out but I saw no signs of that on my recent trip to London) hence recent total weekend blockades of Paddington.  

 

The OHLE kit is being updated to the type used on GWML electrification although I don't know if this includes the TfL part at Westbourne Park and eastwards.  It is noticeable between Ladbroke Grove and Paddington that updating is being carried out on almost a piecemeal basis with the simplest jobs being tackled first - which makes sense although there is then a dufference in fittings from one structure to the next.  Some new bases are in posoition which is presumably where new structure will replace existing ones.   I have wondered if something connected with the work might have led to the problem with the overhead as i noticed a few dangling wires when I passed a fortnight ago?

 

As far as the incident was concerned somethings sound a bit OTT.  There's no need for an IET to lose power - it can run the diesel engines to maintain hotel power even if the line has not been cleared for it to run (but obviously it can't get past a dead 387).  There are plenty of pictures about showing lights still working on 345s but and no doubt unless it was load shed the PA system would worked after the initial loss of power and doors were opened on 345s to take avccount of their lack of toilets.  But no doubt they would eventually load shed leaving only head and tail lights illuminated and i doubt their batteries ciuld manage 3 hours for allm systems.

 

Clearly reaction on the part of NR appears to have been slow in getting to stranded trains although it might be a reasonable to ask who they actually have in that part of theh world who knows the area and is passed in track safety competence?  Some of that area needs a good knowledge of the roads to be able to reach access points (including the one at Ladbrooke Grove - great if you know how to get to it) and is also traffic dependent.  If a train was stranded at Ladbroke Grove that is nearly a 2 mile walk from Paddington and the best part of amile from access via Old Oak Common - all in the dark, not easy.  No excuse but it is never simple to get to trains wherever they are. 

[Mike_Walker]

6 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Not exactly.  It was stated that the headspans etc would be replaced - I think all the way from Airport Jcn o somewhere around Acton (can't be sure on thaht) but they weren't although some work was done.  Work is going on currently to convert the OHLE east of Old Oak Common (and possibly further out but I saw no signs of that on my recent trip to London) hence recent total weekend blockades of Paddington.  

 

The OHLE kit is being updated to the type used on GWML electrification although I don't know if this includes the TfL part at Westbourne Park and eastwards.  It is noticeable between Ladbroke Grove and Paddington that updating is being carried out on almost a piecemeal basis with the simplest jobs being tackled first - which makes sense although there is then a dufference in fittings from one structure to the next.  Some new bases are in posoition which is presumably where new structure will replace existing ones.   I have wondered if something connected with the work might have led to the problem with the overhead as i noticed a few dangling wires when I passed a fortnight ago?

 

As far as the incident was concerned somethings sound a bit OTT.  There's no need for an IET to lose power - it can run the diesel engines to maintain hotel power even if the line has not been cleared for it to run (but obviously it can't get past a dead 387).  There are plenty of pictures about showing lights still working on 345s but and no doubt unless it was load shed the PA system would worked after the initial loss of power and doors were opened on 345s to take avccount of their lack of toilets.  But no doubt they would eventually load shed leaving only head and tail lights illuminated and i doubt their batteries ciuld manage 3 hours for allm systems.

 

Clearly reaction on the part of NR appears to have been slow in getting to stranded trains although it might be a reasonable to ask who they actually have in that part of theh world who knows the area and is passed in track safety competence?  Some of that area needs a good knowledge of the roads to be able to reach access points (including the one at Ladbrooke Grove - great if you know how to get to it) and is also traffic dependent.  If a train was stranded at Ladbroke Grove that is nearly a 2 mile walk from Paddington and the best part of amile from access via Old Oak Common - all in the dark, not easy.  No excuse but it is never simple to get to trains wherever they are. 

Mike,  as I mentioned above, the 802 was able to maintain hotel power throughout and get itself back into Paddington but not until the OLE had been made safe and debris removed from the roof of the unit.

 

NR have very detailed maps which not only include details of the railway but also all the emergency access points to the railway which are easily accessible to all staff.

[jjb1970]

The lack of toilets begs the question of what people are meant to do if stuck on a train for several hours. The choices would appear to be to soil oneself (bad enough for urine but much worse for a number two), use a bottle if it's pee time and hope nobody screams, let it out on the vehicle floor or force the doors open and detain. It's unrealistic to think people can hold it in indefinitely.

[jjb1970]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

Questions are already being asked within GWR as to why a whole generation of electric trains have been provided by Bombardier (and others), 345s and 387s, that have no form of back-up supply to at least keep the lighting, a/c and pa working when the main power goes down.  At least the IET had auxiliary power available and was able to get itself back to Paddington once the OLE had been isolated, made safe, and removed from its roof!

 

I suspect Bombardier would say because the contractual specification didn't include such an auxiliary power capability and kick it back at the TOCs and DafT. They supply what they've been contracted to supply.

[Ron Ron Ron]

58 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

...........At least the IET had auxiliary power available and was able to get itself back to Paddington once the OLE had been isolated, made safe, and removed from its roof!

 

Of course, GWR's IET fleet is all Bi-Mode, but the original DafT specification for the IET's (under the Intercity Express Programme  a.k.a. the IEP), also required all-electric IET units should have an emergency gen-set.

(all-electric only ordered for LNER under that programme)

 

This was for the very purpose of providing both emergency hotel power and a last mile, or limp mode, for use in the event of losing overhead electrical power, or an AC powertrain breakdown.

The main rational was a form of protection, or resilience for the network and protection of passengers.

 

Time moved on and many years later, the same DafT have raised no objections to Lumo ordering their IET's (803's) without any such diesel power back-up, relying on a battery back-up instead.

Note this is on the same mainline that LNER run their all-electric 801's.

 

I'm not sure, but I think the Avanti 807's are similarly without an emergency diesel gen-set.

 

So, at one time, the DafT had a forward thinking policy, to increase network resilience, in the event of an electric train being immobilised.

Then the bright idea is forgotten and new electric units of many various types have been authorised, without that requirement being applied.

Is there any long term strategic thinking with that lot?

(Don't bother answering, we know the answer...)

 

 

.

 

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

Questions are already being asked within GWR as to why a whole generation of electric trains have been provided by Bombardier (and others), 345s and 387s, that have no form of back-up supply to at least keep the lighting, a/c and pa working when the main power goes down.  At least the IET had auxiliary power available and was able to get itself back to Paddington once the OLE had been isolated, made safe, and removed from its roof!

A lot comes down to what the customer specifies as well as what any legal requirements might specify - if you dn't ask for emergency interior lighting and don't pay for it you don't get it.   And a lot also depends on the battery power the trains has, or hasn't, got - for example on a Class 373 Eurostar as originally delivered the batteries would supply tail lamp power for a maximum of 90 minutes, interior lighting would go long before that but manual door release was possible.  No train should require an external supply in order to be able to open doors in an emergency - maybe that idea has been forgotten but it certainly seems to have been done with some doors on the 345s (maybe just the Driver's door?).

 

If anything two things stand out - firstly if vehicle design is inadequate in the event of a loss of traction power does that go back to any legal etc type requirements  - such as ROGS - being absent or is it down to the choice of the customer?   And secondly is there room on the train for sufficient battery capability to vcover all the hotel needs for x hours or whateverr time might be specified?ba

Edited December 9, 2023 by The Stationmaster

[The Stationmaster]

7 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

The lack of toilets begs the question of what people are meant to do if stuck on a train for several hours. The choices would appear to be to soil oneself (bad enough for urine but much worse for a number two), use a bottle if it's pee time and hope nobody screams, let it out on the vehicle floor or force the doors open and detain. It's unrealistic to think people can hold it in indefinitely.

One 345 reportedly finished up with a floor area awash

[Mike_Walker]

3 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Time moved on and many years later, the same DafT have raised no objections to Lumo ordering their IET's (803's) without any such diesel power back-up, relying on a battery back-up instead.

 

 

.

 

 

.

The DfT had no part in specifying the 803s, they were acquired by First Group for their open access operation.  They do have a battery capability to limp to a suitable place for evacuation should the main power supply fail.