Specification of Class 345 trains

Vincent Smith made this Freedom of Information request to Crossrail Limited

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear Crossrail Limited,

With all of the publicity in the media about Crossrail recently, I would like to request some information regarding the decision making for the rolling stock itself. I am hoping to find out the details about the specifications for the design contract of class 345 trains, the reasoning behind some of the features - and lack of, and how well the specification was adhered to by Bombardier on the following:

1.a. Why were the units specified to be 9-car units and 205 meters in overall length?
1.b. Will at any point in the future the 9-car units be lengthened any further with additional vehicles (i.e to 10 or even 11-car units), and when might this happen?
1.c. Why where stated in the specification that the train be fit for longer than average journeys were toilet facilities not included, especially with the planned travelling to and from Heathrow Airport?
1.d. Will at any point any of the vehicles be converted (or added) to have an onboard toilet facility and/or storage facility for passengers to store their luggage, and when might this happen?
1.e. Why is there a lack of luggage racks in the train? Can and will these be added in the future?
1.f. Why is there no center door operation button on the inside of the passenger doors like the class 710? Can and will these be added in the future?
1.g. Why are there no plug sockets or USB sockets for passengers to use on the train? Can and will these be added in the future?

2. What will be the bandwidth of the onboard WiFi for passenger use in terms of download and upload speeds?

3.a. Why were the units designed with a mechanical Dellner coupler only without an electrical box connection?
3.b. How much would it cost to retrofit an electrical box to each coupler on every 345 unit?

4.a. Why was the speed of the units specified at a maximum of 145km/h (90mph) for mainline driving when the route's highest permissible speed goes up to 125mph on the Great Western Line?
4.b. Why was the permissible speed of operating within the Central Operating Section set to 100km/h (62mph)?
4.c. Can and will any of the speed limits on the rolling stock be increased to match the permissible speeds of the physical track?
4.d. Why were these specifications made in km/h as opposed to mph?

5. This class of rolling stock has been previously described as the best prepared and designed train in the UK. With this in mind, and the specification for an ergonomically designed cab, why do the 345 units not have the following, will any of the following be implemented, and what would be the costs involved?
a. A wrong side door release preventative function?
b. Manual control over setting headlights and marker lights in a non active driving cab?
c. Manual control over turning the in-cab air conditioning on and off and more responsive temperature control?
d. A physical button to acknowledge the transitioning between different signalling systems?
e. A speed limiter function for the driver to set a desired speed for the train to drive at?
f. More responsive touch screens and image processing (CCTV playback and zooming features)?

Yours faithfully,
Vincent Smith

FOI, Crossrail Limited

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Smith

 

TfL Ref: FOI-1497-1920

 

Thank you for your email which we received on 17 August 2019 asking for
information about Class 345 trains.

 

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.  I can
confirm we hold some of the information you require. You asked:

 

1.a. Why were the units specified to be 9-car units and 205 meters in
overall length?

 

The units were not specified to be 9-car. The specification demanded a
minimum passenger capacity and limited unit length to 205m for
compatibility with existing NR infrastructure. Manufacturers were free to
propose the number of cars, within the unit length limitation. Bombardier
decided on 9 cars per unit.

 

1.b. Will at any point in the future the 9-car units be lengthened any
further with additional vehicles (i.e. to 10 or even 11-car units), and
when might this happen?

 

The 205m units are not designed for lengthening.

 

1.c. Why where stated in the specification that the train be fit for
longer than average journeys were toilet facilities not included,
especially with the planned travelling to and from Heathrow Airport?

 

TfL’s policy is to provide toilets at stations, not on TfL trains.

 

1.d. Will at any point any of the vehicles be converted (or added) to have
an onboard toilet facility and/or storage facility for passengers to store
their luggage, and when might this happen?

 

TfL has no plans to add toilets or additional luggage storage provision to
any of the vehicles.

 

1.e. Why is there a lack of luggage racks in the train? Can and will these
be added in the future?

 

Luggage racks are not compatible with the longitudinal seating layout. TfL
has no plans to add over-seat luggage racks. 

 

1.f. Why is there no centre door operation button on the inside of the
passenger doors like the class 710? Can and will these be added in the
future?

 

Door buttons are provided on either side of the doorway, and in
conjunction with the fact that door opening is automatic in the most busy
central tunnel section of the route. Additional door control buttons in
the centre of the door were considered redundant. TfL has no plans to add
more door control buttons. 

 

1.g. Why are there no plug sockets or USB sockets for passengers to use on
the train? Can and will these be added in the future?

 

They were not considered appropriate for the high passenger-density metro-
type operation at the time the specifications were drawn up in 2012. These
could be added but TfL has no current plans to do so.

 

2. What will be the bandwidth of the onboard WiFi for passenger use in
terms of download and upload speeds?

 

The WiFi bandwidth per device has been limited to a maximum of 1 Mbps
upload and 1 Mbps download until 20MB has been transferred and then the
bandwidth drops to a maximum of 512 Kbps.  This limit is reset daily.

 

3.a. Why were the units designed with a mechanical Dellner coupler only
without an electrical box connection?

 

The units are not required to operate in passenger service coupled
together in multiple unit formation, and to simplify train recovery in the
event of a train failure including the maximum possible compatibility with
other rolling stock.

 

3.b. How much would it cost to retrofit an electrical box to each coupler
on every 345 unit?

 

Unfortunately, we do not hold this information.

 

4.a. Why was the speed of the units specified at a maximum of 145km/h
(90mph) for mainline driving when the route's highest permissible speed
goes up to 125mph on the Great Western Line?

 

We considered the balance between top speed, acceleration and energy
consumption for the required train service and selected 90mph as the
optimum top speed. 

 

4.b. Why was the permissible speed of operating within the Central
Operating Section set to 100km/h (62mph)?

 

We considered the balance between top speed, acceleration and braking,
energy consumption, signalling system capability and the Central Operating
Section track alignment to deliver the required train service and selected
100kph.

 

4.c. Can and will any of the speed limits on the rolling stock be
increased to match the permissible speeds of the physical track?

 

The rolling stock traction equipment can be re-engineered for a higher top
speed but TfL has no plans to do so.

 

4.d. Why were these specifications made in km/h as opposed to mph?

 

To comply with European Technical Standards for Interoperability.

 

5. This class of rolling stock has been previously described as the best
prepared and designed train in the UK. With this in mind, and the
specification for an ergonomically designed cab, why do the 345 units not
have the following, will any of the following be implemented, and what
would be the costs involved?

 

 a. A wrong side door release preventative function?

 

Correct side door release is automatically selected by the train when
operating in the Central Operating Section under ATO (CBTC) control.  A
correct side door release advisory system (warning the driver if a wrong
side door release is being attempted) will be fitted for operation
elsewhere where door release is under the driver’s control.

 

 b. Manual control over setting headlights and marker lights in a non
active driving cab?

 

This is not mandated by train design standards for the UK and TfL has no
plans to change the design. We do not hold the cost information on such a
change.

 

 c. Manual control over turning the in-cab air conditioning on and off and
more responsive temperature control?

 

The driver is able to select 6 pre-set temperatures and a high and low fan
speed. The normal mode of operation will be in auto, where the equipment
will maintain the selected interior cab temperature.  A vent only position
(no heating or cooling) is available and mandatory;  train design
standards dictate a minimum fresh-air exchange rate, and it’s not
permitted for the cab ventilation system to be turned off .

 

 d. A physical button to acknowledge the transitioning between different
signalling systems?

 

The driver acknowledges the transition between different signalling
systems using a ‘soft key’ on the Driver-Machine- Interface (DMI)
touchscreen. The DMI is the portal for all interaction between the driver
and the train signalling system and has the requisite Safety Integrity
Level for this. TfL has no plans to replace with a physical button. We do
not hold the cost information for such a change.  

 

 e. A speed limiter function for the driver to set a desired speed for the
train to drive at?

 

Speed limits are set automatically within the on-train signalling systems
when under CBCT and ETCS control. Under CBTC control the train will
automatically drive to the speed profile dictated by the wayside CBTC
signalling.  Under ETCS the driver controls the speed of the train, up to
the speed limit set by the ETCS equipment. A Driver Advisory System (DAS)
may in future be introduced to the trains to advise the driver on the
appropriate speed profile to drive to, to optimise energy consumption
whilst maintaining the timetable, but the driver will still control the
train speed. TfL has no plans to add the ability of the driver to set the
applicable speed limit within the train’s control systems. TfL does not
hold the cost information for such a change.

 

 f. More responsive touch screens and image processing (CCTV playback and
zooming features)?

 

The trains are equipped with on-board CCTV, and live images from
individual cameras can be selected and viewed by the driver via the touch
screen. The driver is not however able to play back recordings. TfL has no
plans at this time to change the on-train CCTV functionality to include,
e.g., a zoom facility and does not hold the cost information for such a
change.

 

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable
to access it for some reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would
like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Eva Hextall

FOI Case Officer

 

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

 

show quoted sections