Fastest freight train?

[midlandred]

According to Freight Locate, 6M06 runs today, 1,800 tonne load, timed to run at 134mph :roll:

 

[Dhassell]

urgh Not this sort of Thread Again...
It has popped up at least 10 times.
Its to do with people in Network Rail Entering in MPH Instead of Miles Per Hour.

 

[midlandred]

urgh Not this sort of Thread Again...
It has popped up at least 10 times.
Its to do with people in Network Rail Entering in MPH Instead of Miles Per Hour.

And for those of us whose first language is English . . . .

 

[swt_passenger]

urgh Not this sort of Thread Again...
It has popped up at least 10 times.
Its to do with people in Network Rail Entering in MPH Instead of Miles Per Hour.

MPH is Miles pre Hour :roll:

ITYF it is a Metres per second vs Miles per hour fault.

 

[midlandred]

MPH is Miles pre Hour :roll:

ITYF it is a Metres per second vs Miles per hour fault.

And for those of us whose first language is English . . . .

 

[HowardGWR]

MPH is Miles pre Hour :roll:

ITYF it is a Metres per second vs Miles per hour fault.

I looked up ITYF and I assume the Urban Dictionary explanation is not the one you meant SWT_passenger!

Apart from that can someone explain what midlandred is on about?

 

[swt_passenger]

It is to do with the way the planners enter the details for STP paths. Somewhere along the way there is either a data conversion that isn't working right, or the software is correct and data is being entered in the wrong units.

But it is known that the large values that are displayed all have a direct correlation to typical mph values, i.e. 134 is shown when 60 is meant, and 168 when 75 is meant

 

[Freightmaster]

It is to do with the way the planners enter the details for STP paths.

For clarification, STP paths are fine - the problem only affects vSTP schedules,
which are created using a different system to 'normal' STP/VAR schedules.


MARK

 

[yorkie]

According to Freight Locate, 6M06 runs today, 1,800 tonne load, timed to run at 134mph :roll:

Source? Have Freight Locate actually said that?

Or have they quoted a timing load which is in the open data and which has been translated/interpreted in a way that wasn't intended.

 

[Harbornite]

Moving on from this, the actual top speed for freight in the UK is 100mph if you consider parcels units as freight. If not, then it's 75mph for class 4s.

It would be interesting to know what the fastest overseas freights are. The TGV La poste would have been up there before it was withdrawn.

 

[swt_passenger]

For clarification, STP paths are fine - the problem only affects vSTP schedules,
which are created using a different system to 'normal' STP/VAR schedules.


MARK

Thanks Mark. I will try and remember that detail for when this question next comes up, possibly in September?

 

[Johncleesefan]

They all seem pretty slow to me whenever I see them stuck at a red in a loop whilst I whizz past to overtake

 

[midlandred]

Hi guys, and thanks for the replies

urgh Not this sort of Thread Again...
It has popped up at least 10 times.

Wasn't aware it had "popped up" before [confession, I don't read every thread]

Its to do with people in Network Rail Entering in MPH Instead of Miles Per Hour.

I couldn't understand this comment [I assumed MPH meant Miles Per Hour]

MPH is Miles pre Hour

I assume this was a typo?

ITYF it is a Metres per second vs Miles per hour fault.

I understood ITYF, but not the rest of the sentence

. . . can someone explain what midlandred is on about?

I think the above explains it

It is to do with the way the planners enter the details for STP paths. Somewhere along the way there is either a data conversion that isn't working right, or the software is correct and data is being entered in the wrong units.
But it is known that the large values that are displayed all have a direct correlation to typical mph values, i.e. 134 is shown when 60 is meant, and 168 when 75 is meant

This makes much more sense - thanks to the poster for that


I didn't intend to annoy the forum, I honestly didn't know why Freight Locate was showing:
Timing Load - 1800 tonnes [yes, it was "Timing Load" - I won't ask!]
Timed to run at 134mph

Anyway, as a thank you to ALL who took the time and trouble to reply, here is said train passing Oddington this morning

 

[sciisfun]

Anyway, as a thank you to ALL who took the time and trouble to reply, here is said train passing Oddington this morning

Great shot at 134 MPH! sorry, couldn't resist

 

[ExRes]

Anyway, as a thank you to ALL who took the time and trouble to reply, here is said train passing Oddington this morning

Great shot at 134 MPH! sorry, couldn't resist

Well I reckon you're exaggerating, it looks no more than 122/123mph to me

It seems yet another backward step for the railway when you consider that we had a couple of NIA van sets in around 1999 that, when paired with a 90, were 110mph capable

 

[midlandred]

Great shot at 134 MPH! sorry, couldn't resist

Shot at 1/5000 sec

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Well I reckon you're exaggerating, it looks no more than 122/123mph to me

It seems yet another backward step for the railway when you consider that we had a couple of NIA van sets in around 1999 that, when paired with a 90, were 110mph capable

I was under the impression that the gains from increasing the speed of freight weren't really worth it due to the cost of getting all that unpowered weight to that speed in the first place, and then the extra energy wasted in slowing it all down again.

 

[Domh245]

I was under the impression that the gains from increasing the speed of freight weren't really worth it due to the cost of getting all that unpowered weight to that speed in the first place, and then the extra energy wasted in slowing it all down again.

Possibly, although if you can run a freight train at 110mph (or even 125mph) then it would make pathing a lot simpler on mainlines.

 

[38Cto15E]

We used to manage 100mph over 40 years ago with a Class 47 and the Tartan Arrow freightliner train, only coming down the dip from Leagrave to Harlington though.

 

[Mordac]

I was under the impression that the gains from increasing the speed of freight weren't really worth it due to the cost of getting all that unpowered weight to that speed in the first place, and then the extra energy wasted in slowing it all down again.

The gains aren't for the freight services themselves, it's in making pathing much easier and increasing capacity in mixed traffic lines.

EDIT: I see Domh245 beat me to it.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Possibly, although if you can run a freight train at 110mph (or even 125mph) then it would make pathing a lot simpler on mainlines.

The gains aren't for the freight services themselves, it's in making pathing much easier and increasing capacity in mixed traffic lines.

EDIT: I see Domh245 beat me to it.

I understand this, but as long as freight trains remain loco hauled with all the power concentrated at the front, they'll always take longer to get up to linespeed than the passenger trains they run amongst which for the most part have distributed traction and weigh much less. The oft-vaunted, seldom-realised concept of FMUs (Freight Multiple Units) would be the game-changer if it were ever to be workable.

 

[The Planner]

Only makes it easier when they are at a high speed and stay there. Soon as you hit a hill or have to slow down or accelerate then its game over. Getting 1400 plus tonnes of boxes up to 90 or more aint going to be quick.

 

[najaB]

Only makes it easier when they are at a high speed and stay there. Soon as you hit a hill or have to slow down or accelerate then its game over.

Reducing the speed differential between freight and passenger services makes it less likely that the freight will need to be looped to let the passenger service pass. I'm willing to bet it could be possible for a 125mph stopping passenger service to follow a 100mph non-stop freight most of the way up the WCML.

 

[GB]

Of course stopping a 2400 tonne freight from 90+ in the available signalling sections might be a different kettle of fish.

 

[najaB]

Of course stopping a 2400 tonne freight from 90+ in the available signalling sections might be a different kettle of fish.

I did say non-stop!

 

[GB]

I did say non-stop!

Lol yes you did

On another note, on HS1 is freight not timed for 90mph?

 

[The Planner]

Reducing the speed differential between freight and passenger services makes it less likely that the freight will need to be looped to let the passenger service pass. I'm willing to bet it could be possible for a 125mph stopping passenger service to follow a 100mph non-stop freight most of the way up the WCML.

You are assuming there are loops in the first place. You can just about get a class 4 infront of a 90mph stopper now. A stopping Pendo would still likely catch a 100mph freight train by Rugby and you would stand no chance of keeping infront north of Preston.

 

[najaB]

...you would stand no chance of keeping infront north of Preston.

Even if it was distributed traction (either freight EMU or top-mid-tail loco working in multiple)? This is a thought exercise, not a practical planning exercise.

 

[The Planner]

Not up Shap you won't, you would need some real power.

 

[E_Reeves]

This seems to happen more if it is a light engine or a double header.