dk1
Veteran Member
It doesn't work like that. The rear loco would be shut down & nothing more than a dead weight.Maybe the ability to use 10,000hp instead of only 5,000 giving the train better acceleration...
It doesn't work like that. The rear loco would be shut down & nothing more than a dead weight.Maybe the ability to use 10,000hp instead of only 5,000 giving the train better acceleration...
Would cause crewing headaches. No ex-Anglia drivers or conductors sign class 360s & no Great Eastern drivers sign North of Haughley Jcn. There are also no spare 360s in the fleet to cover.Actually if a 755 is not available - a 360 should be substituted to take its place instead as the 360s are the only trains with the performance spec to do the job reliably. 100mph from rest in 2.5 mins!!
In normal service that is usually the case. ButIt doesn't work like that. The rear loco would be shut down & nothing more than a dead weight.
That's a pity!! So we need a shorter MK3 set and loco then! Is the plan to roster a single 755 as these are only 4 - car?Would cause crewing headaches. No ex-Anglia drivers or conductors sign class 360s & no Great Eastern drivers sign North of Haughley Jcn. There are also no spare 360s in the fleet to cover.
This would be in normal service & not permitted. Freightliner are trialing the use of two 90s on certain Ipswich trains to replace the pairs of 86s but even then each 90 has to have a traction motor isolated. You would gain nothing on an IC set even if this was allowed & running a slightly shorter set with the DVT which would also need to be in the formation would be the sensible option.In normal service that is usually the case. But
I'm sure i was told reliably that it is technically possible to have both locos powered that way - id both are TDM fitted - and controlled by the leading loco unless there are specific restrictions on the route prohibiting that. In the same way you can double head a train with 2 electric locos and both be providing traction power.
There will be 3 & 4 car 755s by Summer hopefully & the plan is to run them in pairs.That's a pity!! So we need a shorter MK3 set and loco then! Is the plan to roster a single 755 as these are only 4 - car?
There's no real advantage using a 321 over a 90 acceleration wise. The 321 is quicker 0-60, but the Class 90 is better at the upper speed range 60-100mph. In the end a Class 90 hauled set (with all traction motors working and a dry rail) would clawback any deficit lost at the lower end. But neither beats a 360 - which is around 30 secs quicker over 4 or 5 miles!I doubt 321's would be used, using a 90 set on the 90 timing and then the 321 on the next service to make use of the acceleration advantage would make more sense?
I've recorded train performance extensively on this route, and the 360's don't lose any significant time over a Class 90 IC set or a pair or triple Class 321 sets through Neutral sections. That's why 360's hold most fastest times between stations on the GEML - including those that have a Neutral section a short distance from the station such as Witham, Colchester, Shenfield and Manningtree.They lose too much through neutral sections. Also not exactly reliable north of Ipswich dependant upon NR infrastructure and 3rd no drivers or conductors have both route and traction knowledge for the whole route.
Yes they would need conductors. Getting agreement from drivers unions for this would most proberbly if not certainly be rejected from the outset so as such short term would not be considered.I've recorded train performance extensively on this route, and the 360's don't lose any significant time over a Class 90 IC set or a pair or triple Class 321 sets through Neutral sections. That's why 360's hold most fastest times between stations on the GEML - including those that have a Neutral section a short distance from the station such as Witham, Colchester, Shenfield and Manningtree.
regarding crewing - wouldn't it make sense to train those GE drivers who go as far as Haugley to sign the last piece of route to Norwich? The 360's were given clearance to run to Norwich some years back. Would they need conductors?
Has a 755 made it to Liverpool Street yet? I've seen pictures as far south as Diss but no more than that!
Or it could just be the offset for Lakenham, which isn’t an official timing point, is wrong.
You’re welcome, didn’t think anyone would pick up on it so thanks. Struck me as odd when looking at the East Anglian down tonight and then found it in other schedules. Yes should have said not normally a timing point. Quite rare for trains to be planned that route although it is used in practice to allow something off the Thetford road to keep going a bit further.
Rumours spread on Thursday about Class 68s being hired in for this service...
Is a class 68 going to beat the performance of a class 90?
Even allowing for the fact a 90 is geared for 110mph, I doubt it. A 90 can produce up to 7,860hp; a 68 has a maximum at-rail output of 2,400kW (3,218hp).
Surely a 68 can't best a 90 based on that?
Interesting but not a direct comparison. The 68 has level or falling gradients for the first couple of miles out of High Wycombe, whereas the 90 faces rising gradients after the first half a mile, stiffening to 1 in 131 on the climb up to and beyond to Haughley Junction.Compare the performance of a Class 90 with load 10 and a Class 68 on Load 7 and see what you think is quicker?
First the '90'
then the '68'
Yes. That is right. A direct comparison isn't possible...but the fact the 68 with a lighter load going downhill accelerating slower than a 90 with a heavier load going uphill pretty much says it all.Interesting but not a direct comparison. The 68 has level or falling gradients for the first couple of miles out of High Wycombe, whereas the 90 faces rising gradients after the first half a mile, stiffening to 1 in 131 on the climb up to and beyond to Haughley Junction.
Compare the performance of a Class 90 with load 10 and a Class 68 on Load 7 and see what you think is quicker?
First the '90'
then the '68'
The Class 68 driver told me that apart from the initial start..it was on full power and no perceived wheelslip. The 90 run - as noted by another member starts uphill and gets steeper hence the slowing acceleration rate. I have seen a 90 get to 100mph from Ipswich northbound in just over 3 mins and 3.5 miles on a dry rail.Neither are as quick as I believe they can be.