LUMO manages Edinburgh to Kings Cross in 3 hr 58 mins!

[hexagon789]

BR manage 3hr29m29s (I think) with a special 91+5mk4s+dvt set on a special Kings Cross to Edinburgh run. It had special dispensario to run above line speed in many areas up ro 140mph and other services were moved out of its way.

Yes, 3h29m29s - 140 authorised wherever normal linespeed was 125mph.

 

[HST43257]

Reckon an IET could match 3h29 without the 140 but with the better acceleration away from the likes of London, York, Newcastle and Morpeth?

 

[Watershed]

It could be easily done even faster than that considering the ECML is so straight. Avanti could do Euston to Glasgow in 3hr 52 minutes and that’s on curved track

Curvature is just one of many factors that go into linespeeds and hence journey times.

Reckon an IET could match 3h29 without the 140 but with the better acceleration away from the likes of London, York, Newcastle and Morpeth?

No chance. If you made sure there were no ESRs or TSRs and got a 100% clear run, you might manage it non-stop in 3h40. At a push.

 

[hexagon789]

Reckon an IET could match 3h29 without the 140 but with the better acceleration away from the likes of London, York, Newcastle and Morpeth?

They are only a minute quicker 0-125 than an IC225.

That's not going to make up nearly 30 mins without exceeding linespeed.

 

[HST43257]

No chance. If you made sure there were no ESRs or TSRs and got a 100% clear run, you might manage it non-stop in 3h40. At a push.

They are only a minute quicker 0-125 than an IC225.

That's not going to make up nearly 30 mins without exceeding linespeed.

Yes, there would be the same things about getting services out of the way. Would quicker acceleration not go quite some way to cancelling out the 140mph sections?

 

[PaulJ]

Once they found out you could keep the thing on the rails at 75mph in a 25mph, a world of possibilities was opened up?!

I thought that too...

 

[Happilyretired]

The fastest service in 1988 was the down Flying Scotsman at 4h23.

Sure you aren't thinking of the 3h59 Scottish Pullmans launched after electrification to Edinburgh was completed?

I have obviously got my recollection of holidays mixed up around that time. When did the 06.30 Scottish Pullman EDB/KGX start to operate with a 3hr 59min running time?

 

[Watershed]

Yes, there would be the same things about getting services out of the way. Would quicker acceleration not go quite some way to cancelling out the 140mph sections?

Not when you consider the fact that the vast majority of the journey would be undertaken at (or close to) 125mph. Over short distances the extra 15mph makes little difference, but on a non-stop 393 mile run it makes a massive difference.

As a very crude indication, if all 393 miles were done at 125mph, it would take 3h8m. At 140mph, it would take 2h48m. You can accelerate and brake as fast as you want - but it's still not going to save you 20 minutes.

 

[miklcct]

Of course, but what is being questioned here is *limiting* acceleration. Although if services have to be timetabled to the lowest common denominator there's probably little use for some units behaving differently to others. Other than artificially limiting their ability to make up a little time when running late.

But then, I've long wondered why every train type seemingly has different driving characteristics. Why is this, and controls, not standardised?

Limiting acceleration is useful to prevent a train catching up the one ahead. For example, when the SP1900 train was first deployed on KCR East Rail, because they have better acceleration than the old trains it soon caught behind the one before it, causing uneven frequency.

 

[LickeyIncliner]

Quite possibly not throwing people down the train, or items off tables into people's laps & so on. Fairly sure there's at least one RSSB doc on passenger comfort & acceleration/deceleration levels but I can't remember exactly.

There is a *lot* of publically available engineering data about the 80xs.

Agreed. Any greater acceleration would have them rolling in the aisles, and not in a good way

 

[tornado]

It could be easily done even faster than that considering the ECML is so straight. Avanti could do Euston to Glasgow in 3hr 52 minutes and that’s on curved track

But are the WCML and ECML the same length? I believe WCML is 399 miles but could be wrong.

 

[mmh]

Limiting acceleration is useful to prevent a train catching up the one ahead. For example, when the SP1900 train was first deployed on KCR East Rail, because they have better acceleration than the old trains it soon caught behind the one before it, causing uneven frequency.

In the UK that problem is managed with timetables and signals.

 

[Watershed]

But are the WCML and ECML the same length? I believe WCML is 399 miles but could be wrong.

The ECML to Edinburgh is slightly shorter than the WCML to Glasgow, at 393 vs 399 miles. That said, Glasgow is further from London (344 vs 332 miles as the crow flies), so the WCML is slightly more direct than the ECML.

 

[hexagon789]

Yes, there would be the same things about getting services out of the way. Would quicker acceleration not go quite some way to cancelling out the 140mph sections?

Well you only save 1 minute with every full 0-125 acceleration, any acceleration from a rolling speed you're saving seconds. 91s are not bad in the upper speed ranges, it's just the high gearing means they don't get into their stride until about 80mph.

I have obviously got my recollection of holidays mixed up around that time. When did the 06.30 Scottish Pullman EDB/KGX start to operate with a 3hr 59min running time?

Would be when the full electric timetable to Edinburgh came in during 1991.

But are the WCML and ECML the same length? I believe WCML is 399 miles but could be wrong.

The ECML to Edinburgh is slightly shorter than the WCML to Glasgow, at 393 vs 399 miles. That said, Glasgow is further from London (344 vs 332 miles as the crow flies), so the WCML is slightly more direct than the ECML.

Euston to Glasgow is 401.25mi, I don't know where Wikipedia gets its 399 figure from.

 

[Watershed]

Euston to Glasgow is 401.25mi, I don't know where Wikipedia gets its 399 figure from.

400mi43ch, actually. I guess with rounding and change of mileages it's easy to lose a mile somewhere along the line.

 

[Wychwood93]

400mi43ch, actually. I guess with rounding and change of mileages it's easy to lose a mile somewhere along the line.

RTT has it at 402.07!

 

[Watershed]

Having taken another look at the changes of mileage, I stand corrected and it's actually 401mi32ch:

Euston
0mi0ch

Warrington South Jn
181mi74ch -> 181mi76ch

Golborne Jn
187mi76ch -> 0mi53ch

Preston
21mi57ch -> 0mi0ch

Lancaster
20mi78ch -> 0mi0ch

Carlisle
69mi9ch -> 0mi0ch

Glasgow Central
102mi27ch

Total 401mi32ch

 

[miklcct]

In the UK that problem is managed with timetables and signals.

But if the timetable is squeezed into the limit and you want more trains per hour, you will need measures such as automatic train operation, signalling upgrade, etc.

 

[Sean Emmett]

Having taken another look at the changes of mileage, I stand corrected and it's actually 401mi32ch:

Euston
0mi0ch

Warrington South Jn
181mi74ch -> 181mi76ch

Golborne Jn
187mi76ch -> 0mi53ch

Preston
21mi57ch -> 0mi0ch

Lancaster
20mi78ch -> 0mi0ch

Carlisle
69mi9ch -> 0mi0ch

Glasgow Central
102mi27ch

Total 401mi32ch

Yes, but IIRC the electrification survey showed the line between Carlisle and Glasgow is approx 11 chains longer than posted.

But then deduct the length of the train and it's as you were...

 

[Watershed]

Yes, but IIRC the electrification survey showed the line between Carlisle and Glasgow is approx 11 chains longer than posted.

But then deduct the length of the train and it's as you were...

Indeed; the posted mileages are really more approximations, given that they were done, by hand, back in the 19th Century...!

 

[TommyJ]

But are the WCML and ECML the same length? I believe WCML is 399 miles but could be wrong.

It seems to be 400.5 according to https://my.railmiles.me/mileage-engine/