Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Second shiny new train in a week to fall apart and block the WCML causing 20000+ compound delays minutes - last week it was a pair of WM 730s just north of there. Perhaps manufacturers should be hardwired into the performance game & fined.
1A16 10:14 Chester to Euston 1x 805
1D83 10:36 Crewe to Euston 2 x 805
1B38 11:15 Wolverhampton to Euston 1 x 805
1A42 12:48 Holyhead to Euston 2 x 805
1D87 13:02 Euston to Holyhead 1 x805
1A36 13:32 Chester to Euston 1 x 805
1A48 13:48 Holyhead to Euston 2 x 805
9G29 15:15 Euston to Birmingham NS 1 x 805
9G32 16:15 Euston to Birmingham NS 1 x 805
1J32 17:01 Euston Wrexham General + Holyhead 2 x 805 as far as Chester
1B55 17:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
1K67 17:53 Holyhead to Crewe 1 x 805
1D92 18:01 Euston to Holyhead 2 x 805 as far as Chester
1D95 19:18 Chester to Holyhead 1 x 805
1D80 05:30 Birmingam NS to Holyhead 1 x 805
1B25 07:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
1A26? 07:48 Holyhead to Euston 2 x 805 from Chester
9G08 08:16 Euston to Birmingam NS 1 x 805
1A34 08:48 Holyhead to Euston 1 x 805
9G11 09:16 Euston to Birmingham NS 1 x 805
1B31 09:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
1B34 10:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
1B37 11:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
1D86 12:02 Euston to Chester 2 x 805
1D87 13:02 Euston to Holyhead 1 x 805
1A58 14:32 Chester to Euston 2 x 805
9G32 16:16 Euston to Birmingham NS 1 x 805
1D91 17:02 Euston to Chester 2 x 805
9G38 18:16 Euston to Birminghmam NS 1 x 805
1B58 18:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
9G41 19:16 Euston to Wolverhampton 1 x 805
9G44 20:25 Euston to Wolverhampton 1 x 805
1D80 05:30 Birmingam NS to Holyhead 1 x 805
1B25 07:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
1A26? 07:48 Holyhead to Euston 2 x 805 from Chester
9G08 08:16 Euston to Birmingam NS 1 x 805
1A34 08:48 Holyhead to Euston 1 x 805
9G11 09:16 Euston to Birmingham NS 1 x 805
1B31 09:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
1B34 10:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
1B37 11:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
1D86 12:02 Euston to Chester 2 x 805
1D87 13:02 Euston to Holyhead 1 x 805
1A58 14:32 Chester to Euston 2 x 805
9G32 16:16 Euston to Birmingham NS 1 x 805
1D91 17:02 Euston to Chester 2 x 805
9G38 18:16 Euston to Birminghmam NS 1 x 805
1B58 18:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
9G41 19:16 Euston to Wolverhampton 1 x 805
9G44 20:25 Euston to Wolverhampton 1 x 805
It seems that the linespeed changes for the MU will be introduced in December.
The EPS differential is being retained so in the locations they exist there will be no MU speeds (Berkhamsted, Linslade, Weedon, Rugby, Weaver and any others I have forgotten).
805/807 will follow PS speeds at these locations.
1D80 05:30 Birmingam NS to Holyhead 1 x 805
1B25 07:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
1A26? 07:48 Holyhead to Euston 2 x 805 from Chester
9G08 08:16 Euston to Birmingam NS 1 x 805
1A34 08:48 Holyhead to Euston 1 x 805
9G11 09:16 Euston to Birmingham NS 1 x 805
1B31 09:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
1B34 10:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
1B37 11:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
1D86 12:02 Euston to Chester 2 x 805
1D87 13:02 Euston to Holyhead 1 x 805
1A58 14:32 Chester to Euston 2 x 805
9G32 16:16 Euston to Birmingham NS 1 x 805
1D91 17:02 Euston to Chester 2 x 805
9G38 18:16 Euston to Birminghmam NS 1 x 805
1B58 18:21 Birmingham NS to Euston 1 x 805
9G41 19:16 Euston to Wolverhampton 1 x 805
9G44 20:25 Euston to Wolverhampton 1 x 805
It seems that the linespeed changes for the MU will be introduced in December.
The EPS differential is being retained so in the locations they exist there will be no MU speeds (Berkhamsted, Linslade, Weedon, Rugby, Weaver and any others I have forgotten).
805/807 will follow PS speeds at these locations.
It seems that the linespeed changes for the MU will be introduced in December.
The EPS differential is being retained so in the locations they exist there will be no MU speeds (Berkhamsted, Linslade, Weedon, Rugby, Weaver and any others I have forgotten).
805/807 will follow PS speeds at these locations.
I thought the prime purpose of the MU speed profile was to reduce the differential where there are higher EPS speed limits? If the existing PS limits are maintained at all locations where there is an EPS speed limit then the maximum speed will remain at 110mph for most of the route for non-tilt rolling stock.
It seems that the linespeed changes for the MU will be introduced in December.
The EPS differential is being retained so in the locations they exist there will be no MU speeds (Berkhamsted, Linslade, Weedon, Rugby, Weaver and any others I have forgotten).
805/807 will follow PS speeds at these locations.
That could be quite restrictive though.
eg Norton Bridge-Basford Hall (17 miles) is signed 110/125EPS throughout.
Are you saying there will be no MU speeds on this section?
In fact most of the WCML south of Weaver Jn has EPS differentials.
There are only a few cases where PS-only speeds apply.
Or are you saying it's the Voyager EPS differentials that are being retained?
I thought the prime purpose of the MU speed profile was to reduce the differential where there are higher EPS speed limits? If the existing PS limits are maintained at all locations where there is an EPS speed limit then the maximum speed will remain at 110mph for most of the route for non-tilt rolling stock.
It's where there are EPS limits with a differential - i.e. EPS 115/125 where a 221 would be restricted to 115mph but a 390 could do 125; not where there is just an EPS limit.
It's because of the limit on no more than 3 different speed restrictions on one signboard.
It's where there are EPS limits with a differential - i.e. EPS 115/125 where a 221 would be restricted to 115mph but a 390 could do 125; not where there is just an EPS limit.
It's because of the limit on no more than 3 different speed restrictions on one signboard.
I don't know if it's temporary, but read Boodiggy's post again and you'll see that's what was said - the locations mentioned tie-in with where there are presently split 221/390 EPS differential speeds.
That could be quite restrictive though.
eg Norton Bridge-Basford Hall (17 miles) is signed 110/125EPS throughout.
Are you saying there will be no MU speeds on this section?
In fact most of the WCML south of Weaver Jn has EPS differentials.
There are only a few cases where PS-only speeds apply.
Or are you saying it's the Voyager EPS differentials that are being retained?
My understanding is MU will apply in the proposed locations where there is a single EPS limits for 221s and 390's, but will now not apply in a few locations where two seperate EPS speeds exist.
So it seems they are retaining the Voyager EPS speed limits which seems to make sense if an OA operator wants to reuse displaced 221's.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Second shiny new train in a week to fall apart and block the WCML causing 20000+ compound delays minutes - last week it was a pair of WM 730s just north of there. Perhaps manufacturers should be hardwired into the performance game & fined.
What do we mean by fall apart? Did something physically break or was it a software issue?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Between Euston and Weaver junction - Northbound, the EPS speeds differ at the following locations 390 speed first then 221:
Berkhamsted 125mph - 115mph
Linslade Tunnel 125 - 115
Weedon 120 - 110
Hilmorton thru Rugby to 83miles 68ch 125- 115
Southbound (up) the EPS speeds currently are:
84m 14ch to 83 49 - 125 - 120
82m 16ch to 81m 72ch - 125 - 120
Weedon area 70m 53 ch to 68m 70 ch - 120 - 110
Bletchley flyover to Linslade 125 - 110
Berkhamsted 125 - 110.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That could be quite restrictive though.
eg Norton Bridge-Basford Hall (17 miles) is signed 110/125EPS throughout.
Are you saying there will be no MU speeds on this section?
In fact most of the WCML south of Weaver Jn has EPS differentials.
There are only a few cases where PS-only speeds apply.
Or are you saying it's the Voyager EPS differentials that are being retained?
My understanding is MU will apply in the proposed locations where there is a single EPS limits for 221s and 390's, but will now not apply in a few locations where two seperate EPS speeds exist.
So it seems they are retaining the Voyager EPS speed limits which seems to make sense if an OA operator wants to reuse displaced 221's.
If that is what's happening, it sounds like they are prioritising an currently unknown OAO over the franchised operator and its known stock - which I would suggest is the wrong way to go about this
It's where there are EPS limits with a differential - i.e. EPS 115/125 where a 221 would be restricted to 115mph but a 390 could do 125; not where there is just an EPS limit.
It's because of the limit on no more than 3 different speed restrictions on one signboard.
If that is what's happening, it sounds like they are prioritising an currently unknown OAO over the franchised operator and its known stock - which I would suggest is the wrong way to go about this
Not really. Of all the sites only Linslade DF had a higher proposed MU of 100 vice PS 90 (I think - I will check).
The rest were all without MU anyway. So the timings will not be affected.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I thought the prime purpose of the MU speed profile was to reduce the differential where there are higher EPS speed limits? If the existing PS limits are maintained at all locations where there is an EPS speed limit then the maximum speed will remain at 110mph for most of the route for non-tilt rolling stock.
EPS differentials only apply to tilting trains.
Where it affects MU is because standards for signage allow for three different speeds to be boarded together.
With PS and 2 x EPS no MU can be added.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If that is what's happening, it sounds like they are prioritising an currently unknown OAO over the franchised operator and its known stock - which I would suggest is the wrong way to go about this
Had one of these from Chester to Crewe on Friday 2nd https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C21651/2024-08-02#allox_id=0
I was quite happy in the middle somewhere, but on approaching Crewe the train manager came on the PA to apologise for how cold the train was "especially in the end coaches". He stated that there was nothing that on-board staff could do to control/adjust this, and could only offer details of the next Avanti departure from Crewe to London (where tickets would be valid) if passengers wished to alight ...
If true this seems a very strange design decision (as these trains do all have a train manager on board to be responsible) and a rather drastic situation to have to change trains to a warmer one!
Had one of these from Chester to Crewe on Friday 2nd https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C21651/2024-08-02#allox_id=0
I was quite happy in the middle somewhere, but on approaching Crewe the train manager came on the PA to apologise for how cold the train was "especially in the end coaches". He stated that there was nothing that on-board staff could do to control/adjust this, and could only offer details of the next Avanti departure from Crewe to London (where tickets would be valid) if passengers wished to alight ...
If true this seems a very strange design decision (as these trains do all have a train manager on board to be responsible) and a rather drastic situation to have to change trains to a warmer one!
Had one of these from Chester to Crewe on Friday 2nd https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C21651/2024-08-02#allox_id=0
I was quite happy in the middle somewhere, but on approaching Crewe the train manager came on the PA to apologise for how cold the train was "especially in the end coaches". He stated that there was nothing that on-board staff could do to control/adjust this, and could only offer details of the next Avanti departure from Crewe to London (where tickets would be valid) if passengers wished to alight ...
If true this seems a very strange design decision (as these trains do all have a train manager on board to be responsible) and a rather drastic situation to have to change trains to a warmer one!
I'm pretty sure the train manager can change it under the instruction of Hitachi over the phone, definitely happened on trains I've worked before on GWR.
The train manager came on the PA to apologise for how cold the train was "especially in the end coaches". He stated that there was nothing that on-board staff could do to control/adjust this, and could only offer details of the next Avanti departure from Crewe to London (where tickets would be valid) if passengers wished to alight ...
I think LSL is still to be resolved.
No idea on any OA bids.
The are still bridge resonance issues, some with fleet speed restrictions and I think these may still be in place when the 807s start operating service in the later part of September.
I think LSL is still to be resolved.
No idea on any OA bids.
The are still bridge resonance issues, some with fleet speed restrictions and I think these may still be in place when the 807s start operating service in the later part of September.
Interesting. The standard MU profile where it exists on the WCML Rugby to Stafford via Birmingham presently includes HST's according to the sectional appendix.
So the question arises whether the MU profile planned via the Trent Valley will come with some exclusions or additions.
A case in point being the Anglia 90mph DMU differential between Stratford and Shenfield having a note in the sectional appendix stating that those speeds also apply to 720 745 Class 90 and LHCS plus various EMU's that are not normally included in the DMU category.
It makes sense to retain Voyager EPS limits for now while these are still in service and beyond.
Bridge resonance will require an engineering solution. How early on was it identified?
Interesting. The standard MU profile where it exists on the WCML Rugby to Stafford via Birmingham presently includes HST's according to the sectional appendix.
So the question arises whether the MU profile planned via the Trent Valley will come with some exclusions or additions.
A case in point being the Anglia 90mph DMU differential between Stratford and Shenfield having a note in the sectional appendix stating that those speeds also apply to 720 745 Class 90 and LHCS plus various EMU's that are not normally included in the DMU category.
It makes sense to retain Voyager EPS limits for now while these are still in service and beyond.
Bridge resonance will require an engineering solution. How early on was it identified?
Define identified, the standards for Bridge Resonance were changed in 2016 which means that new rolling stock is subject to additional compatibility work which existing rolling stock does not require under grandfather rights.
The aim of this research has been to test and simplify the compatibility assessment of rail vehicles passing over bridges at speeds between 90mph and 140mph (previous research has considered a maximum speed of 125mph).
By identified - i mean that some sort of bridge resonance testing must have taken place where greater than allowed resonance was measured. But how along ago would that likely have been? Clearly Avanti in their press video talked about all the speed enhancement work they did with network rail, but not once did the subjet of bridge resonance crop up. So either they didn't wish to mention this issue, or it was only identified shortly before service introduction. Surely interface with the infrastructure would have been one of the first items tested?
By identified - i mean that some sort of bridge resonance testing must have taken place where greater than allowed resonance was measured. But how along ago would that likely have been? Clearly Avanti in their press video talked about all the speed enhancement work they did with network rail, but not once did the subjet of bridge resonance crop up. So either they didn't wish to mention this issue, or it was only identified shortly before service introduction. Surely interface with the infrastructure would have been one of the first items tested?
I would have thought that bridge resonance is only an issue that can be measured when the trains start running over the line.
You would to go and examine the bridges to see whether any resonance issues are occuring that will need mitigation by measuring the vibrations when trains pass.
You might be able to make some early estimates from desktop modelling but it's really only when the real trains are running in real conditions that you can accurately measure any resonance effects on the bridges.
I'm sure the measurement part was in the project plan. There would be a general time/budget allowance for any mitigations but you wouldn't know what mitigations are going to be needed until you've done the measurements.
No, it can be, and is, modelled. The bridge resonance work for the WCML upgrade 25 years ago was scoped, designed and in some cases delivered before any Pendolinos were out on test on the main line.
I am a little surprised that the issue was seemingly not understood in this case, especially as some of the people on this project were there 25 years ago as well.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
