• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

How does Network Rail work out max speeds?

Status
Not open for further replies.

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
That sounds odd to me, what characteristics of a Pacer are causing that?

The location is allegedly over the Weaver viaduct west of Northwich station, a half-mile stretch of 20mph which supposedly could be higher.
Pacers will be gone shortly, of course.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,836
The location is allegedly over the Weaver viaduct west of Northwich station, a half-mile stretch of 20mph which supposedly could be higher.
Pacers will be gone shortly, of course.
That applies to all traffic though if it is the one between Northwich and Hartford.
 

carriageline

Established Member
Joined
11 Jan 2012
Messages
1,897
We have had a few reductions of speed recently on our patch. I'd love to know why that happened, there seems to be no rhyme or reason why the speeds got reduced. One, quite infamously, has changed and now adds a minute to the next stop and nothing was changed to the track, just a change of speed

Interested to know where your talking about?

Cannon st as an example was reduced to 15 when it was recontrolled. Most of that was because of the really short overlaps are non compliant now, and resignalling it would destroy capacity with modern standards!

When checked *apparently* most trains were only doing 15 when it was 20 anyway. Whether that means trains now don10 instead I don’t know!
 

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,102
That would be quite unusual, albeit not unprecedented. For a speed limit to apply to all types of train, when there is only one type of train affected, would usually be down to axle load, braking performance or loading gauge. In the case of pacers, it can only be the former, and even then I’d be surprised if a Pacer axle load is greater than a loco hauling passenger coaches. This could be covered by a special instruction in the sectional appendix, but in this case doesn’t appear to be.

Is there a specific example?

That sounds odd to me, what characteristics of a Pacer are causing that?

I think it was something to do with a curve near Northwich.
 

Llama

Established Member
Joined
29 Apr 2014
Messages
1,955
There are no other restrictions on curvature due to Pacers as far as I am aware, is that an urban myth?

Only other reasons I can think that Pacers might have specific restrictions might perhaps be due to lateral effects of strong winds or due to possible adhesion issues on a steep rising gradient if only one engine out of two is providing traction power.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,398
Location
UK
Interested to know where your talking about?

Kidbrooke Tunnel. No changes to the track, layout or otherwise. When it got resignalleded and controlled to the Great Beast TBROC the only change was the CA on UP. The previous 60mph PSR change in the tunnel has been removed and the 20 is now all the way out (on the down) !$£%$"%$%^£$ !!! +1 into Kidbrooke !

Charlton resignalling has had the PSR boards moved to the signal posts; which alters the speeds somewhat. They tidied up Greenwich which was nice; but on a technicality, the 60, albeit stoopid, was removed. The speed into College Tunnel has been reduced and now I'm so far under linespeed, I'm late into Greenwich all the time. Again, no real changes to anything just a speed reduction for no 'visible' reason.

I've noticed that the Hither Green resignalling is also pushing some of the PSR boards to the Signal posts (is this the future of PSR placement ?)

Cannon st as an example was reduced to 15 when it was recontrolled. Most of that was because of the really short overlaps are non compliant now, and resignalling it would destroy capacity with modern standards!

When checked *apparently* most trains were only doing 15 when it was 20 anyway. Whether that means trains now don10 instead I don’t know!

I understand the need to comply with new standards. Cannon has always been a slow crawl into London Bridge. Signal sighting is a drama lama and its highly congested so your always checked in both directions.

Speed wise, I'm not sure where I stand. As per the Charlton resignalling, it was good to finally get rid of some of those PSRs that were impossible to achieve but on the flip side when its reduced you are limited. I think I'd like to have PSRs that I can't achieve but ones I can push where I can and not worry about my speed.

Cannon could be 30 all the way out and you would still not achieve it and drive to whatever you were signalled. Getting Greens out (LOLOLOLOL) is a drag at 15mph and your almost touching London Bridge so the 20 PSR change is now kinda pointless. You can get 20 without thinking and previously your only limit was the signals. I'd rather have 20 all the way and drive accordingly.

Orpington (Ashford box) had another reduction. Country end crossover dropped from 60 to 50. The entire crossover was relaid and it much smoother and I think they also smoothed the curve out a touch. I can't understand why they dropped it to 50. Granted going over it at 60 was a touch scary.

If the infrastructure can take it, why can't we just have the fastest PSR ? (Yes Mr B Rick, I understand the 80 reasons....)
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
The location is allegedly over the Weaver viaduct west of Northwich station, a half-mile stretch of 20mph which supposedly could be higher.
Pacers will be gone shortly, of course.

That could only be for axle load. Any locomotive has a higher axleload. So it can’t just be for pacers.

I think it was something to do with a curve near Northwich.
in which case it would apply to everything.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
If the infrastructure can take it, why can't we just have the fastest PSR ? (Yes Mr B Rick, I understand the 80 reasons....)

The simple answer is that infrastructure can’t take it. Although I can understand how it can look odd that one day the infrastructure is capable, and the next it isn’t. All the issues you describe as having changed at resignalling will be due to applying signalling standards. For Kidbrooke, I think there’s a standard which prohibits changes of speed inside tunnels - perhaps @MarkyT can confirm. It would have had grandfather rights from the 70s resignalling, but they don’t apply after modern resignalling.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,382
The lower the speed to start with, a 5mph increase over relatively long distances can give big time savings. The example of the SWML would not deliver a 5 minute saving I admit. It was a figure of what could be achieved in one or two circumstances. Any speed increase though is a journey time reduction and in some areas of high traffic so based on no extra TPH, it is a bit more leeway for delays to be caught up (If a project delivers 2 minute journey time reduction, accommodate 1 min for the passenger timetable and 1 min for performance allowance).

I'd be curious to see where a 5mph increase could deliver "big time savings".
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,398
Location
UK
For Kidbrooke, I think there’s a standard which prohibits changes of speed inside tunnels - perhaps @MarkyT can confirm. It would have had grandfather rights from the 70s resignalling, but they don’t apply after modern resignalling.

If that is the case then you need to be aware of how much I love you right now. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ It's been bugging me since it changed. Meeting new standards is what I normally resign new changes too but it takes a few months of frustration to accept it. We have another tunnel where the speed changes. That has a 90mph speed change. I'd hate to see that go.

Cheers BR.
 

4F89

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
860
Not sure speeding up boxes to Widnes was what the OP had in mind though ... ;)
How much would I like to travel at a decent speed on the independents. It takes soooooo long, you wouldn't believe!
 

Mintona

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2006
Messages
3,592
Location
South West
Does anyone know if the maximum speed through Alderton Tunnel is going to go up from 110 to 125 now HSTs are no longer in use along that section?
 

Wychwood93

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2018
Messages
634
Location
Burton. Dorset.
Does anyone know if the maximum speed through Alderton Tunnel is going to go up from 110 to 125 now HSTs are no longer in use along that section?
That would be useful - I have often wondered why the 110 PSR is there. Perhaps not suitable for 125 if two trains passing each other there, perhaps HST related, as Mintona mentions.

Edit: Further to the above - only 30 chains at 110 with 125 either side - from 97m 30ch to 97m 60ch. Sourced from the Sectional Appendix.
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I have never known a signed speed restriction for a tunnel to be one class of rolling stock specific.

It’s almost certainly down to the pressure effect of two trains passing in the tunnel, track substructure (notoriously difficult in tunnels) or structure gauge (unlikely).
 

Mintona

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2006
Messages
3,592
Location
South West
I have never known a signed speed restriction for a tunnel to be one class of rolling stock specific.

It’s almost certainly down to the pressure effect of two trains passing in the tunnel, track substructure (notoriously difficult in tunnels) or structure gauge (unlikely).

It was the first one, the pressure of two trains passing caused the HST toilets to blow everything back into the cubicle and the speed was lowered to 110 to compensate for this. But IETs with their CET tanks won’t have the same problem so the speed limit could now be removed I’d have thought.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
It was the first one, the pressure of two trains passing caused the HST toilets to blow everything back into the cubicle and the speed was lowered to 110 to compensate for this. But IETs with their CET tanks won’t have the same problem so the speed limit could now be removed I’d have thought.

But that’s not HST specific. It’s trains above 110mph specific (without retention toilets).

Pedantic I know, sorry!
 

carriageline

Established Member
Joined
11 Jan 2012
Messages
1,897
Kidbrooke Tunnel. No changes to the track, layout or otherwise. When it got resignalleded and controlled to the Great Beast TBROC the only change was the CA on UP. The previous 60mph PSR change in the tunnel has been removed and the 20 is now all the way out (on the down) !$£%$"%$%^£$ !!! +1 into Kidbrooke !

Charlton resignalling has had the PSR boards moved to the signal posts; which alters the speeds somewhat. They tidied up Greenwich which was nice; but on a technicality, the 60, albeit stoopid, was removed. The speed into College Tunnel has been reduced and now I'm so far under linespeed, I'm late into Greenwich all the time. Again, no real changes to anything just a speed reduction for no 'visible' reason.

I've noticed that the Hither Green resignalling is also pushing some of the PSR boards to the Signal posts (is this the future of PSR placement ?)

I’ll do some digging some digging around all these points mate, and see if I can get some reasons behind them!
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,595
One suspects that the speed limits are generally very conservative. The reason being that, should an accident happen and speed be an issue, then the person or persons responsible for setting the speed limit too high will get the blame. Despite the introduction of many improvements - better braking, visibility, warning systems, signalling, trackwork, speed on many lines has not increased very much, if at all.

eg Settle-Carlisle

-steam days
vacuum braking, poor visibility from cab, semaphore signalling (no TPWS), low-weight
bullhead rail, no speedometer. Trains reaching up to 90mph on downhill sections.

A very small number of accidents over the years, none of which, from memory, related to speed

-now
All above improved immeasurably 60MPH max speed.
 

markymark2000

On Moderation
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
3,535
Location
Western Part of the UK
Not sure speeding up boxes to Widnes was what the OP had in mind though ... ;)
Speed improvements for freight means it gets to it's destination quicker and consequently, more businesses are likely to take up rail freight as a viable option with it being quicker.

Speed improvements to passenger trains are slightly more important but any speed increase would be welcome.

One suspects that the speed limits are generally very conservative. The reason being that, should an accident happen and speed be an issue, then the person or persons responsible for setting the speed limit too high will get the blame. Despite the introduction of many improvements - better braking, visibility, warning systems, signalling, trackwork, speed on many lines has not increased very much, if at all.
We can't increase speeds massively in most cases but any speed increase is a decrease in journey times, whether it be seconds or minutes.

If a speed can safely be increased without any major works, it should be done. More needs to be done as well to see where speed improvements can be made. There must be a practical way to test for possible improvements like having a train and driver go +5 mph (ECS and have technicians onboard and only on sections which are very low risk for derailments or damage to be caused) and if comfort is still acceptable, no damage caused and safety from a drivers perspective isn't compromised, the speed limit could be increased.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,398
Location
UK
-steam days
A very small number of accidents over the years, none of which, from memory, related to speed

A little rose tint to that I think.

Eltham Well Hall, Morpeth, Salisbury, Grantham, Shrewsbury.

A lot has changed since the days of steam. Even in recent years the stories some of our 'old boys' will tell you would make you shiver.

On topic. 'Improvements' to signalling standards do appear to come with lower speeds. I do wonder if the priority is faster or safer. They do go hand in hand but there has to be some drive towards capacity increases too.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
If a speed can safely be increased without any major works, it should be done. More needs to be done as well to see where speed improvements can be made. There must be a practical way to test for possible improvements like having a train and driver go +5 mph (ECS and have technicians onboard and only on sections which are very low risk for derailments or damage to be caused) and if comfort is still acceptable, no damage caused and safety from a drivers perspective isn't compromised, the speed limit could be increased.

But, as explained repeatedly, it’s not all about engineering and how quickly a train can go. There are several operational risk factors that have nothing to do with passenger comfort. Level crossing risk for example. Level crossing sighting. Level crossing strike ins. Signal overrun risk. Signal sighting. Positions of safety for the workforce. Passenger safety at platforms.
 

markymark2000

On Moderation
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
3,535
Location
Western Part of the UK
But, as explained repeatedly, it’s not all about engineering and how quickly a train can go. There are several operational risk factors that have nothing to do with passenger comfort. Level crossing risk for example. Level crossing sighting. Level crossing strike ins. Signal overrun risk. Signal sighting. Positions of safety for the workforce. Passenger safety at platforms.
That is why I said, have an ECS train do it at night with technicians etc and only do it where the risk is relatively low. Signal and LC sightings and over run risk would be worked out in this trial. Speed restrictions specifically for LCs, obviously they wouldn't be changed. The point is there are areas which no level crossings (or if there is any, they are ones where you call the signaller). Signals could be an issue but then the tests and trials would show what would need to be sorted (if anything) for a small speed increase.

Safety for workforce and passengers on platforms is more complex.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,398
Location
UK
There must be a practical way to test for possible improvements like having a train and driver go +5 mph (ECS and have technicians onboard and only on sections which are very low risk for derailments or damage to be caused) and if comfort is still acceptable, no damage caused and safety from a drivers perspective isn't compromised, the speed limit could be increased.

I've blown a few speeds in my years. Sometimes it can't be helped. I've even been asked to deliberately blow an ESR to test for comfort and operational issues...

What you need to allow for is that once, isn't usually an issue. Going +5 every single day, multiple times a day could be a potential issue. A single test train isn't a proper stress test. There needs to be some kind of engineering allowance or limits of tolerance. I would assume that this is one of those 80 reasons.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
We can't increase speeds massively in most cases but any speed increase is a decrease in journey times, whether it be seconds or minutes.

A very common mistake. Much of the railway is effectively at (or near) capacity, such that an increase in line speeds just means that the fast trains catch up the stopping trains earlier, and there is no journey time improvement.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
That is why I said, have an ECS train do it at night with technicians etc and only do it where the risk is relatively low. Signal and LC sightings and over run risk would be worked out in this trial. Speed restrictions specifically for LCs, obviously they wouldn't be changed. The point is there are areas which no level crossings (or if there is any, they are ones where you call the signaller). Signals could be an issue but then the tests and trials would show what would need to be sorted (if anything) for a small speed increase.

Safety for workforce and passengers on platforms is more complex.

It’s all more complex. A lot more complex. I assume you haven’t actually done his for real. I have, many many times.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I've blown a few speeds in my years. Sometimes it can't be helped. I've even been asked to deliberately blow an ESR to test for comfort and operational issues...

What you need to allow for is that once, isn't usually an issue. Going +5 every single day, multiple times a day could be a potential issue. A single test train isn't a proper stress test. There needs to be some kind of engineering allowance or limits of tolerance. I would assume that this is one of those 80 reasons.

There’s tolerance within all the factors, in one form of another. Take underbridge strength for example. It may be fit for 80mph. It will also be fit for 85mph, but with a smaller tolerance above that. However repeated use at 85 instead of 80 will mean an increased risk of that bridge failing suddenly, and a certainty that the bridge will become life expired ealier than planned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top