When I say IETs I of course mean all 80x models (in this threads case let's say the east coast ones, LNER and Transpennine), just calling them all the one sensible name.Yes, I was indeed replying to a question about IETs.![]()

When I say IETs I of course mean all 80x models (in this threads case let's say the east coast ones, LNER and Transpennine), just calling them all the one sensible name.Yes, I was indeed replying to a question about IETs.![]()
It would make sense to have some form of speed supervision system over 125mph linked to the signalling system.Yes, I was indeed replying to a question about IETs.![]()
It would make sense to have some form of speed supervision system over 125mph linked to the signalling system.
The Europeans have had such a system for years - French have preannonce in cab signalling on conventional 200km/h lines - Italians have SCMT almost nationwide. Shame we haven't rolled something similar across the UK in all these years - apart from ATP in limited use.
Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) TfN’s work on the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) Scheme is reaching a critical moment as it develops its Strategic Outline Case to be submitted to the Government, as well as seeking to influence the outcome of the National Infrastructure Commission’s work on an Integrated Rail Plan. The preferred network for NPR will be decided through a ‘sifting’ process that is about to begin, that will take forward three or four options for the business case. The Leeds-Newcastle section of NPR is primarily the East Coast Mainline (ECML) potentially combined with a short section of HS2’s Eastern Leg between Leeds and York. The TfN Board will be asked to consider the results of sifting in November, and it is expected that the options that may be taken forward will include the reopening of the Leamside Line (either full or partial) to divert freight away from the ECML. At its meeting on 17th September the TfN Board considered a report on phasing which is the order in which the full scheme will be delivered and built. TfN’s preferred phasing scenario would see some of the work on the ECML being put at the start, with some upgrades to the existing route in the first 5-year period (2025-30). This would include 140mph running York-Northallerton, and an upgrade to Darlington and Newcastle stations. Further work would follow in the next two five year periods. The JTC has always maintained that work on upgrading the ECML should come Page 40 first because not only is it is an enabler for HS2 and other services as well as NPR, but it is also a relatively easy scheme by comparison with the highly intrusive and costly sections of new build line elsewhere.
The question I have is why 140mph? Has this been deemed the most economical speed, or have "they" arbitrarily decided on this just because Class 800s can do it?Found the relevant passages. Emphasis mine. I'm happy to take this to a new thread if it makes more sense?
https://northeastca.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020.10.20-JTC-Public-Agenda-Pack.pdf
North East Joint Transport Committee Tuesday, 20th October, 2020 at 2.00 pm Meeting to be held virtually via Microsoft Teams
I would have to assume this is less about time savings, more about Northern Powerhouse Rail flag waving with 'we have 140mph running on classic lines'.Assuming 25 miles of track is to be upgraded (it's roughly 27.5 miles in a straight line between the Harrogate line and Middlesbrough line junctions), at 125mph this takes 12 minutes. At 140mph, 10.7 minutes, 155mph 9.7 minutes. So not really that much time saved. (Yes, I know I haven't accounted for acceleration etc, but I've sort of fudged that in by using a nice round distance!)
Although if that's the case, "we're running at 155mph on classic lines" sounds even better!I would have to assume this is less about time savings, more about Northern Powerhouse Rail flag waving with 'we have 140mph running on classic lines'.
I read once that until ~1994 the UK had more services timed for over 100mph than any other country, I never quite understood if that meant averaging 100mph+ between certain points or running at over 100mph.I'm sure there was a stat doing the rounds at some point that we had the most amount of railway cleared for over 100mph without any form of speed supervision/in-cab signalling.
British Rail did an advert on it, although they said “any other country in EUROPE”.I read once that until ~1994 the UK had more services timed for over 100mph than any other country, I never quite understood if that meant averaging 100mph+ between certain points or running at over 100mph.
And is it thus a coincidence we have more or less the safest major railway in Europe?. Id suggest not. Leaving the driver with a degree of responsibility enhances driver performance.I'm sure there was a stat doing the rounds at some point that we had the most amount of railway cleared for over 100mph without any form of speed supervision/in-cab signalling.
I understood that all trains have to do an 'overspeed' test something like 10% over normal maximum. Now I thought most of this was done on the WCML and as such for 140mph it would be 154mph. How does a driver see signals for this?
I’m not sure how it all fits together, but if they build the new Manchester to Leeds line and that is 140mph+ capable, when you join them up, doesn’t it overall create added value. Especially if HS2 stock are using it.The question I have is why 140mph? Has this been deemed the most economical speed, or have "they" arbitrarily decided on this just because Class 800s can do it?
Assuming 25 miles of track is to be upgraded (it's roughly 27.5 miles in a straight line between the Harrogate line and Middlesbrough line junctions), at 125mph this takes 12 minutes. At 140mph, 10.7 minutes, 155mph 9.7 minutes. So not really that much time saved. (Yes, I know I haven't accounted for acceleration etc, but I've sort of fudged that in by using a nice round distance!)