360 running speed

[Supercoss]

Electric trains will be “ coasting” behind RAF museum as they shut off power to pass under an overhead line neutral section at Grahame Park which may account for leisurely perception

 

[Backroom_boy]

Electric trains will be “ coasting” behind RAF museum as they shut off power to pass under an overhead line neutral section at Grahame Park which may account for leisurely perception

Why do they cut off? Is it to prevent a voltage spike when the power is available on the other side of the neutral section?

 

[londonmidland]

Were you driving ?

No. Just from a passenger observation and looking at the Open Train Times signalling maps.

 

[Edvid]

At present my quickest Class 360 journeys from St Pancras to Luton Airport Parkway have taken a tad over 21 minutes. Once the EMU100 restriction goes sub-21 should be quite easy; less so in the other direction.

The EMU 100 restriction between Bedford and Cricklewood is programmed to be withdrawn from July 28th start of service allowing 360s to operate at up to 110 mph .

On WNXX you also say the remaining modifications should be completed this weekend. Does that mean the upcoming fast-line possessions (6/13/20/27 July) are booked for testing?

Why do they cut off? Is it to prevent a voltage spike when the power is available on the other side of the neutral section?

Although overhead neutral sections (OHNS) are earthed, drawing power through one risks a blinding phase-to-phase short and the extensive damage to various electrical gubbins that would come with it.

To prevent this from happening, trackside magnets open/close the circuit braker on passing trains as appropriate; in addition drivers manually coast through ONHS so the circuit breaker doesn't extinguish a high load on the regular.

 

[edwin_m]

Why do they cut off? Is it to prevent a voltage spike when the power is available on the other side of the neutral section?

I believe it's mostly the risk of an arc when the pan goes off the live wire while drawing a current - something to do the collapse of the magnetic field in the transformer generating a voltage.

 

[Supercoss]

OHL testing on uprated area will be carried out Saturday 7th early morning ‘ in traffic’ then Sat 14th June ,
New Measurement train overnight Friday into Saturday on both occasions expected

Actual published date for EMU 100 restriction removal is start of service July 28th

 

[GW43125]

Can I assume this means the 810s will also be permitted up to 125 in testing?

 

[1D74]

That attitude has always frustrated me. I was even once told by a driver manager that it doesn’t matter if we are late as it wasn’t our fault.

Lack of interest in the job and lack of confidence in their driving.

 

[43066]

Interesting this - my office has a vista view of the railway as it skirts round the back of the RAF Museum and I've always been of the view the 222s are flying at this point, whereas the 700s (obv not the stoppers!) are more leisurely. But perhaps that's just perception - maybe because they're longer?

On a quiet, still day sat out on the 4th floor terrace the peace can be shattered! Many an hour spent "working" out there watching the railway in operation.

An interesting location to be based. Between the railway to watch, and the RAF museum to visit, I doubt I’d get much actual work done!

 

[voyager1]

The EMU 100 restriction between Bedford and Cricklewood is programmed to be withdrawn from July 28th start of service allowing 360s to operate at up to 110 mph .

That's good news.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jun 2025 ==

When the 360 does start going 110mph between Cricklewood and Bedford, will that give it more priority and reduce the amount of times the northbound 700 are kept on the fast line past Radlett (i.e. the 1636 from STP that is supposed to use P2 at SAC) ? Sorry if this seems a silly question but I'm a commuter, not a rail worker.

 

[Supercoss]

The speed change occurs mid timetable so no improvements on paper until December Timetable change (14 Dec2025+) what it will achieve especially in up direction ( towards London) is offer more recovery time if late presented at Bedford .

 

[Bald Rick]

That's good news.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jun 2025 ==

When the 360 does start going 110mph between Cricklewood and Bedford, will that give it more priority and reduce the amount of times the northbound 700 are kept on the fast line past Radlett (i.e. the 1636 from STP that is supposed to use P2 at SAC) ? Sorry if this seems a silly question but I'm a commuter, not a rail worker.

The fasts due to switch to the down slow at Radlett are usually kept fast line to avoid them standing behind a late St Albans terminator. It minimises overall delay. Unlikely that policy will change with 110mph, especially as the 110 north of St Albans will enabke the Corby to regain lost time.

 

[voyager1]

The speed change occurs mid timetable so no improvements on paper until December Timetable change (14 Dec2025+) what it will achieve especially in up direction ( towards London) is offer more recovery time if late presented at Bedford .

If they do change the timetable, I hope they get rid of the stupid long dwell time at Luton Airport Parkway experienced by the 1717 and 1747 departures from St Pancras.

 

[43066]

That's good news.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jun 2025 ==

When the 360 does start going 110mph between Cricklewood and Bedford, will that give it more priority and reduce the amount of times the northbound 700 are kept on the fast line past Radlett (i.e. the 1636 from STP that is supposed to use P2 at SAC) ? Sorry if this seems a silly question but I'm a commuter, not a rail worker.

Not all of the route is 110. One thing @Bald Rick might he able to confirm - is there any likelihood of 360s being able to use HST speed differentials? There are some places (eg Elstree fast tunnels) where the linespeed is 100/HST 110.

The current EMU 100 signage, only installed when the 360s were introduced to the route, will need to be removed.

If they do change the timetable, I hope they get rid of the stupid long dwell time at Luton Airport Parkway experienced by the 1717 and 1747 departures from St Pancras.

You should probably expect longer dwells initially if the timings aren’t changed.

 

[Bald Rick]

The speed change occurs mid timetable so no improvements on paper until December Timetable change (14 Dec2025+) what it will achieve especially in up direction ( towards London) is offer more recovery time if late presented at Bedford .

The December 2025 timetable is just about written, and there are no changes resulting from the speed changes.

And, as above, it will be at least a year fuether on, probably longer, before any do happe, if at all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jun 2025 ==

If they do change the timetable, I hope they get rid of the stupid long dwell time at Luton Airport Parkway experienced by the 1717 and 1747 departures from St Pancras.

They are both booked 1 minute…

 

[43066]

Interesting this - my office has a vista view of the railway as it skirts round the back of the RAF Museum and I've always been of the view the 222s are flying at this point, whereas the 700s (obv not the stoppers!) are more leisurely. But perhaps that's just perception - maybe because they're longer?

And I owe you a slight apology - a good 222 will indeed be doing 110mph abeam the museum I did it twice today and had this thread in mind! In my defence (before the inevitable comment from @baz962 ) so many of the 222s have engines out that it seems rare to get a decent one!

360s and 700s will shut off for the neutral section as someone mentioned above - so you’ll often drift down to 95 or so. That probably accounts for the difference you’ve observed.

 

[voyager1]

The December 2025 timetable is just about written, and there are no changes resulting from the speed changes.

They are both booked 1 minute…

Currently the 1647 from STP is timetabled to leave Luton Airport Parkway at 1709 (22 minutes after leaving STP).

Both the 1717 and 1747 departures from St Pancras leave Luton Airport Parkway at 1742 and 1812 (an extra 2 minutes, or 24 minutes after leaving STP compared with the 1647). I queried this before and was told it was a legacy timing due to a previous TL using P4 at Luton Airport Parkway/P5 at Luton.

I wish there was more consistency. I try to connect onto a bus at Luton Interchange that now leaves at XX15 and XX45. I normally catch the 1647 from St Pancras for this reason but if I'm delayed leaving the office, I only have 1 minute to make the bus as the arrival times into Luton are 1744 and 1844. Its very frustrating on one of those later services waiting for what feels like an eternity at Luton Airport Parkway station knowing full well that the bus I intend to catch is probably already waiting at Luton Station Interchange.

 

[Dave W]

And I owe you a slight apology - a good 222 will indeed be doing 110mph abeam the museum I did it twice today and had this thread in mind! In my defence (before the inevitable comment from @baz962 ) so many of the 222s have engines out that it seems rare to get a decent one!

360s and 700s will shut off for the neutral section as someone mentioned above - so you’ll often drift down to 95 or so. That probably accounts for the difference you’ve observed.

Thanks! And yes, when work has gone to absolute pot a stroll around the hangars is an excellent remedy.

 

[Bald Rick]

Currently the 1647 from STP is timetabled to leave Luton Airport Parkway at 1709 (22 minutes after leaving STP).

Both the 1717 and 1747 departures from St Pancras leave Luton Airport Parkway at 1742 and 1812 (an extra 2 minutes, or 24 minutes after leaving STP compared with the 1647). I queried this before and was told it was a legacy timing due to a previous TL using P4 at Luton Airport Parkway/P5 at Luton.

Indeed, but the 1717 is due to arrive Luton Aiport Parkway at 1741 (1740 in the Working timetable) and depart at 1741. The 1747 has booked arrival 1811, departure 1812. Both have pathing time somewhere between London and Luton. In the latter case it is to keep it behind the prior Thameslink on the DF between Leagrave and Bedford.

If you are delayed leaving the office for the 1647, then the 1651 of 1706 Thameslink services will get you to Luton in plenty of time for the 1745 bus.

 

[voyager1]

This evening it all seemed to go wrong:

The 1636 Thameslink from St Pancras to Bedford was running 9 minutes late.
The 1647 East Midlands Connect from St Pancras had its departure delayed a minute....

I assume it was held back to allow the Thameslink to go in front of it and the Thameslink seemed to stop at West Hampstead for 2 minutes resulting in the East Midlands coming to a halt in the tunnel. The East Midlands ended up straggling behind the Thameslink as the Thameslink was waiting to cross over at Radlett.

The East Midlands ended up being six minutes late but what was funny was on the on board train manager saying the service is delayed but they weren't sure why. No mention of being put behind a late running train which is what they normally say.

Had the East Midlands left on time, wouldn't it have gone in front of the Thameslink?
What was the logic in holding the East Midlands Connect back?

 

[notadriver]

On the other premier northern route certain 80x units can almost match a 700 to 60 mph and push beyond to line speed.

Not a surprise - a 700 reaches 60 in 39s and get to the 'ton' in 100 sec. 360s almost as fast to 60 but lack power over 85mph and reach the ton 150sec

A certain variant of class 80x can nearly match a 700 to 60 mph and push on to line speed. The 700s will hold up 80x on the main lines due to being limited to 100 and perhaps being driven at slightly under the limit ?

 

[Bald Rick]

On the other premier northern route certain 80x units can almost match a 700 to 60 mph and push beyond to line speed.

700s don’t run on the WCML

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jun 2025 ==

This evening it all seemed to go wrong:

The 1636 Thameslink from St Pancras to Bedford was running 9 minutes late.
The 1647 East Midlands Connect from St Pancras had its departure delayed a minute....

I assume it was held back to allow the Thameslink to go in front of it and the Thameslink seemed to stop at West Hampstead for 2 minutes resulting in the East Midlands coming to a halt in the tunnel. The East Midlands ended up straggling behind the Thameslink as the Thameslink was waiting to cross over at Radlett.

The East Midlands ended up being six minutes late but what was funny was on the on board train manager saying the service is delayed but they weren't sure why. No mention of being put behind a late running train which is what they normally say.

Had the East Midlands left on time, wouldn't it have gone in front of the Thameslink?
What was the logic in holding the East Midlands Connect back?

Because of the previous conversation I was watching this today. The 1647 was signalled out at 1643, but didn’t leave until 1649. Something must have happened during dispatch to cause it to depart late. It was not a regulation issue. Had it left on time it would probably have been given priority.

However, the decision to route the Thameslink service ahead in these circumstances was the correct one. It had been given the signal to the fast line before the EMR had left St Pancras. Had it been held, it would have delayed the following St Albans stopper, and that in turn would have delayed the following Bedford service, and that would have delayed the following pair of EMR fasts, and so on.

 

[voyager1]

700s don’t run on the WCML

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jun 2025 ==



Because of the previous conversation I was watching this today. The 1647 was signalled out at 1643, but didn’t leave until 1649. Something must have happened during dispatch to cause it to depart late. It was not a regulation issue. Had it left on time it would probably have been given priority.

However, the decision to route the Thameslink service ahead in these circumstances was the correct one. It had been given the signal to the fast line before the EMR had left St Pancras. Had it been held, it would have delayed the following St Albans stopper, and that in turn would have delayed the following Bedford service, and that would have delayed the following pair of EMR fasts, and so on.

Thanks for this post and also looking at what happened today. Today was my first day of going to work since Arriva decided to change all the buses around Luton - routes, numbers and times. Being neurodiverse makes these changes more of a challenge to overcome. In the morning I found myself running for the Thameslink where before I could take a leisurely walk from bus to the same location on the platform. I’m taking each day as it comes and may end up on a different train. I normally go in on Thameslink and home on EMR.

Going home tonight I was looking forward to a faster journey home as the particular bus I wanted was better timed but EMR, Thameslink and Network Rail had other ideas ….

 

[Railperf]

This evening it all seemed to go wrong:

The 1636 Thameslink from St Pancras to Bedford was running 9 minutes late.
The 1647 East Midlands Connect from St Pancras had its departure delayed a minute....

I assume it was held back to allow the Thameslink to go in front of it and the Thameslink seemed to stop at West Hampstead for 2 minutes resulting in the East Midlands coming to a halt in the tunnel. The East Midlands ended up straggling behind the Thameslink as the Thameslink was waiting to cross over at Radlett.

The East Midlands ended up being six minutes late but what was funny was on the on board train manager saying the service is delayed but they weren't sure why. No mention of being put behind a late running train which is what they normally say.

Had the East Midlands left on time, wouldn't it have gone in front of the Thameslink?
What was the logic in holding the East Midlands Connect back?

The criss crossing onto and off the fast lines creates delays especially as these are all flat junctions affecting a minimum of three running lines for each movement. In the perfect world you would create flyovers / diveunders to minimise conflicting movements.

Probably once Thameslink and EMR come under GBR it makes sense to restrict most Thameslink to the slow lines, but make EMR connect services stop at West Hampstead a hub to provide a link between fast and slow services.
I would investigate whether 700 can be increased to 110mph and some sort of speed limiter / speed hold to better manage holding speed at a steady 100/110.
No matter how much dwell time and recovery time there seems to be, lateness out of the Thameslink Core is still an issue - although the trip I had to he other day on a 13 minute late Brighton to Bedford journey recovered 8 minutes en route between West Hampstead and Bedford despite a wait to switch from fast to slow tracks at Harpenden South.
Despite their slightly slower acceleration, the 360's do maintain a better average speed once they are at line speed.
Does anyone know why?

 

[Bald Rick]

Probably once Thameslink and EMR come under GBR it makes sense to restrict most Thameslink to the slow lines

There are no circumstances under which this makes sense. It would signficiantly reduce capacity on the line, significantly increase journey times for most Thameslink passengers on the line, and cost the industry a significant amount of lost revenue - at least £100m a year.

 

[voyager1]

Probably once Thameslink and EMR come under GBR it makes sense to restrict most Thameslink to the slow lines, but make EMR connect services stop at West Hampstead a hub to provide a link between fast and slow services.

Can't see this happening for the simple reason that St Albans is part of the route and they have a bigger and much louder voice.

Unless the EMR services add St Albans to their calling pattern and then there would be issue with overcrowding.

Also can't imagine Harpenden would be too pleased to see their travel times increase, or face having to use St Albans as an interchange station - something that happened during the era of the TL expresses cutting out Harpenden.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2025 ==

Tonight the 1647 EMR Connect from St Pancras was delayed due to the 1636 Thameslink being kept on the fast line beyond Radlett. Thankfully the bus I wanted at Luton was also delayed.

 

[londonmidland]

Tonight the 1647 EMR Connect from St Pancras was delayed due to the 1636 Thameslink being kept on the fast line beyond Radlett. Thankfully the bus I wanted at Luton was also delayed.

9R44 (the Thameslink service you were following) encountered a four minute delay at West Hampstead Thameslink, which meant you were following it all the way to Harpenden Junction. Both trains are timetabled incredibly tight together by the time the 360 gets to Harpenden Jn - around a two minute headway, which means the slightest of delay to the TL service means delaying the EMR Corby service.

I read somewhere that the MML South is so full during the peak that there's little to no room for freight to run on it?

 

[Spartacus]

9R44 (the Thameslink service you were following) encountered a four minute delay at West Hampstead Thameslink, which meant you were following it all the way to Harpenden Junction. Both trains are timetabled incredibly tight together by the time the 360 gets to Harpenden Jn - around a two minute headway, which means the slightest of delay to the TL service means delaying the EMR Corby service.

I read somewhere that the MML South is so full during the peak that there's little to no room for freight to run on it?

The passenger timetable barely works, never mid anything else.

 

[voyager1]

9R44 (the Thameslink service you were following) encountered a four minute delay at West Hampstead Thameslink, which meant you were following it all the way to Harpenden Junction. Both trains are timetabled incredibly tight together by the time the 360 gets to Harpenden Jn - around a two minute headway, which means the slightest of delay to the TL service means delaying the EMR Corby service.

I read somewhere that the MML South is so full during the peak that there's little to no room for freight to run on it?

The Thameslink was delayed a few minutes but where it clashes with the EMR is if, instead of crossing over to the slow line at Radlett, they keep it on the fast line so it stops at St Albans platform 4. This normally happens if the St Albans stopper is delayed but last night I couldn't find any delayed stoppers (unless I wasn't looking properly). More likely priority was given to a southbound service I guess. It always seems the off peak direction (i.e. northbound from London in the morning and southbound into London in the evening) gets priority but then it might just seem like it due to only being aware when a problem does occur.

 

[Spartacus]

The Thameslink was delayed a few minutes but where it clashes with the EMR is if, instead of crossing over to the slow line at Radlett, they keep it on the fast line so it stops at St Albans platform 4. This normally happens if the St Albans stopper is delayed but last night I couldn't find any delayed stoppers (unless I wasn't looking properly). More likely priority was given to a southbound service I guess. It always seems the off peak direction (i.e. northbound from London in the morning and southbound into London in the evening) gets priority but then it might just seem like it due to only being aware when a problem does occur.

As 9R44 was late it would have conflicted with 1C65 at Radlett Jn if it had crossed where it was booked to do, so could have delayed 1Y45 even more had it stopped for 1C65. 9R44 managed to recover a minute by Harpenden Jn, and might have done more had 9T38 not been in front of it too.