It depends on the impact of it not fitting to platforms, SWT have a number of stations which see daily services which do not fit the platforms. However there'll be stations where by bit fitting it blocks a junction which then messes up the network.
-
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!
GWR Class 800
- Thread starter SpacePhoenix
- Start date
- Status
It depends on the impact of it not fitting to platforms, SWT have a number of stations which see daily services which do not fit the platforms. However there'll be stations where by bit fitting it blocks a junction which then messes up the network.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,298
Given the frequency with which the knitting comes down, I would say the infrastructure doesn't permit it anywhere.
sprinterguy
Established Member
An 11-car IEP set, at 286 metres long, would fit in platforms 0-4 and 6/7 at Kings Cross (but would be a few metres overlength for platforms 5 and 8).
It'd be overlength by almost a full carriage length for platform 4 at Newcastle (causing potential conflicts with adjacent platforms) and platforms 3, 4 and 5 at Peterborough, just over a carriage length at Retford and by two carriage lengths in the Up platform at Durham (which due to the positioning of the platform end signal is currently a tight squeeze when a mark 4 set has a loco leading the DVT) and both platforms at Berwick-upon-Tweed. A 9-car set is the very maximum that the latter two stations can accommodate at present with all vehicles platformed.
Some of these limitations could be overcome through platform extensions or the use of SDO as per the programme of East Coast Capability works currently being undertaken for the IEP to allow 10-car formations to operate, though not necessarily all.
Last edited:
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
In the current Rail, the ECML boss Rob McIntosh says that renewing the basic infrastructure is his main priority (OHLE, power supplies etc), as it is coming up to life expiry.
South of Hitchin the overhead is nearly 40 years old.
Plus such things as eliminating level crossings.
He mentions major capacity improvements in CP6, but higher speeds are not mentioned anywhere.
If you factor in HS2 reaching York, and the problems getting a 140mph GW route, I'd say 140mph on the ECML is not going to happen, at least south of York.
Maybe York-Darlington will be upgraded to link into HS2 when it arrives.
hulabaloo
Member
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 134
It's probably not in their best interest to improve line speeds when they have expensive HS2 tickets to sell anyway.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,460
There's still going to be semi-fast trains that can take advantage of enhanced line speeds.
Why are HS2 tickets necessarily going to be expensive?
Not fitting into Paddington ot Kings Cross would be ptetty "terminal".
Ahem
Terminal platforms are hard to lengthen due to busy concourses at one end and station throat pointwork at the other end. Overhanging the platform can block part of that throat, blocking one or more other platforms. IC trains typically have long layovers to allow for cleaning and for stocking of catering (and for paper reservations to be set out, if used). Over hanging points for two minutes is a bit of a problem. For 20-30 minutes is a big issue.
It's not as if GWR and VTEC are not used to short platforms- both run HSTs to short platforms without a major issue. But really cannot do that at a terminus, especially a busy London one.
I have once got a train that terminated, end of the line, at a short station. But Westport, in rural Ireland, is a different proposition. And the loop was still long enough for the loco to run around.
I would guess (from the profile picture) that they are basing their assumption on what happened on HS1.
However, unlike HS1, there will be need for semi fast services which run "parallel" to HS2 and so for those with the time but not the money there would be an alternative route.
However we digress...
There's something like 130 miles of route south of York where speeds of 140mph of higher will be possible after OHLE upgrades and with in-cab signalling.
Edit: It's 135 miles or so to Darlington, only 100 miles give or take south of York.
Last edited:
It still depens on the impact of not fitting, overhanging so as to block points is a problem, however overhanging so the end of the cab isn't alongside a level but of platform (but the driver's door was and it didn't block access to other platforms) wouldn't. Neither train "fits" but only one would be an operational problem.
D1009
Established Member
If anyone's interested, 800101 did the run from Stoke Gifford to Plymouth and back last night.
Monday night looks interesting on RTT with paths for three separate movements from Stoke Gifford. This one appears to break new ground, can they still access North Pole depot from the West London Line?
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97154/2017/01/09/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97156/2017/01/09/advanced
Monday night looks interesting on RTT with paths for three separate movements from Stoke Gifford. This one appears to break new ground, can they still access North Pole depot from the West London Line?
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97154/2017/01/09/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97156/2017/01/09/advanced
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
as the routes are being prepped for 2x5 car formations, are there allowances in the design and contracts for the 9 car sets for potential extension to 10 car? 11 car would seem to be (as discussed ) a step too far but 10 is clearly feasible.
The design supports up to 12 carriages per train.
sprinterguy
Established Member
Ooh, that's interesting: I wondered whether it would be possible to extend the Up platform over the A691 bridge - apparently it is.
Next 4 weekends, East Coast is closed Darlington - Newcastle, for platform extension at Durham, and overhead and track work at Croxdale.
How many stations can actually fit 312m long trains?
Very few at the moment - Darlington and Edinburgh Waverley are the only ones I know of for a fact.
sprinterguy
Established Member
Ah, so that's why the engineering works are on the next time I'm back up in the north east!
D1009
Established Member
Actually 312m is the exact length of the former NOL 2+14 Eurostar sets, so it's not impossible for such trains to run.
Was at Durham station this morning, there's a big platform-shaped thing on the A691 bridge. It looks like it's partly cantilevered over the A691, it's not surfaced or connected to the existing platform though.
Azuma out and about on Thursday and Friday, 1st visit to Newcastle?
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97218/2017/01/19/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97218/2017/01/19/advanced
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
Depends how you view it. The government isn't buying trains its renting them on a per operated diagram basis so it will be paying the higher rental fee of bi-mode rather than pure electric. Its not costing them any money up front.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Last thing I saw, the DfT had not decided whether to pay up front or spread the cost.
Thanks. In that case, do we know how much extra the government is paying in rental costs?
I don't believe it's been disclosed, which means it's probably embarrassingly high.
Clarence Yard
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 2,494
It hasn't been determined. As said up thread, the decision as to paying up front or sticking it on the rental hasn't been made yet.
And I can't see why the rental would be significantly higher than for the 800s already on order before the switch. If anything, by pure economics theory, it should lower the cost due to the increase in number of engine modules (lower cost per-unit).
- Status