I can’t help feeling that the lack of tilt is going to be a major step backwards for comfort. I’ve had a run over most of the WCML on a 390 with a tilt failure, so running at non-EPS speeds and it was noticeable how much stuff was sliding across the table compared to a normal run. As much as there’s complaints about the 390s being claustrophobic etc, they do ride really well on the twisty bits
-
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!
Avanti West Coast New Stock - Hitachi chosen
- Thread starter jopsuk
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
All the TOCs have been spewing this "better comfort" rubbish knowing fine well the IET fit is sub standard.
Fingers crossed as you say though.
Press release said Newton Aycliffe, which makes sense given the relative order books for N.A. and Pistoia (and their destination). Building a handful of them at Pistoia would seem like an odd move for such a small run
sprinterguy
Established Member
I think you'll find that Crosscountry will want more Voyagers: They're compatible with the existing fleet, maintained by the same supplier and based at the same location, and addressing passenger capacity is something that's being looked at.
Modifications are underway to solve the Dawlish issue: A trial unit was tested in appropriate conditions some weeks ago, and while I've heard nothing subsequently as to how that trial went I am vaguely aware that the same mods are now being quietly rolled out across the fleet.
HSTs are not compliant with disability regulations in a month's time and require extensive and lengthy modifications to be made so: Rumours that XC are taking on additional HSTs have been doing the rounds since GWR started withdrawing theirs and are pure platform end wibble: That GWR's redundant stock is sitting in store at Ely and Long Marston, and that Angel Trains and Porterbrook have found other takers for the majority of the ex-LNER fleet should be proof enough of that.
Last edited:
irish_rail
Established Member
Well as someone who actually works on the route I can tell u it does have a big effect. For example , last Saturday morning the first 4 cross-country trains of the day all cancelled out of Plymouth. And not to mention the 0657 GWR service was 5 vice 9 (likely to be a more regular occurrence from the timetable chamge) so id say it is a big deal for those of us who live west of Exeter. Now I know we are of lesser importance compared with Scotland or the north, but surely a train that is able to run in all weather's is hardly a great demand in 2019......
irish_rail
Established Member
Yes the rumour has been doing the rounds about xc HST , but I have heard it from the VERY top. So it ain't just a rumour.
Is it just me or is that piece a bit confusing?
It says that the greater acceleration out of curves means non-tilt can keep to time and 125 non-Tilt north of Preston will be signed off soon. But if it’s increased to 125 then what’s the relevance of acceleration?
It all seems like a pre HS2 PR whitewash to me. ‘Nearly as fast’ means slower, and if new trains can accelerate fast enough to almost keep up with Pendolinos then a tilting new train would be faster and speed up the service.....
A very interesting article, with having given up on the "fortnightly LIAR" a few years ago it's passed me by.
Very similar to when VT were using FL90s with the Pretendolino Mk3 set on the EUS-BHM diagram which were Pendo timings.
Train length is a bit irrelevant as a pair of 350s (8-coach formation) or 397s (10coach formation) can keep the same times as a single set and there's little difference between 9-car & 11-car Pendo's.
Booked dwell times for 221s, 390s & 350/397s are all fractionally different but in the grand scheme of things doesn't make that much difference.......
1S66 14:10 MIA-EDB:
LAN-PNR: 34½mins, PNR stop: 1min, PNR-CAR: 15½mins = 51mins
1S48 09:30 EUS-GLC:
LAN-PNR: 32½mins, PNR stop: 2min, PNR-CAR: 14½mins = 49mins
If you equalise the dwell time at Penrith to 1min we have a difference of 3mins between EPS & non-EPS timings for the 69miles.
As for HS2, there are documents which been released by the DfT over the last couple of years prior to any franchise announcements that imply that all EUS-GLC HS2 services will run non-stop north of Preston, not that this has gone down like lead-ballon with local MPs, user groups, Lake District National Park Authority etc etc.......
I feel that we are going to have a repeat of the pendolinos with people complaining and the acceleration eventually being turned down.
I also think that most people aren't thinking that a similarly accelerating pendolino couldn't be faster without being too much more expensive. I feel Avanti may have cheaper out and gone for 80Xs due to them being cheaper as so many have been produced. I guess this comes with a 11 year ish franchise though...
I also think that most people aren't thinking that a similarly accelerating pendolino couldn't be faster without being too much more expensive. I feel Avanti may have cheaper out and gone for 80Xs due to them being cheaper as so many have been produced. I guess this comes with a 11 year ish franchise though...
Spend millions on minutes of speeding up infrastructure then just blithely throw away minutes binning Tilt.......
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,583
Is this the end product:
The three speed limits will be 390s, 80X/397/221 and normal speeds. There will easing of the 80X etc so the differential isn't as big where this is practical even if it means slightly more lateral forces than the WCML is used to (like the north ECML). Add in some changes in stopping patterns and tolerate the odd minute or two longer trips.
The three speed limits will be 390s, 80X/397/221 and normal speeds. There will easing of the 80X etc so the differential isn't as big where this is practical even if it means slightly more lateral forces than the WCML is used to (like the north ECML). Add in some changes in stopping patterns and tolerate the odd minute or two longer trips.
Exactly. 3 mins for 69 miles. It will be the same or more north of Carlisle to Glasgow / Edinburgh. Then the 5 mins or so south of Crewe and it soon adds up.
It’s inconceivable that some HS2 services won’t call at Oxenholme and Penrith. They will, trust me.
Sort of. I expect it will be EPS / ‘HST’ / ‘Normal’
‘HST’ as described in the Standard, essentially being any train capable of enhanced braking rate (9%g service).
The key issue for me is whether the HST speed will apply exceptional curving rules (6 degrees cant deficiency), as done on the ECML north, MML and Berks and Hants. I suspect it will. Which means a more lively ride for those on non tilting trains.
Pah, don’t say it so negatively! “Come on Avanti and feel the speed!”
Entertexthere
Member
To be fair, I'm not surprised any more. I wouldn't be surprised if our entire network is 80x-ified by 2025.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,927
Never in a million years will you have a 1 minute 390 dwell. You need to go the other way to make it comparable and the 350 dwell becomes 2 minutes even if the result is the same. 3 minutes on the southern WCML is a path.
The only traction where train length makes a noticeable difference and have different timing loads are HSTs and loco hauled stock. Not aware of any DMU/EMU timing loads where we split them out.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
The odd thing there is that the PSR between Bushbury and Stafford is (and always was 90).
The 125 is for MU and EPS.
Another oddity is that the final change was to allow electric operation at up to 125, after the OHLE was upgraded.
For a few years in the 00s, electric trains (inc 390s) were limited to 90, while HST/22x were allowed 125.
The 125 is for MU and EPS.
Another oddity is that the final change was to allow electric operation at up to 125, after the OHLE was upgraded.
For a few years in the 00s, electric trains (inc 390s) were limited to 90, while HST/22x were allowed 125.
Most of the time shaved off Anglo-Scottish schedules post loco-hauled era was the taking out of southern stations stops, namely Crewe (the most useful), Rugby and Milton Keynes/Watford Jn. That's 15mins.....
I was referring to the direct London's which is where the majority of the passenger traffic is to/from but only the Birmingham's will call & you can add Carlisle to the list of stations missed out........
Page17:
https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/563677/CS567_Changing_Britain_2_WEB.pdf
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Comment/hs2-cutting-through-cumbria-
irish_rail
Established Member
Which in my opinion would be no bad thing , a modern day HST makes sense in terms of efficiencies . The only thing really letting 80x down at present are the poor seats, something which in time could be rectified.
Would certainly make sense for XC.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,378
Yes I know you meant the London, and yes I know that’s what the documents say. However things change. Bet your house on there being London HS2 services to Oxenholme and Penrith.
Last edited:
Steve McCallum
New Member
I worked on the WCRM when tilting trains 390&221 were introduced EPS needs Tilt otherwise a train is restricted to 110 mph
So when I heard this on BBC news I wondered too!
Agreed, there’s no way that Carlisle would be missed, especially as the layout there is so slow. VT tried a fast London to Glasgow calling at Preston only but the Carlisle stop was reinstated pretty quickly IIRC. TBH, I’d expect HS2 services to follow the same pattern as current VT services, including the odd ones calling at Motherwell and possibly Lockerbie
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,583
It is a racing certainty. The tilting trains have meant this didn't need to be grasped until now. It was probably the right solution all along, but 140mph needed tilt and that had been specified before the downgrade. It wouldn't surprise me completely to see only two speed categories. Mind you upthread a member said what a good ride you got with tilt on the northern WCML and they are absolutely right.
modernrail
Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,047
2 very good points! I did find the article very interesting in general though.
I am on my way to catch my last Virgin train to Liverpool and will no doubt ponder how the ride might change if you are slammed around a few of these corners without tilt. Having said that there are days when the tilt itself causes a little discomfort....days after Christmas parties for instance, like today!
It does feel odd to be throwing away tilt capability on a tilt capable line after spending all that money on the infrastructure. That said, I have no idea how much of the WCML upgrade related to tilt enabling specifically - perhaps it wad a relatively small proportion.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Well, it certainly added to the cost of the trains themselves (components, weight, space utilisation, maintenance etc).
Although we are talking about a small fleet of AT300s, the fact that HS2 is coming with non-tilt through trains will be the telling factor log term.
Interesting that the original aim of 140mph might have dictated the tilt system.
If so, the national non-achievement of 140mph has cast a long shadow on the modern railway, from tilt-profile IC225s to over-engineered GW OHLE, as well as WCML upgrade costs.
I guess we can also bid farewell today to Virgin's repeated efforts to persuade NR to allow 390s to run faster than 125mph on the WCML.
I have literally just arrived home from a journey between Peterborough and Heckington (BRM Rail show)
It was an 800 between Peterborough and Grantham and then a 153 (due to the Lincoln Christmas market taking most spare capacity )
Now i am willing to swear the seats on the 153 felt more comfortable than those on the 800 which I think is shocking for a "premium" train.
Last edited:
SansHache
Member
Don't forget that tilt is not just about operation at 125mph (or 140mph). It also allows trains to run up to 30% faster through lower speed restrictions where curvature and cant (elevation of one rail with respect to the other) are the limiting factors. Indeed these improvements at lower speeds often yield greater benefits than some of the high speed tilting. The greatest benefits occur where the tilt capability avoids any speed reduction at all and allows much a smoother line speed profile. A non-tilt service usually takes up two Class 390 paths on the southern section of the WCML.
I expect that the new non-tilt services will be grouped in flights with 2 or 3 services closely following each other.
Once the Voyagers are removed from the northern WCML there should be an opportunity to accelerate the service as all trains will all be worked by Class 390s. At present the timetable is limited to the performance of the Voyager trains. Whether there is any appetite to do this is another question, particularly as the HS2 trains will not be able to meet these timings when they are introduced.
I expect that the new non-tilt services will be grouped in flights with 2 or 3 services closely following each other.
Once the Voyagers are removed from the northern WCML there should be an opportunity to accelerate the service as all trains will all be worked by Class 390s. At present the timetable is limited to the performance of the Voyager trains. Whether there is any appetite to do this is another question, particularly as the HS2 trains will not be able to meet these timings when they are introduced.
irish_rail
Established Member
5 cars can work, but just not suitable for certain routes (pad to pz for example). I guess for services like London to Chester 5 car probably makes more sense.Does this mean you’re ok with 5 cars now then?
- Status