MML 2+4 HST trial

greatvoyager · 7 Jan 2020

hexagon789 said:
Imagining that short sets were speed restricted? Not entirely but the idea that they are seems to have carried over long after the modifications to the braking system

Exactly, I keep hearing it from different sources, including my dad's friend mentions previously. Must've been trying to see if I'd believe everything (and I did, as it turns out).

RailUK Forums

43096 · 7 Jan 2020

greatvoyager said:
I'd imagine it would be something along those lines.

You imagine wrong, then.

The set was 2+6 set that had two trailers cut out specifically for the trial.

YorkshireBear · 7 Jan 2020

I think the modern railways article stated 180s not cleared via Sheffield. They've previously done the MML via the barrow Hill loop.

That of course could have easily changed since they printed the magazine!

greatvoyager · 7 Jan 2020

43096 said:
It is nothing to do with power doors, but is about EMR looking at contingencies - AIUI it was about assessing timings to match 222 (and indeed 180) performance.

Contingencies as in lack overall stock for the services, 180s not being reliable enough or another reason?

greatvoyager · 7 Jan 2020

43096 said:
You imagine wrong, then.

The set was 2+6 set that had two trailers cut out specifically for the trial.

It would've been the spare set used though.

Railperf · 7 Jan 2020

180s need to be running on all engines to have any chance of keeping to 22x timings - and frequently i found them underperforming. At one point almost every second run was a poor performing set. 222s on the other hand are brilliant and i rarely travel on a set with engines out. Just a shame their outright performance was curtailed by a slight reduction of the traction output - probably to save on fuel and maintenance.

43096 · 7 Jan 2020

greatvoyager said:
It would've been the spare set used though.

It was one of the two sets in traffic that day, with a diagram switch.

IamTrainsYT · 7 Jan 2020

Mogz said:
Liverpool- Norwich would be even better!

Love to see that powering through hope!

33021 · 7 Jan 2020

Early XC ran 2+2 vice 158s from time to time

HST can run at 125 any formation as power cars disc braked

D6700 · 8 Jan 2020

43096 said:
It was one of the two sets in traffic that day, with a diagram switch.

An ECS ran each way between Etches Park and Sheffield in the morning to effect the diagram swap. Took place on the 3rd of December and was planned for the next day - but suspect this was thwarted by a massive possession over run at Dronfield, after a tamper failed. It may have gone south from Derby instead?

AndyW33 · 8 Jan 2020

YorkshireBear said:
I think the modern railways article stated 180s not cleared via Sheffield. They've previously done the MML via the barrow Hill loop.

That of course could have easily changed since they printed the magazine!

Well, either it has changed since they printed the magazine, or the magazine just got it wrong, since there were two ECS workings of 180s from Hull to Derby Etches Park yesterday, both routed via Doncaster, Swinton, Sheffield Midland, and Dronfield.

YorkshireBear · 8 Jan 2020

AndyW33 said:
Well, either it has changed since they printed the magazine, or the magazine just got it wrong, since there were two ECS workings of 180s from Hull to Derby Etches Park yesterday, both routed via Doncaster, Swinton, Sheffield Midland, and Dronfield.

I sense it changed since they printed it. They aren't usually wrong with information like that.

D6700 · 8 Jan 2020

YorkshireBear said:
I sense it changed since they printed it. They aren't usually wrong with information like that.

Class 180 clearance over that route isn't particularly recent. They are only permitted when running ECS, though.

Qwerty133 · 8 Jan 2020

D6700 said:
Class 180 clearance over that route isn't particularly recent. They are only permitted when running ECS, though.

Considering a train doesn't change in size just because there are passengers on board I imagine that it would only be a matter of paperwork in order to clear them in service

Kieran1990 · 8 Jan 2020

D6700 said:
Class 180 clearance over that route isn't particularly recent. They are only permitted when running ECS, though.

Haven’t class 180’s run in service for Hull Trains this way to and from St Pancras when Kings Cross was shut in recent years?

SteveyBee131 · 8 Jan 2020

Kieran1990 said:
Haven’t class 180’s run in service for Hull Trains this way to and from St Pancras when Kings Cross was shut in recent years?

That somehow rings a bell from the recent past for me too

D6700 · 8 Jan 2020

Qwerty133 said:
Considering a train doesn't change in size just because there are passengers on board I imagine that it would only be a matter of paperwork in order to clear them in service

Not necessarily. When ECS only operation is granted, there can be requirements for removal of step boards and the like, which would prevent "in service" operation. That may or may not be applicable here. Likewise, no platforms need to have been checked for the Platform Train Interface for ECS only operation, other than making sure the train fits.

Kieran1990 said:
Haven’t class 180’s run in service for Hull Trains this way to and from St Pancras when Kings Cross was shut in recent years?

I don't know (well, can't remember!) - an earlier post said that they went via the Old Road, not Sheffield. That would make sense given the traffic levels on the two lines.

The Old Road is not cleared for 180's in either the Sectional Appendix or the undated "Open" NRSC (Network Rail Summary of Compatibility) documentation. However, if Hull Trains went that way previously, they would have been granted a temporary "Dated" NRSC, which would have detailed any prohibitions and restrictions - and is likely to have expired by now.

_toommm_ · 9 Jan 2020

D6700 said:
Not necessarily. When ECS only operation is granted, there can be requirements for removal of step boards and the like, which would prevent "in service" operation. That may or may not be applicable here. Likewise, no platforms need to have been checked for the Platform Train Interface for ECS only operation, other than making sure the train fits.

I don't know (well, can't remember!) - an earlier post said that they went via the Old Road, not Sheffield. That would make sense given the traffic levels on the two lines.

The Old Road is not cleared for 180's in either the Sectional Appendix or the undated "Open" NRSC (Network Rail Summary of Compatibility) documentation. However, if Hull Trains went that way previously, they would have been granted a temporary "Dated" NRSC, which would have detailed any prohibitions and restrictions - and is likely to have expired by now.

I'm pretty sure they went through Rotherham Masbrough/Masborugh (not sure which spelling is correct

) then had an unadvertised stop at Chesterfield for timing.

D6700 · 9 Jan 2020

_toommm_ said:
I'm pretty sure they went through Rotherham Masbrough/Masborugh (not sure which spelling is correct ) then had an unadvertised stop at Chesterfield for timing.

It's actually Rotherham Masborough, so neither was correct :lol:

You pass through there and Chesterfield if you go via Sheffield or via the Old Road!

Thanks for trying to clarify, though

_toommm_ · 9 Jan 2020

D6700 said:
It's actually Rotherham Masborough, so neither was correct

You pass through there and Chesterfield if you go via Sheffield or via the Old Road!

Thanks for trying to clarify, though

I think my brain stopped halfway through typing that and thought it was a coherent reply - oops!

MML 2+4 HST trial

Established Member

RailUK Forums

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member