td97
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 1,299
Furthermore, LNER (& HT?) do changeovers on the move at Temple Hirst Jn for their Hull services, where there are balises installed. It is within the capabilities of the ECML infrastructure.
-
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!
TPE Nova 1 Class 802/2 Progress
- Thread starter NewcastleOne
- 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
Killingworth
Established Member
It's surely not so much that it can't be done as not adding any extra risk to an already incredibly fragile service.
3 trains in each direction north of Newcastle cancelled already today without any other issues later. I'd be very wary about planning a journey with TPE at present.
59CosG95
Established Member
Also of note is that the balises are placed south of the junction. While the OLE immediately around the pointwork is registered on headspans, the two-track sections on most of the ECML are supported with simple single-track cantilevers, which don't pose nearly the same sort of operational risk as panning up beneath headspans whilst in motion.
The industry is extremely good at thinking of reasons it can’t do things and then convincing itself of the unquestionable validity of its ineptitude.
Do you deny that these trains were designed to change on the move?
Last edited:
samuelmorris
Established Member
The wiring on the ECML is a bit fragile to say the least, erring on the side of caution to reduce dewirement risk seems fairly sensible to me. I share the same opinion as you about much of the railway but this shouldn't do much harm at the moment.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Class 373s used to do this (pan up/down at speed - 100mph) at Cheriton at the Eurotunnel/NR interface.
That ET wiring can't have been much older than the ECML setup.
Later, when HS1 completed its southern half, they did it on the Gravesend branch (not needed now of course).
It also happens to some EMU services (not all, and at lower speed) on the northbound West London line.
Again, there were individual TOC rules which prevented switching on the move, which were nothing to do with the technicalities.
Killingworth
Established Member
8 trains in each direction, total 16, cancelled to/from Edinburgh today.
In such a precarious situation why would anyone add the slightest extra risk to the operation, no matter how easy it may be? By December things should look much better and fine tuning of many things can be arranged with stability firmly established.
In such a precarious situation why would anyone add the slightest extra risk to the operation, no matter how easy it may be? By December things should look much better and fine tuning of many things can be arranged with stability firmly established.
gimmea50anyday
Established Member
Partly the reason for that is a GBRF train failed at Danby Wiske around 11am with loss of air (3x142 heading to Gas Wood from Heaton, no doubt for the chop so one of the units decided to put up a fight) that required some bi-di running however the points then failed at Cowton. This affected a number of XC, TPE and LNER services at lunchtime including a couple of TPE Middlesbrough services fail to call northallerton. I believe a couple of late TPE edinburgh services were caped for right time southbound restarted at Newcastle
Crucial difference - the Cheriton changeover was specifically designed for a changeover on the move at 100mph. The ECML isn’t.
Spartacus
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,928
Nope, but more to the point is that the ECML electrification WASN’T designed for trains to raise and lower pantographs on the move, so it can only be done in certain places. No matter what the stock can do, it can’t do it without the infrastructure.
Now, a less of calling experienced professionals inept.
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,586
Does OHLE have to be very different to allow pan up on the move? Presumably pan down isn't a problem. Accepting the ECML OHLE isn't the most robust, is this a real problem or an apprehension simply because it hasn't been tested?
Oh right. So the design spec said “except on the ECML” did it?
It’s understandable you dislike being patronised. So do I.
samuelmorris
Established Member
As I understand it, even on the newly built GW electrification, pan up/down is only permitted at speed in certain places that have been explicitly strengthened isn't it?
Strictly speaking, there's no requirement for them to be able to change power mode on the move at all, unless I'm unable to find it in the IEP Train Technical Specification (which the 802s are derived from). But if you think that all infrastructure is created equal, then you are sorely mistaken..
I understand this is the case, and those areas are subject to additional monitoring with a blanket 20mph maximum speed for changeover outside of the locations.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,437
TS1577 on page 16 is where it’s stated (for IEP units):
“A Bi-mode IEP Unit must be able to switch between any of the modes identified in TS1576 whilst at any speed from stationary up to the maximum speed of an IEP Train identified in TS261.“
TS1576 just describes the 2 modes as electric and self power.
TS261 describes the speed maximum as 125 mph, with a long list of reasons why a lower max speed may be allowed, eg on diesel.
td97
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 1,299
I don't think so. It is possible in any location, but NR limit where the changeovers can happen. There is no additional tension in the wiring in designated changeover zones.
Spartacus
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,928
Seems you know everything don't you? More than people in the know on here?
Sorry... But I can’t see where I claimed any particular knowledge in that post. You appear to be trying to deflect from the point and make this personal.
Meanwhile 802s continue to pump out harmful diesel fumes unnecessarily, undermining the case for further electrification which large sections of the industry continue to quite rightly campaign for. It’s unacceptable.
td97
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 1,299
A far greater issue in terms of unnecessary diesel usage is Hitachi's inability to provide the required number of units for the daily diagrams, leading to 185 substitutions. Which are much more polluting than the 802s which meet modern emission standards.
The few miles of electric usage York <-> Colton or Neville Hill <-> Holbeck Jn isn't really going to revolutionise journey times or the passenger experience.
It seems to be one step at a time for TPE. Maybe soon we'll have electronic reservation displays working...
Fair to say Hitachi have been pretty poor with their reliability for a while now with TPE, but also with LNER. The PIS is very poor and nothing seem to be moving with Hitachi and quite a few units have already had engines out on a regular basis.
mspljd1990
Member
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2016
- Messages
- 60
Rode one today from Leeds to Lime Street.
A bit rickety and shaky and for a HST it was going at a fairly slow pace. But they've made a whole world of difference to the horrific overcrowding on TPE trains. Felt nice to actually be able to get a seat at Leeds!
A bit rickety and shaky and for a HST it was going at a fairly slow pace. But they've made a whole world of difference to the horrific overcrowding on TPE trains. Felt nice to actually be able to get a seat at Leeds!
Purple Orange
On Moderation
I make the journey from Manchester to Leeds a couple of times a week and the difference between an 802 and a 185 is vast. I used to make the journey to Newcastle and Edinburgh fairly frequently but so much these days, but I would certainly plan my journey around being on an 802 over a 185 when I do make that journey again.
PS, for a journey to Edinburgh, depending upon the time you need to travel it could be quicker to go via the ECML from Manchester as opposed to the WCML. I’ve not had the chance to go on a 397 yet, but timings aside, I do wonder if there would be a difference in the quality or ambiance of the journey that makes ones decision on which route to take. I do quite like the WCML north of Lancaster, but the trans penning scenery and the Northumberland coast, plus Newcastle and Durham make a compelling case too.
The Chat Moss is a truly horrific stretch of line. Manchester Victoria - Leeds is fine in my opinion.
Apart from that infamous jolt at Marsden, especially if you're going to Manchester. Catches non-regulars off guard with their drinks everytime.
"Batley bump", Heaton Lodge (as yet unnamed
) and "Marsden flick"
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
*= Mirfield launch (a play on "Murphy's law") perhaps?"Batley bump", Heaton Lodge* (as yet unnamed
The requirement for on-the-move power mode changeovers is in the IEP specification - quote below comes from page 16, under the heading 3.1.2 Unit Types - but Network Rail will only allow it to be done in specific designated places.
modernrail
Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,054
I did chat Moss on a 802 the other week on a Durham - Lime Street and didn't find it too bad, although frustratingly slow for such a straight bit of track. What is the perceived problem...bendy track as built on stilts?
My journey was the first proper intercity experience on this line in my lifetime. I worked none stop from Durham to Lime Street - 3 hours extra productivity. The catering in 1st was rubbish though. One cup of tea and a biscuit in 3 hours and no access to proper food, even to buy. They need to sort that out pronto especially with a third of a carriage of kitchen there to be used!
Halish Railway
Established Member
I agree about Chat Moss, most of the way from Manchester to Newton-le-Willows is 75mph, with a 60 mph limit at the Glazebury level Crossing. The lack of line speed increases is probably due to the boggy nature of the Chat Moss route increasing the likelihood of subsidence, hence the use of Goalpost portals for the OHLE. In the height of austerity there likely wasn't enough funding to upgrade the line speed and signalling.
Its a shame as the line is as straight as the ECML north of York, so a 125 mph line speed limit could otherwise have been implemented which the 802s could take advantage of.
I get that some of the diagrams start at Doncaster Carr and Craigentinny but most of the diagrams start at Heaton or Edge Hill.
Who does the maintenance of these units at Edge Hill and Heaton? Is that Hitachi or is it contracted to some other business?
- Status