110mph Running

[millemille]

It's a theory at the early stages that 365's are capable of 110 in normal service and therefore could reduce flow conflicts on the ECML and also be a valid alternative to IEP on longer routes (Peterborough fasts and King's Lynn). I've only heard it discussed (in the industry and by people here) though, not in any formal capacity.

Class 365's won't be capable of 110mph running without re-tractioning , higher power traction motors and new bogie frames to cope with higher power motors/running speeds/stresses as the current bogie frames have a limited fatigue life.

 

[A-driver]

Class 365's won't be capable of 110mph running without re-tractioning , higher power traction motors and new bogie frames to cope with higher power motors/running speeds/stresses as the current bogie frames have a limited fatigue life.

It's not the motors that prevents 110 as thy have run at that before when being considered for the Doncaster stoppers. It is the crumple zone that is the issue-in order for them to be cleared for 110 the front first class section must be locked out of use. A 365 will easily do 110 if you leave it open.

 

[TGV]

Agreed. I have spoken with engineers in Derby involved with their manufacture, and FCC drivers. It would seem that as often is the case, the restriction is legislative rather than a physical technical problem. That's not to say that raising their max service speed to 110 wouldn't cause longer term issues. Maintenance regimes would need careful monitoring, but yes, to reiterate A-driver - it would seem the units themselves are more than capable, as they have proven before.

 

[notadriver]

If they can run 350s with the existing crumple zone regulations then the 365s could also do the same.

 

[A-driver]

If they can run 350s with the existing crumple zone regulations then the 365s could also do the same.

I believe that is an age thing-the 350s are built stronger and more crash worthy than older 365s. I would imagen it's due to older regulations when the units were built.

 

[sprinterguy]

I believe that is an age thing-the 350s are built stronger and more crash worthy than older 365s. I would imagen it's due to older regulations when the units were built.

Given the alarming way in which a diesel Network Turbo carriage, which shares aluminium construction with it's class 365 cousin, appeared to wrap itself around the HST it collided with at Ladbroke Grove then I am of the opinion then that is probably a valid concern.

 

[Bald Rick]

I believe that is an age thing-the 350s are built stronger and more crash worthy than older 365s. I would imagen it's due to older regulations when the units were built.

Caveat: I'm not an engineer; but crumple zones surely can't be an issue at high speed. If there's a collision between a train and anything hard at 100mph, it's going to be a mess. An extra 10mph won't make any difference. I thought crumple zones were there to protect occupants in the front of the train in the event of low speed collisions.

 

[TDK]

Not quite, the 110 is EPS only and between Stechford and Marston Green as far as I recall. It is down to signal spacing and braking distances.

My mistake, it is MU aswell, and from the other side of International too.

They may have just put voyager as there aint anything else that can do 110mph on this stretch. I suppose it was aimed at non tilt voyagers.

 

[The Planner]

You may get a 110mph 350 down there on occasions.

 

[DXMachina]

a new Cl.321 was tested to 117mph (ECML, early '90s) and thats a far older design than a networker

Most stuff can go faster than its allowed.

 

[LE Greys]

a new Cl.321 was tested to 117mph (ECML, early '90s) and thats a far older design than a networker

Most stuff can go faster than its allowed.

317s have been timed by people far more skilled than I doing 108. I've timed the odd 34-second mile on 365s, especially if they get loose on the fast lines north of Hitchin. Although can does not necessarily mean should, especially since it probably means a special maintenance regime to prevent over-stressing components.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Caveat: I'm not an engineer; but crumple zones surely can't be an issue at high speed. If there's a collision between a train and anything hard at 100mph, it's going to be a mess. An extra 10mph won't make any difference. I thought crumple zones were there to protect occupants in the front of the train in the event of low speed collisions.

From what I remember from physics classes, kinetic energy is the mass multiplied by speed squared. So increasing from 100mph to 110mph means that the train has 21% more energy (rather than 10%). In an accident, an extra 21% of energy has to be dissipated over the same area.

 

[starrymarkb]

a new Cl.321 was tested to 117mph (ECML, early '90s) and thats a far older design than a networker

Most stuff can go faster than its allowed.

A 4-Rep has apparently done 117mph on the Tonbridge Straight (overnight possession and measured with a speed gun)

 

[jon0844]

A 180 has apparently reached 15mph before catching fire.

(Sorry, I have no evidence that the above is actually true).

 

[LE Greys]

A 4-Rep has apparently done 117mph on the Tonbridge Straight (overnight possession and measured with a speed gun)

I've never heard of that one, the fastest I can confirm with 3rd rail was a 5-WES on a press run in 1988 from Waterloo to Weymouth in less than 2 hours, which did 109mph, somewhere between Basingstoke and Winchester. They used the same motors, although I think the section was boosted to 850V and I'm not sure if the gear ratios changed. And on thinking about it, an individual REP has a higher power-to-weight ratio than a WES.

<EDIT> According to the link below, it was a single WES on a charity record run, post edited for details.

http://www.hentis-rail.co.uk/Wessies/442NSE/Class442-NSE.html

 

[TGV]

From what I remember from physics classes, kinetic energy is the mass multiplied by speed squared. So increasing from 100mph to 110mph means that the train has 21% more energy (rather than 10%). In an accident, an extra 21% of energy has to be dissipated over the same area.

It's 0.5M x v^2, but yes, your point is well made. It's not a linear situation.

 

[starrymarkb]

I've never heard of that one, the fastest I can confirm with 3rd rail was a 5-WES on a press run in 1988 from Waterloo to Weymouth in less than 2 hours, which did 109mph, somewhere between Basingstoke and Winchester. They used the same motors, although I think the section was boosted to 850V and I'm not sure if the gear ratios changed. And on thinking about it, an individual REP has a higher power-to-weight ratio than a WES.

<EDIT> According to the link below, it was a single WES on a charity record run, post edited for details.

http://www.hentis-rail.co.uk/Wessies/442NSE/Class442-NSE.html

Here you go. From uk.railway

In the build up to the Eurostar build, Alsthom engineers and SNCF were
sceptical about the ability to achieve satisfactory current collection
from the third rail so we arranged an overhauled 4 REP with maximum
diameter whelsets to go flat out between Tonbridge and Ashford in a
night time possession. The result was entertaining to say the least.
The speedo was off the clock (100 mph +) and a radar gun at
Staplehurst clocked us at 117 MPH. Ride was bloody awful and I'm sure
that had the straight been longer we could have cracked 120MPH. This
sort of performance is why 4 REP's were never supposed to run alone,
always with one or more TC's.

 

[LE Greys]

Here you go. From uk.railway

Intresting, thanks.

 

[sprinterguy]

Well yeah... the main question I was wondering about is whether my assumption that a Turbostar would be equally capable of 110mph as an Electrostar being as they are based on the same or similar bodies.

The similarities in bodyshell design is hardly indicative of the ability of two completely different train types to exceed their intended maximum speed The transmission and traction package are very much the deciding factors in that scenario. Now I'm nae engineer, but I'd hazard a confident guess that the arrangement of transmission and gearbox in a diesel mechanical MU is dramatically different to whatever electrical gubbins is used to transmit power to the motors of an EMU, and hence allows the set up to be "tweaked" to allow a 10% increase in permissable maximum speed.

 

[DXMachina]

re, mk1 REP EMU @ 117mph

Possible world record for speed achieved by a vertical-fronted train? Other units referenced as having achieved high speeds (5WES, Cl.321, possibly fictitious non-burning 180) are all semi-streamlined

 

[sprinterguy]

But would anyone have an opinion on a new build of Turbostar derived 110mph units to take up operations on routes with sub-125mph running, or on routes where Express Sprinters are currently unable to make use of the line speed to its maximum extent (they are also getting on)?
Ditto 110mph Electrostars for electrified secondary express routes.

BR introduced HSTs on largely or entirely sub-125mph routes, the West of England and Midland Mainline services, as they knew that the improved levels of comfort and passenger amenities coupled with the much improved journey times brought about by the rapid acceleration of the HSTs would do much to attract additional passengers to rail. HSTs were also originally earmarked for routes with 90 - 100mph maximum speeds, such as Transpennine North and Edinburgh - Glasgow.

You are now considering employing outer suburban/medium distance regional DMUs on routes that had HSTs deployed on them right from the very beginning? Against the principles that BR employed in selecting routes for the deployment of HSTs, this sounds like the ultimate in cost cutting as far as it can go.

 

[Zoe]

You are now considering employing outer suburban/medium distance regional DMUs on routes that had HSTs deployed on them right from the very beginning? Against the principles that BR employed in selecting routes for the deployment of HSTs, this sounds like the ultimate in cost cutting as far as it can go.

Things do change though, I'm not sure BR would have used HSTs on some of the semi-fast outer suburban commuter services that FGW use them on now but it has worked quite well in reducing overcrowding on commuter routes out of Paddington.

 

[LE Greys]

Things do change though, I'm not sure BR would have used HSTs on some of the semi-fast outer suburban commuter services that FGW use them on now but it has worked quite well in reducing overcrowding on commuter routes out of Paddington.

The 180s worked fairly well on those (when they worked at all) and I sometimes think a 180/2 with all the bugs ironed out might suit quite a few routes where speeds of over 100 are required. Or maybe a 175/2 if they are not. 180s filled the gap on the Oxford Flyers quite nicely, just as the 50s once did and a heck of a lot better than the 166s.

 

[Zoe]

180s filled the gap on the Oxford Flyers quite nicely, just as the 50s once did and a heck of a lot better than the 166s.

Do you not think HSTs are even better though for that route as they have even more capacity than 180s? HSTs also run semi-fast services to Westbury at peak times.

 

[LE Greys]

Do you not think HSTs are even better though for that route as they have even more capacity than 180s? HSTs also run semi-fast services to Westbury at peak times.

180s, like 166s, can run in pairs if need-be. Still, there's no reason why a few HSTs can't be allocated to the Oxford Flyers in the peaks (unless they are needed elsewhere).

 

[Zoe]

180s, like 166s, can run in pairs if need-be.

Yes but why not just use an HST?

 

[LE Greys]

Yes but why not just use an HST?

Well, the ideal scenario is that the 180s are all allocated to the same line, or that a batch of 180/2s appears in much larger numbers. Just dealing with FGW for the moment, the HSTs then concentrate on longer-distance services that don't stop at Slough. The 180s act as intermediate units on the Oxford Flyer, the Cotswold Line and Exeter semi-fasts (extended from Bedwyn or Westbury), running 5-car off-peak and 10-car peak. Turbos are thus restricted to stoppers. Any spare HSTs can then fill in on Oxford diagrams during the peaks.

As I say, that's the ideal scenario, but tends not to happen (even though it usually did when all the 180s were based at OOC). I did the Oxford Flyer on a Turbo the other week, and the timetables reflect the fact that they often see 90mph stock. The important thing is to make sure that this no longer happens.

 

[HSTEd]

BR introduced HSTs on largely or entirely sub-125mph routes, the West of England and Midland Mainline services, as they knew that the improved levels of comfort and passenger amenities coupled with the much improved journey times brought about by the rapid acceleration of the HSTs would do much to attract additional passengers to rail. HSTs were also originally earmarked for routes with 90 - 100mph maximum speeds, such as Transpennine North and Edinburgh - Glasgow.

Well the MML received its HSTs second hand from the ECML... at which point it was the most suitable route remaining that had not already received them. It was either send them there or to the sidings.
The reason that the HSTs were not deployed on TPE North and Edinburgh-Glasgow was that it was decided it was not worth it.
Were West of England services even using Mark 2 Aircons at the time the HSTs were introduced? I don't imagine mark 1s could hope to stand up to Mark 3s in comfort terms. While I do believe that a Turbostar carriage has a good chance of doing so.

You are now considering employing outer suburban/medium distance regional DMUs on routes that had HSTs deployed on them right from the very beginning? Against the principles that BR employed in selecting routes for the deployment of HSTs, this sounds like the ultimate in cost cutting as far as it can go.

No, the ultimate in cost cutting would involve no first class and 3+2 seating.
The fact remains that the only place it would lose time against a HST is possibly east of Reading and that in the Cornish section of the route that is so slow, its superior low speed acceleration may allow it to beat said HST.

An 8 coach Turbostar is also far cheaper to operate than said HST.

People want the train to arrive on time, to be air conditioned, to be reasonably quiet and for it to have WiFi/plug sockets on a long journey, a Turbostar does or can be made to fulfil all of these requirements.

 

[RobShipway]

Well the MML received its HSTs second hand from the ECML... at which point it was the most suitable route remaining that had not already received them. It was either send them there or to the sidings.
The reason that the HSTs were not deployed on TPE North and Edinburgh-Glasgow was that it was decided it was not worth it.
Were West of England services even using Mark 2 Aircons at the time the HSTs were introduced? I don't imagine mark 1s could hope to stand up to Mark 3s in comfort terms. While I do believe that a Turbostar carriage has a good chance of doing so.



No, the ultimate in cost cutting would involve no first class and 3+2 seating.
The fact remains that the only place it would lose time against a HST is possibly east of Reading and that in the Cornish section of the route that is so slow, its superior low speed acceleration may allow it to beat said HST.

An 8 coach Turbostar is also far cheaper to operate than said HST.

People want the train to arrive on time, to be air conditioned, to be reasonably quiet and for it to have WiFi/plug sockets on a long journey, a Turbostar does or can be made to fulfil all of these requirements.

Yes, but you would have to make a 5 - 8 coach Turbostar at minimum to replace the HST and it would need gangeways like the LM 172/2 & 172/3's have on the ends.

However, the class 180's I believe where originally designed for the TPE routes when First North Western where operating them?

 

[IanXC]

However, the class 180's I believe where originally designed for the TPE routes when First North Western where operating them?

Nearly, I seem to recall that FNW were acquiring them for their Open Access Operation to Euston, the group then decided they would be better placed with the Great Western franchise before they were delivered.

 

[starrymarkb]

An 8 coach Turbostar is also far cheaper to operate than said HST.

How so? You'd be looking at 8 engines rather then 2.. 8 gearboxes, 8 final drives... It's one of the reasons FGW dumped the 180s, their operating costs were far higher then the HST...

Of course as the HSTs are getting on they are going to become maintainence nightmares.

With a dedicated sub fleet you can't interwork with diagrams on the main GWML. It also might cause issues where a 110mph unit is spare and a 125mph breaks down. It wouldn't be as easy to use the spare if there is a speed differential

Though rather then using a standard Turbostar body, if they were bodied like a Irish 22xxx they might make a good inter regional unit.