24m/26m Vehicle Route Support Info

[mr_jrt]

I was reading something about the class 730s earlier, and it got me wondering if there was a list or map somewhere that showed which routes supported vehicles of various lengths, i.e. 20m, 24m, 26m. I'm aware of things like route availability, but it is my understanding that is more to do with axle weights and the like than vehicle lengths. Obviously anything that supports 12x20m will support 10x24m platform length-wise, but I'd imagine the throw on curves from longer vehicles would be a substantial factor in where 24m & 26m vehicles could go.

So yeah, just wondering if there was a list (or even better, a visual map) with that information out there somewhere, or if it's irrelevant and it's purely a platform length consideration.

Would be very nice to have something akin to what this site is for electrification, but for various other datasets, like maximum vehicle lengths, route availability, capacity loadings etc from the RUSes, etc. Unfortunately a bit beyond my ability to produce!

 

[Bald Rick]

No, there isn‘t, at least not in that format.

simply because whilst vehicle length (and bogie position) does impact on end throw and centre throw, this is taken into account in the designof the vehicke, soecifically its widthand tapering at vehicle ends. Put simply, the theory is that anywhere a 23 metre ciach can go, a 26m coach can fit.

However, it is much more complex than that. In the Sectional Appendicies there is a full list of which rolling stock is cleared on which sections of route.

 

[IanXC]

In the Sectional Appendicies there is *supposed* a full list of which rolling stock is cleared on which sections of route.

Fixed that for you.

There are of course many many Summaries of Compatibility which have been approved years ago and have never made it to the SA.

 

[najaB]

However, it is much more complex than that. In the Sectional Appendicies there is a full list of which rolling stock is cleared on which sections of route.

And the fact that particular stock isn't cleared for a given route doesn't mean that it won't fit - just that nobody has seen reason to do the paperwork. As an example, there's no reason to expect that Mk4 carriages would have any clearance issues between Haymarket and Dundee for example, but since there is almost zero chance of them ending up that far north they aren't listed as cleared.

 

[edwin_m]

It might also be that the stock can physically fit is barred for some other reason, such as incompatibility with signalling.

 

[swt_passenger]

Fixed that for you.

There are of course many many Summaries of Compatibility which have been approved years ago and have never made it to the SA.

I can’t remember exactly why I looked it up a few weeks ago, (might have been when someone asked if Azuma were cleared for diversion via the Blyth and Tyne), but I noticed the route clearance section Table Dxx towards the end of the public version ECML SA didn’t include 80X at all. So I checked and found they’re not in the GW version either. Is it possible they’re dealt with completely separately?

 

[stuving]

I can’t remember exactly why I looked it up a few weeks ago, (might have been when someone asked if Azuma were cleared for diversion via the Blyth and Tyne), but I noticed the route clearance section Table Dxx towards the end of the public version ECML SA didn’t include 80X at all. So I checked and found they’re not in the GW version either. Is it possible they’re dealt with completely separately?

The route clearance requirements were defined in advance for both GW and EC in the MARA (master availability and reliability agreement, one of the main contract documents) for each. There's a detailed table of "IEP Route Definition by ELR and Start and End Mileage" (p. 237 in the GW one). Whether relying on that and not putting the data in the SA would be sensible is debatable. The public version (here) is the original dated 2014, and I don't know how any additions cleared since are dealt with.

 

[swt_passenger]

The route clearance requirements were defined in advance for both GW and EC in the MARA (master availability and reliability agreement, one of the main contract documents) for each. There's a detailed table of "IEP Route Definition by ELR and Start and End Mileage" (p. 237 in the GW one). Whether relying on that and not putting the data in the SA would be sensible is debatable. The public version (here) is the original dated 2014, and I don't know how any additions cleared since are dealt with.

Thanks for reminding me of that document. I see on the ECML the diversion via the Blyth and Tyne to Morpeth is covered, on the other hand so is the Reading to Waterloo via Ascot in the GW, and it seems from earlier threads that was never actually trialled?