Do Class 80x units have a theoretical top speed of 140mph on electric power?

[bgrtmd225]

They current gearing is for 125 mph(or strictly speaking, 200 km/h, so around 124mph). A big reason they are so much faster at accelerating than IC 225 sets is because they are geared properly, rather than 91s which are geared for 140 mph running (and seemingly are able to sustain 155+ running with the current gearing too).
The 80x is designed to be 140 ready, so a change in gearing and it should have no issues doing 140, if we eventually get around to signalling upgrades that permit that.

Trust me, they do shift when you open them up

 

[Railperf]

They current gearing is for 125 mph(or strictly speaking, 200 km/h, so around 124mph). A big reason they are so much faster at accelerating than IC 225 sets is because they are geared properly, rather than 91s which are geared for 140 mph running (and seemingly are able to sustain 155+ running with the current gearing too).
The 80x is designed to be 140 ready, so a change in gearing and it should have no issues doing 140, if we eventually get around to signalling upgrades that permit that.

Regearing? My understanding is that they will do 140mph with ease as they are. No regearing required. ATP limits any overspeed in manual driving mode on GWML to a what I understand is a maximum of around 128/129mph before the brakes kick in.

 

[hexagon789]

Regearing? My understanding is that they will do 140mph with ease as they are. No regearing required. ATP limits any overspeed in manual driving mode on GWML to a what I understand is a maximum of around 128/129mph before the brakes kick in.

ATP used to be 3mph over - warning, 6mph over intervention

And wouldn't they have been tested to an overspeed of 154mph at some point as well?

 

[Railperf]

ATP used to be 3mph over - warning, 6mph over intervention

And wouldn't they have been tested to an overspeed of 154mph at some point as well?

Maybe..but probably not required if running commercially at 125mph. The ovrrspeed test for 140mph can be done later.
In Italy, Trenitalia and NTV wanted to homologate their existing trainsets for 360 km/h (223mph) running and were about to embark on a series of overspeed tests up to 396 km/h (245mph) for the higher speeds - even though these trains were already in service at 300 km/h.
But the Italian railway authorities canned the idea. And the trains stay running at 300 km/h.

 

[Railperf]

ATP used to be 3mph over - warning, 6mph over intervention

I guess most drivers will shut the power off and hit the brakes as soon as ATP starts warbling. I'm told the 80x will effortlessly reach the ATP warning speeds.
Hence why many drivers like using the 124mph speed hold facility.

 

[jimm]

The Hitachi document I looked at gave 125 (service), 140 (design) but it seems that 140 would only be for pure electrics or bi-modes later converted with the engines removed?

Sustained running at 125mph (or above) was only expected to happen on electric power (what the IEP specification calls Standard mode) - the only place on the GW and East Coast networks where regular diesel operation (what the specification calls Self Powered mode) at speeds above 100mph was meant to happen was on parts of the Berks & Hants line, where 105-110mph is allowed.

Fortunately, the bi-modes were able to get close to 125mph on diesel - sparing Network Rail's blushes over the delays to the GW electrification work and now at the northern end of the ECML due to the power supply limitations.

 

[hwl]

Sustained running at 125mph (or above) was only expected to happen on electric power (what the IEP specification calls Standard mode) - the only place on the GW and East Coast networks where regular diesel operation (what the specification calls Self Powered mode) at speeds above 100mph was meant to happen was on parts of the Berks & Hants line, where 105-110mph is allowed.

Fortunately, the bi-modes were able to get close to 125mph on diesel - sparing Network Rail's blushes over the delays to the GW electrification work and now at the northern end of the ECML due to the power supply limitations.

As far as I understand it the LNER haven't had the 802 engine software treatment because of the extra maintenance cost and are always on electric so it is just the TPE ones able to stretch there legs on diesel on the northern ECML.

 

[Mintona]

Steventon (Stocks Lane, The Causeway). 'Nuff said.

There are a few between Bath & Bristol as well AIUI, but there's no point running 140mph along there!

None between Bristol and Bath. The only level crossings between Bristol and London are the two at everyone’s favourite and most convenient village.

 

[Class 170101]

There are vertical platform screens, which look more like a sort of net. These could be installed along the length of a platform and will be able to accommodate any kind of train. Here's a video of a trial setup in South Korea:

I would interested whether that would be allowed in the UK you can see from the video that it doesn't allow an unimpeded view of the platform - as shown by the conductor looking 'around' the pole like structures.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That strikes me as somewhere between fairly pointless and utterly pointless.

 

[notadriver]

As far as I understand it the LNER haven't had the 802 engine software treatment because of the extra maintenance cost and are always on electric so it is just the TPE ones able to stretch there legs on diesel on the northern ECML.

Not because they want to in my opinion.

 

[D365]

That strikes me as somewhere between fairly pointless and utterly pointless.

Some sort of platform barrier will be required on the ECML to allow 140mph running through stations, e.g. at St. Neots and Biggleswade (island platforms between the slow and fast pairs).

 

[hexagon789]

Maybe..but probably not required if running commercially at 125mph. The ovrrspeed test for 140mph can be done later.
In Italy, Trenitalia and NTV wanted to homologate their existing trainsets for 360 km/h (223mph) running and were about to embark on a series of overspeed tests up to 396 km/h (245mph) for the higher speeds - even though these trains were already in service at 300 km/h.
But the Italian railway authorities canned the idea. And the trains stay running at 300 km/h.

I think Germany has similarly retained it's 300km/h ceiling.

I guess most drivers will shut the power off and hit the brakes as soon as ATP starts warbling. I'm told the 80x will effortlessly reach the ATP warning speeds.
Hence why many drivers like using the 124mph speed hold facility.

I doubt even with tightened timetables, there's anything to be gained by running a mph or two over 125 so holding at 124 seems the most sensible option

 

[apk55]

It is normally mechanical limitations that limit the maximum speed. Often it is the traction motors that limit speed and with traditional comutator motors if you spun them too fast the armature would burst and windings would come flying out of the slots and jam the motor. With three phase drives either induction or permanent magnet the rotor is a lot more robust and can withstand considerably higher rotational speeds and I suspect that in many cases they do not run the motor at the maximum possible speed because this would require a big reduction gear ratio that would have other mechanical implications.

 

[hexagon789]

Sustained running at 125mph (or above) was only expected to happen on electric power (what the IEP specification calls Standard mode) - the only place on the GW and East Coast networks where regular diesel operation (what the specification calls Self Powered mode) at speeds above 100mph was meant to happen was on parts of the Berks & Hants line, where 105-110mph is allowed.

Fortunately, the bi-modes were able to get close to 125mph on diesel - sparing Network Rail's blushes over the delays to the GW electrification work and now at the northern end of the ECML due to the power supply limitations.

And I believe 125mph is now very attainable on diesel with the adjustments made to the engine management system

 

[Adrian1980uk]

I'm assuming they wouldn't need regearing if it is an asperation to run at 140mph, if there is then you'd need some really substantial sections to make it worth while to make up for the slower acceleration

 

[Bald Rick]

That’s about the only really safe solution, but then you have issues with differing length of trains, door positions, stopping accuracy etc etc...

I’m reasonably sure platform edge doors wouldn’t be suitable for trains passing at 140mph.

There is absolutely zero prospect of 140mph operation on the ECML, even when ETCS is th the possible exception of the Selby diversion, OLE would need completely rewiring, much of the track would need moving or upgrading, many of the bridges and embankments would need strengthening, all the level crossings would need to be closed (and there’s a lot), maintenance arrangements would have to be changed (it would all be prohibited for work with trains operating), etc etc etc. All for 3 seconds a mile where it is achievable.

Incidentally there are 8 level crossings between Didcot and Wooton Bassett. Not all crossings are highways...