• 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!

Fastest freight train?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Dhassell

Member
Joined
22 Mar 2015
Messages
1,011
urgh Not this sort of Thread Again...
It has popped up at least 10 times.
Its to do with people in Network Rail Entering in MPH Instead of Miles Per Hour.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,736
urgh Not this sort of Thread Again...
It has popped up at least 10 times.
Its to do with people in Network Rail Entering in MPH Instead of Miles Per Hour.

MPH is Miles pre Hour :roll:

ITYF it is a Metres per second vs Miles per hour fault.
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
MPH is Miles pre Hour :roll:

ITYF it is a Metres per second vs Miles per hour fault.

I looked up ITYF and I assume the Urban Dictionary explanation is not the one you meant SWT_passenger! :D

Apart from that can someone explain what midlandred is on about?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,736
It is to do with the way the planners enter the details for STP paths. Somewhere along the way there is either a data conversion that isn't working right, or the software is correct and data is being entered in the wrong units.

But it is known that the large values that are displayed all have a direct correlation to typical mph values, i.e. 134 is shown when 60 is meant, and 168 when 75 is meant
 

Freightmaster

Established Member
Joined
7 Jul 2009
Messages
3,551
It is to do with the way the planners enter the details for STP paths.
For clarification, STP paths are fine - the problem only affects vSTP schedules,
which are created using a different system to 'normal' STP/VAR schedules.


MARK
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
69,033
Location
Yorkshire
According to Freight Locate, 6M06 runs today, 1,800 tonne load, timed to run at 134mph :roll:
Source? Have Freight Locate actually said that?

Or have they quoted a timing load which is in the open data and which has been translated/interpreted in a way that wasn't intended.
 

Harbornite

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2016
Messages
3,634
Moving on from this, the actual top speed for freight in the UK is 100mph if you consider parcels units as freight. If not, then it's 75mph for class 4s.

It would be interesting to know what the fastest overseas freights are. The TGV La poste would have been up there before it was withdrawn.
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,736
For clarification, STP paths are fine - the problem only affects vSTP schedules,
which are created using a different system to 'normal' STP/VAR schedules.


MARK

Thanks Mark. I will try and remember that detail for when this question next comes up, possibly in September?
 

Johncleesefan

Member
Joined
4 Sep 2013
Messages
729
They all seem pretty slow to me whenever I see them stuck at a red in a loop whilst I whizz past to overtake :)
 

midlandred

Member
Joined
20 Feb 2007
Messages
244
Location
Oxfordshire
Hi guys, and thanks for the replies

urgh Not this sort of Thread Again...
It has popped up at least 10 times.

Wasn't aware it had "popped up" before [confession, I don't read every thread]

Its to do with people in Network Rail Entering in MPH Instead of Miles Per Hour.

I couldn't understand this comment [I assumed MPH meant Miles Per Hour]

MPH is Miles pre Hour

I assume this was a typo?

ITYF it is a Metres per second vs Miles per hour fault.

I understood ITYF, but not the rest of the sentence

. . . can someone explain what midlandred is on about?

I think the above explains it

It is to do with the way the planners enter the details for STP paths. Somewhere along the way there is either a data conversion that isn't working right, or the software is correct and data is being entered in the wrong units.
But it is known that the large values that are displayed all have a direct correlation to typical mph values, i.e. 134 is shown when 60 is meant, and 168 when 75 is meant

This makes much more sense - thanks to the poster for that


I didn't intend to annoy the forum, I honestly didn't know why Freight Locate was showing:
Timing Load - 1800 tonnes [yes, it was "Timing Load" - I won't ask!]
Timed to run at 134mph

Anyway, as a thank you to ALL who took the time and trouble to reply, here is said train passing Oddington this morning
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
6,016
Location
Back in Sussex
Anyway, as a thank you to ALL who took the time and trouble to reply, here is said train passing Oddington this morning

Great shot at 134 MPH! :lol: sorry, couldn't resist

Well I reckon you're exaggerating, it looks no more than 122/123mph to me ;)

It seems yet another backward step for the railway when you consider that we had a couple of NIA van sets in around 1999 that, when paired with a 90, were 110mph capable
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,829
Location
Yorkshire
Well I reckon you're exaggerating, it looks no more than 122/123mph to me ;)

It seems yet another backward step for the railway when you consider that we had a couple of NIA van sets in around 1999 that, when paired with a 90, were 110mph capable

I was under the impression that the gains from increasing the speed of freight weren't really worth it due to the cost of getting all that unpowered weight to that speed in the first place, and then the extra energy wasted in slowing it all down again.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,425
Location
nowhere
I was under the impression that the gains from increasing the speed of freight weren't really worth it due to the cost of getting all that unpowered weight to that speed in the first place, and then the extra energy wasted in slowing it all down again.

Possibly, although if you can run a freight train at 110mph (or even 125mph) then it would make pathing a lot simpler on mainlines.
 

38Cto15E

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2009
Messages
1,011
Location
15E
We used to manage 100mph over 40 years ago with a Class 47 and the Tartan Arrow freightliner train, only coming down the dip from Leagrave to Harlington though.:)
 

Mordac

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2016
Messages
2,332
Location
Birmingham
I was under the impression that the gains from increasing the speed of freight weren't really worth it due to the cost of getting all that unpowered weight to that speed in the first place, and then the extra energy wasted in slowing it all down again.

The gains aren't for the freight services themselves, it's in making pathing much easier and increasing capacity in mixed traffic lines.

EDIT: I see Domh245 beat me to it.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,829
Location
Yorkshire
Possibly, although if you can run a freight train at 110mph (or even 125mph) then it would make pathing a lot simpler on mainlines.

The gains aren't for the freight services themselves, it's in making pathing much easier and increasing capacity in mixed traffic lines.

EDIT: I see Domh245 beat me to it.

I understand this, but as long as freight trains remain loco hauled with all the power concentrated at the front, they'll always take longer to get up to linespeed than the passenger trains they run amongst which for the most part have distributed traction and weigh much less. The oft-vaunted, seldom-realised concept of FMUs (Freight Multiple Units) would be the game-changer if it were ever to be workable.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
16,326
Only makes it easier when they are at a high speed and stay there. Soon as you hit a hill or have to slow down or accelerate then its game over. Getting 1400 plus tonnes of boxes up to 90 or more aint going to be quick.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
31,379
Location
Scotland
Only makes it easier when they are at a high speed and stay there. Soon as you hit a hill or have to slow down or accelerate then its game over.
Reducing the speed differential between freight and passenger services makes it less likely that the freight will need to be looped to let the passenger service pass. I'm willing to bet it could be possible for a 125mph stopping passenger service to follow a 100mph non-stop freight most of the way up the WCML.
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
6,459
Location
Somewhere
Of course stopping a 2400 tonne freight from 90+ in the available signalling sections might be a different kettle of fish.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
16,326
Reducing the speed differential between freight and passenger services makes it less likely that the freight will need to be looped to let the passenger service pass. I'm willing to bet it could be possible for a 125mph stopping passenger service to follow a 100mph non-stop freight most of the way up the WCML.

You are assuming there are loops in the first place. You can just about get a class 4 infront of a 90mph stopper now. A stopping Pendo would still likely catch a 100mph freight train by Rugby and you would stand no chance of keeping infront north of Preston.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
31,379
Location
Scotland
...you would stand no chance of keeping infront north of Preston.
Even if it was distributed traction (either freight EMU or top-mid-tail loco working in multiple)? This is a thought exercise, not a practical planning exercise. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top