• 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!

GWR Class 800

Status
Not open for further replies.

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,354
Seems a bit ridiculous somehow.

Why? It makes perfect sense.

At present to go under the bridge on Electric you have to slow from 125 to 60. Or you can just pan down and fire up the Diesel engines and remain at 125 (ish)... Once clear of the severe wire gradient pan back up and continue on Electric. There’s a slight time/speed loss in the changeovers but nowhere near as severe as slowing to 60...
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,773
Location
Glasgow
Why? It makes perfect sense.

At present to go under the bridge on Electric you have to slow from 125 to 60. Or you can just pan down and fire up the Diesel engines and remain at 125 (ish)... Once clear of the severe wire gradient pan back up and continue on Electric. There’s a slight time/speed loss in the changeovers but nowhere near as severe as slowing to 60...

Not switching to Diesel mode to keep speed up, more having a 60 EMU restriction which means that you switch to diesel-mode. It would be far more sensible to be able to remain on Electric without impediment to permissible speed.

This increase to 115mph (assuming it comes about), would address that as I presume that a 10mph reduction would not be significant enough to adversely affect running times by remaining on Electric power through Steventon.
 

RPI

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2010
Messages
2,751
I would prefer an at-seat service if it:
1. Offered a decent range including proper quality hot drinks. Tea is harder to do wrong (though I was pleased to see it's Yorkshire on LNER), but for coffee instant, even fancy instant, doesn't cut it. DB have for years brewed filter coffee off the train and carried on a flask of it which works, or alternatively so do those filter cups Ryanair and TPE use.
2. Had enough stock on board.
3. Was near-always there, and was reliably on the PIS as not present if it wasn't going to be present.
4. Was on a train which was adequately not overcrowded that it can always get through.
5. There were enough trolleys for a reasonably frequent pass-through - certainly not just one on a 10 car train (yes, you, SWR).

However, in most cases none of these are delivered, so a buffet wins out.
you mean the filter topped cups that GWR use from the trolleys on IET'S.......
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,255
Why? It makes perfect sense.

At present to go under the bridge on Electric you have to slow from 125 to 60. Or you can just pan down and fire up the Diesel engines and remain at 125 (ish)... Once clear of the severe wire gradient pan back up and continue on Electric. There’s a slight time/speed loss in the changeovers but nowhere near as severe as slowing to 60...
It’s utterly farcical; but granted it is a solution given the circumstances.

Only in Britain could we electrify a main line and have a 60mph electric traction restriction on a 125mph line. I cannot think of any other country that would tolerate such an utterly idiotic situation.
 

404250

Member
Joined
25 May 2018
Messages
367
How long is the 60 section? Too long to pan down and just coast it without losing too much speed?
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,678
Location
Redcar
Thanks for the comments finding my information interesting and useful.

As for confidentiality, I'm not party to any such agreements with GWR or Network Rail. If anyone wants to see the draft December timetables then do please PM me. Whether I do or do not discuss the contents in public is my decision alone. Please don't tell me what I can or cannot discuss.

Another thankyou for me for posting it as it was interesting to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,354
How long is the 60 section? Too long to pan down and just coast it without losing too much speed?

As far as I’ve interpreted the rule book; you can’t do planned, pan-down coasting at more than 80mph; nor over sections where you might be expected to stop - which with 2 level crossings in the immediate vicinity of where you’d need to coast you definitely don’t qualify. So you’d gain very little. Plus why coast when you can run on Diesel power.

The only reason the speed restriction is there is because the 387s have to run on Electric (as they don’t have anything else) to get to Cocklebury Sidings. If that wasn’t the case I strongly suspect that section of wiring would have remained fully out of use.

Only in Britain could we electrify a main line and have a 60mph electric traction restriction on a 125mph line. I cannot think of any other country that would tolerate such an utterly idiotic situation.

Ridiculous planning laws. The planning objection to the necessary works to the bridge isn’t supported by any of the heritage associations; including that which listed the bridge in the first place. As soon as NR win their appeal they can knock down the bridge, tweak the wire heights and restore 125mph running for Electric.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,442
But if you had to stop then surely you just pan up and trundle under the bridge at 60?
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,354
But if you had to stop then surely you just pan up and trundle under the bridge at 60?

Because that’s the rules? The coasting rules are designed for situations where you have no power supply available; or it’s not safe to use it. They’re not there to get around a (perfectly safe) minor operating convenience of changing AC - Diesel - AC to go under the bridge at linespeed.

With the current infrastructure set up an IET can’t run under the bridge at any speed on Electric; as I explained above. The “goalkeeper” balises will force the pantograph to drop for the bridge. Even if they were doing 5mph. If that wasn’t the case you could end up in a scenario where for whatever reason the driver thought that they’d changed over but hadn’t and run through at 125 on Electric causing damage to train and/or infrastructure. That is wholly intolerable from a safety standpoint. The alternative proposal - which nearly got implemented - was that the speed would have been 60 for all trains, diesel or electric; but that was considered too disruptive.
 
Joined
29 Nov 2016
Messages
290
How long is the 60 section? Too long to pan down and just coast it without losing too much speed?
It’s not just speed, without the pan up or the engines running you won’t have any APS, so all 3 phase supplied electrical services eg air con and catering will go off, so extended coasting is not practical.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,231
Wow. I for one found the journey times post quite interesting and it was useful for those who didn't follow this in 2015. If the times haven't changed since 2015 why are you complaining about people posting confidential info about draft December timetables!?

You didn't need to follow it in 2015. The projected journey times have long been available from a series of Powerpoint presentations and brochures that GWR has made public over the past four years - material that has been mentioned many times on this forum during that period or can be found on Google without requiring great trickery with search terms. There are also umpteen local media reports online from all over the GWR operating area discussing future journey times, using information provided by GWR.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bnm

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
4,996
Drafts.
 

Attachments

  • Paddington - West of England.pdf
    3.2 MB · Views: 344
  • Paddington - Bristol, Cheltenham, South Wales.pdf
    2.1 MB · Views: 322
  • Gloucester, Cardiff and Bristol TM to South Coast.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 181

Mintona

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2006
Messages
3,592
Location
South West
No, and I wasn’t aware of any plans to unless the bridge is demolished/raised; and if it were they’d just abolish the differential.

I have heard from one source online and another source within the company that Network Rail are looking at implementing a new 110 PSR for all traction (including electric) under the bridge at Steventon as of September this year. I guess that some testing had taken place to indicate what can and what can’t be got away with and that seems to be the upshot. However, nothing I’ve heard is actually official so I can’t 100% guarantee this information is correct. But I believe it.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,354
I have heard from one source online and another source within the company that Network Rail are looking at implementing a new 110 PSR for all traction (including electric) under the bridge at Steventon as of September this year. I guess that some testing had taken place to indicate what can and what can’t be got away with and that seems to be the upshot. However, nothing I’ve heard is actually official so I can’t 100% guarantee this information is correct. But I believe it.

I’m not saying it won’t happen; just that it’s not a plan that’s reached our office ears yet - from an ops perspective of course it’s great news; but it weakens NRs case to have the bridge demolished and restore the full 125 (or higher with ETCS) possible through there.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,852
Location
Plymouth
29 minutes for most reading to London trips on the services from Cornwall.. .and to think I thought the current 27 min timing was bad... as usual the wofe route gets the worst path possible surprise surprise
 

bnm

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
4,996
Those longer distance trains get the obligatory padding at the end of their journey, rather than poor pathing. Most services to Cornwall are 24 minutes PAD-RDG.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,784
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
29 minutes for most reading to London trips on the services from Cornwall.. .and to think I thought the current 27 min timing was bad... as usual the wofe route gets the worst path possible surprise surprise

So you've just spent 5 hours travelling from Penzance. I don't think you are too bothered about 2 minutes between Reading and Paddington, are you?
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,852
Location
Plymouth
Those longer distance trains get the obligatory padding at the end of their journey, rather than poor pathing. Most services to Cornwall are 24 minutes PAD-RDG.
Ah but Its not padding I'm guessing if the ex oxford still depart reading at xx26 and still stop at slough it means the ex Plymouth will be following it and throwing in the anchors at slough.
 

EE Andy b1

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2013
Messages
1,212
Location
CLC
So you've just spent 5 hours travelling from Penzance. I don't think you are too bothered about 2 minutes between Reading and Paddington, are you?
:lol:
It does amaze me how peoples lives nowadays revolve around a few lost minutes, like it's the end of the world. :rolleyes:
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,852
Location
Plymouth
So you've just spent 5 hours travelling from Penzance. I don't think you are too bothered about 2 minutes between Reading and Paddington, are you?
It's not the point. Yet again a chance has been lost to speed up services from the west to London. Look at Glasgow to London compared to 15 years ago, far far quicker and yet Cornwall to London barely sees an improvement. In an IET world reading to London should be 24 minutes which would be a 5 minute saving over what we are getting. Coupled with shaving time off on the b and h where drivers coast in order to burn some of the padding there could save another 7 minutes and give a total of nearly 15 minutes off the journey time which would make a difference.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,354
Bit rubbish for IET short forms today:-

62 units for 66 diagrams (10 car counts as 2 diagrams), 11 Diesel Only, 16 with GU isolated; all as 0530 this morning.

5x 5 vice 9
2x 5 vice 10
4x 9 vice 10
1x 10 vice 9

effectively boils down to 2x 5 cars short and 2x 9 cars short. There’s no obvious/common cause.
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
2,485
With 34 x 9 cars and 56 x 5 cars to currently play with for passenger service, that is exceptionally poor, even if there might (and I stress might) have been handback issues. Is that total of 66 diagrams for today really correct? Is 62 really the figure available?

The isolations show they are not getting a grip on their depot throughput at any location, which with the amount of mandatory 7 and 9 hour slots per night is just not good enough.
 
Last edited:

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,354
Current diagram counts are:-

32x 5/800
17x 9/800
14x 5/802 (+5 “spare” diagrams)
9x 9/802

Which gives 72 (77) total diagrams; of which a number are afternoon departures off depot so I guess they’ve discounted some of the afternoon departures to get to 66.

On Thames Valley division we have one afternoon-only Turbo diagram that doesn’t count towards morning figures; and one morning-only 387 diagram that doesn’t count towards afternoons, so it conceivable High Speed division have a similar arrangement.

The workings at Paddington are all over the place with the HSS TSC trying to mitigate short forms as best as possible.
 

Nippy

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2013
Messages
647
Wonder if it is partly due to stock out of place after yesterdays 2hr closure at West Drayton?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top