GWR Class 800

Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by SpacePhoenix, 19 May 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JN114

    JN114 Established Member

    Messages:
    2,014
    Joined:
    28 Jun 2005
    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...
     
  2. hexagon789

    hexagon789 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,812
    Joined:
    2 Sep 2016
    Location:
    Glasgow
    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.
     
  3. RPI

    RPI Member

    Messages:
    817
    Joined:
    6 Dec 2010
    you mean the filter topped cups that GWR use from the trolleys on IET'S.......
     
  4. Bletchleyite

    Bletchleyite Veteran Member

    Messages:
    40,568
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2014
    Location:
    Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
    I've never had a GWR trolley actually get to me soI could see what they offered!
     
  5. 43096

    43096 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,200
    Joined:
    23 Nov 2015
    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.
     
  6. 404250

    404250 Member

    Messages:
    267
    Joined:
    25 May 2018
    How long is the 60 section? Too long to pan down and just coast it without losing too much speed?
     
  7. Darandio

    Darandio Established Member

    Messages:
    7,206
    Joined:
    24 Feb 2007
    Location:
    Redcar
    Another thankyou for me for posting it as it was interesting to me.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 2 May 2019
  8. JN114

    JN114 Established Member

    Messages:
    2,014
    Joined:
    28 Jun 2005
    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.

    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.
     
  9. trebor79

    trebor79 Member

    Messages:
    656
    Joined:
    8 Mar 2018
    But if you had to stop then surely you just pan up and trundle under the bridge at 60?
     
  10. JN114

    JN114 Established Member

    Messages:
    2,014
    Joined:
    28 Jun 2005
    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.
     
  11. TractiveEffort

    TractiveEffort Member

    Messages:
    262
    Joined:
    29 Nov 2016
    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.
     
  12. jimm

    jimm Established Member

    Messages:
    4,619
    Joined:
    6 Apr 2012
    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: 2 May 2019
  13. bignosemac

    bignosemac Established Member

    Messages:
    4,950
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2009
    Drafts.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. Mintona

    Mintona Established Member

    Messages:
    3,114
    Joined:
    8 Jan 2006
    Location:
    South West
    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.
     
  15. JN114

    JN114 Established Member

    Messages:
    2,014
    Joined:
    28 Jun 2005
    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.
     
  16. irish_rail

    irish_rail Member

    Messages:
    964
    Joined:
    30 Oct 2013
    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
     
  17. bignosemac

    bignosemac Established Member

    Messages:
    4,950
    Joined:
    12 Oct 2009
    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.
     
  18. Bletchleyite

    Bletchleyite Veteran Member

    Messages:
    40,568
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2014
    Location:
    Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
    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?
     
  19. irish_rail

    irish_rail Member

    Messages:
    964
    Joined:
    30 Oct 2013
    Location:
    Plymouth
    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.
     
  20. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    20,163
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    I thought the pdfs show arrival time at Reading, so don’t the times need correcting?
     
  21. EE Andy b1

    EE Andy b1 Member

    Messages:
    790
    Joined:
    12 Dec 2013
    Location:
    CLC
    :lol:
    It does amaze me how peoples lives nowadays revolve around a few lost minutes, like it's the end of the world. :rolleyes:
     
  22. irish_rail

    irish_rail Member

    Messages:
    964
    Joined:
    30 Oct 2013
    Location:
    Plymouth
    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.
     
  23. JN114

    JN114 Established Member

    Messages:
    2,014
    Joined:
    28 Jun 2005
    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.
     
  24. Pete_uk

    Pete_uk Member

    Messages:
    362
    Joined:
    28 Jan 2017
    Location:
    Stroud, Glos
    A few Cheltenham services going to be busy
     
  25. Clarence Yard

    Clarence Yard Member

    Messages:
    936
    Joined:
    18 Dec 2014
    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: 29 Apr 2019
  26. JN114

    JN114 Established Member

    Messages:
    2,014
    Joined:
    28 Jun 2005
    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.
     
  27. irish_rail

    irish_rail Member

    Messages:
    964
    Joined:
    30 Oct 2013
    Location:
    Plymouth
    Oh dear if only someone had warned them that too many 5 car sets was a bad idea. Oh wait...
     
  28. Nippy

    Nippy Member

    Messages:
    420
    Joined:
    13 Aug 2013
    Wonder if it is partly due to stock out of place after yesterdays 2hr closure at West Drayton?
     
  29. PHILIPE

    PHILIPE Established Member

    Messages:
    10,274
    Joined:
    14 Nov 2011
    Location:
    Caerphilly

    That is correct. Many trains finished up at the wrong Depots last night.
     
  30. northernbelle

    northernbelle Member

    Messages:
    156
    Joined:
    10 Oct 2018
    How many of the 7 5-car sets out today would have been cancelled altogether then?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page