Presumably had it not been for that, it would have recovered most of the time it had lost earlier in the journey.Lost about 10 minutes at Dawlish Warren due to a door fault, but otherwise, the first run was relatively trouble-free.
You are mistaken. Although the original plans back in 2014 or so were that 800s would not operate through to Plymouth and Penzance, they did allow for services to Paignton, which is why the CP5 IEP gauge clearance plans until mid 2015 always included Paignton, but no further.I thought they were going to operated by Class 802's.
Lost about 10 minutes at Dawlish Warren due to a door fault, but otherwise, the first run was relatively trouble-free.
It was booked to stand at Dawlish Warren for 7 minutes to be overtaken by 1C76, but because 1C75 was late, 1C76 was already in front. That leaves a question as to the nature of the "consequence of the first run".3 minutes on TRUST and it wasn’t a fault, just a consequence of the first run.
The consequence wasn’t a door fault, Driver/train interface would be more accurate.It was booked to stand at Dawlish Warren for 7 minutes to be overtaken by 1C76, but because 1C75 was late, 1C76 was already in front. That leaves a question as to the nature of the "consequence of the first run".
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/new-super-trains-penzance-launch-1842195 "Modifications needed to get up the hills at Totnes" - hang on, they were designed to do this wern't they?
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/new-super-trains-penzance-launch-1842195 "Modifications needed to get up the hills at Totnes" - hang on, they were designed to do this wern't they?
Cornwall live is useless anyway. About as reliable as paraffin fireguards.
“A 'bimodal' system will allow the trains to run on electric motors, switching to diesel after Newbury.”
Not sure how that works then.... I guess the reporter isn’t very technical!!
Local reporting is in a dire state now, I’m not sure why we shouldn’t expect it to be accurate, it wouldn’t take much research, or even a little less BS written to convey a article that isn’t full of errors, this article is far from alone in that. Still, best not go on and derail the thread into a digression on shambolic local rags.If the reporter is just a generalist local reporter it makes sense for them not to understand the difference between overhead and diesel power. As far as they can see it looks and sounds like a truck. Power comes from the overheads as electricity and then a diesel gets switched in to power the wheels directly is probably what they think. No need to be snarky.
The seats are not going to be changed - GWR is trying out a different type of material to cover them instead.
And other people, me included, dislike the seats in the GWR HSTs and are glad they are going - I could say glad to see the back of them, but that was one of the problems - all you could see when sat in them was the back of the seat in front.
Quite looking forward to the wires getting to Oxford so I can opt for 387s and their luxurious (but, seriously, seemingly more supportive and ergonomic) ironing boards when possible
I too really disliked the claustrophobic effect they created (though that would have been much reduced with even as little as 5cm more pitch … and less tinting on the windows … and less harsh lighting … and less dark fabric, ……… !) … but, speaking of backs, they definitely fit my body enormously better than those in the IETs, and were pretty comfortable all round for me (185cm, 89kg).
I've travelled in quite a few now, and all of the following are right in the HSTs and wrong in the IETs (for me): lumbar support height (is there even any at all in the IETs?); shoulder “cavity” (too low in IETs, matches my lower ribcage area); headrest height (also too low, the “ears” press into my shoulders!); armrest height (seriously, they are so low that they're about half way between the seat base and my elbows, with my arms hanging vertically from my shoulders, you'd have to be amazingly short (or have amazingly long arms) for them to be at the right height!) … the net result being that I end up with my back fairly strongly curved forward and a fairly rapid onset of shoulder and back pain if I try to sit “in” the seat. To stay comfortable I just perch forward and ignore the backrest altogether. Luckily the seat pitch is (or at least /seems/) a lot larger than in the HSTs so this is an option.
Quite looking forward to the wires getting to Oxford so I can opt for 387s and their luxurious (but, seriously, seemingly more supportive and ergonomic) ironing boards when possible
<snip> armrest height (seriously, they are so low that they're about half way between the seat base and my elbows, with my arms hanging vertically from my shoulders, you'd have to be amazingly short (or have amazingly long arms) for them to be at the right height!) … <snip>
Swarms (?) of 80x on the ECML this evening, got four passing Doncaster in just 30 minutes - two all white, one GW and one of the new TPE in dull grey.
Railway Performance Society database confirms that IET, on electric of course, has beaten the best ever HST times between Reading and Didcot and vv.Rumour has it that the fastest HST run on the GML broke some 125 limits, when ATP did not exist.
Another reason the IET won’t beat performance..
I
Railway Performance Society database confirms that IET, on electric of course, has beaten the best ever HST times between Reading and Didcot and vv.
Paddington - Reading will be difficult due to the lower speed limits now in force out to Ladbroke Grove.
Not seen a log of the PAD RDG 20m 46s HST run, but another HST run in 20m 49s published in Milepost did not exceed 129 mph.
In the up direction, IET on electric has got within 10 sec of fastest RDG-PAD HST run in the RPS database.