Given the amount of slow running they do on Northern, WMT and things like Fife and Anniesland jobs, one wonders if anyone has considered modifying them to the class 172 drivetrain. I know SWT had a 158 fitted with an Ecomat box but I’m not aware of it being tried on a 170
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Impact of lower linespeed and level crossings on slower off the mark stock such as Class 170's
- Thread starter deltic08
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I thought the chat moss limit was because of what it’s been built on. Basically, Stevenson (I think) was challenged to build a railway line on a bog so he laid down loads of cork or something. I’m mainly chatting nonsense here as I can’t remember the actual facts, but I’m not far off. I do know it’s a bit bumpy down there.
Surely that depends where they plan to use them? The Nottingham - Leeds line has plenty of >75mph, even more if it’s sent via Wakefield Westgate as planned. I’ve always thought 170s were an odd choice for Leeds-Harrogate-York, it seems much more suited for 158s, much more than Leeds - Notts.
No, and no.
Yes. And it varies depending on the type of level crossing, the risk level, and for certain types of crossing the sighting time for either highway users wishing to use the crossing or for the tram driver on approach.
As above. But the level crossing closures in Anglia (and elsewhere) are not about cutting journey times. They are about improving safety.
Not quite. Level crossings are not permitted on any line above 125mph, and where linespeeds are above 100mph they must be controlled (for vehicular crossings) and ‘active’ for footpath / bridleway crossings (ie warning lights). New level crossings are not permitted at all.
And that’s because NR does not have the funds for anything but a steady state railway, unless it is specifically paid for by a ‘funder’, normally the DfT or other transport authority. So unless someone finds the money, and asks NR to do it, it won’t happen.
It’s not all about the track....
Happy to help!
To repeat something I must have written half a dozen times on the forum: there are well over 80 different factors that can limit linespeed. Only one of them is track geometry (ie curvature) and one more is track maintenance. There’s several more related to track, and the other 70 or so concern other asset types, some of which are not visible out of a train window (or at all).
Do, however, be assured that where there is the opportunity for cheap/easy linespeed improvements, usually done as part of a renewal, they are done. The exit speed from Birmingham New Street towards Proof House is one example (coming at the time of resignalling, apparently).
But, as ever, the point is always what problem are you trying to solve? And does improving linespeeds actually solve it?
Sample question: if the West Anglia Main Line was raised from (mostly) 80mph to 100mph for the 24 miles from Bishops Stortford to Tottenham Hale, how many minutes quicker would the Stansted Express be? (You may need to show your working...)
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 7,850
I have done Lime Street to Manchester Victoria non-stop (once) in under 30 minutes. The old Trans Pennine sets (Class 124) could manage 36 minutes (to Manchester Exchange), and 37/38 to Victoria with one intermediate stop at Earlestown. The main problem now is line congestion at each end of the route.
Much of the Chat Moss route has been increased to 75 mph at the Manchester end, and 90 mph west of Glazebury. It remains 60 mph over Astley Level Crossing; if you stand near the crossing, you can feel the ground "bounce" every time a train passes. Higher speeds elsewhere on this line would probably just mean more signal checks as you caught up with preceding local services.
The Manchester / Atherton /Wigan route and Wigan/Southport both used to be mostly 75 mph (except at junctions) in the steam era, and both could now do with serious improvement.
Oh? As in no matter the line speed you can't have one? I'd missed that!
3 minutes, 36 seconds
. i.e. not a lot for 24 miles of upgrades!
One of my first ever posts was about the removal of level crossings. That aside, are you stating that there will be no new level crossings anywhere, whatsoever ? Whilst that makes me very happy; doesn't that have an impact on new routes, such as Crossrail, HS2,3,45 etc ? Supplementary to that is the preference to have a bridge, tunnel, or avoid crossing roads or footpaths altogether ?
Cheers in advance as always
dk1
Veteran Member
There are currently no automatic level crossing closures/conversions on the GEML to raise line speeds. It's only AHBs that are limited to 100mph & None of those are being upgraded to CCTV to raise this limit. Only the odd UWCs are closing which will make no difference.
For new lines, correct. And a new line is any line proposed to be built that isn’t currently open.
Slightly different for ‘new’ preserved railways, although I suspect the rules there will tighten soon given how many accidents are happening at crossings on such lines.
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 7,850
Probably zero; even now, they are almost catching up with the preceding "all-shacks" local by Tottenham Hale.
On the NR network, and on new lines, correct. I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves with HS45 though
The solution will depend on the local circumstances. Although it’s not possible to build any decent length of new line without having to cross some form of highway or right of way!
Is the right answer, go to the top of the class.
Actually, some of the AHBs are (I think!) in line to be upgraded, but that is about risk reduction given the proposed 50% increase in service north of Stowmarket. The GEML is a good example of linespeed issues and level crossings; even if every single one was closed the linespeed would still be max 100mph. The OLE, structures, formation, power supply, signal spacing, signal sighting, staff safety arrangements and many more things all need sorting. And I’d be willing to bet it would be nigh on impossible to keep it at 125mph without tamping several times a year. Oh and the timetable wouldnt work. But other than that...
3 minutes, 36 seconds
Sorry. Detention.
dk1
Veteran Member
Yeah, it won't happen. 100mph will be tops for many many years to come. I see nothing changing.
On a like for like basis (same 125mph trains, todays stopping pattern), 100 to Shenfield and 125 to Norwich (with the current restrictions at Ipswich, Manningtree and Chelmsford), the time saving to Norwich is about 6-7 mins IIRC.
Yes. In 1830 all lines were 30mph max as passengers couldn't breathe above that speed!
Quite right. There were a number of level crossings between Harrogate and Northallerton. As part of the reinstatement process new bridges have had to be designed where once there were crossings. Some over and some under. This has helped to straighten roads at the benefit of County and at other places the rail route has had to be slewed off line to provide room for a bridge where it runs tight with a road such as A61 at Wormald Green.
I was told that a bridge is no more expensive than a CCTV controlled full barrier crossing nowadays as both are about one million pounds.
Last edited by a moderator:
If the curvature allows, what is needed to raise linespeed from 60 to 70 or 75mph on concrete sleepers with cwr and deep ballast. The line has just been resignalled so I assume spacing and sighting has been adjusted for higher speed eventually?
I can't believe this is my 2000th post,
philthetube
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 4,007
DarloRich
Veteran Member
This is the key question:
I also commend the post by @Bald Rick to the house. He is much more patient than I am with some of the silliness on this thread!
I also commend the post by @Bald Rick to the house. He is much more patient than I am with some of the silliness on this thread!
Last edited:
dk1
Veteran Member
Sprinters change over roughly 45-47mph if working correctly. Some rougher units drop that to 35 & gradually lose time.
As I said *most* lines. With the exception of new build lines, such as HS1 or the Selby diversion most lines in the U.K. were built the Victorian period-those dating to the early part would have been 30mph (50-80 max toward the middle and end of the period) and subject to incremental increases through their histories.
Yeah I fully appreciate that. Improving top end line speeds may not always be appropriate especially on line with lots of closely spaced stations, or severe curves. However on more minor routes such as this one where that isn’t the case for significant parts of the route, it often seems that because improvement X doesn’t achieve a significant gain it isn’t done. Then 5 or 10 years later the same happens with improvement Y. Like wise with improvement Z in another 10 years. Suddenly you are then 20-30 years down the road and there’s been no significant change for 30 years even though there could have been if X, Y and Z had all been done.
CEN60
Member
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 283
Another point to consider if increasing line speed - perhaps you might be able to increase line speed - but the chances are you will just get to a bottleneck (ie legacy junction / signalling) quicker and thus sit longer!
Also increasing linespeed has a whole host of things associated with regards structural & passing clearances - an increase in linespeed may (in some circumstances) decrease the clearance from a train to a structure making it "foul" - same goes for 2 trains passing one another.
Also increasing linespeed has a whole host of things associated with regards structural & passing clearances - an increase in linespeed may (in some circumstances) decrease the clearance from a train to a structure making it "foul" - same goes for 2 trains passing one another.
As @Bald Rick Pointed out above, there are over 80 reasons to limit a line speed to what it is.
Your post gives me an idea though, how about we all list the reasons we think limit linespeed and Rick can mark us!
Let’s see if we can get to 50?Probably best on a separate thread.
- Status