LUMO manages Edinburgh to Kings Cross in 3 hr 58 mins!

[tornado]

Just spotted this.

Service Information - Recent Train Times

and that's stopping at both Morpeth and Newcastle.

Is LUMO able to accelerate faster than the LNER Azumas as it has lighter seats, a shorter trainset, and no diesel backup?

 

[hexagon789]

Just spotted this.

Service Information - Recent Train Times

and that's stopping at both Morpeth and Newcastle.

Is LUMO able to accelerate faster than the LNER Azumas as it has lighter seats, a shorter trainset, and no diesel backup?

No, acceleration rates are identical.

It's not unheard of to run early, there is plenty of recovery time in the schedule.

91s were booked in 3h59 with two stops at various periods in the 1990s/early 2000s with variable success.

The 1053 has 12.5 mins of pathing, performance and engineering allowances.

 

[Class 466]

Just spotted this.

Service Information - Recent Train Times

and that's stopping at both Morpeth and Newcastle.

Is LUMO able to accelerate faster than the LNER Azumas as it has lighter seats, a shorter trainset, and no diesel backup?

The schedules have lots of pathing time in them so if it gets a clear run it would do this easily. I'm sure an Azuma could do the same.

 

[hexagon789]

The schedules have lots of pathing time in them so if it gets a clear run it would do this easily. I'm sure an Azuma could do the same.

Undoubtedly.

The Flying Scotsman often arrives a min or two early, though equally it often arrives a min or two late!

 

[the sniper]

Once they found out you could keep the thing on the rails at 75mph in a 25mph, a world of possibilities was opened up?!

 

[800001]

80X are designed so that a 5, 9 or a 10 all have the same performance characteristics.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I had an HST do 3h 59m with two stops back in the early 1990s. Nothing new here (but railway was far less busy back then).

 

[tornado]

Once they found out you could keep the thing on the rails at 75mph in a 25mph, a world of possibilities was opened up?!

 

[hexagon789]

I had an HST do 3h 59m with two stops back in the early 1990s. Nothing new here (but railway was far less busy back then).

Sure it wasn't one of the 225 runs that was booked to such a schedule? (They had basically no recovery time so were on the brink of what a 91 could achieve, and the electric timetable required shorter SRTs than the HSTs could manage with only one notable exception).

 

[Happilyretired]

I had an HST do 3h 59m with two stops back in the early 1990s. Nothing new here (but railway was far less busy back then).

Agreed. I recall in 1988 travelling on the 06..00 from Edinburgh, timetabled to arrive KGX at 09.59 with, I think, one stop at NCL. We were signalled to wait outside KGX for a few minutes but had that not happened, our journey time would have been 3 hrs 55 mins

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The Flying Scotsman often arrives a min or two early, though equally it often arrives a min or two late!

What isnt often noticed tho is when the scotsman is running late other on time services have to scramble out of the way to give it priority. Often what was the 07:08 TPE service from Newcastle would be held, or looped at Tyne Yard, Durham or Ferryhill to allow the 07:04 running late to pass it. This would cause a 10-15 minute delay on the TPE for the sake of the scotsman gaining just one minute, irrespective of the delay and knock on effects of the punters on that service, and encountered further delays at garforth and stalybridge. The 06:55 off newcastle to Kings Cross had a timetabled hold at darlington to allow the scotsman to pass (iwhen on time) but would either be held there or slow lines at Northallerton and again this would accrue a 10 min delay in the process. Granted these are old times but still demonstrates the impact that service had on others for the sake of a headline grab.

 

[notadriver]

No, acceleration rates are identical.

It's not unheard of to run early, there is plenty of recovery time in the schedule.

91s were booked in 3h59 with two stops at various periods in the 1990s/early 2000s with variable success.

The 1053 has 12.5 mins of pathing, performance and engineering allowances.

I’m not so sure about identical acceleration rates. LNER 800/801s seem to be a little slower to accelerate.

 

[185]

Once they found out you could keep the thing on the rails at 75mph in a 25mph, a world of possibilities was opened up?!

Brutal... Already seen an 'altered' photo doing the rounds with their company slogan on the side of the train "travel well, beyond expectations" linespeed

Wasn't there a (well rumoured) incident with a TPE Hitachi last year where it went some way past linespeed & max design speed due to a fault?

 

[800001]

Brutal... Already seen an 'altered' photo doing the rounds with their company slogan on the side of the train "travel well, beyond expectations" linespeed

Wasn't there a (well rumoured) incident with a TPE Hitachi last year where it went some way past linespeed & max design speed due to a fault?

TPE went up to 145mph between Northallerton and York, due to driver error, no fault on train and well within design speed.
Only came to knowledge as driver self reported himself.

 

[Siggy1980s]

Just spotted this.

Service Information - Recent Train Times

and that's stopping at both Morpeth and Newcastle.

Is LUMO able to accelerate faster than the LNER Azumas as it has lighter seats, a shorter trainset, and no diesel backup?

Easy when they don't obey the speed limits.... Slow down at Morpeth, naaaa

 

[55018ballymoss]

3h58? Pure luck that the myriad of other services that conflict with it at various junctions just happened to be either early or late, so it got a clear run all the way through.
Oh, and being a pure electric set with no diesel backup (no "donkey engine" or bi-mode) does mean it is lighter than the other 80x units and the better power/weight ratio means better acceleration.

 

[hexagon789]

Agreed. I recall in 1988 travelling on the 06..00 from Edinburgh, timetabled to arrive KGX at 09.59 with, I think, one stop at NCL. We were signalled to wait outside KGX for a few minutes but had that not happened, our journey time would have been 3 hrs 55 mins

The fastest service in 1988 was the down Flying Scotsman at 4h23.

Sure you aren't thinking of the 3h59 Scottish Pullmans launched after electrification to Edinburgh was completed?

What isnt often noticed tho is when the scotsman is running late other on time services have to scramble out of the way to give it priority. Often what was the 07:08 TPE service from Newcastle would be held, or looped at Tyne Yard, Durham or Ferryhill to allow the 07:04 running late to pass it. This would cause a 10-15 minute delay on the TPE for the sake of the scotsman gaining just one minute, irrespective of the delay and knock on effects of the punters on that service, and encountered further delays at garforth and stalybridge. The 06:55 off newcastle to Kings Cross had a timetabled hold at darlington to allow the scotsman to pass (iwhen on time) but would either be held there or slow lines at Northallerton and again this would accrue a 10 min delay in the process. Granted these are old times but still demonstrates the impact that service had on others for the sake of a headline grab.

Very true, though hopefully when the LNER recast even happens it won't be of consequence if all the fast services are accelerated to 4h05-4h10

Oh, and being a pure electric set with no diesel backup (no "donkey engine" or bi-mode) does mean it is lighter than the other 80x units and the better power/weight ratio means better acceleration.

The batteries add weight and the software is designed to give a set acceleration rate rather than more conventional set power output.

 

[hwl]

Oh, and being a pure electric set with no diesel backup (no "donkey engine" or bi-mode) does mean it is lighter than the other 80x units and the better power/weight ratio means better acceleration.

Incorrect as others have already pointed out.
On electric power, the traction power is software controlled to produce a defined acceleration curve irrespective of 80x unit configuration under a variety of conditions. The 80x units could perform far better than this defined acceleration curve without the software limitation at which point power to weight ratio would be relevant, however due to the software controls power to weight ratio isn't.
There is also some redundancy in the traction electrics and traction motors so the units can still meet the defined acceleration curve if some of the equipment is isolated.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

So what is the software control of the power intended to achieve? Is this ensuring that all 80x drivers in effect have to stick within the same acceleration curve, ie. the one behind can't catch-up the one in front?

 

[tornado]

I don't understand why software would limit acceleration. Surely the speed limit within each section of track is the important thing, not how long it takes to accelerate up to that limit.

 

[hwl]

I don't understand why software would limit acceleration. Surely the speed limit within each section of track is the important thing, not how long it takes to accelerate up to that limit.

Because the IET specification said so!
Defined acceleration curves are useful for timetabling and coping with unit permutations and with having redundancy only being used when needed. (all helps with power supply)

So what is the software control of the power intended to achieve? Is this ensuring that all 80x drivers in effect have to stick within the same acceleration curve, ie. the one behind can't catch-up the one in front?

Uniform performance of units irrespective of being 5, 9 or 2x 5car, whether they are bi-mode operating on electric or electric only and passenger loading levels. It also helps with overall energy efficiency.

 

[The Planner]

I don't understand why software would limit acceleration. Surely the speed limit within each section of track is the important thing, not how long it takes to accelerate up to that limit.

The time it takes to get to that speed is very important. It is a component of running times. For example if you can accelerate from 0-100 say 12-15 seconds quicker then that can often equate to a ½ minute saving once rounding is taken account of.

 

[jfollows]

The fastest service in 1988 was the down Flying Scotsman at 4h23.

Sure you aren't thinking of the 3h59 Scottish Pullmans launched after electrification to Edinburgh was completed?

Yes, in 1988 1S36 was 10:30 King's Cross to Aberdeen with stops at York and Newcastle, arrived Edinburgh 14:53
In the up direction the first departure from Edinburgh was 1E01 at 06:55; 11:50 into King's Cross. It was followed by 1E02, 06:25 from Glasgow Queen Street, 07:30 from Edinburgh, 12:03 into King's Cross.
EDIT By 1994, my next working timetable, I think the 3h59 schedule had been and gone, and the 15:00 Edinburgh King's Cross (starting from Glasgow Central at 14:00) was 4h10 in the public timetable albeit 4h7 in the working timetable, 1E13 attached.

 

[hwl]

The time it takes to get to that speed is very important. It is a component of running times. For example if you can accelerate from 0-100 say 12-15 seconds quicker then that can often equate to a ½ minute saving once rounding is taken account of.

Exactly people also need to think in terms of pace (time to cover a distance than) rather than speed (distance covered in a time interval)

 

[mmh]

The time it takes to get to that speed is very important. It is a component of running times. For example if you can accelerate from 0-100 say 12-15 seconds quicker then that can often equate to a ½ minute saving once rounding is taken account of.

Of course, but what is being questioned here is *limiting* acceleration. Although if services have to be timetabled to the lowest common denominator there's probably little use for some units behaving differently to others. Other than artificially limiting their ability to make up a little time when running late.

But then, I've long wondered why every train type seemingly has different driving characteristics. Why is this, and controls, not standardised?

 

[Adam Williams]

Once they found out you could keep the thing on the rails at 75mph in a 25mph, a world of possibilities was opened up?!

I feel bad for laughing quite so hard at this as I did

 

[The Planner]

Of course, but what is being questioned here is *limiting* acceleration. Although if services have to be timetabled to the lowest common denominator there's probably little use for some units behaving differently to others. Other than artificially limiting their ability to make up a little time when running late.

But then, I've long wondered why every train type seemingly has different driving characteristics. Why is this, and controls, not standardised?

Its still only going to be a factor until the Mk1 human at the front is removed.

 

[Irascible]

I don't understand why software would limit acceleration. Surely the speed limit within each section of track is the important thing, not how long it takes to accelerate up to that limit.

Quite possibly not throwing people down the train, or items off tables into people's laps & so on. Fairly sure there's at least one RSSB doc on passenger comfort & acceleration/deceleration levels but I can't remember exactly.

There is a *lot* of publically available engineering data about the 80xs.

 

[Some guy]

It could be easily done even faster than that considering the ECML is so straight. Avanti could do Euston to Glasgow in 3hr 52 minutes and that’s on curved track

 

[TheBigD]

BR manage 3hr29m29s (I think) with a special 91+5mk4s+dvt set on a special Kings Cross to Edinburgh run. It had special dispensario to run above line speed in many areas up ro 140mph and other services were moved out of its way.