Night Riviera cost reductions?

Status
Not open for further replies.

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,009
Well I have recently travelled on the down Night Riviera in the seated area, which means I have now travelled in both directions on the service in seating.
It was almost entirely full in seating and judging by the number of people around it is highly likely that the berths were similar.

So why are only two seating vehicles provided?
I understand that Platform 1 at Paddington is rather long, and that platforms at Plymouth and Penzance are hardly short either, as far as I can tell P1 at Paddington can take 11 23m vehicles plus two 18m ones, and such a formation would fit into at least one of the platforms at Penzance without fouling any points.

With the low traffic density at intermediate stations I doubt there would be much trouble with the train fouling points, even with the long wait at Plymouth.
So why can't they add perhaps another two seated vehicles to make it up to eleven, and then add a DVT to one end of the train. (Currently they have to use a second Class 57 to pull the train into Paddington and have to do a propelling move at Penzance, which could be avoided if the train was push pull).

As the trains are fitted with RCH jumpers they should already be able to carry TDM control signals, although I understand that this proved troublesome in actual service so they would likely have to be rewired with extra cables, and ofcourse some TDM gear would have to be fitted into the Class 57s.
The DVT would also allow them to offer a luggage van service to customers in berths.
But overall that doesn't seem to be a very bad choice considering the sets will be due for refurbishment soon and the franchise ITT includes it as a requirement of the franchise.

Does anyone know how long trains can be at Penzance without fouling points? The sectional appendix lookalike thing on the NR website says the longest platform there is roughly ~20m too short for this formation, but that Platform 1 at Paddington will easily take it.

Could a Class 57 could keep to the rather slack sleeper timetable with 11 Mark 3s and a DVT in tow? (Total formation length of 288m)
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

TEW

Established Member
Joined
16 May 2008
Messages
5,412
When the sleeper runs with 9 carriages, as it does in very rare circumstances it only just fits within the signals at Penzance, and one carriage is off the platform. The service is certainly well patronised nowadays, it went up from 6 to 7 carriages a couple of years ago. It could run at 8 everyday without problems, as it does one night a week in each direction, but there probably wouldn't be enough coaches in the fleet to reliably run both sets as 8 carriages everyday of the week. A DVT in the formation would be a waste of space. There is already a large locked luggage cage next to the guards compartment in the BFO where large items can be stored. At Penzance the 08 is usually used to shunt the stock now, but propelling is also still done without a problem. At London the 57 which would otherwise be spare is used, or if it is unavailable the 08 can deputise. Even when the train runs via Yeovil on some Sunday nights it isn't a problem as there is ample time to run round the 57 at Exeter, and the crew still have experience in performing the move. A DVT would also be another bit of kit to maintain which would add cost, and some form of multi working would be required on the 57s.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,009
When the sleeper runs with 9 carriages, as it does in very rare circumstances it only just fits within the signals at Penzance, and one carriage is off the platform. The service is certainly well patronised nowadays, it went up from 6 to 7 carriages a couple of years ago.

It certainly seems far busier than it was, when I last got it I boarded at Liskeard to travel to London and the seating coaches were virtually empty, although that was a sunday night so I don't know if that had anything to do with it.

It could run at 8 everyday without problems, as it does one night a week in each direction, but there probably wouldn't be enough coaches in the fleet to reliably run both sets as 8 carriages everyday of the week.
Well if the service really is going to continue past 2019, the sleeper will need a rebuild anyway, at which point those poor condition Mark 3 sleepers that I believe are laid up (how many are there and is damage primarily cosmetic in structural terms?) would become viable to return to service to make the fleet up to its best possible length.

A DVT in the formation would be a waste of space. There is already a large locked luggage cage next to the guards compartment in the BFO where large items can be stored.

Well couldn't the BFO could be rebuilt to increase its seating capacity if an alternative luggage space in the formation could be located, or simply exchanged for a different mark 3 as they become available with the impending HST and Loco hauled withdrawals?

Network Rail documents make the longest platform at Penzance at 265m, which is apparently the limiting factor on a formation:
19-20m for the locomotive
18-19m for the DVT
Which leaves 226m for coaching stock.

Which translates to the current nine Mark 3s.... unless someone wanted to add a pair of Mark 2s to the formation in place of one of the Mark 3s...
That is annoying, just 4 more metres and they could have a tenth Mark 3 without giving up on having push pull.
But you would still get increased capacity as you would not need a break van/guards compartment in the BFO, since it would be located in the DVT. (Can train staff move between a DVT and the rest of a train in transit?)

If all attempts to sort the service based on demand were abandoned and the trains were run at the longest possible formation every night, how often would sets need shunting around? (ie. could the shunting locomotives currently used at the depots be withdrawn, and perhaps cut the Class 57 fleet down to a single spare?)
 

Temple Meads

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2010
Messages
2,224
Location
Devon
It's lucky I just use the Night Riviera from Plymouth to Exeter mostly, and then I usually window lean, otherwise the far too frequent lack of seating would get rather annoying.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
7,948
Network Rail documents make the longest platform at Penzance at 265m, which is apparently the limiting factor on a formation:
19-20m for the locomotive
18-19m for the DVT
Which leaves 226m for coaching stock.

Which translates to the current nine Mark 3s.... unless someone wanted to add a pair of Mark 2s to the formation in place of one of the Mark 3s...
That is annoying, just 4 more metres and they could have a tenth Mark 3 without giving up on having push pull.

Looking at Google there is a photo of the end of the long platforms at Penzance:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Pen...31,-5.530884&cbp=12,0,,0,0&photoid=po-5609982

Using the arial photo, the road marking implys that it is about 24m to where the two tracks towards the right of the photo first touch at the points, meaning that it maybe possible to lengthen the platform enough for the suggestion of 10 Mark 3's and DVT whilst still being able to see the signals when leaving. Although it maybe slightly narrower than would be liked. However how likely is it they would be to spend money doing that unless there were other services that would benefit I don't know.

In terms of the extra Mark 3's to strengthen the service there should be a few spare after 2017 when the IEP's start in service. unless they are all needed elsewhere.

Something that might help with reducing demand would be to run a later/earlier trains. For instance the last direct train out of London is at 1803, which means that unless you work near to Paddington or Reading stations you either have to change trains (1903), use the Night Riviera, or use up a chunk of the next day to get to Cornwall. Although such a service may not technicaly be viable it could mean that it was cheaper and/or easier to run than provide a 10+ coach sleeper service. It may cause problems with getting stock to Pymouth for the 0509 back to London though.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,612
Location
Macclesfield
(Can train staff move between a DVT and the rest of a train in transit?)
Yes, the movement of staff, mainly the guard, between carriages and DVT whilst on the move is a common practice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well if the service really is going to continue past 2019, the sleeper will need a rebuild anyway, at which point those poor condition Mark 3 sleepers that I believe are laid up (how many are there and is damage primarily cosmetic in structural terms?) would become viable to return to service to make the fleet up to its best possible length.
I thought your proposal was to add additional seated carriages to the sleeper, not extra sleepers? As has been proved in the past the structure of the sleeper carriages becomes too fragile if an attempt is made to convert them to seated stock.

Although, if the Night Riviera is proving popular, then no doubt extra sleeping berths would be well used too, given the low number of berths that each carriage contains.

I think that there’s about ten to fourteen mark 3 sleepers laid up at Long Marston. Given that they have been out of service for maybe 15 to 20 years, and are regarded as being withdrawn awaiting disposal, then I should imagine that they are in rather a decrepit state. The best that can probably be expected from them is the provision of reconditioned spare parts to keep the operational sleeper vehicles in service, although a complete overhaul and return to service probably would be possible if enough money was thrown at it. But with the sleepers such a marginal service, who in their right mind would throw such money at it?
 

rail-britain

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2007
Messages
4,102
It was almost entirely full in seating and judging by the number of people around it is highly likely that the berths were similar.
So why are only two seating vehicles provided?
The title suggests cutting costs, however the observation is that the train is near to full or full

I have only made one journey and the sleeper was not really that full
Equally, the set was in reverse formation, so I was able to see how many people were using the seats as they had to walk through the Lounge Car

The set is always going to be a compromise between train length and demand (both low and high)

There is little benefit to be had adding a DVT, as it would have limited use given it would only be used twice per operation
Having a spare loco at Paddington is useful, but does present an issue at Penzance (however ScotRail have the same issue with their southbound services)
This is more of a historical issue now as the number of passenger locos has dramatically reduced to its current level

Personally, I prefer the booking method on the Great Western sleeper, which allows Standard ticket holders to book a Solo cabin
The staff at Glasgow Central had some difficulty booking my cabin as they could not work out why a First Class cabin was not available, as they are used to seeing the Solo option with Standard tickets
Even if this resulted in a slightly higher fare on the ScotRail sleeper, I believe it would be very welcome
Equally, VoLo could then be installed which would be appreciated due to the slightly earlier departure times and longer journey times
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
23,128
Location
Redcar
at which point those poor condition Mark 3 sleepers that I believe are laid up (how many are there and is damage primarily cosmetic in structural terms?) would become viable to return to service to make the fleet up to its best possible length.

The issue with those sleepers is less their structural condition and more the fact that they're slowly being cannibalised for spares to keep the rest of the Mk3 fleet in service.

I have only made one journey and the sleeper was not really that full

I've made three and from comments made by staff all the berths have been occupied and from what I could see the cushions had plenty of bums on seats.

Personally, I prefer the booking method on the Great Western sleeper, which allows Standard ticket holders to book a Solo cabin

Yes I do have to say the way that FGW offer essentially the Scotrail equivalent of first class for the price of a standard class ticket is very good and probably part of the reason why the loadings are as healthy as they are.
 
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
934
Location
Blackpool south Shore
Adding coaches at Plymouth used to be the norm.
This meant that Plymouth customers could board and sleep before the Penzance part arrived. Similarly coaches were dropped off on the way down, giving Plymouth sleepers a lie in.
A long train through Cornwall can be quite slow, with the weight etc. Coming into Camborne on the up line the driver enters the platform very slowly, as there is a stop signal and busy level crossing at the end of the platform.
Probably they are trying to save having a pilot engine on duty at Plymouth.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
23,128
Location
Redcar
Actually I thought that the Plymouth coach was withdrawn because it had hardly any passengers on it so it wasn't worth the hassle of attaching and detaching.
 
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
934
Location
Blackpool south Shore
Actually I thought that the Plymouth coach was withdrawn because it had hardly any passengers on it so it wasn't worth the hassle of attaching and detaching.

Could be some truth in that.
I believe the Plymouth coaches often had room, with a huge population, seems strange it was not popular. Unless as Plymouth is closer to London that travelling early in the day is more practical for Plymothians?
The sleeper used to travel via Bristol to Paddington,
then changed Waterloo, then back to Paddington!
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
23,128
Location
Redcar
Unless as Plymouth is closer to London that travelling early in the day is more practical for Plymothians?

That's probably it. Looking at train times, it's possible to leave Plymouth at 0553 and be in London for 0900 or 0655 and arrive at 1002 coming back leaving London at 1703 arriving 2024 or 1803 arriving 2116 (obviously there are more services than that but those are at times that might appeal to business people/committed day trippers). So it requires an early start/late finish but it's perfectly possible to have a day working in London by taking standard trains and sleep in your own bed. It also used to be possible to fly to London again eating into the market for a sleeper service.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,009
Well... if the length of the longest platform at Penzance is really 265m (I assume that is in signalling terms), there is another alternative to lengthening the existing formation once the IEPs start to arrive. (Which is what we would have to wait for as the only source of seated Mark 3s in the near future are retired HST rakes).

A sleeper HST.

Since the sleeper vehicles will need a rebuild and rewire anyway to continue beyond the DDA deadline, it does not seem unreasonable that they could be rewired to use three phase HST ETS supplies in place of the standard loco hauled supplies.

At that point you end up with a formation of 1PC+3TF+TRFB+6TSLE(P)+1PC.
This comes at a total length of ~265.5m, which might fit in a "265m" platform, perhaps the buffers could be moved closer to the end of the track if a derogation from standards could be obtained to allow it?

The fact that we now have a sleeper formation with 4500hp and the ability to get above 100mph (although it might have be a little heavy for 125mph, although 2+9 sets apparently manage it on the east coast) opens up interesting possibilities.
It also gets you push pull for free and eliminates the need for Great Western to train its crews on Class 57s, and allows it to share spare power cars with the to-be-retained daytime rakes used on Cornwall services.

Although you don't get a DVT sized cargo space... don't HST power cars have some mail/luggage space of their own?


As to the number of sleeper vehicles stored, is that it? Considering there aren't more than 60-70 in service and there were 208 built.... that seems awfully low, were that many really scrapped? And if they are mising parts that are common to all Mark 3s, those parts are unlikely to be in short supply once HST withdrawals begin in earnest.
 
Last edited:

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,612
Location
Macclesfield
The fact that we now have a sleeper formation with 4500hp and the ability to get above 100mph (although it might have be a little heavy for 125mph, although 2+9 sets apparently manage it on the east coast) opens up interesting possibilities.
High speed running must be very near the bottom of the list of the desirable qualities of a sleeper service: For the typical end to end distances of the main lines in Britain, running at anything more than the present "relaxed" timings would result in an arrival at passenger's eventual destination that is far too early, and running at higher speeds is also likely to reduce the ride quality for passengers, which is a high priority.

Although you don't get a DVT sized cargo space... don't HST power cars have some mail/luggage space of their own?
Yes the luggage van area of an HST power car would be more than sufficient to meet the demands of the travellers on the sleeper.

As to the number of sleeper vehicles stored, is that it? Considering there aren't more than 60-70 in service and there were 208 built.... that seems awfully low, were that many really scrapped? And if they are mising parts that are common to all Mark 3s, those parts are unlikely to be in short supply once HST withdrawals begin in earnest.
As well as quite a few having been scrapped, a surprisingly high number are now to be found providing volunteers' accommodation on preserved railways, a further ten were sold to Danish State Railways, and five or six were written off fairly early in their lives in the Morpeth derailment.

I remain considerably less than convinced that the income from the sleeper operations would be enough for any TOC to consider a proposition to rebuild what could by the end of the decade be little more than decayed empty shells using 35 - 40 year old components from HST stock.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
23,128
Location
Redcar
and the ability to get above 100mph (although it might have be a little heavy for 125mph, although 2+9 sets apparently manage it on the east coast) opens up interesting possibilities.

It's only interesting if you want the passengers to 'enjoy' a very uncomfortable nights sleep. I've got plenty of miles on HST Mk3s doing 125mph (there's nothing apparent about the ECML HSTs doing 125mph ;)) and the sort of ride you get there is not one that's going to be conducive for sleep. There is no issue with the existing speed capabilities of the sets and there is no need for any more speed on the services.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,009
It's only interesting if you want the passengers to 'enjoy' a very uncomfortable nights sleep. I've got plenty of miles on HST Mk3s doing 125mph (there's nothing apparent about the ECML HSTs doing 125mph ;)) and the sort of ride you get there is not one that's going to be conducive for sleep. There is no issue with the existing speed capabilities of the sets and there is no need for any more speed on the services.

I was referring to use somewhere else on the network more than on the Night Riviera, but once you have done a sleeper HST for this role, there is no reason not to use all the available Sleeper Mark 3s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
High speed running must be very near the bottom of the list of the desirable qualities of a sleeper service: For the typical end to end distances of the main lines in Britain, running at anything more than the present "relaxed" timings would result in an arrival at passenger's eventual destination that is far too early, and running at higher speeds is also likely to reduce the ride quality for passengers, which is a high priority.

There is always the only significant non-London air market in the UK... the south coast to Scotland.
But from Southampton I suppose you could do electric haulage after CP5 is finished.
 

aylesbury

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
622
Perhaps with Scotland promising to replace their coaches with something else, maybe the new sleeper from Siemens reguaged to GB loading gauge , these coaches could come south.They are well maintained and seem to be free of rot etc ,but I wonder how much Mr Salmond would charge us?The only sensible answer at the moment is HST power cars at each end this rids non standard units off the western main lin and saves on the maintainence bill..
 
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
934
Location
Blackpool south Shore
This is just an idea.
Night trains where running a full sleeper service is not warranted or cost effective.
Convert some first class style coaches 2+1 into seats that recline for nighttime, (upright for day, only reclined by train crew) dim the lighting/ floor lights, reduce speed by 30%+, gentle braking and acceleration for economy & comfort. Cheap fares available.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
5,203
Location
Nottingham
This is just an idea.
Night trains where running a full sleeper service is not warranted or cost effective.
Convert some first class style coaches 2+1 into seats that recline for nighttime, (upright for day, only reclined by train crew) dim the lighting/ floor lights, reduce speed by 30%+, gentle braking and acceleration for economy & comfort. Cheap fares available.

On the continent they have 4-berth sleeper compartments that become day carriages in day time. Make some conveertable beds, and a moveable wall (to make the 4 berth carrieges 2-berth. And we have compartment day stock, and 2 berth sleeper night stock
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
The DVT idea does have some appeal, despite the loss of platform space. If Chiltern DVTs can have ETS generators, then something similar for the Night Riviera would reduce the idling time when in platforms. HST power cars also might work, but either they or the coaches would need modified ETS and couplers because the two systems are incompatible. This seems a bit much for two trains a night, although it might end up with a swap between FGW and GC for the buffer-fitted power cars.

This is just an idea.
Night trains where running a full sleeper service is not warranted or cost effective.
Convert some first class style coaches 2+1 into seats that recline for nighttime, (upright for day, only reclined by train crew) dim the lighting/ floor lights, reduce speed by 30%+, gentle braking and acceleration for economy & comfort. Cheap fares available.

Once marketed by British Rail as the Night-Rider! (There being nothing new under the sun.)
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
23,128
Location
Redcar
I was referring to use somewhere else on the network more than on the Night Riviera, but once you have done a sleeper HST for this role, there is no reason not to use all the available Sleeper Mark 3s.

Yes, you didn't address the fact that high speed running is going to be detrimental to the passengers journey experience. Even on the WCML where the sleeper could run at 100mph (Mk2s being limited to 100mph I believe otherwise it would be 110mph) it doesn't, however, because that would get it to Scotland rather quickly and make for a rather unpleasant journey for passengers. So if a sleeper isn't even doing 100mph it certainly isn't going to do 125mph.

Also the former South West to Scotland sleepers didn't need to go particularly quickly to get to and from their destinations at reasonable times. So there's no advantage to be had with 125mph stock there either.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Yes, you didn't address the fact that high speed running is going to be detrimental to the passengers journey experience. Even on the WCML where the sleeper could run at 100mph (Mk2s being limited to 100mph I believe otherwise it would be 110mph) it doesn't, however, because that would get it to Scotland rather quickly and make for a rather unpleasant journey for passengers. So if a sleeper isn't even doing 100mph it certainly isn't going to do 125mph.

Also the former South West to Scotland sleepers didn't need to go particularly quickly to get to and from their destinations at reasonable times. So there's no advantage to be had with 125mph stock there either.

The sleeper speed limit is 85mph, but there's no particular reason why an HST would need to exceed this when operating one. After all, 67s can also do 125, and they stick to the 85 limit when hauling sleepers in Scotland. However, the ETS issue is a bigger one, and I've often wondered why HSTs didn't just use the standard 1,000V d.c. version when they were built. Or indeed why there are no shunting controls at the inner end as there were with the prototype power cars.
 

CC 72100

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2012
Messages
3,636
The sleeper speed limit is 85mph, but there's no particular reason why an HST would need to exceed this when operating one. After all, 67s can also do 125, and they stick to the 85 limit when hauling sleepers in Scotland. However, the ETS issue is a bigger one, and I've often wondered why HSTs didn't just use the standard 1,000V d.c. version when they were built. Or indeed why there are no shunting controls at the inner end as there were with the prototype power cars.

I've got a feeling the Night Riviera is timed to 75 mph, although I'm happy to be corrected. That's not to say of course that it could increase speed when running late etc., as it often seems to make up time.
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,009
After all, 67s can also do 125, and they stick to the 85 limit when hauling sleepers in Scotland. However, the ETS issue is a bigger one, and I've often wondered why HSTs didn't just use the standard 1,000V d.c. version when they were built. Or indeed why there are no shunting controls at the inner end as there were with the prototype power cars.

Since almost all of the mounted equipment on the Mark 3 (especially the air con) uses either three or single phase AC, the use of a loco-hauled type DC supply would require the motor alternator used on the loco hauled coaches to be fitted despite the fact these coaches would only ever be used wtih power cars of a single design that were being built at the same time.

You save the weight of a bunch of motor-alternator sets in all the coaches and the need to fit rectifiers to the auxiliary alternators in the power cars.

But converting from a loco hauled rake to a HST type rake is relatively easy, its fit extra wiring and pull the M-A sets.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
11,711
Location
Epsom
I was under the impression that they can exceed this speed to try and make up time if they need to during disruption?

The last few times I have used the Caledonian Sleeper the up train has run at 100mph from Rugby southwards on each occasion. late running was not a factor as the train typically arrived at Euston somewhat early. I suspect this is more a pathing issue.
 

Woody

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2006
Messages
277
That's probably it. Looking at train times, it's possible to leave Plymouth at 0553 and be in London for 0900 or 0655 and arrive at 1002 coming back leaving London at 1703 arriving 2024 or 1803 arriving 2116 (obviously there are more services than that but those are at times that might appeal to business people/committed day trippers). So it requires an early start/late finish but it's perfectly possible to have a day working in London by taking standard trains and sleep in your own bed. It also used to be possible to fly to London again eating into the market for a sleeper service.
Thanks to much improved road links west of Exeter these days a lot of people from Cornwall and indeed Plymouth now drive to Exeter or Tiverton Parkway to get fast daytime trains to London so saving about an hour and a half on the journey from Cornwall.You can easily drive from Plymouth to Tiverton Parkway in 50 minutes at legal speeds up the A38/M5 compared to a very slow 75 minutes by rail.From Tiverton parkway of course you are only about 2 hours from Paddington.With such a painfully slow railway from Exeter to Penzance more and more people are going to choose that option in the 21st century if a way cant be found to speed up this "branchline"
 

richw

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
10,033
Location
Liskeard
Woody - from my house to Tiverton parkway is 1 hr 40 driving. From mine to st erth 5 min drive, then st erth to Tiverton is average journey time of 3 hrs 15 by rail. I therefore drive when going to London and time is tight to somewhere on the m5, normally Taunton as my bro lives near to the rail station so saves parking at the station, and then complete journey by rail.
 

rail-britain

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2007
Messages
4,102
However, the ETS issue is a bigger one, and I've often wondered why HSTs didn't just use the standard 1,000V d.c. version when they were built
If the FGW sleepers and coaches were converted to 3 phase, then there woudn't be an issue (as the power supply is split along the set between each power car
A single power can power up to 5 coaches, so a set of 9 or 10 coaches should not be an issue
Equally high speed is not essential, so the two power cars should be able to cope
However, the power cars don't really like long periods running at low speed
Power cars were trialled on sleepers between Edinburgh and Kings Cross (using a generator van to power the coaches) but there were many complaints about the excessive noise, which shouldn't be as much of an issue now
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top