• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Pendolino testing - ECML

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wath Yard

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Messages
864
Let's just say you would like Preston to have direct services to every station in Britain, and possibly Continental Europe, and be done with it.

Anyway, slightly back on topic. I remember reading somewhere that EC are evaluating their future rolling stock requirements, and would consider Pendolinos, together with other options such as a rebuilt 91. The stock wouldn't be ordered until the franchise is re-let, but the current EC management are supposedly taking the lead on what stock will be required on the ECML. Unfortunately, I can't find any references to this on the internet.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

junglejames

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2010
Messages
2,069
They are quite narrow, but they're an eight-degree tilting train, what do you expect?

Honestly I think some people have a sense of inflated nostalgia, that a locomotive-hauled rake with twelve tables per carriage and panoramic windows is per se better than a faster, more reliable and higher-capacity MU... often there's a lack of justification for this view.

Once again, we arent allowed to have our reasons for disliking something.
If we dislike something it must be because its not loco hauled.
Well just so you know, turn the pendys into LHCS, and i still wouldnt like it.

So lets see:
Horrible uncomfortable seats
Stupid, ill thought out interior design
Rubbish overhead racks.
Cheap tacky interior
Bland dark interior colours and lighting, which combined with the covering on the windows, makes for a claustrophopic type feel. Not cosy, but claustrophobic.


Onto the points you make:
Faster- Acceleration wise yes, but not a problem on Intercity services.
More reliable- Has in the not too distant past been less reliable than 90s and 91s. Also, this is comparing new against old. Wheres the fairness?
Higher capacity- Just. But not as cut and dry as some believe.

However, none of these have anything to do with it. Its the interior people arent liking. Redo the interior, and people wouldnt mind them.
 

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
Once again, we arent allowed to have our reasons for disliking something.
If we dislike something it must be because its not loco hauled.

What on earth makes you think I was indicting all people who don't like Pendolinos? Your reasons are perfectly valid and pertinent. Others' that I've heard are not so.

And as for the comparing old with new, what's wrong with that? :P I prefer new, non-knackered trains.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,751
Location
Epsom
GN108 For a passenger projected forward in a collision with unidirectional low seat backs there is the additional risk of passing over the top of the seat in front with the possibility of more serious injuries for themselves and other passengers.

On the other hand, the full height seats like those on FGW surely mean that in any impact quite a lot of people are going to have their faces smashed into the hard seat backs with a quite considerable force; overall the injuries are likely to be just as severe, only of a different nature.
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
On the other hand, the full height seats like those on FGW surely mean that in any impact quite a lot of people are going to have their faces smashed into the hard seat backs with a quite considerable force; overall the injuries are likely to be just as severe, only of a different nature.

Which would you rather - severe facial bruising and possible skull fractures, whiplash and upper spinal cord damage, or possible massive internal injuries to your digestive system and other organs in your torso/abdomen? I'd say "neither", and I'd rather not choose, but it seems that the designer must make that choice for us.

I do agree that it is astonishing that anywhere that your head could hit in a sudden collision could be made of something like a sheet of metal or glass, but there we are. If we add too many cushions, the thing will look like an asylum, and that's before we consider the fact that the risk of severe injury or death on a train is reasonably low.
 

David

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2005
Messages
5,103
Location
Scunthorpe
Let's hope the Pendo's don't interfere with the signalling like they did at Motherwell when they were going through acceptence testing on the WCML! :oops:
 

Jdrowlands

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
182
Monday 12 February

Code:
Train 5Z10 runs MO from 12/03/12 to 12/03/12
Type STP   Loco-Hauled   Timed at 125mph
Sector 61   Train service code 21700001

Edinburgh                        22:24
Abbeyhill Jn                     22:26
Craigentinny Jn                  22:27
Portobello Jn (Lothian)          22:28
Monktonhall Jn                   22:30
Prestonpans                      22:32
Drem                             22:36
Dunbar                           22:45
Oxwellmains Crossover            22:46
Grantshouse                      22:53
Reston                           22:57
Reston Signal Eg402              23:04
Berwick-upon-tweed               23:07
Belford L.C.                     23:15
Alnmouth For Alnwick             23:24
Morpeth                          23:35
Heaton Sth. Jn.                  23:55
Newcastle                        23:57 / 00:02
King Edward Bridge S. Jn         00:04
Birtley Jn                       00:08
Durham                           00:13
Tursdale Jn                      00:18
Ferryhill Sth. Jn.               00:19
Darlington                       00:26
Northallerton                    00:49
Thirsk                           00:53
Tollerton Jn                     00:59
Skelton Jn. (York)               01:10
York                             01:12 / 01:21
Colton Jn                        01:29
Hambleton North Jn               01:35
Temple Hirst Jn.                 01:42
Shaftholme Jn                    01:53
Doncaster                        01:57
Loversall Carr Jn                01:59
Retford                          02:06
Newark F.C.                      02:15
Newark North Gate                02:15
Claypole Loop                    02:18
Grantham                         02:23
Stoke Jn.                        02:45
Tallington Jn.                   02:57
Peterborough                     03:06 / 03:15
Fletton Jn.                      03:30
Connington South Jn              03:36
Huntingdon                       03:42
Sandy                            03:57
Hitchin                          04:13
Stevenage                        04:17
Woolmer Green Jn.                04:20
Welwyn Garden City               04:24
Potters Bar                      04:32
Alexandra Palace                 04:46
Finsbury Park                    04:48
Belle Isle                       04:52
London Kings Cross               04:54

Tuesday 13 February

Code:
Train 5Z20 runs TO from 13/03/12 to 13/03/12
Type STP   Loco-Hauled   Timed at 125mph
Sector 61   Train service code 21700001

London Kings Cross               05:09
Belle Isle                       05:11
Holloway Sth. Jn.                05:12
Finsbury Park                    05:16
Ferme Park Recp.                 05:25

Train 5Z21 runs TO from 13/03/12 to 13/03/12
Type STP   Loco-Hauled   Timed at 125mph
Sector 61   Train service code 21700001

Ferme Park Recp.                 22:23
Alexandra Palace                 22:28
Bowes Park R.R.L.                22:33 / 22:41
Alexandra Palace                 22:45
Finsbury Park                    22:50
Holloway Sth. Jn.                22:51
Belle Isle                       22:55
London Kings Cross               22:57

Train 5Z11 runs TO from 13/03/12 to 13/03/12
Type STP   Loco-Hauled   Timed at 125mph
Sector 61   Train service code 21700001

London Kings Cross               23:34
Belle Isle                       23:36
Finsbury Park                    23:38
Alexandra Palace                 23:40
Potters Bar                      23:45
Welwyn Garden City               23:49
Woolmer Green Jn.                23:51
Stevenage                        23:54
Hitchin                          00:03
Sandy                            00:15
Huntingdon                       00:32
Holme Jn.                        00:37
Peterborough                     00:46
Tallington Jn.                   00:51
Stoke Jn.                        00:58
Grantham                         01:04
Claypole Loop                    01:11
Newark North Gate                01:16
Newark F.C.                      01:17
Retford                          01:28
Loversall Carr Jn                01:35
Doncaster                        01:47
Shaftholme Jn                    01:51
Temple Hirst Jn.                 01:55
Hambleton North Jn               01:58
Colton Jn                        02:02
York                             02:10 / 02:15
Skelton Jn. (York)               02:20
Tollerton Jn                     02:25
Thirsk                           02:31
Northallerton                    02:42
Darlington                       02:49
Ferryhill Sth. Jn.               02:56
Tursdale Jn                      02:57
Durham                           03:02
Birtley Jn                       03:22
King Edward Bridge S. Jn         03:26
Newcastle                        03:28 / 03:42
Heaton Sth. Jn.                  03:45
Morpeth                          03:55
Alnmouth For Alnwick             04:12
Belford L.C.                     04:32
Berwick-upon-tweed               04:49 / 05:20
Reston Signal Eg403              05:24
Reston                           05:28
Grantshouse                      05:32
Oxwellmains Crossover            05:38
Dunbar                           05:40
Drem                             05:47
Prestonpans                      05:52
Monktonhall Jn                   06:03
Portobello Jn (Lothian)          06:05
Craigentinny Jn                  06:06
Abbeyhill Jn                     06:08
Edinburgh                        06:09

There's also a DRS Operated 57/3 move to Newcastle for stabling Monday-Wednesday, and the Pendolino for the move comes from Wembley. If anyone wants those times let me know and I'll post them out.
 

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
The new franchisee of the ECML operation may indeed be offered Pendolinos, but having reviewed the costs and re-charges, and also the life expectancy of the East Coast's current fleet, I very strongly doubt that you are correct.
But it might be something which the new franchisee offers as part of their bid.

It would make sense for them to get new stock, then offer the MK4's to GWML (which I assume will stay at a top speed of 125). I always think it's a bit of a waste to see the 390s stuck at 125, but I guess this would also increase their life as they're not running flat out all the time.

It would be much better to grab the old Eurostar sets and use them instead on the ECML. Rebuild a few platforms and a few trains and you might just have an answer. While this would have the same "lower than capable speed" as above, they've been used before and would certainly solve overcrowding issues.
 
Last edited:

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
Have we reached the conclusion that nobody makes any good uk guage LDPE stock these days? Let's just clear the ecml for Berne guage, and order ICE-3's :)
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Have we reached the conclusion that nobody makes any good uk guage LDPE stock these days? Let's just clear the ecml for Berne guage, and order ICE-3's :)

Nah, lets just drop all these dribs and drabs orders and just design a new standard LHCS type and spec locomotives appropriately. Then if you wanted to be politically popular you could have Derby build them all at about a suitable rate, and then it would slowly replace HSTs, then other rolling stock. Until all LDPE NonHS and Inter-reigonal stock was this new type?

Sorry, that won't happen, everyone hates Loco Haulage...
 

Mike C

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2011
Messages
161
But it might be something which the new franchisee offers as part of their bid.

It would make sense for them to get new stock, then offer the MK4's to GWML (which I assume will stay at a top speed of 125). I always think it's a bit of a waste to see the 390s stuck at 125, but I guess this would also increase their life as they're not running flat out all the time.

It would be much better to grab the old Eurostar sets and use them instead on the ECML. Rebuild a few platforms and a few trains and you might just have an answer. While this would have the same "lower than capable speed" as above, they've been used before and would certainly solve overcrowding issues.

If it would be a waste seeing 390s doing 125, I'm not sure how using a train capable of 186mph improves the argument. If the 373/2s were sitting unused in sidings, then I would agree but as they are in revenue earning service with SNCF, it's a non starter for a few years. They were popular with GNER passengers when they were used by them though.
 

AndyLandy

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2011
Messages
1,323
Location
Southampton, UK
I would like to see connections with Eurostar though from the WCML.

The fix for that is to move the WCML endpoint from Euston to a new station next to King's Cross & St. Pancras. That would provide a whole lot more flexibility than running a bunch of west coast services into KGX. Of course, it's just as unlikely to happen. :lol:
 

causton

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
5,504
Location
Somewhere between WY372 and MV7
The fix for that is to move the WCML endpoint from Euston to a new station next to King's Cross & St. Pancras. That would provide a whole lot more flexibility than running a bunch of west coast services into KGX. Of course, it's just as unlikely to happen. :lol:

Euston *is* right next to King's Cross & St Pancras! ;)

...seriously it's not that far though!
 

DownSouth

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2011
Messages
1,545
If it would be a waste seeing 390s doing 125, I'm not sure how using a train capable of 186mph improves the argument. If the 373/2s were sitting unused in sidings, then I would agree but as they are in revenue earning service with SNCF, it's a non starter for a few years. They were popular with GNER passengers when they were used by them though.
Hopefully they will be deployed on classic-compatible HS2 services once it's complete, so the question is really about what they do between now and then. Operating at their full design speed on high speed lines where they run at high speed for sustained periods instead of trundling around Britain constantly stop-starting will cause fare less wear and tear between now and when HS2 is ready for them.
 

AndyLandy

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2011
Messages
1,323
Location
Southampton, UK
Euston *is* right next to King's Cross & St Pancras! ;)

...seriously it's not that far though!

It's far enough. I've walked it before, but I'd hate to have to do it with a load of luggage. Perhaps a moving walkway between EUS and STP/KGX would also work.
 

Bridge189

Member
Joined
19 Sep 2011
Messages
174
I suspect if EC did place an order it would be fitted with mallard seats instead of the Virgin voyager design.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Hopefully they will be deployed on classic-compatible HS2 services once it's complete, so the question is really about what they do between now and then. Operating at their full design speed on high speed lines where they run at high speed for sustained periods instead of trundling around Britain constantly stop-starting will cause fare less wear and tear between now and when HS2 is ready for them.
I'd think that Pendolinos would only be introduced onto HS2 if there were regional "stopping" services along the line with four-tracking and additional stations such as in the Chilterns. Which isn't going to happen. 390s would be too slow to run on HS2 without reducing capacity by having two flights of trains running on the route, which is exactly what HS2 is looking to avoid.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
APT was actually narrower, and Pendys are slightly out-of-gauge when they tilt, which was one reason why they need TASS and APT did not. Mk IVs have very similar dimensions to an APT.
It is of course true that a Pendolino is out of gauge when tiliting while an APT wasn't, but also worth bearing in mind that the APT-P intermediate trailers were only 21.2m long, not 23.9m like a Pendolino, or even 24.8m for the 390 driving cars. Additionally, the articulated bogies on the APT will have given it very different centre and end-throw profiles to a traditional non-articulated carriage. While I don't have any figures for the width of a mark 4 carriage, I have it down that a class 91 is 2.74 metres wide while a 390 is 2.73 metres.

If with all that in mind it is indeed the case that a mark 4 carriage is narrower than a carriage of a 390 (Granted that the mark 4 carriages are, indeed, 23 metres long and not articulated unlike there APT predecessors), then it just goes to show how poor an interior design the Pendolino is, when a mark 4 carriage seems much lighter, more airy and generally much more generously appointed with windows that don't seem to be below waist height when you are standing up like they are on a 390.
 

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,042
Location
Yorkshire
The sunderland electrification suggestion is interesting. I believe T&W Metro is 1500v DC. If it ever became an issue (in reality I suspect it would stay diesel) I am sure there could be an appropriate technical solution - look at Eurostar.

Re ECML, let us assume that in-cab signalling isn't going to happen anytime soon (apparently a pre-requisite for 140mph operation). How can we make services quicker (at 125mph)?

One option is top n tailed class 91s which was trialled a couple of years ago. This would give 15 sets (16 if 89001 Avocet returns - unlikely though certainly possible) and these rakes could obviously be longer.

Subject to the results of next weeks' testing, pendolinae _could_ be a possibility for the rest of the duties.

Spare mk 4 coaches could be deployed elsewhere, with class 90s.
 

amcluesent

Member
Joined
19 Dec 2010
Messages
877
I hope ECML never sees Pendolinos, the standard class is far inferior to EC's current sets and always smell of BO and fast food. It's evens on the FC; IMHO of course
 

AlanFry1

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2011
Messages
662
HSTs would stay, what else will run to Hull, Inverness, Aberdeen, Harrogate etc

Well, until the IEP comes anyway, which if new Pendos were ordered may be around the same time.

Maybe they could electrify those rail ines as well
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
The sunderland electrification suggestion is interesting. I believe T&W Metro is 1500v DC. If it ever became an issue (in reality I suspect it would stay diesel) I am sure there could be an appropriate technical solution - look at Eurostar.
If it's in reference to the Grand Central services, then specifying dual voltage stock simply to allow arrival into Sunderland station (The changeover would be right at the end of the platform where the Metro towards South Hylton diverges: Incredibly inconvenient for departing services to replicate the TGV practice of coasting through as they change voltage as they would only be travelling at about 5mph when they needed to drop the pan) and ECS moves would be incredibly expensive for very little benefit.

For electrification of the Durham Coast route I think the best that we could ever look to would be that the Metro switches to 25kV AC when the current Metrocars become due for withdrawal in about 2020-2025, which with the massive expense and disruption that would be incurredon Nexus' relatively small budget strikes me as being incredibly unlikely.
One option is top n tailed class 91s which was trialled a couple of years ago. This would give 15 sets (16 if 89001 Avocet returns - unlikely though certainly possible) and these rakes could obviously be longer.
This is a prospect that seriously excites me: Finally, with a 91 at each end sandwiching ten carriages we would get to see what the intended incarnation of the APT-U would really be capable of. Given that acceleration of the class 91/HST power car combinations that operated for a short period in the late eighties before the mark 4s were available was said to be quite startling then I would imagine some pretty amazing performances with over 12,000hp on tap. That's TGV Atlantique and Duplex sort of territory.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Maybe they could electrify those rail ines as well
As has been mentioned by others, electrification to Hull is a likely possibility as part of Transpennine North electrification. I rather feel (and it's nothing more than just a hunch) that electrification to Aberdeen is a likelihood by the end of the decade as an extension of the current electrification projects in the Central Belt.

And I personally have my fingers crossed that Northern and Neville Hill depot in particular will one day get their hands on 332s currently employed on Heathrow Express duties and allow for the Harrogate Circle to be electrified.
 

Mike C

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2011
Messages
161
It is of course true that a Pendolino is out of gauge when tiliting while an APT wasn't, but also worth bearing in mind that the APT-P intermediate trailers were only 21.2m long, not 23.9m like a Pendolino, or even 24.8m for the 390 driving cars. Additionally, the articulated bogies on the APT will have given it very different centre and end-throw profiles to a traditional non-articulated carriage. While I don't have any figures for the width of a mark 4 carriage, I have it down that a class 91 is 2.74 metres wide while a 390 is 2.73 metres.

The articulation results in effectively zero end throw. Depending on the design of the articulation, there may be some but it will be miniscule compared to the centre throw which is much larger. Interesting that the APT vehicles were 21m long. Our intermediate vehicles are only 18.7m long - or at least, it is 18.7m between bogie pivots.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
The articulation results in effectively zero end throw. Depending on the design of the articulation, there may be some but it will be miniscule compared to the centre throw which is much larger. Interesting that the APT vehicles were 21m long. Our intermediate vehicles are only 18.7m long - or at least, it is 18.7m between bogie pivots.
I thought that that would be the case: Very little/no end throw, but presumably increased centre throw. Thanks for elaborating a little more with your technical knowledge. The relatively short, 18.7 metre, length of TGV carriages is something that surprised me when I first discovered it, when in the UK 23 metres (but not articulated of course) is the norm for Intercity vehicles.

Additionally, I've just found a source that says that the APT-P vehicles are 2.72 metres wide, so slightly narrower than a Pendo.
 
Last edited:

Mike C

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2011
Messages
161
A TGV (inc Eurostar) pivot centre dimension of 18.7m is 2.7m LONGER than the same figure on a Mk3 which is 16m despite the overall length being 23m (or 22.15 over headstocks or 22.57 over body ends to be exact). The 23m often quoted is between coupled gangways.
 

Essexman

Established Member
Joined
15 Mar 2011
Messages
1,380
If Pendolinos are introduced on the East Coast we'll need someone to bring back direct trains to Scotland via Settle & Carlisle to give us comfortable travel to Scotland.

I always use East Coast or sleeper to Scotland to avoid the cramped, claustrophic, naueseating planes on rails that Branson introduced to our railways.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
A TGV (inc Eurostar) pivot centre dimension of 18.7m is 2.7m LONGER than the same figure on a Mk3 which is 16m despite the overall length being 23m (or 22.15 over headstocks or 22.57 over body ends to be exact). The 23m often quoted is between coupled gangways.
That's really interesting, I had wondered for a while how the pivot centres measured up between a Eurostar carriage and a mark 3, particularly in relation to previous clearance issues for Eurostars at Newcastle.
 

DownSouth

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2011
Messages
1,545
Hopefully they will be deployed on classic-compatible HS2 services once it's complete, so the question is really about what they do between now and then. Operating at their full design speed on high speed lines where they run at high speed for sustained periods instead of trundling around Britain constantly stop-starting will cause fare less wear and tear between now and when HS2 is ready for them.
I'd think that Pendolinos would only be introduced onto HS2 if there were regional "stopping" services along the line with four-tracking and additional stations such as in the Chilterns. Which isn't going to happen. 390s would be too slow to run on HS2 without reducing capacity by having two flights of trains running on the route, which is exactly what HS2 is looking to avoid.
I was talking about the TGV TMST North of London sets - proper high speed trains - and not the British-spec Pendolino.
 

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,042
Location
Yorkshire
If it's in reference to the Grand Central services, then specifying dual voltage stock simply to allow arrival into Sunderland station (The changeover would be right at the end of the platform where the Metro towards South Hylton diverges: Incredibly inconvenient for departing services to replicate the TGV practice of coasting through as they change voltage as they would only be travelling at about 5mph when they needed to drop the pan) and ECS moves would be incredibly expensive for very little benefit.

Indeed. I was thinking more of some kind of storage battery - though that would have its own issues.

If it were technically feasible, I'd like to see any new-design electric train have a backup propulsion method - which would cover say 45 mins away from the wires (hauling the whole train at a reduced speed).
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Which would you rather - severe facial bruising and possible skull fractures, whiplash and upper spinal cord damage, or possible massive internal injuries to your digestive system and other organs in your torso/abdomen? I'd say "neither", and I'd rather not choose, but it seems that the designer must make that choice for us.

I do agree that it is astonishing that anywhere that your head could hit in a sudden collision could be made of something like a sheet of metal or glass, but there we are. If we add too many cushions, the thing will look like an asylum, and that's before we consider the fact that the risk of severe injury or death on a train is reasonably low.

There aren't enough cushions under our backsides anyway. Putting one on the seat in front would be rather superfluous.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Indeed. I was thinking more of some kind of storage battery - though that would have its own issues.

If it were technically feasible, I'd like to see any new-design electric train have a backup propulsion method - which would cover say 45 mins away from the wires (hauling the whole train at a reduced speed).

Been done before, using Class 73s and 74s plus the MLVs on the Southern. Thing is, having either an electro-diesel locomotive (the thing really ought to be capable of moving itself when not coupled to anything) or a battery van means that you have to lug a lot of dead weight around for no real purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top