Speed restrictions on some 12 car formations depending on pantograph type?

[Supercoss]

Trawling through some electrification instructions , Bed Pan Route still has a restriction on 12 car units to travel at 75mph with 3 pantographs raised unless they are ‘High Speed /Brecknell Willis/ type
Does anyone know what type fitted ?
Electro stars ran in 12 car formation with 3 pans , class 700 only have two pans per FLU 12 carunit.

 

[hwl]

Trawling through some electrification instructions , Bed Pan Route still has a restriction on 12 car units to travel at 75mph with 3 pantographs raised unless they are ‘High Speed /Brecknell Willis/ type
Does anyone know what type fitted ?
Electro stars ran in 12 car formation with 3 pans , class 700 only have two pans per FLU 12 carunit.

Effectively applied to the older batch of 319s (1-60) that didn't have B-Ws from new and the 317s before that. Some of 21-60 had the original pantograph replaced with B-W ones during the /4 upgrade.

 

[londonmidland]

Every 319 on the MML could run at 100mph as 319s only ever worked in 8 car formations, so the rule didn’t apply.

377s and any other relatively modern EMU have the High Speed, Brecknell Willis type of pantograph. This includes the 360s. 12 coach 700s only have two pantographs.

 

[hwl]

Every 319 on the MML could run at 100mph as 319s only ever worked in 8 car formations, so the rule didn’t apply.

377s and any other relatively modern EMU have the High Speed, Brecknell Willis type of pantograph. This includes the 360s. 12 coach 700s only have two pantographs.

Which is why 319s only ever worked as 8car on the MML to prevent a oops. They could and did work 12car south of the Thames.

 

[Supercoss]

Different types shown On 319s

 

[Llama]

The older type was Stone-Faiveley, the instruction for 75mph restriction for three units were coupled if one unit had a Stone-Faiveley pan did make it to Northern when the 319s arrived. The vast majority of units had Brecknell-Willis pans though and I haven't seen one with a Stone-Faiveley pan for a few years now. There were no booked 12-car movements as far as I know on Northern but plenty of 8-car ones.

 

[Bletchleyite]

LNR's have worked as 12-car formations (only, no splitting or joining) for most of their life with the TOC. I assume they all have the newer type?

 

[D365]

LNR's have worked as 12-car formations (only, no splitting or joining) for most of their life with the TOC. I assume they all have the newer type?

They might well have taken this into consideration when picking their 15 units.

 

[hwl]

They might well have taken this into consideration when picking their 15 units.

Most of the LNR ones are /4 that had the retrofitted as part of the /4 programme or the /2 had their S-F ones removed by Connex so all got B-Ws when refitted and a fair number of the remaining /0s have had new B-W pans too.

 

[AM9]

Which is why 319s only ever worked as 8car on the MML to prevent a oops. They could and did work 12car south of the Thames.

Wasn't the fact that most of the MML slow line platforms weren't long enough for 12-cars, also part of that decision? I know that they were lengthened as part of the Thameslink Programme but by then most of the busiest fast trains were operated by borrowed Electrostars.
The class 309s were fitted with Stone-Faiveley pantographs and ran 10 & 12-car formations (the latter with 4 pantographs) up and down the main line at speeds of up to 100mph throughout the '60s and '70s.

 

[hwl]

Wasn't the fact that most of the MML slow line platforms weren't long enough for 12-cars, also part of that decision? I know that they were lengthened as part of the Thameslink Programme but by then most of the busiest fast trains were operated by borrowed Electrostars.
The class 309s were fitted with Stone-Faiveley pantographs and ran 10 & 12-car formations (the latter with 4 pantographs) up and down the main line at speeds of up to 100mph throughout the '60s and '70s.

319s indeed plenty of units only ever used on Sutton Loop /MML stoppers so no pressing need for them.

309s used to run on some slightly more heavily constructed OHLE out of Liverpool Street!

 

[AM9]

319s indeed plenty of units only ever used on Sutton Loop /MML stoppers so no pressing need for them.

309s used to run on some slightly more heavily constructed OHLE out of Liverpool Street!

The ex 1500VDC fixed tension OLE was indeed heavy and presumably OK for multiple S-F pantographs, but the speed limits where it was LST-SNF and to SOV, were 80mph max ISTR.* The 25kV simple catenary started at Mountnessing just beyond SNF and that's where the 309s started their 100mph running which they could maintain to Colchester, (except through PSRs of course).
* the LNER designed OLE (like the Manchester-Sheffield line) was compond catenary which was believed to be better for mainline higher speeds, - towards the end of it's life it became quite unstable, especially in hot weather.

 

[hwl]

The ex 1500VDC fixed tension OLE was indeed heavy and presumably OK for multiple S-F pantographs, but the speed limits where it was LST-SNF and to SOV, were 80mph max ISTR.* The 25kV simple catenary started at Mountnessing just beyond SNF and that's where the 309s started their 100mph running which they could maintain to Colchester, (except through PSRs of course).
* the LNER designed OLE (like the Manchester-Sheffield line) was compond catenary which was believed to be better for mainline higher speeds, - towards the end of it's life it became quite unstable, especially in hot weather.

The solution is of course high tension using spring tensioners and no headspans.

 

[AM9]

The solution is of course high tension using spring tensioners and no headspans.

Which is why much of the old DC OLE on the GEML now has been replaced with modified F&F hardware where appropriate. I believe that there weren't any headspans on the GEML anyway (at least where normal linespeed running would occur) and the rewiring is now tensioned by Tensorex units.

 

[306024]

From memory when the linespeed between Maryland and Shenfield was increased from 80 mph to 90 mph class 312s were still restricted to 80 mph due to their pantograph type.

 

[AM9]

From memory when the linespeed between Maryland and Shenfield was increased from 80 mph to 90 mph class 312s were still restricted to 80 mph due to their pantograph type.

OK, thanks for the info. I didn't go anywhere on the GEML between 1980'ish to 1993. In the peaks, the mains were always too busy to reach 80mph for much of the time, (the Norwich class 47+11s wouldn't get anywhere near 80 with the intermediate Southends weaving on and off the mains), the 309s probably could have but they would have caught up any of the other types. I imagine that main to Shenfield was speeded up so that the 86s could stretch their legs.
If the 312s were limited because of their SF pantographs, then so would the 309s be similarly treated. The OLE east of Shenfield was fairly standard MKI stuff so somehow it usually stood up to the travelling waves generated by multiple pantographs at speed.

 

[edwin_m]

There are some headspans on the Ipswich-Norwich electrification done with Mk3b equipment in the 1980s, although not many as it's mostly double track. The 309s were still around at that time although I don't know how much they got up to Ipswich. What may be significant is that the 2-car units of that class disappeared relatively early, so there would not have been any sets with four pans.

 

[AM9]

There are some headspans on the Ipswich-Norwich electrification done with Mk3b equipment in the 1980s, although not many as it's mostly double track. The 309s were still around at that time although I don't know how much they got up to Ipswich. What may be significant is that the 2-car units of that class disappeared relatively early, so there would not have been any sets with four pans.

There was an issue when drivers complained that the driving a consist from the DMBS end of a two-car unit with the pantograph over the front cab, there were visibility issues at night whenever there was arcing. This was fixed by ensuring that the sets were alway marshalled with a non-motor car at each end, even after splits at Thorpe-le-Soken.
Following the successful replacement of a faulty 309/2 griddle car with a buffet car from a class 123 Swindon Inter-city DMU, some class 309/1s were expanded to three and four-car units with MKI LHCS coaches from other sources because of the demand for capacity. It was a no-brainer as the 2-car units had a 11.4 hp/tonne power to weight ratio which was way above anything else running on the railway at that time.