Tatty EPB better than Pendolino

[junglejames]

It doesn't have to be a compromise between faster journey times or a nicer interior - I would love to see UK loading gauge Siemens Taurus locos and the equivalent of OBB "Railjet" push-pull rakes on the WCML instead of Pendos - but in comparison of the WCML at present and in the past then the Pendolinos present more benefits to the general travelling public than they do pitfalls.

Again you are comparing and seem to be accepting a rubbish interior, just because its faster.
They provide pitfalls. Pitfalls that neednt be there. We could have a pendy with a much nicer interior. Or, if thought about fully at an earlier stage, we could have built a train that had the advantages of a pendy, but not the pitfalls. Its not hindsight either. A lot of this stuff would have been obvious from the beginning.
The only advantage I can see of the voyagers, and the interiors of the the pendys, is it softens people up, to such an extent we forget what train interiors used to be like, and just blindly accept the next rubbish interior. Which it just so happens, is possibly right around the corner, in the shape of the IEP, or, partly stealing somebody elses term, off another forum, the Japanese vibrating poo tube. Sounds so much better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is if you want it to run at over 110mph on the WCML, yes.

1- I wasnt complaing about it. I was just saying you then need to compensate with the interior design.
2- You could actually run at 125 without tilt if it wasnt for the silly setup and speed restrictions. Plenty of areas where pendys run 125 without tilting. Unless of course they tilt on the straight just to look impressive
3- Pendys arent like they are because they tilt. Its because they are made of aluminium. Aluminium being so much weaker, means extra stiffeners and supports are needed. The main 2 in question being directly above and below the windows, running horizontal along the coach. These supports and stiffeners will also have a large part to play in the large frames between the windows, and the very narrow interior. Also some of the extra supports you can see inside the coach.

Yes it makes the coaches lighter, but at a very big expense.
However, this is one thing i dont complain about, as it was a given the moment aluminium was chosen. I just complain about the fact they havent tried to make the best of a bad situation. Instead they have ended up making the worst of a bad situation.

 

[LE Greys]

IIRC, they were designed to accommodate tilt, but not to the same degree as the Pendos.

Curiously, they're actually narrower at the cantrail than a Pendy and about the same width at the waist. Similar dimensions to a Voyager, compare the two next time you see them together. Presumably, that's one reason for TASS rather than just leaving it up to the accelerometers. IIRC, they were designed to accommodate passive tilt of up to six degrees. There is some noticeable 'lean' on curves compared with an HST, but it is not much.

Odd how they seem bigger inside, though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Again you are comparing and seem to be accepting a rubbish interior, just because its faster.
They provide pitfalls. Pitfalls that neednt be there. We could have a pendy with a much nicer interior. Or, if thought about fully at an earlier stage, we could have built a train that had the advantages of a pendy, but not the pitfalls. Its not hindsight either. A lot of this stuff would have been obvious from the beginning.
The only advantage I can see of the voyagers, and the interiors of the the pendys, is it softens people up, to such an extent we forget what train interiors used to be like, and just blindly accept the next rubbish interior. Which it just so happens, is possibly right around the corner, in the shape of the IEP, or, partly stealing somebody elses term, off another forum, the Japanese vibrating poo tube. Sounds so much better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


1- I wasnt complaing about it. I was just saying you then need to compensate with the interior design.
2- You could actually run at 125 without tilt if it wasnt for the silly setup and speed restrictions. Plenty of areas where pendys run 125 without tilting. Unless of course they tilt on the straight just to look impressive
3- Pendys arent like they are because they tilt. Its because they are made of aluminium. Aluminium being so much weaker, means extra stiffeners and supports are needed. The main 2 in question being directly above and below the windows, running horizontal along the coach. These supports and stiffeners will also have a large part to play in the large frames between the windows, and the very narrow interior. Also some of the extra supports you can see inside the coach.

Yes it makes the coaches lighter, but at a very big expense.
However, this is one thing i dont complain about, as it was a given the moment aluminium was chosen. I just complain about the fact they havent tried to make the best of a bad situation. Instead they have ended up making the worst of a bad situation.

Well, yes, interior design should really not be dependent on what is under the floor. Look at the Mallard refurbs, which date from around the same time. Unless there is a weight issue, then the most likely reasons for modern interiors are costs, ease of cleaning and fashions.

 

[starrymarkb]

Again you are comparing and seem to be accepting a rubbish interior, just because its faster.
They provide pitfalls. Pitfalls that neednt be there. We could have a pendy with a much nicer interior. Or, if thought about fully at an earlier stage, we could have built a train that had the advantages of a pendy, but not the pitfalls. Its not hindsight either. A lot of this stuff would have been obvious from the beginning.
The only advantage I can see of the voyagers, and the interiors of the the pendys, is it softens people up, to such an extent we forget what train interiors used to be like, and just blindly accept the next rubbish interior. Which it just so happens, is possibly right around the corner, in the shape of the IEP, or, partly stealing somebody elses term, off another forum, the Japanese vibrating poo tube. Sounds so much better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


1- I wasnt complaing about it. I was just saying you then need to compensate with the interior design.
2- You could actually run at 125 without tilt if it wasnt for the silly setup and speed restrictions. Plenty of areas where pendys run 125 without tilting. Unless of course they tilt on the straight just to look impressive
3- Pendys arent like they are because they tilt. Its because they are made of aluminium. Aluminium being so much weaker, means extra stiffeners and supports are needed. The main 2 in question being directly above and below the windows, running horizontal along the coach. These supports and stiffeners will also have a large part to play in the large frames between the windows, and the very narrow interior. Also some of the extra supports you can see inside the coach.

Yes it makes the coaches lighter, but at a very big expense.
However, this is one thing i dont complain about, as it was a given the moment aluminium was chosen. I just complain about the fact they havent tried to make the best of a bad situation. Instead they have ended up making the worst of a bad situation.

Given that Network Rail and the DfT are already moaning about heavy rolling stock and our axle weight limits are lower then on the continent I can't see what else they could do.

As an example of the alternative school (ie the Germans), ICE1 trailers tip the scales at 50t each, the Buffet is nearly 60t! BTW these are also built of Aluminium!

Secondly UK regulations require trains to remain within the small profile UK gauge during a wrong side tilt failure. The continent with more generous gauge doesn't have such stringent requirements, so most tilting stock abroad has flat sides. As a result they have more space to play with when designing interiors.

In hindsight it might have been better to have built a High speed Line with room for GC gauge stock rather then upgrade the WCML (given the immense cost of what the upgrade cost that might having been a better idea)

 

[jopsuk]

Secondly UK regulations require trains to remain within the small profile UK gauge during a wrong side tilt failure. The continent with more generous gauge doesn't have such stringent requirements, so most tilting stock abroad has flat sides. As a result they have more space to play with when designing interiors.

Is this possibly due to platform heights? With flat sides, a wrong side tilt failure would cause trains to scrape along our platofmrs, but with the platform below the tilt axis, this isn't an issue in most of Europe.

 

[LE Greys]

Is this possibly due to platform heights? With flat sides, a wrong side tilt failure would cause trains to scrape along our platofmrs, but with the platform below the tilt axis, this isn't an issue in most of Europe.

And probably clip bridge abutments and tunnel portals. The image below (from www.old-dalby.com) shows what can happen.

 

[HSTEd]

Super Voyagers have improved journey times compared with pre tilt days on the WCML and they are designed for maximum tilt that is the same as the Mark 4T was capable of.

 

[tbtc]

2- You could actually run at 125 without tilt if it wasnt for the silly setup and speed restrictions

That's a bit like saying "you could fit more seats onto Voyagers if you didn't need a crumple zone for running at high speed" or "train liveries would look better if they didn't have that yellow bit at the front" or "you could build lots more Mk3s if it wasn't for all these fussy modern safety requirements etc".

The fact is that the rules are there. Quibble all you want though.

 

[LE Greys]

That's a bit like saying "you could fit more seats onto Voyagers if you didn't need a crumple zone for running at high speed" or "train liveries would look better if they didn't have that yellow bit at the front" or "you could build lots more Mk3s if it wasn't for all these fussy modern safety requirements etc".

The fact is that the rules are there. Quibble all you want though.

To be fair, I think what he meant was, 'You could actually run at 125 on straight bits without tilt if it wasnt for the silly setup and speed restrictions.' That's what they do on the ECML for instance, but there aren't that many straight bits on the WCML, hence tilt. To the best of my knowledge, HSTs have never been cleared for 125 on the ECML, although APTs did it 'out of the box' without TASS.

 

[yorksrob]

without TASS.

I'd have thought the Soviet news agency would have been on the first run with the rest of the press !

 

[sprinterguy]

Again you are comparing and seem to be accepting a rubbish interior, just because its faster.

Yes, because the majority of passengers really don't care about such interior foibles as long as they get to their destination as quickly as possible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

2- You could actually run at 125 without tilt if it wasnt for the silly setup and speed restrictions. Plenty of areas where pendys run 125 without tilting. Unless of course they tilt on the straight just to look impressive

You'd be hard pressed to find many sections of the WCML which are straight enough to allow trains to reach 125mph without tilt on the curved sections inbetween: At the very least without compromising passenger comfort (which I thought that you wanted to avoid?) by hurling them into the curves.

 

[tbtc]

To be fair, I think what he meant was, 'You could actually run at 125 on straight bits without tilt if it wasnt for the silly setup and speed restrictions.' That's what they do on the ECML for instance, but there aren't that many straight bits on the WCML, hence tilt. To the best of my knowledge, HSTs have never been cleared for 125 on the ECML, although APTs did it 'out of the box' without TASS.

That's true, but the silly setup and speed restrictions are a fact of life on the WCML.

In an ideal world Pendolini and Voyagers could have been bigger and better (no crumple zone wasting space, no need to tilt so a wider "envelope", no yellow paint on the front or "shaded" doors getting in the way of that corporate livery...), but they are built to comply with the restrictions (silly or otherwise).

 

[LE Greys]

I'd have thought the Soviet news agency would have been on the first run with the rest of the press !

I hope they weren't in the coach as Peter Semmens on the timed record run. Apparently, a Scottish Region press officer was standing with a cup of coffee and explaining how the systems kept the ride so smooth somewhere near Leadhills when the tilt failed in the middle of a reverse curve. Whoaaaa!!!

 

[yorksrob]

I hope they weren't in the coach as Peter Semmens on the timed record run. Apparently, a Scottish Region press officer was standing with a cup of coffee and explaining how the systems kept the ride so smooth somewhere near Leadhills when the tilt failed in the middle of a reverse curve. Whoaaaa!!!

Would have been a faux pas for the West !

 

[LE Greys]

Would have been a faux pas for the West !

What's the Russian for 'hubris'?

 

[junglejames]

That's a bit like saying "you could fit more seats onto Voyagers if you didn't need a crumple zone for running at high speed" or "train liveries would look better if they didn't have that yellow bit at the front" or "you could build lots more Mk3s if it wasn't for all these fussy modern safety requirements etc".

The fact is that the rules are there. Quibble all you want though.

Nope. Slightly different. There is a need for crumple zones. Safety. There isnt a need to make the WCML 110 for non tilt stock. If the pendy can go 125 on the straights, obviously with the bodies not tilting, then so can other 125 enabled stock. If the track is of a good enough standard, which it obviously is, then there is no problem running say HSTs at 125. Just like they do everywhere else.
Oh, and liveries look better with the yellow front ends.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, because the majority of passengers really don't care about such interior foibles as long as they get to their destination as quickly as possible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You'd be hard pressed to find many sections of the WCML which are straight enough to allow trains to reach 125mph without tilt on the curved sections inbetween: At the very least without compromising passenger comfort (which I thought that you wanted to avoid?) by hurling them into the curves.

How do we know passengers dont care? Have they actually said as such? All we know is passenger numbers have increased. We dont know why. Then theres also the possiblity that some passengers are blindly just accepting the poor interior, and saying they dont mind it. There could be those that think this is the norm, and so see it as good, without actually knowing what things are like on the other side. Crikey, ive nearly been guilty of that and i dont like the interior. Crewe to Preston, lightly loaded pendy, table seat, laptop out. I started thinking, hey, not that awful. Until I next stepped on to the next train, and I realised just how bad the pendy was. You get to the stage where you just accept something. It will be even worse for those that know no different to the pendy.

 

[tbtc]

Nope. Slightly different. There is a need for crumple zones. Safety. There isnt a need to make the WCML 110 for non tilt stock. If the pendy can go 125 on the straights, obviously with the bodies not tilting, then so can other 125 enabled stock. If the track is of a good enough standard, which it obviously is, then there is no problem running say HSTs at 125. Just like they do everywhere else

Them's the rules though.

Whether you think they are silly or whether you think that non tilting stock ought to be allowed to travel faster on the WCML is irrelevant here - if you want to travel at over 110mph on the WCML then you need to be able to tilt, which means you need a narrower bodyshell like a Pendolini.

But, feel free to argue.

 

[junglejames]

Them's the rules though.

Whether you think they are silly or whether you think that non tilting stock ought to be allowed to travel faster on the WCML is irrelevant here - if you want to travel at over 110mph on the WCML then you need to be able to tilt, which means you need a narrower bodyshell like a Pendolini.

But, feel free to argue.

Wait a minute. Ive never argued any of that. Not once. I know they are the rules. Just because i say they neednt be, doesnt mean I dont know they are the rules. You are misinterpreting what I say, and how I mean it.
I think we all realise the pendys must be narrower at the top for it to tilt as well. Plainly obvious. It was how narrow it is inside which I made a point about when I mentioned aluminium bodyshells. But even that I said I accepted. Just need to make up for it with better interior design.

So, not once have I argued against anything you have said above.

 

[tbtc]

There isnt a need to make the WCML 110 for non tilt stock. If the pendy can go 125 on the straights, obviously with the bodies not tilting, then so can other 125 enabled stock. If the track is of a good enough standard, which it obviously is, then there is no problem running say HSTs at 125. Just like they do everywhere else

Wait a minute. Ive never argued any of that. Not once. I know they are the rules. Just because i say they neednt be, doesnt mean I dont know they are the rules. You are misinterpreting what I say, and how I mean it.
I think we all realise the pendys must be narrower at the top for it to tilt as well. Plainly obvious. It was how narrow it is inside which I made a point about when I mentioned aluminium bodyshells. But even that I said I accepted. Just need to make up for it with better interior design.

So, not once have I argued against anything you have said above.

Sorry, I thought you were saying that there was no need for 125mph stock to tilt on the WCML

 

[junglejames]

Sorry, I thought you were saying that there was no need for 125mph stock to tilt on the WCML

I argued that there was no need for the silly restriction, but I never argued about what the rules are. You said that they are the rules and there is nowt we can do. I know. I never argued that. Im just saying there is no need for it as it is. There is a difference between what im arguing, and how you are interpreting it.

Let me put it another way. Yes, they are the rules, and no, there is nowt we can do about it. Its silly though, because it neednt be like that. Its not as if its a necessary restriction which improves safety.

As for those that say there isnt much opportunity to go 125 without tilt. Nope, not as much as the ECML, but there is some, and it would save time. However it matters not, as there doesnt seem to be anybody who wants to run 125mph non tilting stock south of Lancaster.

 

[tbtc]

I argued that there was no need for the silly restriction, but I never argued about what the rules are. You said that they are the rules and there is nowt we can do. I know. I never argued that. Im just saying there is no need for it as it is. There is a difference between what im arguing, and how you are interpreting it.

Let me put it another way. Yes, they are the rules, and no, there is nowt we can do about it. Its silly though, because it neednt be like that. Its not as if its a necessary restriction which improves safety.

As for those that say there isnt much opportunity to go 125 without tilt. Nope, not as much as the ECML, but there is some, and it would save time. However it matters not, as there doesnt seem to be anybody who wants to run 125mph non tilting stock south of Lancaster.

...and because of those rules we either have something narrow like a 390 or something slower.

 

[sprinterguy]

How do we know passengers dont care? Have they actually said as such? All we know is passenger numbers have increased. We dont know why. Then theres also the possiblity that some passengers are blindly just accepting the poor interior, and saying they dont mind it. There could be those that think this is the norm, and so see it as good, without actually knowing what things are like on the other side. Crikey, ive nearly been guilty of that and i dont like the interior. Crewe to Preston, lightly loaded pendy, table seat, laptop out. I started thinking, hey, not that awful. Until I next stepped on to the next train, and I realised just how bad the pendy was. You get to the stage where you just accept something. It will be even worse for those that know no different to the pendy.

Lots of people get on a train...sit down for a while...And then get off the train at the end of their journey, without really taking into account the surroundings they have been sat in for however long: I do similar whenever I'm not showing an enthusiasts' interest in the train around me, and I note the vast majority of passengers taking even less interest than that in their chosen mode of transport.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nope. Slightly different. There is a need for crumple zones. Safety. There isnt a need to make the WCML 110 for non tilt stock. If the pendy can go 125 on the straights, obviously with the bodies not tilting, then so can other 125 enabled stock. If the track is of a good enough standard, which it obviously is, then there is no problem running say HSTs at 125. Just like they do everywhere else.
Oh, and liveries look better with the yellow front ends.

Umm, the WCML hasn't been "made" 110mph for non-tilting stock, it already was 110mph maximum, and the West Coast Improvement Programme has actually resulted in track alignments that allow a greater amount of running at that maximum speed which has been extant since Brecknell Willis pantographs were fitted to the 86s and 87s.

As far as I am aware, there are scant records of HSTs officially or unofficially attaining 125mph on the WCML, either on Euston to Holyhead trains or the former XC services up the WCML, which suggests that 125mph is not safely attainable on the existing alignment with non-tilt stock.

 

[BestWestern]

Lots of people get on a train...sit down for a while...And then get off the train at the end of their journey, without really taking into account the surroundings they have been sat in for however long: I do similar whenever I'm not showing an enthusiasts' interest in the train around me, and I note the vast majority of passengers taking even less interest than that in their chosen mode of transport.

It's all relative I suppose. If you regularly travel on, say, Northern services, I would imagine that you would have a rather low expectation of how pleasant your train is going to be to sit (or stand) in, and just get on with it. If you travel only in First Class on a Pendo every day of the week, you would be equally indifferent to your surroundings, despite their very pleasant nature. But if the two passengers swapped the chances are that both would be very aware indeed of the change of environment! If you rarely travel on any train, you would perhaps have no defined expectations and thus be open to whatever you ended up with, unless you paid a tenner to travel half way up the country in First Class in which case you might well be pleasantly surprised!

It's probably a fair observation that those who show the most 'interest' are those already interested in the first place.

 

[HSTEd]

I do wonder how much slower 110mph limited rolling stock would be than the current 125mph tilting stock on the WCML if the 110mph stock was Cl395 esque with almost all axles motored.

(Ie. we went from 110mph loco hauled to 125mph EMU, and I wonder if the EMU part was more responsible for travel time restrictions than the tilting part)

 

[tbtc]

I do wonder how much slower 110mph limited rolling stock would be than the current 125mph tilting stock on the WCML if the 110mph stock was Cl395 esque with almost all axles motored.

(Ie. we went from 110mph loco hauled to 125mph EMU, and I wonder if the EMU part was more responsible for travel time restrictions than the tilting part)

Slowing the "fast" trains down to 110 would allow more paths (since the difference between a 350 and 390 wouldn't be so great)

Quite convenient for Virgin about the need for tilting stock if you want to go fast on the WCML as it stops Open Access from bidding for fast paths...

 

[junglejames]

...and because of those rules we either have something narrow like a 390 or something slower.

When did I deny that? I make a comment that the rule was unnecessary, and we go round in circles ever since.
However, a pendy isnt that narrow. At its maximum its the same width as a Mk4. Its the interior that is narrow, and that has nothing to do with speed or tilt.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Umm, the WCML hasn't been "made" 110mph for non-tilting stock, it already was 110mph maximum.

I know.
When I say make, i mean there is no need for the WCML to be 110mph for non tilt stock. I mistakingly thought my misuse of the words wouldnt make a difference, as it is common knowledge what the maxiumum speed of the WCML was pre bendy pendy.

 

[ainsworth74]

You know I don't often agree with junglejames but I do think he has a point here. If there are sections of the WCML that could theoretically handle 125mph without tilt, why not raise the line speed there for non-tilt stock to 125mph? Are there any good reasons (aside from possible pathing issues).

 

[zn1]

having had a ride on 390 - albeit a short one - not bad kit

as for increasing paths - the whole line should have been resignalled as per the original agreement - the 390s can go alot faster. an augmented fleet of suburban stock could also have been fitted to allow use of the EPS.

I find it incredulous that the 390 cabs have all that massive space in them and in there is a tiny speedo - why did they not just lob a massive LCD in its place - ??

why the WCML hasnt been TVM430'ed is something i cannot work out

its proven, it works

soon LM get their 110mph 4DES - and to think 25 years max speed of an am10 out of euston was 75moh - progress - good - now lets go faster !!

 

[ainsworth74]

why the WCML hasnt been TVM430'ed is something i cannot work out

Because it would be massively expensive. Every single unit and locomotive that uses the WCML would have to be fitted with it and that's a lot of cabs to convert. One of the main reasons in-cab signalling is taking so long is the expense of retrofitting all the trains with it and deciding who pays for those retrofits.

 

[ChristopherJ]

I find it incredulous that the 390 cabs have all that massive space in them and in there is a tiny speedo - why did they not just lob a massive LCD in its place - ??

I believe that's the plan!

The large space in the center of the dashboard is planned to be the future installation location for the ERTMS console.

Voyager cabs are just the same;

 

[LE Greys]

I believe that's the plan!

The large space in the center of the dashboard is planned to be the future installation location for the ERTMS console.

Voyager cabs are just the same;

That's a useful feature. The ATP speedo on HSTs had to replace the original one, as seen here.