What Now For East Coast?

[Lampshade]

Why not use the 395s now? SET has a load unused at the moment.

1. They'd be limited to 110mph as the wires are too loosely sprung
2. That's common sense

 

[Tom B]

I seem to remember the problem was that only one Eurostar unit could be on the rail bridge south of Newcastle station at the time.

As for the whole competition argument, what does it really bring? All the private companies are a muchness really - it's not as if there's a massive number of companies desperately trying to woo passengers at the moment.

 

[GNER 373]

I seem to remember the problem was that only one Eurostar unit could be on the rail bridge south of Newcastle station at the time.

Thanks Tom! I didn't actually know this was the issue! I know the Eurostars were taken on to plug a gap left by the Rolling Stock of 91's and HST's at the time were stretched covering the KX-Edinburgh/Glasgow route. Eurostars being a larger capacity were chosen to cover a boom in passenger numbers from York and then a few months later from Leeds.

The Bridge you mention is the King Edward bridge but I've been over it many times and couldn't think why they wouldn't at least test run a Eurostar over this and into Central Station! I think I'm just bitter about it haha!

Thanks for the info!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Yes, the tight curve on the 90 degree turn on the southern approach to King Ed Bridge did not have adequate clearance for passing Eurostar sets. Max linespeed was about 10mph through the curve. (I believe the next restriction, going north, was the curve on the southern approach to Morpeth).

However, the approach to King Ed Bridge was re-laid a few years ago, with better clearances. As a consequence, linespeed was raised and I guess (but am only guessing) that the clearances on the curve would be adequate to allow 2 sets to pass.

 

[GNER 373]

Yes, the tight curve on the 90 degree turn on the southern approach to King Ed Bridge did not have adequate clearance for passing Eurostar sets. Max linespeed was about 10mph through the curve. (I believe the next restriction, going north, was the curve on the southern approach to Morpeth).

However, the approach to King Ed Bridge was re-laid a few years ago, with better clearances. As a consequence, linespeed was raised and I guess (but am only guessing) that the clearances on the curve would be adequate to allow 2 sets to pass.

Thanks Dave, I knew they'd done work to that area when they updated the old Gateshead yards! If only a few years earlier we might have had the chance to board a Eurostar at Central Station!

Do you think they would fit in platforms 3 & 4?

 

[LE Greys]

As for the Tyne Bridge it definately wouldn't fit as it's only a Road bridge

I ought to know that too, after a year as a Newcastle student.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you think they would fit in platforms 3 & 4?

IIRC, they fitted into the platforms at Stevenage (just) with the leading power car's nose beyond the signal and the last coach hanging off the back. They locked out the doors in the last two coaches, so that did not matter too much. If anyone knows a bit more about platform lengths, perhaps they could work out whether they would fit.

Waverley might be a problem, unless you take up both of the double platforms.

 

[yorksrob]

I ought to know that too, after a year as a Newcastle student.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


IIRC, they fitted into the platforms at Stevenage (just) with the leading power car's nose beyond the signal and the last coach hanging off the back. They locked out the doors in the last two coaches, so that did not matter too much. If anyone knows a bit more about platform lengths, perhaps they could work out whether they would fit.

Waverley might be a problem, unless you take up both of the double platforms.

Yes, it used to be annoying when I'd arrive at Leeds on the Eurostar and have to shuffle down two carriages, even though platform 8 was easily long enough to swallow the whole thing!

Incidentally, what happenned to that Eurostar. Did it go back to the Channel Tunnel?

 

[LE Greys]

Incidentally, what happenned to that Eurostar. Did it go back to the Channel Tunnel?

All the sets ended up with SNCF on Lille-Paris services. How do I know? I travelled on one from Gare du Nord to Lille-Flandres in 2008. The set had GNER menus in the buffet.

 

[DavidBusDriver]

Think the NoL Eurostar's have ended up as domestic Eurostar's operating in France

 

[yorksrob]

Thats a shame. We should have 'ad those.

 

[dstrat]

OK, I have no idea about the mechanics or the electrics of any of this but...not that there is any reason for doing so..but..

If they ran an a MK4 set with top and tail 91 on HS1 could it be a crazy blazing 250mph+ train? Let me just remind you I have no idea regarding air resistance on trains
________
Love Forum

 

[GNER 373]

OK, I have no idea about the mechanics or the electrics of any of this but...not that there is any reason for doing so..but..

If they ran an a MK4 set with top and tail 91 on HS1 could it be a crazy blazing 250mph+ train? Let me just remind you I have no idea regarding air resistance on trains

I'm not sure that doubling 91's would indeed double speed possibly only the power.

If they are only capable of say 140mph then two of them can only run at 140mph.

Its like drinking a lager that is 5% alcholic volume, if you drink 20 bottles of this you havent drank 100% alcohol (and you would also be dead), simply 20 times 5%.

If I am wrong please forgive me

You have a very active imagination

 

[Royston Vasey]

I'm not sure that doubling 91's would indeed double speed possibly only the power.

If they are only capable of say 140mph then two of them can only run at 140mph.

Its like drinking a lager that is 5% alcholic volume, if you drink 20 bottles of this you havent drank 100% alcohol (and you would also be dead), simply 20 times 5%.

If I am wrong please forgive me

You have a very active imagination

Well no, it's more akin to adding a vodka to a pint of beer (we've all done it) but you're right it would not double the performance - you couldn't down it any faster!

There are all sorts of systems in a loco (or any piece of machinery) which could not cope with being in motion at over its design capacity. Maximum speed is limited not (just) by load being hauled but also by other factors such as the capabilities of system components. You won't see a higher speed by adding another loco, merely better acceleration and less strain on the systems at a given speed.

I'm sure 91s can comfortably physically exceed 140 as a one off/trial basis (HST power cars have done 143 mph), but the systems would quickly leave their design envelope and it would be unsafe and damaging to do so regularly or in service.

Taking the coaches out of the equation simplifies the analogy: 2 identical light engines together at full pelt would travel the same speed as one at full pelt.

 

[GNER 373]

Well no, it's more akin to adding a vodka to a pint of beer (we've all done it) but you're right it would not double the performance - you couldn't down it any faster!

There are all sorts of systems in a loco (or any piece of machinery) which could not cope with being in motion at over its design capacity. Maximum speed is limited not (just) by load being hauled but also by other factors such as the capabilities of system components. You won't see a higher speed by adding another loco, merely better acceleration and less strain on the systems at a given speed.

I'm sure 91s can comfortably physically exceed 140 as a one off/trial basis (HST power cars have done 143 mph), but the systems would quickly leave their design envelope and it would be unsafe and damaging to do so regularly or in service.

Taking the coaches out of the equation simplifies the analogy: 2 identical light engines together at full pelt would travel the same speed as one at full pelt.

Thanks Royston I knew I nearly had it right!

As for Vodka/Beer combo...all to often!

 

[LE Greys]

Surely two locomotives would have double the tractive effort of one. This might increase acceleration, which actually has a greater effect than increased speed.

 

[A60K]

Increased acceleration rate yes certainly, increased top speed only slightly. The gearing of the traction equipment governs the maximum theoretical speed, although the practical maximum balancing speed may be less because of weight hauled, air resistance and friction of the rolling parts. The maximum achieved by a single 91 is 162mph in testing in 1991, and a pair together might possibly get that up to 170-175mph. But then you would probably be damaging bits of the locos by taking them beyond their design range. Best off just getting some ICEs

 

[LE Greys]

Still, it helps. 140 mph saves a minute every twenty miles over 125. Increasing the acceleration after stops might save a minute over the first mile and a few more in the next five or so. Add a bank (such as out of the Cross) and you save even more. Two 91s could do London-Peterborough in 40 minutes without 140 running.

My solution would be to put pairs of 91s on Leeds services and bring in IEPs on the Newcastle/Edinburgh services. That also frees up a lot of Mk IVs for other duties.

 

[Burkitt]

Instead of top and tailing class 91s, could they be regeared for 125mph instead of 140mph? They don't use the extra 15mph would benefit from faster acceleration which would improve timings.

 

[TGV]

The theoretical (important word here) maximum speed with 2 locos would only be greater than that of one because of extra ability to accelerate and climb gradients - so a single loco set might manage 130mph up a gradient, but with the extra loco, you could manange 140 for example. Imagine the same theory applied to your car. Say it's a Ford Focus capable of 0-60 in 10 seconds and a top speed of 120mph. Strapping two of them together won't result in a top speed of 240mph. You'd find the 0-60 would remain unchanged (doubled weight), but the top speed would rise to about 150mph (ish) because of the extra power - IF THE GEARING ALLOWS (important point to make there). With regard to acceleration - this analogy will not work with the train because in bollting two cars together you've doubled the mass, and the power, so the acceleration of the cars will be very similar up to a point where the extra power will overcome higher aero resistance. Adding an extra loco isn't doubling the mass of the train - it's only increasing it by the difference in weight of a DVT and 91, so it's likely to make a bigger difference in acceleration than top speed because of the gearing and design maxmum speed of the 91's.

As for aero resistance - this is much less of an issue for trains than any other form of non aquatic transport. One of the main deciding factors in aero resistance (and drag co-efficients) is the frontal area exposed to the free stream. You can bolt as many locos or carriages on to a train as you like - the frontal area remains the same. Of course there is something called skin-friction drag, which is the resistance provided by the extra surface area of the carriages as the air flows over it, but in reality this is much less that the pressure drag - which is affected by the frontal area, and geometry (it's why they have sloped ends).

So if I had to guess, put two 91's on a standard set of Mk4s and you'd have a marked improvement in acceleration virtually all the way up the speed range. The maximum speed would not be changed much because despite having doubled the power, the units themsleves cannot do much more than the 160ish mph achieved in testing.

The other "sanity check" in this question is my old favourites - TGV's. They have a power car at either end of a similar length set and each power car has approximately the same power as a class 91. V Max is 186mph in service, and approx 220mph in overspeed testing in standard configuration. However, they are geared for such speeds (and have more refined aero). The trade-off is that they will have lower tractive effort. In fact, I think I'm correct in saying that the tractive effort of a 373 power car is less than a 91 despite having over 2000 hp more. This is a factor of the gearing and importantly - the adhesive weight - the 91 has more weight on the driving wheels. Of course, they offset this by having TWO power cars to a 225's ONE loco.

This brings me to my final point - the axle loads on a 91 are much greater than a train designed to do in excess of 140mph - TGV, ICE etc, where the generally accepted maximum is 17t (ironically, about the same as an HST power car). The track forces generated by a set with two 82t locos at either end negotiating pointwork and curves would exceed those from an articulated carriage set with a TGV like power car at either end.

In other words - horses for courses.

 

[Hobbo]

But Look it Like This

First Group

they could brand east coast mainline and first hull trains as one brand presumely First East Coast which would be good to see but dont know how first would cope with a really good catering service which is going to have to be needed who ever takes on the intercity east coast mainline.

Virgin Group

Virgin Sleek PR Good customer service and good First Class and Standard Catering Service High Prices but you cant all that for nothing and Virgin (with help of Stagecoach) have bought new trains, improved stations and improved the whole route of WCML including timetable faster services and better catering which is desperately needed for ECML but dont agree with Virgin having Monopoly

Arriva Group

we have seen in months and years gone by that Arriva have trouble with certain franchises like when they ran Arriva Trains Northern then Arriva Trains Wales and CrossCountry so cant see them managing to Run East Coast


Stagecoach Group

could stagecoach really run it with midland Mainline franchise would meet at York, Leeds, Wakefield Westgate and Doncaster dont know how monopoly would affect there but maybe that wouldnt be such problem

National Express

No Chance

Grand Central

with such a slow start to the franchise of quite a while and same on Bradford Route meant to start last may now this may cant see them ruunning it really

 

[Burkitt]

But Look it Like This
Arriva Group

we have seen in months and years gone by that Arriva have trouble with certain franchises like when they ran Arriva Trains Northern then Arriva Trains Wales and CrossCountry so cant see them managing to Run East Coast

Remember Arriva are owned by DB now, who have been aggressively expanding their UK operations. DB might bid for East Coast under either their own brand or that of Arriva.

 

[90019]

Virgin Group

Virgin Sleek PR Good customer service and good First Class and Standard Catering Service High Prices but you cant all that for nothing and Virgin (with help of Stagecoach) have bought new trains, improved stations and improved the whole route of WCML including timetable faster services and better catering which is desperately needed for ECML but dont agree with Virgin having Monopoly

Virgin didn't buy new trains, as they don't own them, only lease them.

Grand Central

with such a slow start to the franchise of quite a while and same on Bradford Route meant to start last may now this may cant see them ruunning it really

They're not a franchise.
I can't see them trying to bid on the east coast franchise anyway.

 

[Hobbo]

Maybe your right but i think virgin or first got strong chance dont think stagecoach will too close to Midland Mainline in my opinion
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
well come on Virgin Has Got A good Chance, and Grand central i know are an open access operator

 

[MCR247]

Maybe your right but i think virgin or first got strong chance dont think stagecoach will too close to Midland Mainline in my opinion
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
well come on Virgin Has Got A good Chance, and Grand central i know are an open access operator

What does too close to Midland Mainline have to do with anything??

 

[Hobbo]

well stagecoach have got close too 4 rail franchises and super tram etc with 16% of bus market and 25% of rail market just to make clear that is quarter of rail market covering over 90 major town and citys carrying 2.5 million passengers daily and employing 18,000 people
1)East Midlands Trains
2) South West Trains
3) Island Line Trains
4) Virgin Trains share
5) Super Tram
6 Manchester Metro Link
now dont you think its got its fair share
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
and regarding Midland Mainline i just meant one company apart if stagecoach was to run east coast from london to yorkshire sheffield, doncaster, wakefield, leeds, Bradford, Skipton and york stagecoach would be the only company operating services so if you wanted to travel from london to yorkshire travel stagecoach, bit like virgin and east coast between scotland and london

 

[rail-britain]

2) South West Trains
3) Island Line Trains

I was under the impression these were now part of the one franchise, the former Island Line franchise had been merged with South West Trains

Stagecoach is only a minority shareholder in Virgin Trains Group
This would mean that their involvement would not be considered in any franchise bid or investigation by the Competition Commission
Equally, Stagecoach are not currently preparing a bid for the East Coast franchise, unless the terms change quite considerably
As I understand it Virgin Rail Group are only interested in the former intercity routes and if no franchises are held by 2011 the company will be dissolved and no further bids will be made (in effect Virgin Trains will cease)

 

[Hobbo]

respective of how many franchises they hold they have 25% at this moment of the railway market that is a quarter to 1 company
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
a lot of money needs to be put into east coast mainline

 

[Lampshade]

Stagecoach said in a press release a couple of months ago they would bid "with their partner, Virgin Trains" which suggests that Virgin's bid would also be Stagecoach's. This was also the case in the 2007 bid IIRC.

 

[Failed Unit]

Interest that the post above states virgin have improved stations. I didn't use them much before privatisation but Warrington bank quay and Carlisle don't seem to be that hot. I need to look up the list but I am sure virgin also had the greatest number of stations in the uks worse 10 list.

 

[Class 466]

What about Govia lol