Discussion:
IEP order confirmed for East Coast
(too old to reply)
Paul Corfield
2013-07-18 06:47:30 UTC
Issued this morning by the DfT is this press release confirming an
order of 270 carriages of IEP Class 800 trains for East Coast
services.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-gives-green-light-for-more-state-of-the-art-intercity-trains
--
Paul C
Roland Perry
2013-07-18 07:29:30 UTC
Post by Paul Corfield
Issued this morning by the DfT is this press release confirming an
order of 270 carriages of IEP Class 800 trains for East Coast
services.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-gives-green-light-for-more-state-of-the-art-intercity-trains
That would seem to be 30 sets (each of 9 carriages). East Coast
currently have 32 IC225 and 14 HST, so will these replace just the
IC225? (ie none of them bi-mode).
--
Roland Perry
Peter Masson
2013-07-18 07:46:42 UTC
Post by Paul Corfield
Issued this morning by the DfT is this press release confirming an
order of 270 carriages of IEP Class 800 trains for East Coast
services.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-gives-green-light-for-more-state-of-the-art-intercity-trains
That would seem to be 30 sets (each of 9 carriages). East Coast currently
have 32 IC225 and 14 HST, so will these replace just the IC225? (ie none of
them bi-mode).
The bimodes to replace the HSTs were ordered in an earlier batch, along with
the IEPs for the Great Western.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/intercity-express-programme

Peter
Roland Perry
2013-07-18 08:56:59 UTC
Post by Peter Masson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Paul Corfield
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-gives-green-light-for-more-state-of-the-art-intercity-trains
That would seem to be 30 sets (each of 9 carriages). East Coast
currently have 32 IC225 and 14 HST, so will these replace just the
IC225? (ie none of them bi-mode).
The bimodes to replace the HSTs were ordered in an earlier batch, along
with the IEPs for the Great Western.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/intercity-express-programme
Thanks.

Where's the extra 28% capacity into KX in the morning coming from, if
each train has 18% more seats? Are they expecting more standing room, or
will there be 10% more trains.
--
Roland Perry
Philip
2013-07-19 04:36:21 UTC
Post by Peter Masson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Paul Corfield
Issued this morning by the DfT is this press release confirming an
order of 270 carriages of IEP Class 800 trains for East Coast
services.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-gives-green-light-for-more-state-of-the-art-intercity-trains
That would seem to be 30 sets (each of 9 carriages). East Coast
currently have 32 IC225 and 14 HST, so will these replace just the
IC225? (ie none of them bi-mode).
The bimodes to replace the HSTs were ordered in an earlier batch, along
with the IEPs for the Great Western.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/intercity-express-programme
Peter
Point of order: Although there are 32 Class 91s, and originally there
was 32 full IC225 sets, following accidents there're now only 30 full sets.
Andy
2013-07-19 09:00:41 UTC
Post by Philip
Post by Peter Masson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Paul Corfield
Issued this morning by the DfT is this press release confirming an
order of 270 carriages of IEP Class 800 trains for East Coast
services.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-gives-green-light-for-more-state-of-the-art-intercity-trains
That would seem to be 30 sets (each of 9 carriages). East Coast
currently have 32 IC225 and 14 HST, so will these replace just the
IC225? (ie none of them bi-mode).
The bimodes to replace the HSTs were ordered in an earlier batch, along
with the IEPs for the Great Western.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/intercity-express-programme
Peter
Point of order: Although there are 32 Class 91s, and originally there
was 32 full IC225 sets, following accidents there're now only 30 full sets.
Additional point of order: There have only ever been 31 class 91s (one was
renumbered to give 91 132) and there were never 32 complete rakes of stock, as
there were always some spare vehicles.
Jeremy Double
2013-07-19 22:19:16 UTC
Post by Peter Masson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Paul Corfield
Issued this morning by the DfT is this press release confirming an
order of 270 carriages of IEP Class 800 trains for East Coast
services.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-gives-green-light-for-more-state-of-the-art-intercity-trains
That would seem to be 30 sets (each of 9 carriages). East Coast
currently have 32 IC225 and 14 HST, so will these replace just the
IC225? (ie none of them bi-mode).
The bimodes to replace the HSTs were ordered in an earlier batch, along
with the IEPs for the Great Western.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/intercity-express-programme
Peter
Point of order: Although there are 32 Class 91s, and originally there was
32 full IC225 sets, following accidents there're now only 30 full sets.
There are only 31 class 91s: 91023 was renumbered 91132 when it was rebuilt
some years ago, so there is no 91123.
--
Jeremy Double
Philip
2013-07-20 04:24:46 UTC
Post by Jeremy Double
Post by Peter Masson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Paul Corfield
Issued this morning by the DfT is this press release confirming an
order of 270 carriages of IEP Class 800 trains for East Coast
services.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-gives-green-light-for-more-state-of-the-art-intercity-trains
That would seem to be 30 sets (each of 9 carriages). East Coast
currently have 32 IC225 and 14 HST, so will these replace just the
IC225? (ie none of them bi-mode).
The bimodes to replace the HSTs were ordered in an earlier batch, along
with the IEPs for the Great Western.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/intercity-express-programme
Peter
Point of order: Although there are 32 Class 91s, and originally there was
32 full IC225 sets, following accidents there're now only 30 full sets.
There are only 31 class 91s: 91023 was renumbered 91132 when it was rebuilt
some years ago, so there is no 91123.
Very true. Apologies.
Arthur Figgis
2013-07-20 09:02:46 UTC
Post by Jeremy Double
Point of order: Although there are 32 Class 91s, and originally there was
32 full IC225 sets, following accidents there're now only 30 full sets.
There are only 31 class 91s: 91023 was renumbered 91132 when it was rebuilt
some years ago, so there is no 91123.
Careful - someone will claim to be offended if anyone mentions why... :)
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
gordonT
2013-07-20 09:05:39 UTC
Post by Arthur Figgis
Careful - someone will claim to be offended if anyone mentions why... :)
Was it a "hoodoo" set when it ran with it's original number?

--
gordon
gordonT
2013-07-20 09:11:50 UTC
Post by gordonT
Post by Arthur Figgis
Careful - someone will claim to be offended if anyone mentions why... :)
Was it a "hoodoo" set when it ran with it's original number?
Or even "its" original number - before the apostrophe police come for me.
--
gordon
Arthur Figgis
2013-07-20 16:51:30 UTC
Post by gordonT
Post by Arthur Figgis
Careful - someone will claim to be offended if anyone mentions why... :)
Was it a "hoodoo" set when it ran with it's original number?
Hatfield and Great Heck.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Alistair Gunn
2013-07-20 16:22:20 UTC
Post by Philip
Point of order: Although there are 32 Class 91s, and originally there
was 32 full IC225 sets, following accidents there're now only 30 full sets.
Am I wrong in recalling that whilst there where enough coaches for x
sets, there wheren't actually enough of the right coaches to make x sets?
(i.e. too many buffet, restaurant and/or first class coaches.)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Bevan Price
2013-07-18 08:17:19 UTC
Post by Paul Corfield
Issued this morning by the DfT is this press release confirming an
order of 270 carriages of IEP Class 800 trains for East Coast
services.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-gives-green-light-for-more-state-of-the-art-intercity-trains
Typical Civil Service spin.
Class 91 are capable of 140 mph - it is the signalling that prevents
anything above 125 mph. Are they going to spend mega-millions to upgrade
ECML signalling ??

And I think 9 coaches will be inadequate for many ECML services. They
are just repeating the initial WCML error with "too short" Pendolinos.

It would be better starting with 11 coach IEP formations now, rather
than belatedly realise their mistake and find they need to enlarge them
in a few years.

Bevan
Peter Masson
2013-07-18 08:34:56 UTC
And I think 9 coaches will be inadequate for many ECML services. They are
just repeating the initial WCML error with "too short" Pendolinos.
It would be better starting with 11 coach IEP formations now, rather than
belatedly realise their mistake and find they need to enlarge them in a few
years.
AIUI the IEPs will be formed of 26 metre coaches, so 9-car gives a length of
234 m. The Mk4 sets (and the ECML HSTs) have 9 23-metre passenger coaches
totalling 207 metres, and, with locos, DVTs, power cars, a train length of
around 247 metres. There would be problems in fitting even a 10-car IEP (260
metres) into some of the platforms at Kings Cross.

Peter
Optimist
2013-07-18 09:04:59 UTC
Post by Peter Masson
And I think 9 coaches will be inadequate for many ECML services. They are
just repeating the initial WCML error with "too short" Pendolinos.
It would be better starting with 11 coach IEP formations now, rather than
belatedly realise their mistake and find they need to enlarge them in a few
years.
AIUI the IEPs will be formed of 26 metre coaches, so 9-car gives a length of
234 m. The Mk4 sets (and the ECML HSTs) have 9 23-metre passenger coaches
totalling 207 metres, and, with locos, DVTs, power cars, a train length of
around 247 metres. There would be problems in fitting even a 10-car IEP (260
metres) into some of the platforms at Kings Cross.
Why should that be a problem, surely people can just walk through via the adjoining vehicle?
Roland Perry
2013-07-18 09:15:30 UTC
Post by Optimist
Post by Peter Masson
AIUI the IEPs will be formed of 26 metre coaches, so 9-car gives a length of
234 m. The Mk4 sets (and the ECML HSTs) have 9 23-metre passenger coaches
totalling 207 metres, and, with locos, DVTs, power cars, a train length of
around 247 metres. There would be problems in fitting even a 10-car IEP (260
metres) into some of the platforms at Kings Cross.
Why should that be a problem, surely people can just walk through via the adjoining vehicle?
The vehicle at the front of the train would then probably be blocking
the points in the throat of the station.

When GNER was running their "White Rose" service with domestic
Eurostars, there were only three platforms they could use because of
this (and now, as well as some platforms being shorter due to the
concourse works, platform zero probably means there's an extra set of
points to take into account at the country and of platform 1.

Also, experience with the White Rose service, where two carriages-worth
of passengers had to use just one carriage-end door, wasn't very user
friendly.

Finally, there seem to be indications that it's no longer regarded as OK
to have the entrance to the driver's cab off the end of a platform.
--
Roland Perry
gordonT
2013-07-18 09:18:21 UTC
Post by Optimist
Why should that be a problem, surely people can just walk through via the adjoining vehicle?
Is the problem not more to do with clearance constraints between the end of some platforms and the "throat" of the station i.e. the presence of an overly long train would effectively lock up access to/from adjacent platforms for other trains?

--
gordon
Peter Masson
2013-07-18 08:34:56 UTC
Post by Paul Corfield
Issued this morning by the DfT is this press release confirming an
order of 270 carriages of IEP Class 800 trains for East Coast
services.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-gives-green-light-for-more-state-of-the-art-intercity-trains
Typical Civil Service spin.
Class 91 are capable of 140 mph - it is the signalling that prevents
anything above 125 mph. Are they going to spend mega-millions to upgrade
ECML signalling ??

And I think 9 coaches will be inadequate for many ECML services. They
are just repeating the initial WCML error with "too short" Pendolinos.

It would be better starting with 11 coach IEP formations now, rather
than belatedly realise their mistake and find they need to enlarge them
in a few years.

Bevan
Roland Perry
2013-07-18 09:01:05 UTC
Post by Bevan Price
And I think 9 coaches will be inadequate for many ECML services. They
are just repeating the initial WCML error with "too short" Pendolinos.
It would be better starting with 11 coach IEP formations now, rather
than belatedly realise their mistake and find they need to enlarge them
in a few years.
How many of the KX platforms would accept an 11-car IEP (genuine
question) mindful also that some platforms have been shortened to make a
wider concourse.
--
Roland Perry
Bevan Price
2013-07-18 09:21:12 UTC
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Bevan Price
And I think 9 coaches will be inadequate for many ECML services. They
are just repeating the initial WCML error with "too short" Pendolinos.
It would be better starting with 11 coach IEP formations now, rather
than belatedly realise their mistake and find they need to enlarge
them in a few years.
How many of the KX platforms would accept an 11-car IEP (genuine
question) mindful also that some platforms have been shortened to make a
wider concourse.
Not sure. But perhaps the shortening of platforms was unwise. There must
have been other ways of improving the concourse - less space for
"commerce" for example ?

Bevan
Roland Perry
2013-07-18 10:38:32 UTC
Post by Bevan Price
Post by Roland Perry
How many of the KX platforms would accept an 11-car IEP (genuine
question) mindful also that some platforms have been shortened to make a
wider concourse.
Not sure. But perhaps the shortening of platforms was unwise. There
must have been other ways of improving the concourse - less space for
"commerce" for example ?
There's no commerce on that concourse, it's the area between the buffers
and the original station frontage (recently 'uncovered', at ground level
anyway).

I was interested to note the other day that there were no barriers at
all set for exit direct into the new [departure] concourse, you had to
exit into the somewhat-building-site area adjacent to the frontage, then
make your way along a rather congested walkway towards the new
concourse.
--
Roland Perry
Bevan Price
2013-07-18 18:40:41 UTC
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Bevan Price
Post by Roland Perry
How many of the KX platforms would accept an 11-car IEP (genuine
question) mindful also that some platforms have been shortened to make a
wider concourse.
Not sure. But perhaps the shortening of platforms was unwise. There
must have been other ways of improving the concourse - less space for
"commerce" for example ?
There's no commerce on that concourse, it's the area between the buffers
and the original station frontage (recently 'uncovered', at ground level
anyway).
Thanks for the explanation. I have not been to Kings Cross since
completion of the rebuild, and wrongly assumed that they would not
resist the temptation to plant assorted retail outlets in any available
space.

Bevan
Arthur Figgis
2013-07-18 21:34:10 UTC
Post by Bevan Price
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Bevan Price
Post by Roland Perry
How many of the KX platforms would accept an 11-car IEP (genuine
question) mindful also that some platforms have been shortened to make a
wider concourse.
Not sure. But perhaps the shortening of platforms was unwise. There
must have been other ways of improving the concourse - less space for
"commerce" for example ?
There's no commerce on that concourse, it's the area between the buffers
and the original station frontage (recently 'uncovered', at ground level
anyway).
Thanks for the explanation. I have not been to Kings Cross since
completion of the rebuild, and wrongly assumed that they would not
resist the temptation to plant assorted retail outlets in any available
space.
They built a whole new concourse to put the retail stuff in - much of it
upstairs out the way.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Hobdenius
2013-07-18 10:20:06 UTC
Post by Bevan Price
Post by Paul Corfield
Issued this morning by the DfT is this press release confirming an
order of 270 carriages of IEP Class 800 trains for East Coast
services.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-gives-green-light-for-more-state-of-the-art-intercity-trains
Typical Civil Service spin.
Class 91 are capable of 140 mph - it is the signalling that prevents
anything above 125 mph. Are they going to spend mega-millions to upgrade
ECML signalling ??
Bevan
Taken from the Press Release

The new trains will be capable of running at 140 miles per hour, which would lead to further journey time reductions, although operation at this speed will require signalling and infrastructure upgrades.

The answer would appear to be a qualified 'Yes'
Roland Perry
2013-07-18 10:41:01 UTC
Post by Hobdenius
Post by Bevan Price
Class 91 are capable of 140 mph - it is the signalling that prevents
anything above 125 mph. Are they going to spend mega-millions to upgrade
ECML signalling ??
Taken from the Press Release
The new trains will be capable of running at 140 miles per hour, which would lead to further journey time reductions, although operation at
this speed will require signalling and infrastructure upgrades.
The answer would appear to be a qualified 'Yes'
Hmm, "will... would... will..."

I think the final "will" is more of a "would, but we won't", at least
within the lifespan of these trains.
--
Roland Perry
David Haggas
2013-07-18 12:07:16 UTC
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Hobdenius
Post by Bevan Price
Class 91 are capable of 140 mph - it is the signalling that prevents
anything above 125 mph. Are they going to spend mega-millions to upgrade
ECML signalling ??
Taken from the Press Release
The new trains will be capable of running at 140 miles per hour, which would lead to further journey time
reductions, although operation at
this speed will require signalling and infrastructure upgrades.
The answer would appear to be a qualified 'Yes'
Hmm, "will... would... will..."
I think the final "will" is more of a "would, but we won't", at least within the lifespan of these trains.
--
Roland Perry
----------------

ERTMS KX-Doncaster operational 2018-20. Also a common fleet with (much) faster acceleration than IC225/125
would yield reduced journey times.
ian
2013-07-18 12:12:18 UTC
Bargain of the century according to BBC2 radio news they have ordered 270
TRAINS!
Roland Perry
2013-07-18 13:11:47 UTC
Post by David Haggas
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Hobdenius
Taken from the Press Release
The new trains will be capable of running at 140 miles per hour,
which would lead to further journey time reductions, although
operation at
this speed will require signalling and infrastructure upgrades.
The answer would appear to be a qualified 'Yes'
Hmm, "will... would... will..."
I think the final "will" is more of a "would, but we won't", at least within the lifespan of these trains.
-- Roland Perry
----------------
ERTMS KX-Doncaster operational 2018-20.
Is that delivering 140mph signalling? What about the other
infrastructure upgrades?
--
Roland Perry
Arthur Figgis
2013-07-18 17:39:50 UTC
Post by Roland Perry
Post by David Haggas
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Hobdenius
Taken from the Press Release
The new trains will be capable of running at 140 miles per hour,
which would lead to further journey time reductions, although
operation at
this speed will require signalling and infrastructure upgrades.
The answer would appear to be a qualified 'Yes'
Hmm, "will... would... will..."
I think the final "will" is more of a "would, but we won't", at least
within the lifespan of these trains.
-- Roland Perry
----------------
ERTMS KX-Doncaster operational 2018-20.
Is that delivering 140mph signalling? What about the other
infrastructure upgrades?
Isn't cab signalling said to be the main sticking point - hence directly
observing flashing greens by eyeball isn't considered enough for 140
mph? ERTMS includes ETCS, which is cab signalling, so the problem might
solve itself.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Alistair Gunn
2013-07-18 18:17:34 UTC
Post by Roland Perry
Is that delivering 140mph signalling? What about the other
infrastructure upgrades?
Like reduction of level crossings perhaps? That was going on (with a
view to 140 & 160mph running) back in 1997/8!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
The Other Mike
2013-07-18 17:50:06 UTC
Post by David Haggas
would yield reduced journey times.
in the late 1980's the fastest KGX - DON was 1 hour 28 minutes, with an HST

Now with 1.2 billion investment and 30 years of 'progress' they are claiming 92
minutes, so 4 minutes slower.


--
David Haggas
2013-07-18 22:33:17 UTC
Post by The Other Mike
Post by David Haggas
would yield reduced journey times.
in the late 1980's the fastest KGX - DON was 1 hour 28 minutes, with an HST
Now with 1.2 billion investment and 30 years of 'progress' they are claiming 92
minutes, so 4 minutes slower.
--
------------

Depends on the regime. VT management for e.g seem very keen on incremental journey time reduction where
possible with the 390's, but EC's Eureka added robustness rather than sparkling timings. Only Lord Adonis was
vocal in calling for faster ECML trains...maybe everyone else is content with free wifi?

395-type acceleration 'should' completely transform the existing timetable.
John C
2013-07-19 19:09:15 UTC
Post by David Haggas
Depends on the regime. VT management for e.g seem very keen on incremental
journey time reduction where possible with the 390's, but EC's Eureka
added robustness rather than sparkling timings. Only Lord Adonis was vocal
in calling for faster ECML trains...maybe everyone else is content with
free wifi?
Personally I'd rather go for the VT regime. The GWML is painfully slow these
days. Yes I'm aware that capacity is the major factor between Paddington and
Reading but that doesn't really apply further west.

John
Robert
2013-07-19 21:38:35 UTC
Post by John C
Post by David Haggas
Depends on the regime. VT management for e.g seem very keen on
incremental journey time reduction where possible with the 390's, but
EC's Eureka added robustness rather than sparkling timings. Only Lord
Adonis was vocal in calling for faster ECML trains...maybe everyone
else is content with free wifi?
Personally I'd rather go for the VT regime. The GWML is painfully slow
these days. Yes I'm aware that capacity is the major factor between
Paddington and Reading but that doesn't really apply further west.
John
AiUI the slowness is due to two main changes in the GW timetable
structure over the years and some infrastructure changes. Prior to the
first HST timetable in 1976 there were many trains to and from
Paddington which did not stop at Reading. Over the years Reading's
importance as a business centre has increased and with it the demand
for travel. As a result all long distance high speed trains now stop
there with the result that many trains have had 5 minutes or so added
to their timings - don't forget that until sometime in the 1980s the
speed limit on the Down Main was 75mph and 80mph on the Up. With the
reduction in the speed limits to 50mph (to reduce the cant on the Down
Main to make it easier to open and close the wider and heavier HST
doors) stopping the train did not add so much time to the schedules.
The effect was that now all trains stop.

It may be that when the rebuild at Reading is complete some trains will
be made non-stop again because all the main running lines will then
have loops. I suspect some of the pathing allowances may be reduced
once the grade separation work is complete as the incidence of
conflicting movements will be significantly reduced.

The second major effect is similar to that seen at Reading but concerns
towns further west. For example, Didcot's population has increased and
Swindon has also grown (in spite of losing the GWR's works) and in both
these places demand grew. Effectively the extension of the 'commuter
zone' westwards has meant that the former InterCity service has become
an outer suburban one. Oxford now has several trains an hour to London
instead of just one - all these extra services increase the risk of
conflicting paths and delays.

One can argue that this is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing or just One of
Those Things - but that's the way it is. There is probably enough
traffic now to separate the flows on the Bristol/South Wales and the
Taunton routes, i.e., having a 'stopping' service with the longer
distance trains having a more limited range of stops. However to do
this reliably will require significant infrastructure changes - e.g.,
more four tracking and loops to keep the flows separate and possibly
more grade separation of flows at places like Didcot, Westerleigh,
Wootton Bassett and Filton junctions. AIUI there are also some very
long block sections, such as some between Castle Cary and Cogload
Junction, which will need to be fixed before the service can be
accelerated significantly. I suspect that this latter will have to wait
on the introduction of ERTMS/ETCS as I can't see anyone authorising
signalling changes which will only have a very short life.

Another significant reason for the slower services is the effect of the
Passenger Charter. The minutes added to reduce the chances of the train
running late are in addition to all the other extra minutes that have
crept in over the years.

In the near future the IEP will bring some improvement[1]. Because it
will accelerate better than an HST it will have a beneficial effect on
the timings of the stopping services, but as, initially at least, it
will still have a 125mph top speed its advantage over an HST on long
limited stop runs will be marginal.

I can't see any chance for journey time reductions in the next three or
four years until the works at Reading, the electrification and
Crossrail have been finished and the IEP delivered.

[1] But at a horrendous cost... (contd. p94)
--
Robert
j***@gmail.com
2013-07-22 23:16:03 UTC
Post by Robert
Post by John C
Post by David Haggas
Depends on the regime. VT management for e.g seem very keen on
incremental journey time reduction where possible with the 390's, but
EC's Eureka added robustness rather than sparkling timings. Only Lord
Adonis was vocal in calling for faster ECML trains...maybe everyone
else is content with free wifi?
Personally I'd rather go for the VT regime. The GWML is painfully slow
these days. Yes I'm aware that capacity is the major factor between
Paddington and Reading but that doesn't really apply further west.
John
AiUI the slowness is due to two main changes in the GW timetable
structure over the years and some infrastructure changes. Prior to the
first HST timetable in 1976 there were many trains to and from
Paddington which did not stop at Reading. Over the years Reading's
importance as a business centre has increased and with it the demand
for travel. As a result all long distance high speed trains now stop
there with the result that many trains have had 5 minutes or so added
to their timings - don't forget that until sometime in the 1980s the
speed limit on the Down Main was 75mph and 80mph on the Up. With the
reduction in the speed limits to 50mph (to reduce the cant on the Down
Main to make it easier to open and close the wider and heavier HST
doors) stopping the train did not add so much time to the schedules.
The effect was that now all trains stop.
It may be that when the rebuild at Reading is complete some trains will
be made non-stop again because all the main running lines will then
have loops. I suspect some of the pathing allowances may be reduced
once the grade separation work is complete as the incidence of
conflicting movements will be significantly reduced.
The second major effect is similar to that seen at Reading but concerns
towns further west. For example, Didcot's population has increased and
Swindon has also grown (in spite of losing the GWR's works) and in both
these places demand grew. Effectively the extension of the 'commuter
zone' westwards has meant that the former InterCity service has become
an outer suburban one. Oxford now has several trains an hour to London
instead of just one - all these extra services increase the risk of
conflicting paths and delays.
One can argue that this is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing or just One of
Those Things - but that's the way it is. There is probably enough
traffic now to separate the flows on the Bristol/South Wales and the
Taunton routes, i.e., having a 'stopping' service with the longer
distance trains having a more limited range of stops. However to do
this reliably will require significant infrastructure changes - e.g.,
more four tracking and loops to keep the flows separate and possibly
more grade separation of flows at places like Didcot, Westerleigh,
Wootton Bassett and Filton junctions. AIUI there are also some very
long block sections, such as some between Castle Cary and Cogload
Junction, which will need to be fixed before the service can be
accelerated significantly. I suspect that this latter will have to wait
on the introduction of ERTMS/ETCS as I can't see anyone authorising
signalling changes which will only have a very short life.
Another significant reason for the slower services is the effect of the
Passenger Charter. The minutes added to reduce the chances of the train
running late are in addition to all the other extra minutes that have
crept in over the years.
In the near future the IEP will bring some improvement[1]. Because it
will accelerate better than an HST it will have a beneficial effect on
the timings of the stopping services, but as, initially at least, it
will still have a 125mph top speed its advantage over an HST on long
limited stop runs will be marginal.
I can't see any chance for journey time reductions in the next three or
four years until the works at Reading, the electrification and
Crossrail have been finished and the IEP delivered.
[1] But at a horrendous cost... (contd. p94)
--
Robert
The GWML is second rate beyond Swindon, whereas the WCML is a real 110/125 main line railway. There aren't many charter minutes between London and Newport but there is a 75mph tunnel which goes on for a few miles, after which the best speed is 90/95mph.

Still, a LM service would have to be going some to beat approximately 1hr45 London - Newport which is a typical working time. Some trains do manage a wait of 5 minutes or more for time at Bristol Parkway, so it might well be possible to find an example if you were selective.

Of course the HST is 35 years old, and 2250hp x2 for a 10 vehicle train is not fast by modern standards, especially now the GWML only really does semi-fast trains. It can take several miles for a HST to get past 110mph. Manual doors and slow boarding times all add up - no 1 minute calls at Atherstone with a HST.

Newport has only just been resignalled, and the approach from London is still pedestrian. Castle Cary to Cogload Jn only sees one, possibly two trains per hour, it scarcely needs any block sections!

Some more powerful traction, modern power doors, no waiting for a platform at Reading and some relatively low cost work on the more embarrassing bits of the South Wales Main line - dead straight 90/95mph track and the service could be significantly accelerated without too much additional infrastructure work.
Robert
2013-07-23 10:32:16 UTC
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by John C
Depends on the regime. VT management for e.g seem very keen on>> >>
incremental journey time reduction where possible with the 390's, but>>
Post by David Haggas
EC's Eureka added robustness rather than sparkling timings. Only
Lord>> >> Adonis was vocal in calling for faster ECML trains...maybe
everyone>> >> else is content with free wifi?
Personally I'd rather go for the VT regime. The GWML is painfully
slow>> > these days. Yes I'm aware that capacity is the major factor
between>> > Paddington and Reading but that doesn't really apply
further west.
John
AiUI the slowness is due to two main changes in the GW timetable>>
structure over the years and some infrastructure changes. Prior to
the>> first HST timetable in 1976 there were many trains to and from>>
Paddington which did not stop at Reading. Over the years Reading's>>
importance as a business centre has increased and with it the demand>>
for travel. As a result all long distance high speed trains now stop>>
there with the result that many trains have had 5 minutes or so added>>
to their timings - don't forget that until sometime in the 1980s the>>
speed limit on the Down Main was 75mph and 80mph on the Up. With the>>
reduction in the speed limits to 50mph (to reduce the cant on the
Down>> Main to make it easier to open and close the wider and heavier
HST>> doors) stopping the train did not add so much time to the
schedules.>> The effect was that now all trains stop.
It may be that when the rebuild at Reading is complete some trains
will>> be made non-stop again because all the main running lines will
then>> have loops. I suspect some of the pathing allowances may be
reduced>> once the grade separation work is complete as the incidence
of>> conflicting movements will be significantly reduced.
The second major effect is similar to that seen at Reading but
concerns>> towns further west. For example, Didcot's population has
increased and>> Swindon has also grown (in spite of losing the GWR's
works) and in both>> these places demand grew. Effectively the
extension of the 'commuter>> zone' westwards has meant that the former
InterCity service has become>> an outer suburban one. Oxford now has
several trains an hour to London>> instead of just one - all these
extra services increase the risk of>> conflicting paths and delays.
One can argue that this is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing or just One of>>
Those Things - but that's the way it is. There is probably enough>>
traffic now to separate the flows on the Bristol/South Wales and the>>
Taunton routes, i.e., having a 'stopping' service with the longer>>
distance trains having a more limited range of stops. However to do>>
this reliably will require significant infrastructure changes - e.g.,>>
more four tracking and loops to keep the flows separate and possibly>>
more grade separation of flows at places like Didcot, Westerleigh,>>
Wootton Bassett and Filton junctions. AIUI there are also some very>>
long block sections, such as some between Castle Cary and Cogload>>
Junction, which will need to be fixed before the service can be>>
accelerated significantly. I suspect that this latter will have to
wait>> on the introduction of ERTMS/ETCS as I can't see anyone
authorising>> signalling changes which will only have a very short life.
Another significant reason for the slower services is the effect of
the>> Passenger Charter. The minutes added to reduce the chances of the
train>> running late are in addition to all the other extra minutes
that have>> crept in over the years.
In the near future the IEP will bring some improvement[1]. Because it>>
will accelerate better than an HST it will have a beneficial effect
on>> the timings of the stopping services, but as, initially at least,
it>> will still have a 125mph top speed its advantage over an HST on
long>> limited stop runs will be marginal.
I can't see any chance for journey time reductions in the next three
or>> four years until the works at Reading, the electrification and>>
Crossrail have been finished and the IEP delivered.
[1] But at a horrendous cost... (contd. p94)
--
Robert
The GWML is second rate beyond Swindon, whereas the WCML is a real
110/125 main line railway. There aren't many charter minutes between
London and Newport but there is a 75mph tunnel which goes on for a few
miles, after which the best speed is 90/95mph.
I agree that the GWML gets slower the further away it is from London
but the reasons are, in my opinion, understandable. The WCML has a
large city at each end of it and passes through or near several other
large places on the way between London and Glasgow. The flows remain
quite concentrated and don't, to the extent seen on the GW, fan out to
serve a few large conurbations on the way before ending in countryside
or the seaside.

Looked at in this light in order to get the best return on the money
expended the improvements have to be concentrated in those areas with
the most traffic, so most expenditure will go on the busy bit between
Paddington and Reading, followed by the Reading to Swindon/Wooton
Bassett section and the rest spread quite thinly. This doesn't mean to
say that line speeds and junction improvements should not be done
elsewhere, what does seem to be odd is that the chances do not always
seem to be taken. Whether this is due to the long planning cycle common
in the railway industry - the Newport resignalling you mention was
planned 10 or 12 years ago when the political and financial framework
was very different to today - or whether due to lack of imagination or
co-ordination between the infrastructure operator and the train
operators I can't say.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Still, a LM service would have to be going some to beat approximately
1hr45 London - Newport which is a typical working time. Some trains do
manage a wait of 5 minutes or more for time at Bristol Parkway, so it
might well be possible to find an example if you were selective.
Of course the HST is 35 years old, and 2250hp x2 for a 10 vehicle train
is not fast by modern standards, especially now the GWML only really
does semi-fast trains. It can take several miles for a HST to get past
110mph. Manual doors and slow boarding times all add up - no 1 minute
calls at Atherstone with a HST.
Exactly. This is what I was trying to get at when I wrote that the IEP
will have a greater effect on the stopping services that on the limited
stop services. In the same theme, I noticed the difference in station
dwell times when the Adelantes were first introduced on the GW - the
time saved by using power doors seemed to be of the same order as would
be achieved with an extra 1000hp traction power! (This comment is not
valid concerning the Siemens' Desiros on the SW...!)
Post by j***@gmail.com
Newport has only just been resignalled, and the approach from London is
still pedestrian.
True, but in general station approaches everywhere have become very
pedestrian since 'defensive driving' was introduced. Now the fuss about
SPADs seems to died down I think there is an argument for a return to a
more Swiss approach to station stops. I guestimate that at least a
minute per stop could be saved - some 5 minutes on a Paddington-Bristol
'stopper'.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Castle Cary to Cogload Jn only sees one, possibly two trains per hour,
it scarcely needs any block sections!
I agree, for the existing train service! What I was trying to say was
that if the intermediate stations were to be served by a dedicated
semi-fast service and these stops removed from the longer distance
trains then in order for interchange to be made between the two
services at Taunton or Exeter with reasonable dwell times then the
approach headways will have to be reduced from the 10 or 12 minutes
that they are at the moment.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Some more powerful traction, modern power doors, no waiting for a
platform at Reading and some relatively low cost work on the more
embarrassing bits of the South Wales Main line - dead straight 90/95mph
track and the service could be significantly accelerated without too
much additional infrastructure work.
I agree - I hope Network Rail's new, improved, devolved, dedicated
route management structure will make changes like this easier to
arrange.
--
Robert
Theo Markettos
2013-07-23 23:38:05 UTC
Post by Robert
I agree that the GWML gets slower the further away it is from London
It does that. At Milford Haven the last stretch of line is 30mph, trees
whipping at the windows.
Post by Robert
Looked at in this light in order to get the best return on the money
expended the improvements have to be concentrated in those areas with
the most traffic, so most expenditure will go on the busy bit between
Paddington and Reading, followed by the Reading to Swindon/Wooton
Bassett section and the rest spread quite thinly. This doesn't mean to
say that line speeds and junction improvements should not be done
elsewhere, what does seem to be odd is that the chances do not always
seem to be taken.
There is, however, a matter of low hanging fruit. If the trip to Swansea
could save 15 mins that would be one diagram saved, and one unit fewer to
purchase. And there seems to be plenty of slack west of Cardiff.
Post by Robert
Whether this is due to the long planning cycle common
in the railway industry - the Newport resignalling you mention was
planned 10 or 12 years ago when the political and financial framework
was very different to today - or whether due to lack of imagination or
co-ordination between the infrastructure operator and the train
operators I can't say.
I noticed this, which indicates a lost opportunity:
http://www.bettertrains4chepstow.co.uk/BT4C%20NARS%20Bishton.pdf

Theo
Robert
2013-07-24 10:13:26 UTC
Post by Theo Markettos
Post by Robert
I agree that the GWML gets slower the further away it is from London
It does that. At Milford Haven the last stretch of line is 30mph, trees
whipping at the windows.
Until a couple of years ago the buddleia growing near the site of the
old Reading Gas Works had infringed the structure gauge to such an
extent that it brushed the side of all trains on the Down Main. The
sudden clatter on the coach side at 60 or 70mph was quite
disconcerting...!
Post by Theo Markettos
Post by Robert
Looked at in this light in order to get the best return on the money
expended the improvements have to be concentrated in those areas with
the most traffic, so most expenditure will go on the busy bit between
Paddington and Reading, followed by the Reading to Swindon/Wooton
Bassett section and the rest spread quite thinly. This doesn't mean to
say that line speeds and junction improvements should not be done
elsewhere, what does seem to be odd is that the chances do not always
seem to be taken.
There is, however, a matter of low hanging fruit. If the trip to Swansea
could save 15 mins that would be one diagram saved, and one unit fewer to
purchase. And there seems to be plenty of slack west of Cardiff.
If the DfT could see that then they might be interested - but I have
the feeling that their main objective is to subsidise Hitachi for the
next 27 1/2 years. (Incidently - did you see that the Dept. of Trade
and Industry is adding insult to injury by chipping in about £5million
towards the cost of Hitachi's new factory? As if there isn't enough
money in a £5.8 billion contract to put up a large shed).
Post by Theo Markettos
Post by Robert
Whether this is due to the long planning cycle common
in the railway industry - the Newport resignalling you mention was
planned 10 or 12 years ago when the political and financial framework
was very different to today - or whether due to lack of imagination or
co-ordination between the infrastructure operator and the train
operators I can't say.
http://www.bettertrains4chepstow.co.uk/BT4C%20NARS%20Bishton.pdf
Theo
Wow! Why was that not done? It seems to make complete sense. I am sure
there must be many similar examples of lost opportunities around the
railways - one that comes to mind is the widening of the approaches to
New Street.
--
Robert
Bevan Price
2013-07-24 15:36:47 UTC
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Robert
Robert
The GWML is second rate beyond Swindon, whereas the WCML is a real
110/125 main line railway. There aren't many charter minutes between
London and Newport but there is a 75mph tunnel which goes on for a
few miles, after which the best speed is 90/95mph.
Still, a LM service would have to be going some to beat
approximately 1hr45 London - Newport which is a typical working time.
Some trains do manage a wait of 5 minutes or more for time at Bristol
Parkway, so it might well be possible to find an example if you were
selective.
Of course the HST is 35 years old, and 2250hp x2 for a 10 vehicle
train is not fast by modern standards, especially now the GWML only
really does semi-fast trains. It can take several miles for a HST to
get past 110mph. Manual doors and slow boarding times all add up -
no 1 minute calls at Atherstone with a HST.
Newport has only just been resignalled, and the approach from London
is still pedestrian. Castle Cary to Cogload Jn only sees one,
possibly two trains per hour, it scarcely needs any block sections!
Some more powerful traction, modern power doors, no waiting for a
platform at Reading and some relatively low cost work on the more
embarrassing bits of the South Wales Main line - dead straight
90/95mph track and the service could be significantly accelerated
without too much additional infrastructure work.
Modern power operated doors are not a recipe for shorter station stops.
Door opening on a Pendolino or Voyager is painfully slow.

To this, with all power-operated doors, you often have to add the time
taken for the conductor to reach the door controls, because he/she has
been checking tickets somewhere within the train. It is not unknown for
it to take 30 to 45 seconds before the doors can be opened by
passengers. In addition, where coaches have doors at their ends, the
coach layout is often not conducive for fast boarding/alighting.

Overcrowding also increases station dwell times. As an extreme example,
I have known normal station dwell times to be exceeded by 1-2 minutes at
each station, with a grossly overloaded Class 142, 153, 156 or 158.

Thanks to the safety mafia, and power doors, or central door-locking,
the days are long gone when I had stops lasting only 9 or 10 seconds at
some "quieter" stations. Nowadays, any station stop lasting less than 20
to 25 seconds is virtually unknown.


Bevan
Alistair Gunn
2013-07-24 16:38:46 UTC
Post by Bevan Price
Modern power operated doors are not a recipe for shorter station stops.
Door opening on a Pendolino or Voyager is painfully slow.
I always thought 158s where the worst. Press the button, sounds of
something occuring happen and then there's a loud snap/bang sound as the
doors actually start to move.
Post by Bevan Price
To this, with all power-operated doors, you often have to add the time
taken for the conductor to reach the door controls, because he/she has
been checking tickets somewhere within the train. It is not unknown for
it to take 30 to 45 seconds before the doors can be opened by
passengers.
Whilst that can happen, I have to say I've not experienced it in recent
years.
Post by Bevan Price
In addition, where coaches have doors at their ends, the
coach layout is often not conducive for fast boarding/alighting.
End doors probably provide a better passenger environment, however for
commuter trains 1/3-2/3 is better.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Roland Perry
2013-07-24 18:13:29 UTC
Post by Alistair Gunn
Post by Bevan Price
In addition, where coaches have doors at their ends, the
coach layout is often not conducive for fast boarding/alighting.
End doors probably provide a better passenger environment, however for
commuter trains 1/3-2/3 is better.
I think 170's (1/3-2/3 doors) are at least as good a passenger
experience as 158's (end doors) especially when the occupancy gets above
100%.

In other words, filling the 170 vestibules with standees isn't nearly as
disruptive as filling a 158's.

Or as my son said today, looking at an EMT Norwich-Liverpool 158: "Given
the length of their journey you'd think they'd find a more suitable
train".
--
Roland Perry
Theo
2013-07-25 09:32:03 UTC
Post by Bevan Price
Modern power operated doors are not a recipe for shorter station stops.
Door opening on a Pendolino or Voyager is painfully slow.
To this, with all power-operated doors, you often have to add the time
taken for the conductor to reach the door controls, because he/she has
been checking tickets somewhere within the train.
This struck me last week in England, in Belgium the train driver opens
the doors, he knows he is at complete standstill.
The conductor closes them.

This saves considerable time....

Theo
--
From the heath in the North of Belgium
Neil Williams
2013-07-25 18:49:54 UTC
Post by Theo
This struck me last week in England, in Belgium the train driver opens
the doors, he knows he is at complete standstill.
The conductor closes them.
Just as they do on Voyagers, the guard only has local open and a signal
buzzer.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.
Clank
2013-07-25 19:30:37 UTC
Post by Theo
Post by Bevan Price
Modern power operated doors are not a recipe for shorter station stops.
Door opening on a Pendolino or Voyager is painfully slow.
To this, with all power-operated doors, you often have to add the time
taken for the conductor to reach the door controls, because he/she has
been checking tickets somewhere within the train.
This struck me last week in England, in Belgium the train driver opens
the doors, he knows he is at complete standstill.
The conductor closes them.
This saves considerable time....
Theo
I always assumed this was the case in the UK as well, on the Southern
operated trains anyway - Southern's services have far shorter dwell times
IME than South West Trains because there's not a 30 second delay before the
doors are actually opened at every stop.

I have also always assumed this was because Southern won an argument with
the unions* that everyone else lost about Drivers/DOO/Guards/Conductors.

I'd be intrigued to know if my assumptions have any relation to the truth!




* and by 'the unions' I mean 'that monumental fucking waste of breath
Crow.' I wonder if he's currently using the Spanish rail crash as an
excuse for a rant about why trains are safer if drivers are in total
control with none of that nasty automation...
Recliner
2013-07-25 20:13:48 UTC
Post by Clank
Post by Theo
Post by Bevan Price
Modern power operated doors are not a recipe for shorter station stops.
Door opening on a Pendolino or Voyager is painfully slow.
To this, with all power-operated doors, you often have to add the time
taken for the conductor to reach the door controls, because he/she has
been checking tickets somewhere within the train.
This struck me last week in England, in Belgium the train driver opens
the doors, he knows he is at complete standstill.
The conductor closes them.
This saves considerable time....
Theo
I always assumed this was the case in the UK as well, on the Southern
operated trains anyway - Southern's services have far shorter dwell times
IME than South West Trains because there's not a 30 second delay before the
doors are actually opened at every stop.
I have also always assumed this was because Southern won an argument with
the unions* that everyone else lost about Drivers/DOO/Guards/Conductors.
I'd be intrigued to know if my assumptions have any relation to the truth!
* and by 'the unions' I mean 'that monumental fucking waste of breath
Crow.' I wonder if he's currently using the Spanish rail crash as an
excuse for a rant about why trains are safer if drivers are in total
control with none of that nasty automation...
And as an argument for two drivers in the cab.

John C
2013-07-19 19:06:27 UTC
Post by David Haggas
ERTMS KX-Doncaster operational 2018-20. Also a common fleet with (much)
faster acceleration than IC225/125 would yield reduced journey times.
I think it was Barry Doe that pointed out that a 110 mph Desiro achieves a
faster average speed from Euston to Stafford than a FGW HST running from
Paddington to Newport! The faster acceleration will mainly benefit the
slower trains to Leeds and York. Probably won't make a huge difference on
the non stop runs from King's Cross to York.

John