At least two of the routes currently operated by HSTs will derive
little improvement from HST2, as currently proposed. The West of
England and Midland main lines will always remain constrained by their
infrastructure.

What both these routes need are tilting trains, providing a 125mph
railway. Tilt could provide for 125mph throughout from London to Exeter
and London to Sheffield, not to mention what might be possible on the
(currently nightmare) roller coaster stretches to the west of Exeter.

Arguably, South Wales services could also benefit from tilt, at least
west of Cardiff towards Swansea. Maybe even, and this is pure pipe
dream I know, tilt between Worcester and Oxford.

This leaves just GNER and the Bristol route where HST2 is possibly
desirable, but then why do GNER need new HSTs? GNER is a predominately
electric railway, if GNER needs new trains then these should be
electric and as for Bristol, best to consider this in the context of
all the other West of England services.

OK, GNER do serve some off-wire destinations.  Well, that's if you
count Bradford and Skipton both wired but unable to handle GNER trains,
surely better to modify that situation. As for Hull, well how about
handing the remaining GNER service to Hull Trains and the Harrogate
service (perhaps via York) as well.

The case for GNER HST2 would then come down to the four services a day
north of Edinburgh and this doesn't sound much of a case to me.

This still leaves the problem of how GNER go north of Edinburgh, but
for four trains a day why not drag, as per North Wales, and if their
aren't enough electric trains to go round buy some new (off the
shelf) Pendilinos.

So, where can you obtain a 125mph diesel tilting train, preferably off
the shelf and to a proven reliable design? I think we all know the
answer to that one.

In any case, what is really wrong with Voyagers? Well from a XC
perspective the main problem is that on their core routes at least,
they cannot exploit 125mph running and therefore be experienced at
their designed best. So it's a bit like driving a Lotus around town
i.e. they drive like a pig.

OK, there are the other things like the seats, window spacing and only
four carriages but that's hardly a critic of the design. In any case,
all this could be put right in a new build of say nine car units.

By all accounts, the Meridians and Pioneers are already big
improvements on the Voyagers so imagine what yet another higher spec
build could be like. It probably still couldn't quite match the old
HST for ambience but this would be more than made up for by it being a
darn sight quicker on most routes.

In short, why are we going to all the trouble of a brand new design of
HST when it brings little improvement on the old one whilst ignoring an
off the shelf train that could revolutionise some routes.  Of course,
if HST2 could be built to go faster (140 mph) and tilt as well, then
this would be a different story but I am not hearing that.

allan tracy wrote:

> At least two of the routes currently operated by HSTs will derive
> little improvement from HST2, as currently proposed. The West of
> England and Midland main lines will always remain constrained by their
> infrastructure.
> 
> What both these routes need are tilting trains, providing a 125mph
> railway. Tilt could provide for 125mph throughout from London to Exeter
> and London to Sheffield, not to mention what might be possible on the
> (currently nightmare) roller coaster stretches to the west of Exeter.
> 
> Arguably, South Wales services could also benefit from tilt, at least
> west of Cardiff towards Swansea. Maybe even, and this is pure pipe
> dream I know, tilt between Worcester and Oxford.
> 
> This leaves just GNER and the Bristol route where HST2 is possibly
> desirable, but then why do GNER need new HSTs? GNER is a predominately
> electric railway, if GNER needs new trains then these should be
> electric and as for Bristol, best to consider this in the context of
> all the other West of England services.

snip
> In short, why are we going to all the trouble of a brand new design of
> HST when it brings little improvement on the old one whilst ignoring an
> off the shelf train that could revolutionise some routes.  Of course,
> if HST2 could be built to go faster (140 mph) and tilt as well, then
> this would be a different story but I am not hearing that.
> 


Main reason is that individually powered vehicles are uneconomic for
trains six cars long or more.

How much time would tilt actually save? And compare the cramped ambience
 demanded by tilt profile with mark 3/Adelante.

It is also important to remember that these trains could still be in
service in 2050 when energy costs are likely to be relatively much
higher than they are now and some fuels particularly so; the trains
should be capable of operating on a range of fuels.

Henry Law

allan tracy wrote:


> What both these routes need are tilting trains, providing a 125mph
> railway. Tilt could provide for 125mph throughout from London to Exeter
> and London to Sheffield, not to mention what might be possible on the
> (currently nightmare) roller coaster stretches to the west of Exeter.


Yes and no.

It may be that by running tilting trains, some bends could be taken at
a higher speed within acceptable passenger comfort levels. But that is
by no means the end of the story, or even much past the first chapter.

Key to safe high-speed running is signalling and stopping distances.
If HST2 could stop from 125mph in the same distance that HST can
currently stop from linespeed then that is a promising start, but it
still needs to be ensured that drivers have clear sighting of signals
for the required minimum length of time - particularly an issue on
bends without a clear line of sight across them.

There is then the problem of the permanent way. Given that HST2 is
likely to be heavier than HST and therefore have a higher axle load,
the track and foundation will need to be considerably stronger to
withstand the pressures of higher speeds combined with a heavier
train. This might require a lot of work.

In short, look at the WCML. A phenomenal amount of time, work and
money has been spent on bringing the linespeed up from a typical
110mph to 125mph in some places. Do you think we can afford to pay for
the same work to be done on the MML and GWML? Do you think we can
afford the disruption? Not a chance.
 

> This leaves just GNER and the Bristol route where HST2 is possibly
> desirable, but then why do GNER need new HSTs? GNER is a predominately
> electric railway, if GNER needs new trains then these should be
> electric and as for Bristol, best to consider this in the context of
> all the other West of England services.


It depends why GNER need new trains. If they are to provide additional
services on the core routes then yes, they need to be electric. But if
they are going to replace the HSTs on the north of Scotland routes
then they have to be diesels.


> OK, GNER do serve some off-wire destinations.  Well, that's if you
> count Bradford and Skipton both wired but unable to handle GNER trains,
> surely better to modify that situation. As for Hull, well how about
> handing the remaining GNER service to Hull Trains and the Harrogate
> service (perhaps via York) as well.


I would like to see the Bradford services use IC225s, and Skipton as
well - there is no good reason why the power supply could not be
upgraded to cope with these trains.

I agree that the Hull service might be better provided by a couple of
additional HT runs, and the Harrogate service is a particular anomaly
with no evening down journey. With the route via York being
considerably quicker (journeys are often shown via Leeds simply
because there are more and better connections that way - actual time
on the train is nevertheless longer that way), it strikes me that it
would be far more appropriate for Northern to beef up their peak time
services on the Harrogate line and leave GNER to run the genuine ECML
services.


> The case for GNER HST2 would then come down to the four services a day
> north of Edinburgh and this doesn't sound much of a case to me.


Although it is only four trains each way, it requires 7 diagrams. The
0755 ex Aberdeen can return as the 1600 ex Kings Cross, but none of
the other 6 journeys can return to/from the far north on the same day.
Allowing a spare train for cover, that still means GNER would need to
order 8 trains - which is worth placing an order for, if the
development is a joint venture across other TOCs.

But if GNER are going to acquire the diesel trains, they might as well
continue to use them to the wilds of Yorkshire; they can fit in two
down evening journeys with up journeys returning the following
morning, between the far north services.
ie, the 1559 and 1701 arrivals at KX from Inverness and Aberdeen
respectively are not needed for the far north until 1200 and 1400 the
next day. So no harm in using them to provide commuter services to
places off the core electrified network.
 

> This still leaves the problem of how GNER go north of Edinburgh, but
> for four trains a day why not drag, as per North Wales, and if their
> aren't enough electric trains to go round buy some new (off the
> shelf) Pendilinos.


Another option would be to do a loco change at Edinburgh. Swap the 91
for a 66 or 67, may need to be a modified one to work with the DVT,
and reattach the 91 to the next southbound service. The timetable
would need to be recast with this in mind, but I suspect that is the
least of the problems. GNER could then acquire Pedalos or Yorkostars
or whatever else may be available to fill in services to Leeds.
 

> So, where can you obtain a 125mph diesel tilting train, preferably off
> the shelf and to a proven reliable design? I think we all know the
> answer to that one.


If you need a 125mph diesel tilting train, the only one in the UK is
the Voyager, agreed. I'm just not convinced that these routes _do_
need a tilting train. GNER had the perfect opportunity to fit tilting
mechanisms to their 225s when they Mallarded them - the Mk IV
carriages were designed to allow tilt to be easily retrofitted - but
they chose not to. Looking at the curvature of the lines especially
north of Darlo, it seems like this route would benefit from tilt as
much as any other - but they decided against it. Why? Because it
simply isn't worth it - it costs too much to put the infrastructure in
place to increase linespeed, and without increasing linespeed there is
no advantage to tilt.
 

> In any case, what is really wrong with Voyagers?


I suspect that very little is wrong with the basic design - given that
they underlying train is the same as the Meridians and Pioneers, which
are generally held to be quite good - the problem has largely been one
of implementation and ornamentation, ie Virgin's specs and fittings,
and this is easily overcome.

On the other hand, the Pioneers that I travelled on over the weekend
did have quite a harsh and choppy ride - much worse than I remember Mk
IVs being, even before the refurb. And there's no doubt that the
underfloor engine did contribute to the lower ride quality, especially
when accelerating from low speed. While it was quite acceptable on a 2
hour journey, any replacement for HST is going to be used on journeys
considerably longer than that, and unlike Virgin XCountry, will
attract a higher proportion of passengers travelling long distances.
The trains need to be comfortable for 4 hours from Abertawe to London,
5 hours from Penzance, 7 hours from Aberdeen, 8 hours from Inverness.
And I don't think an underfloor-engined DMU will be.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

allan tracy wrote:

> At least two of the routes currently operated by HSTs will derive
> >> .
>
> In short, why are we going to all the trouble of a brand new design of
> HST when it brings little improvement on the old one whilst ignoring an
> off the shelf train that could revolutionise some routes.  Of course,
> if HST2 could be built to go faster (140 mph) and tilt as well, then
> this would be a different story but I am not hearing that.


1. 22x type demu's only have a market because there is nothing else
currently there to buy, they are very expensive to operate even as non
tilters. Fuel hungry and maintenance hungry they are also much less
kind to track and suffer badly from RCF on their many driving wheels
under 50 tonne vehicles. This last point may yet see their kind limited
to speeds under 110mph or subject to increased access charges as an
alternative.
2. Tilting has already been assessed for the GW routes and the expense
is simply not worth the effort to save the 15 minutes or so it would
achieve between London and Penzance. Balises, tilting stock etc. all
cost a lot more to maintain and are yet to prove their ability to
operate anywhere near as reliably in the UK as they do elsewhere. Even
in Italy tilt failures are fairly common.
Stock built to the full loading gauge available (and this is likely to
be slightly wider and longer than the current mk3) in addition to being
lighter will offer a much better travelling experience than anything
running today. The trailer (TM equipped) vehicles are specified to be
diesel/electric capable with a common design of power car suitable for
either and even both types of energy use.
3. Despite the belief that the GW loading gauge is bigger, in terms of
tilting many areas in the West Country would require significant track
and layout alterations to avoid tilters hitting infrastructure, walls
and other trains.

jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:


>  Fuel hungry ......


Compared to what ?

If you compare say an 9-car 222 you have 6750 installed hp. May not be
directly compared with 4500 installed hp in a HST (as built) of a
different generation.


Exactly 50% more installed hp absolutely will burn more fuel even if
the duty cycle is different (i.e. higher power > accelerates in less
time >> coasts earlier).

There is much more in the way of power drawing auxiliries in modern
trains, and the car bodies are stronger and heavier to meet present
crash worthiness limits.

220-222/180 type trains only turn in higher fuel figure because of
those factors, not because of the multi engined underfloor mounted
design nor due to the actual power units involved.

If a modernised version of HST i.e. power car at each end were placed
in service today, I put it to you it would have at least 3000 hp and
maybe even 4000 hp per power car, and then accurate comparisons may be
drawn.

Or and HST power car with 3 750 hp cummins QSK19s fitted. I've wondered
why no-one has thought of that. THen a true picture may be obtained.


--
Nick

On 3 Aug 2005 13:14:33 -0700, allan tracy wrote:

> Maybe even, and this is pure pipe
> dream I know, tilt between Worcester and Oxford.


Riding aboard an Adelante on this route yesterday, I observed that good
numbers of people were boarding the train at the intermediate stops. I'm
sure they wouldn't much appreciate a train whizzing by them non-stop,
whether it tilted or not, and it does seem rather extravagant to put
tilting trains on if you are going to stop them everywhere. 

There appear to be many more people using this line than were a couple
of decades ago, which is a good bit of evidence that enhancing the
service can attract customers. I'm sure they would be best served by
doubling at least some of the single track sections. Clearing the
jungles at some of the stations might not be a bad idea either.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632905.html
(37 077 at Basingstoke, May 1995)

"Stevie D"  wrote in message 
news:54g2f1hkcvnlerkmmnmavf9ijqsuv616na@4ax.com...

> allan tracy wrote:
>
>> What both these routes need are tilting trains, providing a 125mph
>> railway. Tilt could provide for 125mph throughout from London to Exeter
>> and London to Sheffield, not to mention what might be possible on the
>> (currently nightmare) roller coaster stretches to the west of Exeter.
>
> Yes and no.

<snip>
>
> There is then the problem of the permanent way. Given that HST2 is
> likely to be heavier than HST and therefore have a higher axle load,
> the track and foundation will need to be considerably stronger to
> withstand the pressures of higher speeds combined with a heavier
> train. This might require a lot of work.
>


Why is it likely to be heavier? This isn't a case of Desiros replacing Mark 
1s, in this case we are talking about replacing a coach that already has 
good crashworthiness and heavy items like aircon.


> In short, look at the WCML. A phenomenal amount of time, work and
> money has been spent on bringing the linespeed up from a typical
> 110mph to 125mph in some places. Do you think we can afford to pay for
> the same work to be done on the MML and GWML? Do you think we can
> afford the disruption? Not a chance.
>


But we are starting from a much better position in most cases, and in the 
case of MML and GWML, we don't have vast amounts of power supply rework to 
be done. That contributed a lot to the original cost overruns and was 
descoped there.

Perhaps a better comparison would be the costs of the Birmingham to 
Oxford/Reading upgrade, if anyone has it...



>> This leaves just GNER and the Bristol route where HST2 is possibly
>> desirable, but then why do GNER need new HSTs? GNER is a predominately
>> electric railway, if GNER needs new trains then these should be
>> electric and as for Bristol, best to consider this in the context of
>> all the other West of England services.
>


[written here to save posts :) ]

Not sure what is meant by this. If GNER needs new diesels to do a job then 
they need diesels. I don't agree that Aberdeen and Inverness should 
effectively become branch lines, any more than I don't hear people 
advocating stopping the HSTs at Exeter and making everyone heading to 
Cornwall get on a sprinter. There is a view that SNCF does this - not true, 
I've ridden TGVs to all four corners of the country. I suspect this view is 
coming from people who don't use Scottish services...

As for the Bristol comment, why break it out and then say it should be 
considered in the whole west country context?

If tilt would save "just" 15 minutes over the GWML, then by itself it might 
not be cost effective, but combined with better acceleration it might add up 
to something meaningful. I wonder if money could be made available from the 
south west's EU regional infrastructure funding to improve the links to the 
capital? Given that it might be 2050 before such a chance comes up again, I 
beleive that it should be taken, otherwise journey times will have been 
stagnant for the best part of a century.




> It depends why GNER need new trains. If they are to provide additional
> services on the core routes then yes, they need to be electric. But if
> they are going to replace the HSTs on the north of Scotland routes
> then they have to be diesels.
>

yep - or electro-diesels, as with the advances in electric traction set to 
continue over the rest of this decade there should be no problem packing 
high power equipment into such a design.


>> OK, GNER do serve some off-wire destinations.  Well, that's if you
>> count Bradford and Skipton both wired but unable to handle GNER trains,
>> surely better to modify that situation. As for Hull, well how about
>> handing the remaining GNER service to Hull Trains and the Harrogate
>> service (perhaps via York) as well.
>
> I would like to see the Bradford services use IC225s, and Skipton as
> well - there is no good reason why the power supply could not be
> upgraded to cope with these trains.
>
> I agree that the Hull service might be better provided by a couple of
> additional HT runs, and the Harrogate service is a particular anomaly
> with no evening down journey. With the route via York being
> considerably quicker (journeys are often shown via Leeds simply
> because there are more and better connections that way - actual time
> on the train is nevertheless longer that way), it strikes me that it
> would be far more appropriate for Northern to beef up their peak time
> services on the Harrogate line and leave GNER to run the genuine ECML
> services.
>
>> The case for GNER HST2 would then come down to the four services a day
>> north of Edinburgh and this doesn't sound much of a case to me.
>
> Although it is only four trains each way, it requires 7 diagrams. The
> 0755 ex Aberdeen can return as the 1600 ex Kings Cross, but none of
> the other 6 journeys can return to/from the far north on the same day.
> Allowing a spare train for cover, that still means GNER would need to
> order 8 trains - which is worth placing an order for, if the
> development is a joint venture across other TOCs.
>
> But if GNER are going to acquire the diesel trains, they might as well
> continue to use them to the wilds of Yorkshire; they can fit in two
> down evening journeys with up journeys returning the following
> morning, between the far north services.
> ie, the 1559 and 1701 arrivals at KX from Inverness and Aberdeen
> respectively are not needed for the far north until 1200 and 1400 the
> next day. So no harm in using them to provide commuter services to
> places off the core electrified network.
>
>> This still leaves the problem of how GNER go north of Edinburgh, but
>> for four trains a day why not drag, as per North Wales, and if their
>> aren't enough electric trains to go round buy some new (off the
>> shelf) Pendilinos.
>


Chris Garnett said that would never happen unfortunately. Mind you the SRA / 
Darling would probably overrule personaly preference.


> Another option would be to do a loco change at Edinburgh. Swap the 91
> for a 66 or 67, may need to be a modified one to work with the DVT,
> and reattach the 91 to the next southbound service. The timetable
> would need to be recast with this in mind, but I suspect that is the
> least of the problems. GNER could then acquire Pedalos or Yorkostars
> or whatever else may be available to fill in services to Leeds.
>

Interesting plan


>> So, where can you obtain a 125mph diesel tilting train, preferably off
>> the shelf and to a proven reliable design? I think we all know the
>> answer to that one.
>
> If you need a 125mph diesel tilting train, the only one in the UK is
> the Voyager, agreed. I'm just not convinced that these routes _do_
> need a tilting train. GNER had the perfect opportunity to fit tilting
> mechanisms to their 225s when they Mallarded them - the Mk IV
> carriages were designed to allow tilt to be easily retrofitted - but
> they chose not to. Looking at the curvature of the lines especially
> north of Darlo, it seems like this route would benefit from tilt as
> much as any other - but they decided against it. Why? Because it
> simply isn't worth it - it costs too much to put the infrastructure in
> place to increase linespeed, and without increasing linespeed there is
> no advantage to tilt.
>


Like the western reaches of GWML, wouldn't fitting tilt infrastructure north 
of York benefit both Virgin and GNER? Is anyone looking at the bigger 
picture (in a position of authority?)




>> In any case, what is really wrong with Voyagers?
>
> I suspect that very little is wrong with the basic design - given that
> they underlying train is the same as the Meridians and Pioneers, which
> are generally held to be quite good - the problem has largely been one
> of implementation and ornamentation, ie Virgin's specs and fittings,
> and this is easily overcome.
>
> On the other hand, the Pioneers that I travelled on over the weekend
> did have quite a harsh and choppy ride - much worse than I remember Mk
> IVs being, even before the refurb. And there's no doubt that the
> underfloor engine did contribute to the lower ride quality, especially
> when accelerating from low speed. While it was quite acceptable on a 2
> hour journey, any replacement for HST is going to be used on journeys
> considerably longer than that, and unlike Virgin XCountry, will
> attract a higher proportion of passengers travelling long distances.
> The trains need to be comfortable for 4 hours from Abertawe to London,
> 5 hours from Penzance, 7 hours from Aberdeen, 8 hours from Inverness.
> And I don't think an underfloor-engined DMU will be.
>


Agreed

"Dave"  wrote in message 
news:Q9OdncF7g6mbT2zfRVnytg@eclipse.net.uk...

>
> Like the western reaches of GWML, wouldn't fitting tilt infrastructure 
> north of York benefit both Virgin and GNER? Is anyone looking at the 
> bigger picture (in a position of authority?)


France is building the LGV est. In the UK we have the electric horseshoe 
(subject to planning permission)

Stevie D wrote:


> > OK, GNER do serve some off-wire destinations.  Well, that's if you
> > count Bradford and Skipton both wired but unable to handle GNER trains,
> > surely better to modify that situation. As for Hull, well how about
> > handing the remaining GNER service to Hull Trains and the Harrogate
> > service (perhaps via York) as well.
>
> I would like to see the Bradford services use IC225s, and Skipton as
> well - there is no good reason why the power supply could not be
> upgraded to cope with these trains.
>
> I agree that the Hull service might be better provided by a couple of
> additional HT runs, and the Harrogate service is a particular anomaly
> with no evening down journey. With the route via York being
> considerably quicker (journeys are often shown via Leeds simply
> because there are more and better connections that way - actual time
> on the train is nevertheless longer that way), it strikes me that it
> would be far more appropriate for Northern to beef up their peak time
> services on the Harrogate line and leave GNER to run the genuine ECML
> services.


Surely the GNER Hull services are part of GNER's PSR? If they were
transferred to Hull Trains, which is not a TOC, they would have to be
run on a commercial basis - and if they were not economic, there's
nothing to stop HT from axing them. The same applies to all of GNER's
marginal (1 or 2 trips a day) routes.

> Maybe even, and this is pure pipe
> dream I know, tilt between Worcester and Oxford.


Most of this line is single track, stations every few miles, trains
stopping to exchange tokens. It wouldn't be worth it

"Dave"  wrote in message 
news:Q9OdncF7g6mbT2zfRVnytg@eclipse.net.uk...

>
> "Stevie D"  wrote in message 
> news:54g2f1hkcvnlerkmmnmavf9ijqsuv616na@4ax.com...
>> allan tracy wrote:
>>
>>> What both these routes need are tilting trains, providing a 125mph
>>> railway. Tilt could provide for 125mph throughout from London to Exeter
>>> and London to Sheffield, not to mention what might be possible on the
>>> (currently nightmare) roller coaster stretches to the west of Exeter.
>>
>> Yes and no.
>
> <snip>
>>
>> There is then the problem of the permanent way. Given that HST2 is
>> likely to be heavier than HST and therefore have a higher axle load,
>> the track and foundation will need to be considerably stronger to
>> withstand the pressures of higher speeds combined with a heavier
>> train. This might require a lot of work.
>>
>
> Why is it likely to be heavier? This isn't a case of Desiros replacing 
> Mark 1s, in this case we are talking about replacing a coach that already 
> has good crashworthiness and heavy items like aircon.
>

<Snip>

The mark 3 is very light weight for it's strength - ISTR an articlefrom 
Uncle Roger a couple ofyears ago on this. As an example, a loco-hauled Mk3 
standard class coach is around 34 tonnes, the Mk4 equivalent is 40 tonnes. 
No loco-hauled stock has been built for the mainlend UK since then, but the 
Enterprise stock (based on Eurostar bodyshells) for the Dublin - Belfast 
service equivalent coach is 37 tonnes.

A bigger problem is the power car - the Valenta is still very 
weight-efficient, even after 30 odd years, hence the proposal to put 
traction motors on the first coach. Crashworthiness requirements for these 
are also more stringent than when HST 1 was introduced..

Sean

> Most of this line is single track, stations every few miles, trains
> stopping to exchange tokens. It wouldn't be worth it.


In this situation surely forget the tilt and install as many HP as
possible to get the acceleration between stops.

"allan tracy" wrote

> OK, GNER do serve some off-wire destinations.  Well, that's if you
> count Bradford and Skipton both wired but unable to handle GNER trains,
> surely better to modify that situation.


That's correct for Skipton but *not* for Bradford Forster Square - the
latter is already served by GNER 225's.

I haven't used it for a bit but as far as I know Bradford-Kings Cross 
services can be electrically hauled.  The reason that they can't go to 
Skipton is that there is no substation there and it's 26 miles from the 
substation at Leeds so all the current to power the 91 would have to come 
down the overhead wires. Bradford Forster Square is only abou 13 miles from 
Leeds  so the resistance in the wires (and the voltage drop) is not as much.

The last time I went to Bradford on a London Train it was pushed there by 
89001 Avocet, which is now at Barrow Hill,

"Rupert Candy"  wrote in message 
news:1123154606.401731.233280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Stevie D wrote:
>
>> > OK, GNER do serve some off-wire destinations.  Well, that's if y
>> > count Bradford and Skipton both wired but unable to handle GNER trains,
>> > surely better to modify that situation. As for Hull, well how about
>> > handing the remaining GNER service to Hull Trains and the Harrogate
>> > service (perhaps via York) as well.
>>
>> I would like to see the Bradford services use IC225s, and Skipton as
>> well - there is no good reason why the power supply could not be
>> upgraded to cope with these trains.
>>
>> I agree that the Hull service might be better provided by a couple of
>> additional HT runs, and the Harrogate service is a particular anomaly
>> with no evening down journey. With the route via York being
>> considerably quicker (journeys are often shown via Leeds simply
>> because there are more and better connections that way - actual time
>> on the train is nevertheless longer that way), it strikes me that it
>> would be far more appropriate for Northern to beef up their peak time
>> services on the Harrogate line and leave GNER to run the genuine ECML
>> services.
>
> Surely the GNER Hull services are part of GNER's PSR? If they were
> transferred to Hull Trains, which is not a TOC, they would have to be
> run on a commercial basis - and if they were not economic, there's
> nothing to stop HT from axing them. The same applies to all of GNER's
> marginal (1 or 2 trips a day) routes.
> 

Paul Rigg wrote:

> I haven't used it for a bit but as far as I know Bradford-Kings Cross 
> services can be electrically hauled.  The reason that they can't go to 
> Skipton is that there is no substation there and it's 26 miles from the 
> substation at Leeds so all the current to power the 91 would have to come 
> down the overhead wires. Bradford Forster Square is only abou 13 miles from 
> Leeds  so the resistance in the wires (and the voltage drop) is not as much.


Class 91s can (and do) go to Bradford Forster Square via Shipley.  Class 
333s EMUs do go to Skipton though.

In article , 
Rupert Candy  writes

>> I agree that the Hull service might be better provided by a couple of
>> additional HT runs,

>Surely the GNER Hull services are part of GNER's PSR? If they were
>transferred to Hull Trains, which is not a TOC, they would have to be
>run on a commercial basis - and if they were not economic, there's
>nothing to stop HT from axing them. The same applies to all of GNER's
>marginal (1 or 2 trips a day) routes.


GNER could contract out the service provision. Provided the train runs, 
it doesn't matter whose train it is.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

D7666 wrote:

> jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:
> 
>> Fuel hungry ......
> 
> Compared to what ?
> 
> If you compare say an 9-car 222 you have 6750 installed hp. May not be
> directly compared with 4500 installed hp in a HST (as built) of a
> different generation.
> 
> 
> Exactly 50% more installed hp absolutely will burn more fuel even if
> the duty cycle is different (i.e. higher power > accelerates in less
> time >> coasts earlier).
> 
> There is much more in the way of power drawing auxiliries in modern
> trains, and the car bodies are stronger and heavier to meet present
> crash worthiness limits.
> 


I am still waiting to hear why present crashworthiness limits mean extra
weight. Mark 3 stock has the metal in exactly the right place - the
trouble is construction was complex, with all the joggled top hat
sections to be welded to the skin. I have always understood that the
main reason why mark 3 stock is non-compliant is that it lacks
controlled collapse zones ie it is too strong throughout. Since the
benefit of controlled collapse zones have never been demonstrated and
remain theoretical, perhaps it is time for a re-assessment in terms of
cost per fatality prevented.

> 
> --
> Nick
> 

D7666 wrote:

> jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:
>
> >  Fuel hungry ......
>
> Compared to what ?
>
> If you compare say an 9-car 222 you have 6750 installed hp. May not be
> directly compared with 4500 installed hp in a HST (as built) of a
> different generation.
>
>
> Exactly 50% more installed hp absolutely will burn more fuel even if
> the duty cycle is different (i.e. higher power > accelerates in less
> time >> coasts earlier).
>
> There is much more in the way of power drawing auxiliries in modern
> trains, and the car bodies are stronger and heavier to meet present
> crash worthiness limits.
>
> 220-222/180 type trains only turn in higher fuel figure because of
> those factors, not because of the multi engined underfloor mounted
> design nor due to the actual power units involved.
>
> If a modernised version of HST i.e. power car at each end were placed
> in service today, I put it to you it would have at least 3000 hp and
> maybe even 4000 hp per power car, and then accurate comparisons may be
> drawn.
>
> Or and HST power car with 3 750 hp cummins QSK19s fitted. I've wondered
> why no-one has thought of that. THen a true picture may be obtained.
>
>
> --
> Nick


Who says they haven't been thought of?  They were not utilised in the
current re-engining for a number of reasons. Without such test running
they are unlikely to figure much in future discussions
 Cost of operation is everything and even using the 20 cyl MTU engines
in two power cars on an eight coach HST2 is theoretically 15% more fuel
efficient than the five engines on a 221 Voyager or 180. In addition
the maintenance required on two 3,800 hp engines, cooler groups and
alternators is far less time consuming and expensive than five 750hp,
cooler groups and alternators.
Ah yes, theoretical many will say, but MTU have a good track record in
this respect. They predicted, almost to the decimal point what the fuel
consumption and lube oil usage would be on the MTU's installed in DB
218s, OBB 2016s and now the HST power cars. I'm not allowed to say what
the savings are in fuel, but it amounts to a few thousands of pounds
worth of fuel per power car per year. It is exactly the amount
predicted by MTU. Indeed lube oil consumption is less than predicted,
unlike the Cummins 750hp underfloor engine, which keep's Saudi Arabia
wealthy.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:28:12 +0100, Henry Law
 wrote:


>D7666 wrote:
>> jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:
>> 
>>> Fuel hungry ......
>> 
>> Compared to what ?
>> 
>> If you compare say an 9-car 222 you have 6750 installed hp. May not be
>> directly compared with 4500 installed hp in a HST (as built) of a
>> different generation.

Also, what can HST2 have done for us? they have only just started to
think of building them.

That's because they draw less current and therefore the voltage drop is not 
as great.

"Mark Morton"  wrote in message 
news:3lf6m3F1267i7U1@individual.net...

> Paul Rigg wrote:
>> I haven't used it for a bit but as far as I know Bradford-Kings Cross 
>> services can be electrically hauled.  The reason that they can't go to 
>> Skipton is that there is no substation there and it's 26 miles from the 
>> substation at Leeds so all the current to power the 91 would have to come 
>> down the overhead wires. Bradford Forster Square is only abou 13 miles 
>> from Leeds  so the resistance in the wires (and the voltage drop) is not 
>> as much.
>
> Class 91s can (and do) go to Bradford Forster Square via Shipley.  Class 
> 333s EMUs do go to Skipton though. 

Rupert Candy wrote:


> Surely the GNER Hull services are part of GNER's PSR? If they were
> transferred to Hull Trains, which is not a TOC, they would have to be
> run on a commercial basis - and if they were not economic, there's
> nothing to stop HT from axing them. The same applies to all of GNER's
> marginal (1 or 2 trips a day) routes.


That's a good point that I had not thought of. In principle, I have no
objection to services being moved from one TOC's PSR to another, if
the services are more appropriate there. But you are right that in
this case, with HT _not_ being a franchised TOC, it might be
problematic later.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

"Henry Law"  wrote in message 
news:HuwIe.7070$CF.48451@news-1.opaltelecom.net...

> D7666 wrote:
>> jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:
>>
<snip>

> Since the
> benefit of controlled collapse zones have never been demonstrated and
> remain theoretical, perhaps it is time for a re-assessment in terms of
> cost per fatality prevented.



I think SNCF might have a different view of that (along with many other 
authorities)...

"A full size crash test was carried out to evaluate the crumple zones
 integrated into Duplex end trailers.  This was followed by another crash
 test of a Duplex power car.  These tests serve to validate computer models
 of crash behavior.  Optical targets and brightly painted surfaces allow
 precise measurement of deformations as observed by high speed cameras.  The
 test was carried out in the day time, but the short exposure time makes
 the background sky appear underexposed (the test train is brightly lit)."

http://www.railfaneurope.net/tgv/images/duplex/duplexcrashtest.gif

"Dave"  wrote in message 
news:l5KdncsjmIDmDGnfRVnyvw@eclipse.net.uk...

> "A full size crash test was carried out to evaluate the crumple zones
> integrated into Duplex end trailers.  This was followed by another crash
> test of a Duplex power car.  These tests serve to validate computer models
> of crash behavior.  Optical targets and brightly painted surfaces allow
> precise measurement of deformations as observed by high speed cameras. 
> The
> test was carried out in the day time, but the short exposure time makes
> the background sky appear underexposed (the test train is brightly lit)."
>
> http://www.railfaneurope.net/tgv/images/duplex/duplexcrashtest.gif


ISTR seeing old footage of Mk1 BGs of varying modification, painted yellow, 
being propelled into each other (RTC? Old Dalby?), so BR tested it too.

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

Dave wrote:

> "Henry Law"  wrote in message 
> news:HuwIe.7070$CF.48451@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
>>D7666 wrote:
>>>jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:
>>>
> <snip>
> 
>>Since the
>>benefit of controlled collapse zones have never been demonstrated and
>>remain theoretical, perhaps it is time for a re-assessment in terms of
>>cost per fatality prevented.
> 
> 
> I think SNCF might have a different view of that (along with many other 
> authorities)...
> 
> "A full size crash test was carried out to evaluate the crumple zones
>  integrated into Duplex end trailers.  This was followed by another crash
>  test of a Duplex power car.  These tests serve to validate computer models
>  of crash behavior.  Optical targets and brightly painted surfaces allow
>  precise measurement of deformations as observed by high speed cameras.  The
>  test was carried out in the day time, but the short exposure time makes
>  the background sky appear underexposed (the test train is brightly lit)."
> 
> http://www.railfaneurope.net/tgv/images/duplex/duplexcrashtest.gif 
> 
> 


It assumes that accidents happen in predictable ways. By their nature,
they do not. The amount of energy needed to be dissipated in high speed
incidents is a couple of orders of magnitude greater than crumple zones
can absorb. Incidentally, does every vehicle in a TGV have collapse
zones or is it just the outer ones?

There is a significant cost in having these zones so there really is a
need to evaluate them is cost per fatality prevented.

Henry Law

> > On the other hand, the Pioneers that I travelled on over the weekend
> > did have quite a harsh and choppy ride - much worse than I remember Mk
> > IVs being, even before the refurb. And there's no doubt that the
> > underfloor engine did contribute to the lower ride quality, especially
> > when accelerating from low speed. While it was quite acceptable on a 2
> > hour journey, any replacement for HST is going to be used on journeys
> > considerably longer than that, and unlike Virgin XCountry, will
> > attract a higher proportion of passengers travelling long distances.
> > The trains need to be comfortable for 4 hours from Abertawe to London,
> > 5 hours from Penzance, 7 hours from Aberdeen, 8 hours from Inverness.
> > And I don't think an underfloor-engined DMU will be.
> >

       One of my collegues travelled on a pioneer last Wednesday and thought
it excellent. By the way he logged it. 60m11secs Grantham - Kings Cross
Start to Stop!
       Bill

Martin WY wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:28:12 +0100, Henry Law
>  wrote:
>
> >D7666 wrote:
> >> jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >>> Fuel hungry ......
> >>
> >> Compared to what ?
> >>
> >> If you compare say an 9-car 222 you have 6750 installed hp. May not be
> >> directly compared with 4500 installed hp in a HST (as built) of a
> >> different generation.
> Also, what can HST2 have done for us? they have only just started to
> think of building them.


No they were thought of 6 years ago, design work began in 2001 and
there could have been a prototype running late next year/early 2007.
Siemens/FGW/GNER were trying to persuade the SRA to let them progress
and were told no. The same group of engineers were then horrified to
learn that the SRA was going to specify what HST should be, without
recourse to the extensive research already undertaken with regards
system integration and wheel/rail interface,and electronic
interference. (Hence Capt. Deltics article a few months back in MR)
The DfT has now taken charge, and it must be said they seem to have a
more practical grasp of what is required in this particular case than
their predecessors.

>
> No they were thought of 6 years ago, design work began in 2001 and
> there could have been a prototype running late next year/early 2007.
> Siemens/FGW/GNER were trying to persuade the SRA to let them progress
> and were told no. The same group of engineers were then horrified to
> learn that the SRA was going to specify what HST should be, without
> recourse to the extensive research already undertaken with regards
> system integration and wheel/rail interface,and electronic
> interference. (Hence Capt. Deltics article a few months back in MR)
> The DfT has now taken charge, and it must be said they seem to have a
> more practical grasp of what is required in this particular case than
> their predecessors.
>


What ever happened to that illustration, I think of the HST2 coming along 
the sea front near Dawlish / Star Cross?  That was a good few years back.


Dave

jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:

> Martin WY wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:28:12 +0100, Henry Law
> >  wrote:
> >
> > >D7666 wrote:
> > >> jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Fuel hungry ......
> > >>
> > >> Compared to what ?
> > >>
> > >> If you compare say an 9-car 222 you have 6750 installed hp. May not be
> > >> directly compared with 4500 installed hp in a HST (as built) of a
> > >> different generation.
> > Also, what can HST2 have done for us? they have only just started to
> > think of building them.
>
> No they were thought of 6 years ago, design work began in 2001 and
> there could have been a prototype running late next year/early 2007.
> Siemens/FGW/GNER were trying to persuade the SRA to let them progress
> and were told no. The same group of engineers were then horrified to
> learn that the SRA was going to specify what HST should be, without
> recourse to the extensive research already undertaken with regards
> system integration and wheel/rail interface,and electronic
> interference. (Hence Capt. Deltics article a few months back in MR)
> The DfT has now taken charge, and it must be said they seem to have a
> more practical grasp of what is required in this particular case than
> their predecessors.


When I wrote the above I was unaware of a rather startling development
announced today at work. Put simply the leading member of the of the
above mentioned group has been seconded to the DfT at their request. I
don't think any external press statement has been made yet, but knowing
this persons knowledge, experience,enthusiasm and vision plus the
position he will be occupying, HST2 just took a big step nearer to
becoming a reality.

>> No they were thought of 6 years ago, design work began in 2001 and
>> there could have been a prototype running late next year/early 2007.
>> Siemens/FGW/GNER were trying to persuade the SRA to let them progress
>> and were told no. The same group of engineers were then horrified to
>> learn that the SRA was going to specify what HST should be, without
>> recourse to the extensive research already undertaken with regards
>> system integration and wheel/rail interface,and electronic
>> interference. (Hence Capt. Deltics article a few months back in MR)
>> The DfT has now taken charge, and it must be said they seem to have a
>> more practical grasp of what is required in this particular case than
>> their predecessors.
>
> When I wrote the above I was unaware of a rather startling development
> announced today at work. Put simply the leading member of the of the
> above mentioned group has been seconded to the DfT at their request. I
> don't think any external press statement has been made yet, but knowing
> this persons knowledge, experience,enthusiasm and vision plus the
> position he will be occupying, HST2 just took a big step nearer to
> becoming a reality.
>


Trying to get my head round that one Jon, I presume you mean the top 
engineer has been seconded to the SRA?

Dave

"Dave"  wrote in message 
news:8rydnYop-qgnA5zeRVnyjQ@eclipse.net.uk...

>>> No they were thought of 6 years ago, design work began in 2001 and
>>> there could have been a prototype running late next year/early 2007.
>>> Siemens/FGW/GNER were trying to persuade the SRA to let them progress
>>> and were told no. The same group of engineers were then horrified to
>>> learn that the SRA was going to specify what HST should be, without
>>> recourse to the extensive research already undertaken with regards
>>> system integration and wheel/rail interface,and electronic
>>> interference. (Hence Capt. Deltics article a few months back in MR)
>>> The DfT has now taken charge, and it must be said they seem to have a
>>> more practical grasp of what is required in this particular case than
>>> their predecessors.
>>
>> When I wrote the above I was unaware of a rather startling development
>> announced today at work. Put simply the leading member of the of the
>> above mentioned group has been seconded to the DfT at their request. I
>> don't think any external press statement has been made yet, but knowing
>> this persons knowledge, experience,enthusiasm and vision plus the
>> position he will be occupying, HST2 just took a big step nearer to
>> becoming a reality.
>>
>

Unfortunately that will mean that the existing FGW spec will go ahead. This 
has an unneecesarily large and heavy engine so that the power cars cannot be 
motorised. Thus the traction motors will have to be on the coaches. This 
makes the train inflexible. A 33.3% increase in power can be achieved just 
by using the MTU engine which has been installed in the FGW power cars, but 
without down rating it.

Peter Fox

> >
> Unfortunately that will mean that the existing FGW spec will go ahead. This
> has an unneecesarily large and heavy engine so that the power cars cannot be
> motorised. Thus the traction motors will have to be on the coaches.


This is sounding more like a Voyager by the day.

Anyway, surely FGW is the only TOC with a real need for a HST
replacement.

GNER only operates four services a day north of Edinburgh, so why give
them any say, and it looks increasingly as if Midland Mainline will be
mostly Meridians.

I am willing to bet Midland will never see a HST2, far more likely a
further build of Meridians. Just a pity the Meridians aren't tilting.

On 16 Aug 2005 14:11:38 -0700, allan tracy wrote:


> Just a pity the Meridians aren't tilting.


They're pretty good as they are. Very nippy. Where do you think tilt
could be used to significant advantage?

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632866.html
(33 063 at Ludlow, Aug 1982)

>
> They're pretty good as they are. Very nippy. Where do you think tilt
> could be used to significant advantage?
>


Well as I understand it, HSTs have never been cleared for 125mph
anywhere on the Midland route and this is mostly down to curvature.

For the semi-fasts, tilt probably wouldn't make much difference but for
the fast services continuous 125mph running with tilt could offer
similar journey time improvement as the WC so perhaps London -
Sheffield as fast as London - Manchester?

Trouble is, this system of balaises seems to make tilting somewhat
costly.

Although, I find it strange that routes that might not need
balaisification have to be so treated just because there are routes
elsewhere that do.

After all, the GW turbos have been built such that they would hit
things if used elsewhere and didn't a class 90 reach North Wales
recently. Where was the balaise to stop that?

On 16 Aug 2005 14:11:38 -0700, "allan tracy"
 wrote:


>This is sounding more like a Voyager by the day.


Perhaps more like a Eurostar set, which has traction motors on the end
vehicles next to the power car.  Nonetheless, I still think a power
car plus "LHCS" solution is going to be a more sensible one in the
long term.


>GNER only operates four services a day north of Edinburgh, so why give
>them any say, and it looks increasingly as if Midland Mainline will be
>mostly Meridians.


GNER would do better to loco-haul Mk4s north of the wires, IMO.  They
have so few diesel services it's not worth maintaining a dedicated
fleet for them, and diesels under the wires should not be encouraged
anyway.  They could hire the locomotives in under contract if they
don't want to maintain themselves.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:43025dfa.2063276@news.tesco.net...

> GNER would do better to loco-haul Mk4s north of the wires, IMO.  They
> have so few diesel services it's not worth maintaining a dedicated
> fleet for them, and diesels under the wires should not be encouraged
> anyway.  They could hire the locomotives in under contract if they
> don't want to maintain themselves.


Agreed. Rather than displacing class 373 with HST/HST2 bringing increased 
use of diesel traction under wires,  GNER should be looking at using 
existing electric locomotives (re-geared for 125mph use?) and re-furbished 
MK3 stock as with ONE until an electric HST2 is ready. This would release 
MK4 sets for far north use. Would Airedale line supplies need beefing up for 
class 87 operation? Class 89 is cleared. H'gate and Hull would not need a 
GTi loco to plug the gaps

David

On 16 Aug 2005 14:41:36 -0700, allan tracy wrote:

> Well as I understand it, HSTs have never been cleared for 125mph
> anywhere on the Midland route and this is mostly down to curvature.

I don't know the MML well enough to know if this is the reason.


> For the semi-fasts, tilt probably wouldn't make much difference

Indeed, but the 222's are mostly on these services. But what's the gain?
The trains spend a long time sitting at the DY/NM as it is. Getting them
there faster isn't too impressive if they just sit there longer.


> Trouble is, this system of balaises seems to make tilting somewhat
> costly. Although, I find it strange that routes that might not need
> balaisification have to be so treated just because there are routes
> elsewhere that do.

Sorry, I didn't understand any of that.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857130.html (37 684/419 Achnasheen)

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:13:52 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley
 wrote this:-


>> Well as I understand it, HSTs have never been cleared for 125mph
>> anywhere on the Midland route and this is mostly down to curvature.
>
>I don't know the MML well enough to know if this is the reason.


It is partly this and partly a cost/benefit calculation by BR dating
from the days of double manning at over 110mph. Given that the cost
of doing any work seems to have trebled since BR single manning at
over 110mph is unlikely to make much of a difference to such
calculations.

IIRC the experimental APT knocked something like 20% off the London
- Leicester journey on its trial run (I can't be bothered to look up
the actual figure). That was in the days of semaphore signalling and
unmodernised track layouts. Since then time has been saved by track
and signalling improvements, but I suspect tilting would still save
an appreciable time over the current shorter schedules.


>> Trouble is, this system of balaises seems to make tilting somewhat
>> costly. Although, I find it strange that routes that might not need
>> balaisification have to be so treated just because there are routes
>> elsewhere that do.
>
>Sorry, I didn't understand any of that.


The APT was built to a narrow profile so that it could tilt anywhere
and still remain within the "loading gauge". There was no tilt
authorisation system for it, though there was a speed supervision
system similar (in logical terms) to the current one. The APT would
tilt when above a certain speed if the train decided to do so. As a
result the overhead luggage racks were small and the walls sloped in
noticeably.

Since then BR/Railtrack/Railtrack in administration/Network Rail
have measured how far structures actually are from the line and how
close passing trains will be. What they discovered is that
structures are generally further away than the minimum clearances
and so are tracks. The upshot of this is that it is possible to
build a tilting train to a larger profile and allow it to tilt
almost everywhere.

However, in a handful of places the train cannot be allowed to tilt
as it would be too close to structures (or other trains, I'm not
sure about this one). I believe (BICBW) that the train would not
actually strike anything if it did tilt, but it would pass the
structure below the minimum allowed clearance. I have a vague
recollection that there are four such locations on (part of) the
WCML.

The elegant solution to all this is to tell the train at intervals
that it may tilt for the next x distance. If, within that distance,
it is told again that it may tilt for y distance then it will
continue to tilt. Otherwise it stops tilting, until told it may tilt
again. The gadgets in the track and on the train would already be
there for speed supervision, so adding tilt control is relatively
easy. The only addition on the train is to detect the tilt signals
and drive a relay (according to a posting on this group which I have
no reason to doubt). This allows a larger profile, for little
additional complexity.

Such systems have to have a safe mode, incase a gadget is damaged or
removed. One way of doing this is to have a maximum distance within
which a train must detect a gadget. In the case of speed supervision
if a gadget is not detected within the maximum distance the display
instructs the driver to observe the non-tilting speed restrictions.
In the case of tilting the train stops tilting. Thus it is not
possible to say to the train, "you may tilt for the next 300km".


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In article <ddv2ob$arv$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
   David Haggas  wrote:

>  Would Airedale line supplies need beefing up for class 87 operation?
> Class 89 is cleared.


The class 89 was cleared only for the line from Leeds to Bradford Forster
Square. The system would need improvement if loco hauled trains were to run
to Skipton.

-- 
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

"allan tracy"  wrote in message 
news:1124226698.761717.117800@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>> >
>> Unfortunately that will mean that the existing FGW spec will go ahead. 
>> This
>> has an unneecesarily large and heavy engine so that the power cars cannot 
>> be
>> motorised. Thus the traction motors will have to be on the coaches.
>
> This is sounding more like a Voyager by the day.
>
> Anyway, surely FGW is the only TOC with a real need for a HST
> replacement.
>
> GNER only operates four services a day north of Edinburgh, so why give
> them any say


But they also run to Hull and Harrogate and use HSTs at weekends for shuttle 
services on non-electrified lines. They need 4 sets for Aberdeen and 2 for 
Inverness plus some for the other services mentioned. They are replacing the 
Eurostars with HSTs rather than Mark 3s and electric locos because they only 
want two different types of train not three,

....... and it looks increasingly as if Midland Mainline will be > mostly 
Meridians.

Even if the 9-car 222s do go to MML, they will effectively only replace the 
Notts fasts with in general the Sheffield services still remaining HST.


> I am willing to bet Midland will never see a HST2, far more likely a
> further build of Meridians. Just a pity the Meridians aren't tilting.


There is no chance of this happening.

So HST2 is needed for all three lines and I suspect that XC will also get 
them for the longer distance through services for which 221s aren't long 
enough.

Peter Fox

>
> However, in a handful of places the train cannot be allowed to tilt
> as it would be too close to structures (or other trains, I'm not
> sure about this one). I believe (BICBW) that the train would not
> actually strike anything if it did tilt, but it would pass the
> structure below the minimum allowed clearance. I have a vague
> recollection that there are four such locations on (part of) the
> WCML.
>


My recollection is that trains would not strike any actual structure
but could, on some curves (in theory at least), collide with another
train for the case of a wrong side tilt failure. This, I assume, would
be one train tilting correctly through a curve, strikes a passing train
that has a coach tilting the wrong way due to a tilt failure.

These sections of curved track are therefore not fitted with balaises
so that no trains ever tilt.

What I do not quite understand, is how this prevents two passing trains
one with wrong side tilt failure and the other with a right side tilt
failure from colliding. Wouldn't coaches stuck in the tilt position be
somewhat immune to balaise authorisation?

Presumably, there is some sort of fail safe mechanism that ensures the
coach always returns to the upright after detection of tilt failure?

If, as you say, only four sections of WCML are affected by this, it
does seem a shame that the rest of the network has to be so blighted.
Ssurely most other main lines offer better clearances than the West
Coast.

>
> But they also run to Hull and Harrogate and use HSTs at weekends for shuttle
> services on non-electrified lines. They need 4 sets for Aberdeen and 2 for
> Inverness plus some for the other services mentioned. They are replacing the
> Eurostars with HSTs rather than Mark 3s and electric locos because they only
> want two different types of train not three,


But Hull and Harrogate could be handed over to Hull Trains.

Why not replace HSTs with a new build of Pendilinos and drag electric
trains north of Edinburgh.

In any case, I would be interested to know just how many from the Far
North actually travel through as far as London. My guess, is that most
London bound passengers fly. Maybe VXC would better provide for the Far
North, they could offer a much wider choice of English destinations
direct.


>
> ...... and it looks increasingly as if Midland Mainline will be > mostly
> Meridians.
>
> Even if the 9-car 222s do go to MML, they will effectively only replace the
> Notts fasts with in general the Sheffield services still remaining HST.
>
> > I am willing to bet Midland will never see a HST2, far more likely a
> > further build of Meridians. Just a pity the Meridians aren't tilting.
>
> There is no chance of this happening.
>
> So HST2 is needed for all three lines and I suspect that XC will also get
> them for the longer distance through services for which 221s aren't long
> enough.
>


Well, VXC couldn't get hold of the 9-car Meridians, even when no one
else wanted them, so what chance new HSTs. Given the current attitude
of the SRA/DOT, they would be lucky to get some used Pacers.

"allan tracy"  wrote in message
news:1124299902.632356.171100@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> >
> > But they also run to Hull and Harrogate and use HSTs at weekends for
shuttle
> > services on non-electrified lines. They need 4 sets for Aberdeen and 2
for
> > Inverness plus some for the other services mentioned. They are replacing
the
> > Eurostars with HSTs rather than Mark 3s and electric locos because they
only
> > want two different types of train not three,
>
> Why not replace HSTs with a new build of Pendilinos and drag electric
> trains north of Edinburgh.
>

By the time HST2 is available for the ECML (10 years from now), the Mk4 sets
will be around 25 years old, and 10 years since Mallardisation. At that
point I suspect that a good case could be made for equipping the ECML with a
single new fleet of electric trains, cascading the Mk4 sets to the East
Anglia Main line, Fragonset, etc, and dragging the ECML electric trains
where they continue to run beyond the wires.

Peter

On 17 Aug 2005 10:31:42 -0700 someone who may be "allan tracy"
 wrote this:-


>Maybe VXC would better provide for the Far
>North, they could offer a much wider choice of English destinations
>direct.


What do you mean by "the Far North"?


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

> 
> What do you mean by "the Far North"?
> 


Sheffield

"allan tracy"  wrote in message 
news:1124303785.347179.132040@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>>
>> What do you mean by "the Far North"?
>>
>
> Sheffield
>

Watford. :)

>>David Hansen wrote:
>>> What do you mean by "the Far North"?

>allan tracy:
>> Sheffield

4sub:
>Watford. :) 


Ilfracombe :-

-- 
Neil Sunderland
Braunton, Devon

Please observe the Reply-To address

On 17 Aug 2005 10:31:42 -0700, "allan tracy"
 wrote:



>
>In any case, I would be interested to know just how many from the Far
>North actually travel through as far as London. My guess, is that most
>London bound passengers fly. 


As a regular user of the Highland Chieftain - it isn't my guess but my
experince that many people stay on the trian when it reaches Edinburgh
- both up and down.

Flying isn't so easy unless you are close to Edinburgh or Inverness.
For many destinations - especially now with increased security and
associated delays at airports - I have recorded journy times of only
about an hour longer by train with the greatly enhanced ambiece of the
train - plus restaurant car / buffet car and ability to work and read.

>Maybe VXC would better provide for the Far
>North, they could offer a much wider choice of English destinations
>direct.


As an addition it would be good to see "The Clansman" reappear to
serve the WCML from Inverness - but many people want direct services
to Newcastle, York, Peterborough.


And I like many do NOT certainly want Pendilinos - they have much
worse ambience than an HST.

Malcolm

-- 

Malcolm

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, 4sub wrote:


> "allan tracy"  wrote in message 
> news:1124303785.347179.132040@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> What do you mean by "the Far North"?
> >
> > Sheffield
> >
> Watford. :) 


Not even Watford Gap?

David Hansen wrote:


> allan tracy wrote:
> 
>> Maybe VXC would better provide for the Far North, they could offer a 
>> much wider choice of English destinations direct.
> 
> What do you mean by "the Far North"?


The usual meaning in this context is the lines north of Edinburgh and
Glasgow - ie, the non-electrified GNER routes in Scotland.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

"Stevie D"  wrote in message 
news:d247g1959sksg7k3lj6mf3p8u35vqkhphu@4ax.com...

> David Hansen wrote:
>
>> allan tracy wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe VXC would better provide for the Far North, they could offer a
>>> much wider choice of English destinations direct.
>>
>> What do you mean by "the Far North"?
>
> The usual meaning in this context is the lines north of Edinburgh and
> Glasgow - ie, the non-electrified GNER routes in Scotland.
>

The Far North is generally the term applied to the lines between Inverness & 
Wick/Thurso.

Peter Fox

"Peter Fox"  wrote

> >
> The Far North is generally the term applied to the lines between Inverness
&
> Wick/Thurso.
>

Otherwise known as 'Further North'. The Further North Express ran
intermittently between 1906 and 1933, taking about 5 hours between Inverness
and Wick.

Peter

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:31:23 +0100 someone who may be Stevie D
 wrote this:-


>> What do you mean by "the Far North"?
>
>The usual meaning in this context is the lines north of Edinburgh and
>Glasgow - ie, the non-electrified GNER routes in Scotland.


In my context "the Far North" means the line between Inverness and
Wick/Thurso. Your context may be different, but I have never heard
the term applied to any line south of Inverness.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen wrote:


> In my context "the Far North" means the line between Inverness and
> Wick/Thurso. Your context may be different, but I have never heard
> the term applied to any line south of Inverness.


OK, my mistake. I've always referred to that as the Far North, but
evidently not when you were in earshot ;-)

I inferred that those were the lines being discussed because the issue
was what to do with GNER's diesel services, which run to (but not
beyond) Aberdeen and Inverness.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________