can 365s be converted to work at 110 mph?

[pethadine82]

I remember watching a video of the cab of a 365 and there was 120mph on the speedometer with max 100mph displayed.

forget signalling etc, is it possible with some hardware / software upgrade to run a 365 at 110mph?
They managed to do it with class 350s

 

[starrymarkb]

I remember watching a video of the cab of a 365 and there was 120mph on the speedometer with max 100mph displayed.

forget signalling etc, is it possible with some hardware / software upgrade to run a 365 at 110mph?
They managed to do it with class 350s

They'll have done it in testing. All stock is tested at Vmax+10%. However would a 365 be good and stable at 121mph? (to get 110mph certification)

 

[transmanche]

A 350 has a higher power output than a 365: 1,500 kW vs 1,250 kW. (Although the 350s are heavier.) I presume that has an effect.

 

[D365]

Speedometers often can display a higher speed than the vehicle can manage, e.g. my Audi A4 B5 speedo goes to 160mph even though it can only make about 140mph.

I don't think upgrading the 365s would be worth it; 350/1s are younger, better performing and stronger. 365s are due for a mid-life refurbishment starting in the new year, with possible new traction equipment, but that probably won't help any case for a 110mph upgrade. 1/3 of the leading carriage must be locked out (350s are exempt from this ruling, but on 365s that would just be the little-used first class section?), and stress on the body would be higher than at 100mph.

I hope an expert can make better sense of, or correct, what I have said!

 

[MCR247]

To be fair, they didn't really 'do it with 350s' as there wasn't really any conversion necessary was there?

 

[Class377/5]

To be fair, they didn't really 'do it with 350s' as there wasn't really any conversion necessary was there?

Wasn't there alterations to the motors getting regeared to be ok for 110moh running.

 

[A-driver]

365s are cleared for 110mph running now-they were cleared when the Doncaster extension of the peterbourghs was planned a few years back. However to run about 100 the front first class must be locked out of use. We are still limited to 100 in them due to running times aswell as the maintenance costs etc but they are quite capable of 110 at the moment with no modifications.

Also, most units have a speedo up to 120mph - 317,377,321,455,456 do aswell and they are limited to 100&75.

 

[swt_passenger]

Wasn't there alterations to the motors getting regeared to be ok for 110moh running.

There was no 're-gearing' involved as such - they had to modify part of the rotors to allow for the higher rotational forces involved, it is mentioned in the track access agreement.

In basic terms, an AC motor runs at a speed proportional to frequency applied, so to make the train go faster they only have to increase the output frequency of the traction converter.

 

[Class377/5]

There was no 're-gearing' involved as such - they had to modify part of the rotors to allow for the higher rotational forces involved, it is mentioned in the track access agreement.

In basic terms, an AC motor runs at a speed proportional to frequency applied, so to make the train go faster they only have to increase the output frequency of the traction converter.

Ah thanks. I knew there was a hardware change but wasn't quite sure what.

 

[Jonny]

365s are cleared for 110mph running now-they were cleared when the Doncaster extension of the peterbourghs was planned a few years back. However to run about 100 the front first class must be locked out of use. We are still limited to 100 in them due to running times aswell as the maintenance costs etc but they are quite capable of 110 at the moment with no modifications.

Also, most units have a speedo up to 120mph - 317,377,321,455,456 do aswell and they are limited to 100&75.

Is this part of the fallout from the Polmont crash?

 

[A-driver]

Is this part of the fallout from the Polmont crash?

I don't know what the polmont crash is but its for crash worthiness, although to be honest there will be very little difference between a head on collision at 70mph and 110mph.

 

[NSEFAN]

I don't know what the polmont crash is but its for crash worthiness, although to be honest there will be very little difference between a head on collision at 70mph and 110mph.

In terms of kinetic energy, a train travelling at 110mph will have over twice the amount of energy that the 70mph has. Between 100 and 110, the energy involved goes up by about 20%.

I can see why there would be safety concerns about a speed increase, but realistically what are the chances of a high-speed head-on collision these days? (Given almost every junction has overlap and is protected by TPWS.)

 

[A-driver]

In terms of kinetic energy, a train travelling at 110mph will have over twice the amount of energy that the 70mph has. Between 100 and 110, the energy involved goes up by about 20%.

I can see why there would be safety concerns about a speed increase, but realistically what are the chances of a high-speed head-on collision these days? (Given almost every junction has overlap and is protected by TPWS.)

Head on collision with another train is unlikely. But what happens if someone parks a lorry over a level crossing? Or if a train derails like in potters bar or Hatfield or great heck and blocks the adjacent lines on which another train is approaching?

 

[Nym]

In terms of kinetic energy, a train travelling at 110mph will have over twice the amount of energy that the 70mph has. Between 100 and 110, the energy involved goes up by about 20%.

I can see why there would be safety concerns about a speed increase, but realistically what are the chances of a high-speed head-on collision these days? (Given almost every junction has overlap and is protected by TPWS.)

So what about wrong side failures that won't activate the TWPS?

 

[NSEFAN]

Head on collision with another train is unlikely. But what happens if someone parks a lorry over a level crossing? Or if a train derails like in potters bar or Hatfield or great heck and blocks the adjacent lines on which another train is approaching?

So what about wrong side failures that won't activate the TWPS?

Again, what are the chances of these events occuring?

 

[Nym]

Again, what are the chances of these events occuring?

Well, if Bill and Bob are in a hurry, they're changing a light in an IMR, and don't protect the track circuit relays, they drop a metallic tool and there we are, wrong side failure...

Also...

Clapham Junction?

 

[NSEFAN]

Well, if Bill and Bob are in a hurry, they're changing a light in an IMR, and don't protect the track circuit relays, they drop a metallic tool and there we are, wrong side failure...

Also...

Clapham Junction?

Haven't extra precautions been taken since Clapham Junction to prevent a wrong-side failure from occuring? How many similar accidents have there been since then?

 

[A-driver]

Saying what are the chances of it happening don't make it impossible. If it does, whatever the chances, then the railway will be crucified if precautions havnt been taken. You can't stand up in court or turn round to the victims families and say 'to be honest we didn't take precautions because the chances of it happening seemed pretty slim'.

Everything on the railway is done to the worst case scenario.

 

[NSEFAN]

Saying what are the chances of it happening don't make it impossible. If it does, whatever the chances, then the railway will be crucified if precautions havnt been taken. You can't stand up in court or turn round to the victims families and say 'to be honest we didn't take precautions because the chances of it happening seemed pretty slim'.

Everything on the railway is done to the worst case scenario.

Fair enough. I suppose that mentality is why the railways are so safe in this country.

I still feel that there must be a point where you have to stop taking precautions for increasingly unlikely risks, otherwise we wouldn't be running trains at all.

 

[Nym]

Haven't extra precautions been taken since Clapham Junction to prevent a wrong-side failure from occuring? How many similar accidents have there been since then?

Only by means of additional training and staff requirements, no new physical systems.

And its only a matter of time before its allowed to happen again, probably not in the same failure mode, but wrong side failures will happen...

 

[A-driver]

Only by means of additional training and staff requirements, no new physical systems.

And its only a matter of time before its allowed to happen again, probably not in the same failure mode, but wrong side failures will happen...

Sadly it seems its cheaper to pay compensation to victims every few years than to actually properly maintain the railway. After Hatfield things vastly improved but slowly they are declining again due to cost cutting. There will be another big crash due to poor maintenance then things will improve again.

 

[Nym]

Sadly it seems its cheaper to pay compensation to victims every few years than to actually properly maintain the railway. After Hatfield things vastly improved but slowly they are declining again due to cost cutting. There will be another big crash due to poor maintenance then things will improve again.

Sadly this does appear to be the case in some circumstances.

All I can really do about it in my position is make sure that my work is done correctly and report anything I see that is not right. I'm not currently certified to work on signalling equipment (by the IRSE) but rest assured that when/if I am I'd be making sure everything is being carried out properly...

However, the potential lack of maintenance and cost cutting does NOT mean that one can turn round and make stock less safe than it is, if you want better paths for the GN fasts, get them new, 125mph stock, theres going to be no shortage of demand for stock like the Class 365s when the GW is electrified...

 

[millemille]

cl365's aren't cleared for 110mph running - bogie fatigue concerns, for one, prevent it and if 110mph were allowed (irrespective of whether the units are physically capable of it) it would mean that nearly all power bogie frames would require replacement before the fleet's expected life expiry of 35 years.

Balancing speed for a cl365 at 24Kv line voltage, running tare, half size wheels and on level track is just short 110mph. Start introducing rising gradient or passenger loading or smaller wheels and the balancing speed drops even lower.

With larger wheels Vmax is limited by inverter switching frequency.

So, to answer the OP's question, to physically allow 110mph running the 365 fleet would, at the very least, require re-gearing - which impact negatively upon acceleration rate - and new power bogie frames.

 

[A-driver]

Sadly this does appear to be the case in some circumstances.

All I can really do about it in my position is make sure that my work is done correctly and report anything I see that is not right. I'm not currently certified to work on signalling equipment (by the IRSE) but rest assured that when/if I am I'd be making sure everything is being carried out properly...

However, the potential lack of maintenance and cost cutting does NOT mean that one can turn round and make stock less safe than it is, if you want better paths for the GN fasts, get them new, 125mph stock, theres going to be no shortage of demand for stock like the Class 365s when the GW is electrified...

I'm not convinced 125mph stock is needed though. Apart from the odd fast peterbourgh the majority of fast line FCC trains don't run in 125mph track - getting turned in at woolmer green or if going to Cambridge you re looking at very little 125running between accelerating at robbery lane and braking at wymondly.

With the current east coast stock it is often forgotten by signallers at peterbourgh that we can easily out accelerate them in 365s and even 317/321s. It is really frustrating to be held at peterbourgh for a late running east coast to follow it on yellows as it crawls up to speed when we could leave the station and be doing 100 by Yaxley meaning we don't delay the late running east coast-we will be half way across the fens by the time the they get to Felton and into Huntingdon before they get to the signals at stookley bank meaning we are very unlikely to hold them up despite the lower top speed.

 

[A-driver]

cl365's aren't cleared for 110mph running - bogie fatigue concerns, for one, prevent it and if 110mph were allowed (irrespective of whether the units are physically capable of it) it would mean that nearly all power bogie frames would require replacement before the fleet's expected life expiry of 35 years.

Balancing speed for a cl365 at 24Kv line voltage, running tare, half size wheels and on level track is just short 110mph. Start introducing rising gradient or passenger loading or smaller wheels and the balancing speed drops even lower.

With larger wheels Vmax is limited by inverter switching frequency.

So, to answer the OP's question, to physically allow 110mph running the 365 fleet would, at the very least, require re-gearing - which impact negatively upon acceleration rate - and new power bogie frames.

That's not what we are told when we sign the traction-they have been tested for 110 and cleared for it as they are now and have often run at 110 on trials trips from Hornsey after repairs etc.

 

[D365]

That's not what we are told when we sign the traction-they have been tested for 110 and cleared for it as they are now and have often run at 110 on trials trips from Hornsey after repairs etc.

I don't think it would be so good for 365s to run in service at 110mph, without enhancements?

 

[ainsworth74]

Again, what are the chances of these events occuring?

Well the big two are probably Great Heck and Ufton Nervet. But we've had various level crossing collisions that haven't been as dramatic (but of course are in their own way) such as Sudbury with a 156 crashing into a tanker, three collisions in Wales involving 175s with vehicles on level crossings (including one at 75mph), at Finningley just a week or so ago with a 153 crashing into a car.

I believe road vehicles and trains is one of the most common collisions (I could keep going with my list) on the network so this is something you very much have to account for.

 

[Goatboy]

Everything on the railway is done to the worst case scenario.

No, it's not - otherwise we wouldnt have 100mph+ trains at all. It is done in accordance with detailed risk assessments. This is not the same thing as saying its all 'worst case scenario' at all.

 

[A-driver]

No, it's not - otherwise we wouldnt have 100mph+ trains at all. It is done in accordance with detailed risk assessments. This is not the same thing as saying its all 'worst case scenario' at all.

Well the risk assessment is there for a worst case scenario. My point is that they don't look at something and say 'its very unlikely to happen so we will leave it'.

 

[Goatboy]

My point is that they don't look at something and say 'its very unlikely to happen so we will leave it'.

They absolutely will look at some things and say just that. Thats the point in risk assessment. If everything is worst case then no risk assessment is needed as everything would be treated with the same level of risk. Judging severity against probability is a key part of risk assessment and is used to derive an issues 'score'.

Worst case scenario of a pacer on a mainline is a serious accident involving it being hit whilst stationary and full. However pacers are not, as a result, banned from mainlines. Why? Because the risk assessment has shown that whilst the consequences are very bad, the probability of it occuring is sufficiently low.