• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Trivia: Rolling stock which isn’t really compatible for a route it operates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Llama

Established Member
Joined
29 Apr 2014
Messages
1,959
But 769s are of a similar layout and can take significant advantage of the electric times between Mcr and Bolton.
769s are no quicker than a 150/156 unit up the hill from Manchester to Bolton and also can't do MU differential speeds. Although that fact seems to need reiterating to some of the knuckle-draggers among drivers.

In the up direction where the gradient is kinder, so are the timings. Leaving Bolton, getting to 55mph and coasting all the way to nearly Windsor Bridge North Jn takes 11 minutes (and might save a few people's spines if you're on a CAF unit).
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
6,199
769s are no quicker than a 150/156 unit up the hill from Manchester to Bolton and also can't do MU differential speeds. Although that fact seems to need reiterating to some of the knuckle-draggers among drivers.
What the heck has Northern done to them? There is no way that a DMU should be able to keep up with a 319 or a 769 on electric. I actually had my first good run on an 319 from Manchester to Crewe a few weeks ago. Full power from a stand; four late off Piccadilly, two early into Crewe. Much better than the usual slow runs. Clearly a driver on a mission.
 

Llama

Established Member
Joined
29 Apr 2014
Messages
1,959
Driver will be in for tea & biscuits if caught going straight to notch 4 from a stand, whether that's technically acceptable or not. Good job 319s aren't really powerful enough to cause many rail burns.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,406
Some of them end up on Poole stoppers (which is a 3 hour journey)
Who catches the Poole stopper all the way? A 450 is absolutely the right unit for a local service such as this. It is just a load of stopping services strung together for operational convenience, just like the Bournemouth slow was when the first 4-Veps were built.
 

satisnek

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2014
Messages
1,097
Location
Kidderminster/Mercia Marina
Yes, the transmissions probably did / do need changing so that the early acceleration continues up the speed curve. 90mph would have been a better speed cut off I immagine. Not sure the ex works are quicker, the boxes at London Midland where modified to reduce herbs etc when first received. Except Chilton /1's when one or working together are quicker as this is observed on the speedo leaving Cradley.
Sorry? :s
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
6,199
Driver will be in for tea & biscuits if caught going straight to notch 4 from a stand, whether that's technically acceptable or not. Good job 319s aren't really powerful enough to cause many rail burns.
Simple question. Why? What is the down side? Tube trains do it. Plenty of trains do it in other countries.
 

DorkingMain

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2020
Messages
692
Location
London, UK
Who catches the Poole stopper all the way? A 450 is absolutely the right unit for a local service such as this. It is just a load of stopping services strung together for operational convenience, just like the Bournemouth slow was when the first 4-Veps were built.
When it ran through to Waterloo, plenty of people used it through to the south coast, as it offered cheaper advance fares.
 

Mat17

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2019
Messages
962
Location
Barnsley
I was surprised Voyagers weren't higher up the list, 4 carriages replacing 7 carriage trains that were often well loaded. I've never got over the horror of realising the Voyagers were actually staying as only 4 or 5 carriages. Not suited to long distance capacity wise.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,406
When it ran through to Waterloo, plenty of people used it through to the south coast, as it offered cheaper advance fares.
Right, but the fact that a few people are happy to travel long distances on a stopping train doesn't mean it ought to have 444s operating it.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
7,448
I was surprised Voyagers weren't higher up the list, 4 carriages replacing 7 carriage trains that were often well loaded. I've never got over the horror of realising the Voyagers were actually staying as only 4 or 5 carriages. Not suited to long distance capacity wise.
In general twice the frequency though....
 

Llama

Established Member
Joined
29 Apr 2014
Messages
1,959
Simple question. Why? What is the down side? Tube trains do it. Plenty of trains do it in other countries.
Simple answer - we were told in a notice posted not long after the 319s entered service on the Chat Moss routes that there were excessive traction motor flashovers occurring, that any 319 suffering a TM flashover would have the OTMR downloaded and any drivers found to be driving them straight to notch 3/4 would be subject to possible disciplinary procedures.

People on this forum probably remember the introduction of the 319s not being smooth and there being a big shortage of serviceable traction motors in 2015/16.

Whether that notice posted was 'technically' right or wrong I don't know, maybe all the TM flashovers and power earth faults were coincidental. But the notice said what it said, and word soon got round of people getting their collars felt for opening them up too quickly.

A chap from GEC I've spoken to who knows the technical gubbins of the power circuits on 319s extremely well said while they 'should be able' to handle notch 4 from the off, he had indeed heard that the full 600 amps from a standing start could knacker the motors on 319s. That's good enough for me.
 

Metal_gee_man

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2017
Messages
674
165s and 166s on Portsmouth - Cardiff. It’s been done to death so I won’t go into too much detail but 3+2 seating on a 150+ mile journey is unacceptable.
There's always a way to fix that...sit in the declassified 1st class on that route.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
4,199
769s are no quicker than a 150/156 unit up the hill from Manchester to Bolton and also can't do MU differential speeds. Although that fact seems to need reiterating to some of the knuckle-draggers among drivers.

In the up direction where the gradient is kinder, so are the timings. Leaving Bolton, getting to 55mph and coasting all the way to nearly Windsor Bridge North Jn takes 11 minutes (and might save a few people's spines if you're on a CAF unit).
How come they can't take advantage of MU speeds? Does the combination of traction motors and diesel engines make it too heavy? Why can it only hit 55, are the brakes not good enough, I thought there was a 100mph section between Bolton and Mcr Vic/Deansgate?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

They were delivered in mint condition and they wanted to break them in a bit! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,531
Location
Plymouth
In general twice the frequency though....
Whilst true, anecdotally the overcrowding on 4 and 5 car sets was pretty bad alot of the time. Has improved since the service was doubled up to 9 car trains albeit less often. Very rare to need to stand now (except when a 4 car pulls in).
 

Mat17

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2019
Messages
962
Location
Barnsley
In general twice the frequency though....
Not great if everyone turns up for the same one though!

To be honest I think it's better to have fewer, longer trains = less congestion on the network, easier to keep on time, as I think the covid emergency timetable illustrated.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
22,876
Location
West of Andover
There's always a way to fix that...sit in the declassified 1st class on that route.
Only when it isn't locked out of use for that one member of staff to travel between Trowbridge & Westbury ;)

(Something which on the 158s they just have a couple seats at one end marked as out of use)
 

Llama

Established Member
Joined
29 Apr 2014
Messages
1,959
How come they can't take advantage of MU speeds? Does the combination of traction motors and diesel engines make it too heavy? Why can it only hit 55, are the brakes not good enough, I thought there was a 100mph section between Bolton and Mcr Vic/Deansgate?
They are not permitted to do MU/DMU/EMU speeds. Yes most likely the extra weight means they have a larger 'kinematic envelope' than 319s do so they effectively could sway more on the suspension especially if crush-loaded. It is unlikely to be solely due to the weight as the PMS vehicle on 319/769s is still 15 tonnes heavier than the driving cars on 769s (and the PMS car was designed from new with different bogies and more robust suspension). The PMS car on 319s and 769s have no major changes other than some electronic diagnostic kit and a DC return earth bus line on 769s.

The maximum permissible speed between Bolton and Manchester is 75/MU95 (more specifically between Moses Gate and Agecroft) so yes trains could go faster but ~55mph is enough to meet the timings if you are running to time as it takes 11 minutes on clear signals. There is no point doing 95mph (especially on trains that ride poorly like CAF units) then hitting cautionary signals as you approach Agecroft because you are running early. There is also a 75mph temporary speed restriction for a few hundred yards between Kearsley and Stoneclough due to the condition of the embankment, that's been in place for 3-4 years since the line speed was increased from 75mph.
 
Last edited:

Astro_Orbiter

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2019
Messages
292
Location
UK
Class 745s on Stansted Express. Impossible to cycle for maintenance at Crown Point without destroying the first class product on the Liverpool St to Norwich service, as has been proved already despite the Stansted service only being half hourly. Would be worse with the full service. Potentially not great for dwell times at Tottenham Hale in the morning peak when services get busier again either.

You're points about the unsuitability of 745 on Stansted Express all seems to relate to a different route lol. If you compare the 745/1 to the 720/5 (unmodified as nothing has been officially confirmed I believe), then actually yes, 745/1 is pretty well suited to the route it was designed for and now operates on. Plenty of luggage space, wide gangways, walkthrough the entire unit etc.
You talk of first class on Norwich trains as some kind of pullman dining experience or the orient express, when its really just a subtle difference of seating arrangement. In any event, if the 745/1 gets moved as planned off Stansted and onto Clacton, I'd argue that would be just as unsuitable a route as you suggest Stansted is, but more so.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
4,199
They are not permitted to do MU/DMU/EMU speeds. Yes most likely the extra weight means they have a larger 'kinematic envelope' than 319s do so they effectively could sway more on the suspension especially if crush-loaded. It is unlikely to be solely due to the weight as the PMS vehicle on 319/769s is still 15 tonnes heavier than the driving cars on 769s (and the PMS car was designed from new with different bogies and more robust suspension). The PMS car on 319s and 769s have no major changes other than some electronic diagnostic kit and a DC return earth bus line on 769s.

The maximum permissible speed between Bolton and Manchester is 75/MU95 (more specifically between Moses Gate and Agecroft) so yes trains could go faster but ~55mph is enough to meet the timings if you are running to time as it takes 11 minutes on clear signals. There is no point doing 95mph (especially on trains that ride poorly like CAF units) then hitting cautionary signals as you approach Agecroft because you are running early. There is also a 75mph temporary speed restriction for a few hundred yards between Kearsley and Stoneclough due to the condition of the embankment, that's been in place for 3-4 years since the line speed was increased from 75mph.
OK, that makes more sense. So it needs resignalling to increase the number of paths before it's worth bothering with higher speeds?
 

Paul Jones 88

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2020
Messages
446
Location
Headcorn
171 on the southern, not good acceleration between short stops, maybe could be cured by re gearing the units to make it something like a modern Class 125 DMU which went like a rocket between stops on the West Anglia Main Line before electrification.
 

Llama

Established Member
Joined
29 Apr 2014
Messages
1,959
OK, that makes more sense. So it needs resignalling to increase the number of paths before it's worth bothering with higher speeds?
Not necessarily, there is a huge risk of congestion around Salford Crescent so I would assume there is performance time added into the WTT. It's noticeable that trains tend to be timed more generously coming from Bolton towards Manchester than the other way where the timings can even be a bit too tight.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
4,199
Not necessarily, there is a huge risk of congestion around Salford Crescent so I would assume there is performance time added into the WTT. It's noticeable that trains tend to be timed more generously coming from Bolton towards Manchester than the other way where the timings can even be a bit too tight.
A tram-train tunnel taking most Atherton line/Warrington Central trains off the national network would help here I suspect, but that's a long way off.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
6,199
Simple answer - we were told in a notice posted not long after the 319s entered service on the Chat Moss routes that there were excessive traction motor flashovers occurring, that any 319 suffering a TM flashover would have the OTMR downloaded and any drivers found to be driving them straight to notch 3/4 would be subject to possible disciplinary procedures.

People on this forum probably remember the introduction of the 319s not being smooth and there being a big shortage of serviceable traction motors in 2015/16.

Whether that notice posted was 'technically' right or wrong I don't know, maybe all the TM flashovers and power earth faults were coincidental. But the notice said what it said, and word soon got round of people getting their collars felt for opening them up too quickly.

A chap from GEC I've spoken to who knows the technical gubbins of the power circuits on 319s extremely well said while they 'should be able' to handle notch 4 from the off, he had indeed heard that the full 600 amps from a standing start could knacker the motors on 319s. That's good enough for me.
Fair enough. I think the class 317s have the same motors and, in my experience, they often get hammered on the Cambridge line. Unlike the GEML which has a fair bit of slack, one can't hang about on the West Anglia line if you want to keep time.

Incidentally, in response to one of your earlier posts I worked out the power to weight ratios and they are closer than I thought.
Class 156 8 hp/ton.
Class 319 9.5 hp/ton.
Class 769 8.8 hp/ton (assuming they are 10 tons heavier).
 
Last edited:

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,714
Various 170s on routes that are too stop-start for their relatively more inter-regional nature after replacing sprinters. EMR and Northern spring to mind.

On the Chase Line before it was electrified 170s were regularly used after they replaced the 150s which to me was a mistake. The 150s had 3x2 seating which made more sense as the line can get quite busy and 150s are better suited for suburban services.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,457
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
On 1 - they seem to gave acquitted themselves quite well over the last 30+ years.

Yes they have, however this doesn’t mean there haven’t been issues. Rail in the loop lasting only a few years being one such issue, excessive wheel wear on the units being another, the latter contributing to shortages at times.

To be fair, it seems the underlying cause is more to do with the design of the loop rather than the units themselves. However it does seem there was either a lack of collaboration in the planning stage, or else the subsequent issues were unforeseen.
 

A0

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,751
Yes they have, however this doesn’t mean there haven’t been issues. Rail in the loop lasting only a few years being one such issue, excessive wheel wear on the units being another, the latter contributing to shortages at times.

To be fair, it seems the underlying cause is more to do with the design of the loop rather than the units themselves. However it does seem there was either a lack of collaboration in the planning stage, or else the subsequent issues were unforeseen.

Well, the loop was planned more than 50 years ago - I suspect hindsight is wonderful in this case. The 503s did less than 10 years on the loop, so its not really possible to say whether the 507/8s have performed worse in this respect than the 503s would have done.
 

wessextrains

Member
Joined
29 Oct 2021
Messages
10
Location
Weymouth
I think the 156s and 158s are very unsuitable for the, Fort William, Kyle Of Lochalsh, Mallaig, Oban, Thurso, Wick, services. It is a joke that such stock is used on what are some of the most scenic train routes in the country. I think the 170s and 185s would be perfect for these lines.

Also the 153s are a very poor choice for the Heart Of Wales line services. Again this line really needs some higher quality stock like the 170s and 185s as it is a very scenic line.

I would also say that the 345s are very unsuitable for the Crossrail services. The class 700s are what should have been ordered. They are similarly high capacity with very wide spacious aisles but instead they have normal (not longitudal) seating and are a much better design and far more pleasant to travel on.

Finally the 158s and 159s on the Salisbury to Romsey stoppers are not very suitable. SWT used to have 170s which were perfect for this work but the stupidly got rid of them.
 

td97

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2017
Messages
1,563
150s on the Clitheroe-Rochdale services. 75mph DMUs on a section now used by 100mph EMUs. Up until last year there were 158s but alas no more…
150’s are perfect for the Clitheroe Rochdale services. It’s only between agecroft and burnden that’s it’s 100mph and it’s only in one direction.
The metro style door layout means passengers can load and unload quickly.
The Bolton Manchester corridor is intensively used and the performance of these 150s is presently a limiting factor.

The Rochdales are regularly a few minutes late departing Bolton for Salford and hold up the Airport/Hazel Grove EMUs (timed to depart Bolton 5 minutes behind).

The electrification and journey time scheme from a few years ago is currently partially wasted with 100mph EMUs crawling past yellow signals all the way into Manchester.

The timetable from December sees the Clitheroe to Rochdale arrive at Bolton 2 minutes earlier with a 3 minute dwell (instead of the current 1 minute) so Network Rail are aware 75mph DMUs pose a performance issue here.

There is also a 75mph temporary speed restriction for a few hundred yards between Kearsley and Stoneclough due to the condition of the embankment, that's been in place for 3-4 years since the line speed was increased from 75mph.
The compound there has recently experienced a flurry of activity and materials delivery
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top