failure to reach 125mph confusion yesterday....

[RichW1]

Hi All, ok yesterday I travelled from Bristol TM to Padds and whilst I know the line isn't 125mph capable nearly to the junction just west of Swindon the rest of the journey confused me. I was looking at the VOLO screens and you have a map and it shows the speed you're doing at any one time. NOT ONCE did we hit 125mph it went, 98 - 108 for a fair bit, then we topped 118 and one point and then a final 120mph east of Reading for about a minute at most. But let me make this clear - it was 98 - 108mph for 95% of the journey)

We were on-time obviously because of padding and there was nothing stopping the 'usual' speed being achieved. Are drivers now taught to coast at lower than maximum when there's padding? What's the point in 125mph trains if you don't use it? I always thought 125mph is very standard and quite modest really yet still 98-110 was used mostly on that trip

The strange thing was, coming back I had no screen to look at, but from Paddington to Reading it felt like someone had sent a rocket up the ass of the train (I think it was because I was tired or didn't expect anything except a stroll from the driver) because it felt like we were going like hell - more like 135mph (although I know that's impossible before anyone starts there!) so it was just that it was doing 125mph and I was shattered so felt a lot quicker in the sunset. We got to Reading the whole 36 track miles in 22 mins and it really felt like the driver was accelerating as fast as possible and then braking hard (but not uncomfortably, just impressively in line with the trains capabilities) So then what happened?....We sat outside reading for 6-7 mins and the annoucement came on that 'we weren't due in yet' - there was nothing else in the platforms I'm pretty sure!!!!! This whole system just seems ridiculous. Put padding in and make the trains run a lot slower than they're capable of and the result....slower journey times that are totally un-necessary. I despair I really do! The HST's are capable of more and so is that Sunday service - I'm just wondering how often this is practice on weekdays? Any drivers know? So for all I know I haven't been at 125mph for a while because the trains don't even do it!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The speed limits are not a target, they're a maximum.

I know there are some areas of the GWML where drivers are encouraged not to do linespeed, to avoid heavy braking in areas.

 

[sprinterguy]

The speed limits are not a target, they're a maximum.

I know there are some areas of the GWML where drivers are encouraged not to do linespeed, to avoid heavy braking in areas.

A far cry from the Western Region of old; where schedules were sometimes rounded down from fractions of a minute to keep drivers on their toes!

Apparently since the 128mph limiters were put on the HSTs, there are much fewer of them attaining and sustaining 125 on the London end of the GWML than was the case in the past. And the timetable padding that allows trains running some minutes late to make up time without exceeding line speed means that trains running on time can be driven more conservatively or else potentially face being held outside of the next station awaiting a platform through running “early”.

 

[HST Power]

When I first saw this thread, I just saw the 'failure to reach 125mph' part and thought you were talking about driving!

Then again, that's just my F1 obsessed mind.

 

[RichW1]

The speed limits are not a target, they're a maximum.

I know there are some areas of the GWML where drivers are encouraged not to do linespeed, to avoid heavy braking in areas.

If that is gospel then how very very sad for the IC timetables of the railway. 125mph isn't asking a lot when we all know how they used to run! Also considering the 135mph attained in times of railwaymen in charge it's such a step backwards. So hey HST Power I feel your pain!!! ; )

 

[Zoe]

I know the line isn't 125mph capable nearly to the junction just west of Swindon

125 mph starts east of Middle Hill Tunnel.

 

[slick]

Are drivers now taught to coast at lower than maximum when there's padding?

Wouldnt say tought, but at my company you are encouraged to use your knowledge of the timings. For example, On a London - Stansted diagram there is quite a bit of time built into the timetable. Between tottenham hale and say bishops stortford if "I ride" the speed limit ie 70-90mph varying, with no delays, no checkdowns for diverging trains, or CCTV barriers etc, I can arrive at Bishops stortford up to 6mins early, somewhere averaging 75mph along the route is much more sensible, as ill only have to wait later on. Running late yes, but ontime on such a lienient diagram has no benifit. It also tells you on the schedule card how much time you have built in between points.

Its also worth considering that on some routes timings are very closely intertwined with others. Why am I running at linespeed towards a junction where 4 mins are built in, when I know another service is booked ahead of me? If you get my jist. This could be a reason for the slower running, or you never know, the train in question could have just been underperforming. I could get in one train and it will get up to 80mph comfortably, get another and struggle up to 80 with no motors cut out on either, who knows whats going on 'under the bonet' so to speak. Hope this helps you with your question

 

[Zoe]

Does the VOLO speed display show your true speed or a speed calculated from GPS?

 

[philjo]

I think that the Sunday timetable generally has more padding to allow for engineering works, so if a train has to use the slow lines to Reading etc there won't be much affect on the service running.
I recall travelling from Paddington to Newport on a sunday last year that we waited a few minutes for departure time at Reading, Swindon & Bristol Parkway because were were early at each station.
So not much point running faster (& using more fuel doing so) if you have to wait longer at the next station anyway.

 

[RichW1]

I'm pretty sure the speed's from GPS Zo, which I know can have a margin of error but not as wide as that which i saw the other day. 125mph timetables are imho....dead. They're 110 - 115mph timetables for the most part I believe after seeing what's been written here.

Slick......you've just confirmed what i thought may be the case...I feel deeply sad at the lack of speed TOC's seem to want...not a lot. With that in mind it seems pretty certain that no TOC will invest in anything that increases linespeed from 125mph which they ill use anyway for IC services. So, if ETCS requires money from TOC's I can't see them being forthcoming without 25year franchises or thereabouts.

I don't know, everything's just so crap when HST's are regularly going from station to station beating the timetable day in day out or going slower so they 'fit' with the slower timetable, in which case HST's are a waste of capability that isn't even that great anymore in this new world but yet is still unused. Real lack of vision. Correct me if I'm wrong but even if you don't move forward in 30years, surely you should keep to the same standard of speed and not move backwards!!!! Oh dear. My love of the railways slides with every passing day; boy do I hate the fact they're a 'business' and that comes from a guy who thinks markets are the way forward (in most cases).

 

[RPI]

Sunday trains on the GWML are timed to run on the slow lines incase of eng works and I saw a briefing recently instructing drivers to drive at 100, particularly on the down as to avoid dwelling at Reading for ages.

 

[Oswyntail]

.... What's the point in 125mph trains if you don't use it? ...

It provides the ability to catch up if seriously delayed. As has been said many times, what is important to most customers is predictability, rather than a couple of extra mph. If I know when I am going to arrive in London, I can arrange my day accordingly; if this depends on everything being perfect, than I cannot. This is why padding is a GOOD thing (unless taken to extremes).

 

[The Planner]

Reading to Paddington on a Sunday is based on the 2 track timetable with slow line running times so you will pick up shedloads if you get put on the fasts. Other than that you should be going at linespeed. I will raise this at work tomorrow to see what the score is, I know FGW drivers have a farcical professional driving policy, but it shouldn't be to the point of running at 110mph as they are eating into their own capacity.

 

[seagull]

There's a thing called 'eco-driving' or similar which I understand is used by some TOCs - this makes most use of the already present timetable padding and requires drivers to accelerate less aggressively, brake more lightly, coast as much as possible, and not bother reaching linespeed if you're early or have to stop again soon.
Just another one of those initiatives to try and get the UK reaching its carbon output deadline, and to reduce the amount TOCs spend on diesel / electric.

 

[159220]

Its not just FGW HSTs! I have now several times GPS clocked and looked at an actual speedometer on a Class 444 Waterloo-Weymouth. Just south of Basingstoke there is a speed limit sign clearly showing 100 MPH yet i have never "recorded" a 444 going anything over 95! Usually closer to 90. When compared to doing the same route (Basingstoke to Winchester) on a Voyager it feels you are going much faster than a 444, and you are...times ive managed to get a signal in a voyager, its clocked 99-100 MPH. I started a "personal campagin" of quizzing the Guard everytime when on a 444 to why we are going slow. Eventually one cracked and said there is no need to reach linespeed as so much time is worked into the non passanger timetable, what he refered to a working timetable, that the train can coast at 90 and still be ontime. I would suggest it seem linespeed verses "working timetable" speed varies according to TOC. Do not fear, FGW arent the only slowcoaches!! Sad isnt it, as a passanger, yet i want the predictability of arriving at a set time so i can plan my day, yet i also want to go at the speed in which millions of pounds was spent on the trains to run at 100, not 90 MPH!
(Forgot to say, i could of worked it out without quizzing guards and recording speeds as when Class 159s are diverted Salisbury-Southampton-Basingstoke-Waterloo...they happen to keep to Class 444 timings...though are 10MPH slower with a max speed of 90MPH)

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Does 10mph REALLY matter THAT much?!

 

[starrymarkb]

There's a thing called 'eco-driving' or similar which I understand is used by some TOCs - this makes most use of the already present timetable padding and requires drivers to accelerate less aggressively, brake more lightly, coast as much as possible, and not bother reaching linespeed if you're early or have to stop again soon.
Just another one of those initiatives to try and get the UK reaching its carbon output deadline, and to reduce the amount TOCs spend on diesel / electric.

I'd say the latter, the price of fuel is at a high, you'll see the airlines have recently been increasing fuel surcharges by £20 per passenger. Eco driving to save fuel may reduce some of the pressure on fares

 

[RichW1]

Appreciated Planner! Seagul yes, that reminds me - accelerating up to 108 seemed to take ages several seconds between each mph (and I mean more seconds than it would normally be) and then slowing down it did slowly too. It was crazy how long the whole thing un-necessarily took too.

Like I say though, the return driver I'm sure (although I have no proof) went at full line speed and really felt like the train was shifting and it gives one an uplifting feeling when you hear it screaming at full-speed and slowing down fast but comfortably for the passengers...really changes your travel experience from a sort of depressed lulling feeling of slow delayed train (even when it officially isn't) to a positive feeling that you're really going places as fast as your train company wants you to be impressed and get somewhere. I don't speak for all obviously, but I'm sure many feel the same when something's going slow; you feel tired yourself and frustrated when you know you can go quicker and then you come away with a bad sentiment towards your travel experience.

When I heard Ozzies on board the one time a few months ago on the outward journey again, they were half way to Reading and looked at the houses going past and were impressed, got to Reading and were like 'wow that was quick'....I know this is easy to dismiss but the slow frustrating journey leaves you with a bad feeling compared to the alternative. There's real PR value in it.

As for does 10mph really matter that much....well yes at these lower speeds! Let me put in perspective as to why. Remember West Coast's IC's to Rugby? 82miles. One train was 110mph capable, the others were 100mph capable. The 110mph ones did the 82miles in an hour, some 55mins, the 100mph trains in 1hour 10 and sometimes 1hr05 but that's still 10mins difference.

Now, if all the line was the same for 200miles that's more than 20mins saving and 400miles, well it's about 40mins saving for 10mph - you only need look at the old timetables for proof.

The speed differential only really starts to disappear at speeds a bit higher. Look at the difference between 110mph trains and 125mph trains on the timetables and especially the older ones - again 40mins or slightly more's difference.

 

[LE Greys]

Its not just FGW HSTs! I have now several times GPS clocked and looked at an actual speedometer on a Class 444 Waterloo-Weymouth. Just south of Basingstoke there is a speed limit sign clearly showing 100 MPH yet i have never "recorded" a 444 going anything over 95! Usually closer to 90. When compared to doing the same route (Basingstoke to Winchester) on a Voyager it feels you are going much faster than a 444, and you are...times ive managed to get a signal in a voyager, its clocked 99-100 MPH. I started a "personal campagin" of quizzing the Guard everytime when on a 444 to why we are going slow. Eventually one cracked and said there is no need to reach linespeed as so much time is worked into the non passanger timetable, what he refered to a working timetable, that the train can coast at 90 and still be ontime. I would suggest it seem linespeed verses "working timetable" speed varies according to TOC. Do not fear, FGW arent the only slowcoaches!! Sad isnt it, as a passanger, yet i want the predictability of arriving at a set time so i can plan my day, yet i also want to go at the speed in which millions of pounds was spent on the trains to run at 100, not 90 MPH!
(Forgot to say, i could of worked it out without quizzing guards and recording speeds as when Class 159s are diverted Salisbury-Southampton-Basingstoke-Waterloo...they happen to keep to Class 444 timings...though are 10MPH slower with a max speed of 90MPH)

This might be because the timetables are still calculated for a Wessex. I've clocked Wessexes at 104 occasionally. 444s are probably lighter and most likely accelerate more quickly, so there is no need to really push them at top speed to make up for it.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Does the VOLO speed display show your true speed or a speed calculated from GPS?

It's the same.

 

[GB]

Appreciated Planner! Seagul yes, that reminds me - accelerating up to 108 seemed to take ages several seconds between each mph (and I mean more seconds than it would normally be) and then slowing down it did slowly too. It was crazy how long the whole thing un-necessarily took too.

Like I say though, the return driver I'm sure (although I have no proof) went at full line speed and really felt like the train was shifting and it gives one an uplifting feeling when you hear it screaming at full-speed and slowing down fast but comfortably for the passengers...really changes your travel experience from a sort of depressed lulling feeling of slow delayed train (even when it officially isn't) to a positive feeling that you're really going places as fast as your train company wants you to be impressed and get somewhere. I don't speak for all obviously, but I'm sure many feel the same when something's going slow; you feel tired yourself and frustrated when you know you can go quicker and then you come away with a bad sentiment towards your travel experience.

When I heard Ozzies on board the one time a few months ago on the outward journey again, they were half way to Reading and looked at the houses going past and were impressed, got to Reading and were like 'wow that was quick'....I know this is easy to dismiss but the slow frustrating journey leaves you with a bad feeling compared to the alternative. There's real PR value in it.

As for does 10mph really matter that much....well yes at these lower speeds! Let me put in perspective as to why. Remember West Coast's IC's to Rugby? 82miles. One train was 110mph capable, the others were 100mph capable. The 110mph ones did the 82miles in an hour, some 55mins, the 100mph trains in 1hour 10 and sometimes 1hr05 but that's still 10mins difference.

Now, if all the line was the same for 200miles that's more than 20mins saving and 400miles, well it's about 40mins saving for 10mph - you only need look at the old timetables for proof.

The speed differential only really starts to disappear at speeds a bit higher. Look at the difference between 110mph trains and 125mph trains on the timetables and especially the older ones - again 40mins or slightly more's difference.

If the trains arrived at their destination at their booked time then I'm not sure what the problem is.

 

[swt_passenger]

This might be because the timetables are still calculated for a Wessex. I've clocked Wessexes at 104 occasionally. 444s are probably lighter and most likely accelerate more quickly, so there is no need to really push them at top speed to make up for it.

The timings are presumably the way they are so that you don't run into the back of the 75mph freight or SWT stopping service that's running somewhere ahead, I reckon. The bottom line is that between Basingstoke and Southampton it's a very busy mixed traffic railway, and there just isn't the overall capacity for some trains to run at 100 mph.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Hi All, ok yesterday I travelled from Bristol TM to Padds and whilst I know the line isn't 125mph capable nearly to the junction just west of Swindon the rest of the journey confused me. I was looking at the VOLO screens and you have a map and it shows the speed you're doing at any one time. NOT ONCE did we hit 125mph it went, 98 - 108 for a fair bit, then we topped 118 and one point and then a final 120mph east of Reading for about a minute at most. But let me make this clear - it was 98 - 108mph for 95% of the journey)

We were on-time obviously because of padding and there was nothing stopping the 'usual' speed being achieved. Are drivers now taught to coast at lower than maximum when there's padding? What's the point in 125mph trains if you don't use it? I always thought 125mph is very standard and quite modest really yet still 98-110 was used mostly on that trip

The strange thing was, coming back I had no screen to look at, but from Paddington to Reading it felt like someone had sent a rocket up the ass of the train (I think it was because I was tired or didn't expect anything except a stroll from the driver) because it felt like we were going like hell - more like 135mph (although I know that's impossible before anyone starts there!) so it was just that it was doing 125mph and I was shattered so felt a lot quicker in the sunset. We got to Reading the whole 36 track miles in 22 mins and it really felt like the driver was accelerating as fast as possible and then braking hard (but not uncomfortably, just impressively in line with the trains capabilities) So then what happened?....We sat outside reading for 6-7 mins and the annoucement came on that 'we weren't due in yet' - there was nothing else in the platforms I'm pretty sure!!!!! This whole system just seems ridiculous. Put padding in and make the trains run a lot slower than they're capable of and the result....slower journey times that are totally un-necessary. I despair I really do! The HST's are capable of more and so is that Sunday service - I'm just wondering how often this is practice on weekdays? Any drivers know? So for all I know I haven't been at 125mph for a while because the trains don't even do it!

When the H.S.T.s were introduced and certainly until at least 1981 22 minutes was the booked time from Paddington to Reading. That was before the B.R. station at Westbourne Park was demolished and the curve there eased.

 

[Flamingo]

When the H.S.T.s were introduced and certainly until at least 1981 22 minutes was the booked time from Paddington to Reading. That was before the B.R. station at Westbourne Park was demolished and the curve there eased.

Also before we had to wait for the Heathrow Express to cross over at Heathrow Junction.

 

[devon_metro]

I believe the idea is that 125 linespeed is only to be used if the train is a few minutes late, otherwise it is a waste of time since the train will only dwell at each station for a couple of minutes. Saving fuel, engine wear and various other things.

On Saturday afternoon I enjoyed a spirited run from Reading to Bristol, we left Reading and Swindon 2 minutes late both times, however arrived at every station on time or early. My GPS showed us doing 125 on all permitted sections.

 

[Flamingo]

One major difference is whether it is a 2+7 or 2+8. Noticeable difference in the acceleration.

 

[the sniper]

Appreciated Planner! Seagul yes, that reminds me - accelerating up to 108 seemed to take ages several seconds between each mph (and I mean more seconds than it would normally be) and then slowing down it did slowly too. It was crazy how long the whole thing un-necessarily took too.

But this will most probably be as much to do with what the Planner has explained as Eco-driving, which is probably just a convenient by-product. If they're timed to run on the slows on a Sunday, what's the point in quickly flying up to 108mph? Getting to the top speed quicker would just mean more time waiting around each station...

Like I say though, the return driver I'm sure (although I have no proof) went at full line speed and really felt like the train was shifting and it gives one an uplifting feeling when you hear it screaming at full-speed and slowing down fast but comfortably for the passengers...really changes your travel experience from a sort of depressed lulling feeling of slow delayed train (even when it officially isn't) to a positive feeling that you're really going places as fast as your train company wants you to be impressed and get somewhere. I don't speak for all obviously, but I'm sure many feel the same when something's going slow; you feel tired yourself and frustrated when you know you can go quicker and then you come away with a bad sentiment towards your travel experience.

The vast majority of passengers, i.e. normals, are only interested in their train getting to their destination on time, as per the public timetable. Whether us enthusiast want to hear and feel the units being thrashed to within an inch of their and the infrastructure's designed limits is frankly irrelevant.

 

[driver9000]

The speed limits are not a target, they're a maximum.

I know there are some areas of the GWML where drivers are encouraged not to do linespeed, to avoid heavy braking in areas.

That is certainly true on the roads but isn't the way I was taught to drive a train. I was taught that linespeeds were to be attained and travelled at because the services are timed for those speeds.

 

[RichW1]

The vast majority of passengers, i.e. normals, are only interested in their train getting to their destination on time, as per the public timetable. Whether us enthusiast want to hear and feel the units being thrashed to within an inch of their and the infrastructure's designed limits is frankly irrelevant.

I take issue there, a slow speed journey leaves you fed up as a passenger, enthusiast or no enthusiast as it gives you that problem and traffic jam feeling. The fact you are reading a book or whatever isn't a solution to that feeling - it just says britains railways can't do it. This sort of travel experience whether timetabled to be slow or not is what gives comedians and people amunition.

Also I don't see any argument in the units being 'thrashed to within an inch of their and the infrastructure's life' as the infrastructure is designed for excess of 125mph physically and even if we're talking signals the 125mph has been long standing and standard for over 30years. It's not thrashing anything. The HST's are designed for 125mph and it's not much to ask that TOC's damn well do what's capable within the train especially given that 125mph is a rather leisurely pace in the 21st century and there are sections of conventional track in Italy and Germany with better signalling where speeds in excess of this are achieved and don't forget HST's regularly managed excesses of 125mph in history.

 

[GB]

I'd hardy call a train traveling at circa 100-110mph slow speed, I bet most commuters wouldn't even notice the difference between 110mph and 125mph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


There is more to modern train travel than just high speed.