failure to reach 125mph confusion yesterday....

[RichW1]

No I agree they might not looking out of a window although I can certainly tell the difference quite easily but they will notice the difference in their travel time which is what counts for them anyway.

When I say slow - I do think 100mph's not very quick whether you look at a car or train doing it, it's subjective but I find it leisurely for sure but that's me. 125mph is fast but by no means high-speed now. When we look at history, 100mph was high speed once, but when I refer to it as leisurely or not that fast I mean in RELATIVE terms. That is to say 125mph is so common place in the developed world for IC's and in most developed countries they have HS lines. Whilst their conventional trains do 125 and up to 137mph at the best their IC's do 186mph as standard. We are a long way behind that with our IC's so that's what i mean. Our conventional IC's still timetable the best though for conventional lines which is great but there isn't any alternative as elsewhere.

 

[GB]

No I agree they might not looking out of a window although I can certainly tell the difference quite easily but they will notice the difference in their travel time which is what counts for them anyway.

Which is my point. If the train is advertised to reach destination X at say 1245 and the train reaches the destination at that booked time they will not care if it has been traveling at a slightly lower line speed.

 

[RichW1]

I see your point but they may feel it still takes too long to get there if they've been stopping and starting all the time. But I'm sure they will be happy with any timetable they're given these days.

Once upon a time - train times were advertised - not now! And for good reason. I just call it slack.

 

[The Planner]

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

The problem in my eyes is that FGW (or any other TOC) would be the first to kick off if we said we couldn't path a train alteration they wanted. In this increasingly capacity driven railway trains should be driven to what they and the infrastructure are capable of, we are swinging too far down the performance side of it in my opinion.

This example isn't a case of padding per se, it alludes to a TOC inflating the running times over a period of time claiming what we use isn't robust and achievable. NR cop any related delay to this and we are forced into altering things.

 

[the sniper]

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.

I can only echo GB's thoughts. Most normals (and comedians! ) won't be able to notice that the train is going 'slow', let alone know how much slower it's going then the line speed permits.

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.

Ok, maybe when I said 'thrashed to within an inch of their and the infrastructure's life', I was exaggerating. Driven as quickly as possible within the design limits of the unit and infrastructure is more accurate. My initial point still stands though, the vast majority of passengers, i.e. normals, are only interested in their train getting to their destination on time, as per the published public timetable.

Running 15mph slower than the optimum fast line speed on a Sunday, when the FGW services are timed to run on the slows, isn't much to be concerned about, imo.

 

[devon_metro]

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.

Paddington - Bristol is timed as 110 max, or at least it used to be.

If we take a non stop Reading - Swindon run, where in theory 125 should be attained, Didcot Parkway - Uffington is timed as having an average speed of only 100mph.

 

[bluenoxid]

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.

Pushing the final few mph to 125 seems to guzzle a lot of fuel. I seem to recall recently reading that in a magazine.

 

[The Planner]

Paddington - Bristol is timed as 110 max, or at least it used to be.

If we take a non stop Reading - Swindon run, where in theory 125 should be attained, Didcot Parkway - Uffington is timed as having an average speed of only 100mph.

Im not a believer in that, I will check tomorrow on the WTT running times. If FGW had no intention of running at 125 along there at all times, NR would have soon said "great we'll lower the line speed as it will save us a few bob"

 

[W-on-Sea]

I travelled from Reading to Paddington on a 125 on Sunday afternoon - the VOLO screen showed 123 mph most of the way from Reading to round about Southall, after which it slowed down very considerably, and still got into Paddington 10 mins ahead of schedule.

 

[tbtc]

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

Agreed.

If it arrives on time then does it matter whether it had a stable speed or whether the driver floored it to 125 for a while then got checked by a few signals later on (resulting in the same arrival time)?

Not every HST service can be timetabled for 125mph, I'd have hoped that was obvious

 

[asylumxl]

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

It's not a problem. But if you look at it from the point of view of a passenger alighting at the next stop, if they do arrive early, they may be able to make a connection they couldn't previously and ultimately arrive at their destination earlier.

It doesn't seem much but it seems to give people a feeling of satisfaction.

 

[fgwrich]

I travelled from Reading to Paddington on a 125 on Sunday afternoon - the VOLO screen showed 123 mph most of the way from Reading to round about Southall, after which it slowed down very considerably, and still got into Paddington 10 mins ahead of schedule.

I've had that recently too coming out of Paddington towards reading...Clocked 124 MPH overall on this service, though the best phot i managed to get in focus at the time was this 123...

But i've certainly seen 125 show up on the VOLO's before...

 

[The Planner]

Not every HST service can be timetabled for 125mph, I'd have hoped that was obvious

They will be timetabled at linespeed until the point where they catch up to a preceeding train on headway, clash at a junction or are timed to stop/start which is incorporated in the running time.

 

[fgwrich]

It's not a problem. But if you look at it from the point of view of a passenger alighting at the next stop, if they do arrive early, they may be able to make a connection they couldn't previously and ultimately arrive at their destination earlier.

It doesn't seem much but it seems to give people a feeling of satisfaction.

Agreed, especially on the GWML, where Reading Station can become a maze sometimes when the infamous platform changes take place!

Thinking about it for a moment, FGW seem to be the only operator that noticeably gets to most of it's destinations on time - certainly on the HST Services!...

 

[159220]

Does 10mph REALLY matter THAT much?!

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.

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

10 MPH is a massive difference i feel. The Voyager bombs it along between Basingstoke and Bournemouth compared to a 444.
Awww see now i cant stop thinking, the Wessexes were epic trains, an electric HST!! Certainly noticed a 10 MPH difference in them too.

Sorry back to reality, Wessexes have left us for pasture new, I do agree why should i be complaining if the train reaches its destination at the booked time. But, sorry for not quoting this, I have to agree with the driver saying he was trained that linespeed is that and the timetable is modelled around the line speed. Why go to all the expense of 100/125 MPH points and curves, plus rolling stock when you could save considerable money on investing on 75-90 MPH stock and infrastructure and keep to the present timetable? I bet you a 75 MPH Class 66 does exactly that, so why cant a 444, HST etc do there design speed...

The point being, either, passanger or otherwise we want to get from A-B the quickest possiable. Imagine on a motorway, telling all drivers they can only do 60 MPH as moterway speed is unpredictable...silly honestly.

Also the other quote i havent done, sorry, yes "normal" people can tell the difference in speed. Been with a friend down to Exeter on a HST and back on a 159...he was complaining how much slower the 159 was...i nearly strangled him for insulting my beloved 159. Yet he was right. 85 MPH is alot slower when 100-110 MPH.

We have some of the slowest Intercity trains in the world these days. Then we make them even slower as to pad out the timetable. In Japan the trains run at 160 MPH plus and run to the second on the timetable. Only here in the UK would be go now now train, slowww down, as though you were designed for 100 or 125 MPH that very bad for you and realilbity of the timetable hehehe.

 

[NXEA!]

I do sympathise with the OP as from an enthusiasts point of view, you want the train to be doing exactly what its capable of, and with a lot of noise if possible! But with all this padding nowadays in the timetable, it really isn't necessary to push the trains to the limit when you know they're just going to get signal-checked or arrive early at the next station. I get that feeling of disappointment when the train doesn't go as fast as it does, and using the 90's and Mark 3's on the GEML regularly, it always seems to me that we never go as fast as the 360's or 321's. I'm saying this but I had a beasty run behind 90006 on the 19:03 off Colchester tonight, shifted like a rocket and I couldn't even read the signs at most of the stations we passed through, great stuff!

 

[EM2]

Has anyone pointed out there may have been a mechanical or other issue with one of the power cars and it had to run slightly down on power? Just a thought...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

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.

Didn't BR's planners used to have a saying that "A minute off the scghedule is 1% on the revenue"?

Certainly, apart from the headline journey time, I do agree it feels much more enjoyable when belting along at linespeed, and equally people do get acclimatised very quickly to higher speeds.

A good example is Eurostar going round the curves on the triangular junction between the LGV Nord and the LGV Belge just below Lille; it feels like the train is crawling but if you check it with GPS you're still actually doing about 110 to 120mph...

 

[strange6]

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.

Yeah, I find that a bit surprising too. I always thought timetables were devised by assuming that maximum line speeds would be attained and taking into account acceleration and braking of station stops. Do timetables give a bit of leeway with regard to the possible running under yellow signals along the route?

 

[tbtc]

How many Pacers reach 75mph regularly?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . . I always thought timetables were devised by assuming that maximum line speeds would be attained and taking into account acceleration and braking of station stops.

Really? In the same way that you operate your bank account right up to your credit limit or as close as possible (because nothing unexpected is ever, er, expected?).

No one with an operational responsibility which faces harsh penalties for failure would operate any system right up against its limits.

 

[richa2002]

Has anyone pointed out there may have been a mechanical or other issue with one of the power cars and it had to run slightly down on power? Just a thought...

This is the most likely reason. I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up until now!

 

[The Planner]

No one with an operational responsibility which faces harsh penalties for failure would operate any system right up against its limits.

Well we do...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do timetables give a bit of leeway with regard to the possible running under yellow signals along the route?

Only if you are going to break a headway due to catching up a slower preceeding train. The following train will have pathing time added to maintain the headway.

 

[slick]

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

As I pointed out earlier as a possibility. Not sure about the mechical makeup of a HST engine but mechanics are certainly a factor on the EMUs I drive. Its amazing how two fully working units can differ. Isolate motors etc you can kiss the timetable and anywhere above 70mph goodbye :roll:

 

[the sniper]

Why go to all the expense of 100/125 MPH points and curves, plus rolling stock when you could save considerable money on investing on 75-90 MPH stock and infrastructure and keep to the present timetable?

Erm, you seem to have missed that trains do run at 125mph (where they can), but just not all the time.

The point being, either, passanger or otherwise we want to get from A-B the quickest possiable. Imagine on a motorway, telling all drivers they can only do 60 MPH as moterway speed is unpredictable...silly honestly.

Bad analogy really. There are various ways to pick this apart, but at the very least, have you not heard about variable speed limits on motorways here in the UK? They're quite common nowadays.

Also, cars could easily travel over 70mph on a motorway, the infrastructure could handle it. The operator of the motorways (the government) though has a speed limit set below the vehicles and infrastructure's maximum possibility so to ensure the system operates better. Much like TOCs running trains below their maximum possible speed.

Also the other quote i havent done, sorry, yes "normal" people can tell the difference in speed. Been with a friend down to Exeter on a HST and back on a 159...he was complaining how much slower the 159 was...i nearly strangled him for insulting my beloved 159. Yet he was right. 85 MPH is alot slower when 100-110 MPH.

I was on a LM Cl.350 last year heading from Tamworth to LTV last year, there was a family sitting opposite me. The son asked his dad how fast the train is going, his dad responded "top speed son, 125 miles per hour". This in a Desiro, with a top speed of 100mph...

We have some of the slowest Intercity trains in the world these days.

In the world?! Don't be ridiculous... And maybe speed isn't everything, seeing as our network carries the fifth highest number of passengers per year in the world, ahead of countries like France, Spain, Italy and the USA that have headline grabbing high speeds on a handful of Intercity routes. Source here.

 

[RichW1]

I think with speed, we do have the slowest IC's in the DEVELOPED world. But our network is very busy and faces congestion owing to many factors. Though I have brought this up before that the ripping up of sidings and passing lines etc was huge mistake when it comes to pathing because now instead of an IC overtaking whilst the slower train waits the IC's have to sit behind or be pathed behind slower trains into platforms or there's no way of anything else getting out the way. You see so much wasteland next to railways that used to be rails itself and all ripped up. I feel in ripping up abandoned sidings we ripped up useful potential track at the same time. Our trackbeds around our stations are just tiny compared to many major stations on the continent and in comparison to our history. I'm surprised we run the railway we do within such a confined space track-wise.

When it comes to 125mph running I always feel sorry for those in the Central Belt. They have to endure 4 hours 20 or so compared to their continental cousins who would never leave such a major population centre such a time apart from the other end of the country. But as said 186mph as standard is not an option right now yet 125mph is vastly inadequate to handle 400miles in a favourable time. It's easy to say how great 125mph works when you're between the northern metro area and London metro area but there's much of the country where the travel time just hurts.

 

[notadriver]

On a completely unrelated note, if you went by Concorde (which of course you can't now) to New York, wouldn't you be disappointed if Mach 2 wasn't reached?

Ps : For those of you who don't know, Concorde MUST go Supersonic to reach New York or it would run out of fuel !

 

[sprinterguy]

I think with speed, we do have the slowest IC's in the DEVELOPED world. But our network is very busy and faces congestion owing to many factors. Though I have brought this up before that the ripping up of sidings and passing lines etc was huge mistake when it comes to pathing because now instead of an IC overtaking whilst the slower train waits the IC's have to sit behind or be pathed behind slower trains into platforms or there's no way of anything else getting out the way. You see so much wasteland next to railways that used to be rails itself and all ripped up. I feel in ripping up abandoned sidings we ripped up useful potential track at the same time. Our trackbeds around our stations are just tiny compared to many major stations on the continent and in comparison to our history. I'm surprised we run the railway we do within such a confined space track-wise.

When it comes to 125mph running I always feel sorry for those in the Central Belt. They have to endure 4 hours 20 or so compared to their continental cousins who would never leave such a major population centre such a time apart from the other end of the country. But as said 186mph as standard is not an option right now yet 125mph is vastly inadequate to handle 400miles in a favourable time. It's easy to say how great 125mph works when you're between the northern metro area and London metro area but there's much of the country where the travel time just hurts.

The UK has one of the highest proportions of classic line services timetabled for 100mph+ in Europe (so I've heard), and hence one of the fastest classic rail networks. The only place where it really falls down is the current lack of a High Speed Line across the country. There are also much greater concerns than the London to Scotland journey time, on routes where attaining 125mph is not possible for much of the journey, such as the Midland Main Line and GWML west of Exeter, that need to be addressed first.

 

[The Planner]

If we take a non stop Reading - Swindon run, where in theory 125 should be attained, Didcot Parkway - Uffington is timed as having an average speed of only 100mph.

Incorrect, the running time between Didcot and Uffington non-stop is timed at 6½ minutes, average speed 123.4 mph.

 

[Minilad]

What a strange thread. As long as the train got to it's destination on time I really can't see the problem here. The fact is many Sunday services are given some slack as engineering works often mean slow lines have to be utilised or two tracks instead of four.
Even normal running you often have areas where as an experienced driver you know it's pointless running at line speed as you will catch up a preceding stopping service. One that we do regularly off the top of my head are services from Reading via Solihull. During the daytime you will catch up a stopper around Solihull and follow it to Tyseley. What is the point of running line speed only to then have to run on yellows at slow speed increasing the risk of a SPAD just so a punter can say well it was OK as we went 100MPH where possible.
Of course the OP is obviously unaware of a mechanical problem that could have affected the trains top speed. A voyager with one engine out (especially a five car) would struggle to get up to 125 between Stafford and Wolverhampton on the up even though the line speed is 125
With regards the the subject of padding timetables. I have never understood why people think this is such a bad thing. At least if your timetable has a bit of slack in it the odd few minutes delay can be clawed back if required. Without any recovery time any slight delay for any reason and the train would stay late. Recovery time just means the timetable is a lot more robust and can cope with events easier.
Recovery time has always been there so please don't suggest it's just there so TOCs can massage the figures. You only have to look at a WTT from pretty much any era and you will see.
So your train ran on time, It didn't run at 125MPH. well get over it.