Progress on Avanti West Coast's 805/807s Hitachi AT300 sets

[Zakaria Fadel]

Realtime Trains is still showing the path for 5Q14 as still going ahead

It depends on whether they can get a loco or not. Likely to be cancelled.

 

[DJH1971]

This path is still not showing as cancelled.

Realtime Trains | 5Q08 2151 Merchant Park Sidings to Darlington | 09/06/2025

Real-time train running information for 5Q08 2151 departure from Merchant Park Sidings to Darlington on 09/06/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[800001]

Realtime Trains is still showing the path for 5Q14 as still going ahead

That’s because it was manually activated earlier this evening, probably thought it was going to happen. It will get cancelled off later

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2025 ==

This path is still not showing as cancelled.

Realtime Trains | 5Q08 2151 Merchant Park Sidings to Darlington | 09/06/2025

Real-time train running information for 5Q08 2151 departure from Merchant Park Sidings to Darlington on 09/06/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Give them chance! Sometimes won’t show cancelled for several hours

 

[Zakaria Fadel]

So, when will 807010 get delivered in this case as the diagrams tomorrow are cancelled.

 

[800001]

So, when will 807010 get delivered in this case as the diagrams tomorrow are cancelled.

You need to ask Avanti or Hitachi that question!

 

[Railperf]

Thanks for that. Very interesting. Puts some of the murmurings into perspective!

The introduction of the new MU boards is rather academic at the moment because the Avanti 80x stock is soft limited to 110 mph anyway. One assumes that will change once the driver training program commences. Will they do that on the simulator first and once people are competent then lift the limit on the stock to 124 mph?

 

[Bald Rick]

The introduction of the new MU boards is rather academic at the moment because the Avanti 80x stock is soft limited to 110 mph anyway. One assumes that will change once the driver training program commences. Will they do that on the simulator first and once people are competent then lift the limit on the stock to 124 mph?

I’d expect the limit to be raised as soon as the training is underway. It’s not going to be particualrly onerous.

 

[Pendomonium]

I’d expect the limit to be raised as soon as the training is underway. It’s not going to be particualrly onerous.

There are nearly 70 new speed changes to get to grips with. The training resources have been completed, but when, how & if they ever get used is another question. Discussions on MU speed training have ended with no agreement. Not sure when the next talks are scheduled, but the clock is well & truly ticking.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2025 ==

The introduction of the new MU boards is rather academic at the moment because the Avanti 80x stock is soft limited to 110 mph anyway. One assumes that will change once the driver training program commences. Will they do that on the simulator first and once people are competent then lift the limit on the stock to 124 mph?

The sims are used for rules & procedures assessment & development days. Ive not seen the 80x sim in full operation so don't know if the route software is fixed or editable. Previous route changes have been instructed via edited real time video or computer generated graphic video (or combination of both) along with briefing notes. I know materials have been prepared for the MU speed training, but not what they consist of.

 

[Railperf]

Discussions on MU speed training have ended with no agreement. Not sure when the next talks are scheduled, but the clock is well & truly ticking.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2025 ==

What agreement needs to be struck?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What agreement needs to be struck?

And ticking in what sense? They run in 110mph paths, don't they? Thus 125mph (until a later timetable change) just means improved resilience.

 

[hexagon789]

And ticking in what sense? They run in 110mph paths, don't they? Thus 125mph (until a later timetable change) just means improved resilience.

They run in 125mph paths, hence generally losing time.

 

[Railperf]

And ticking in what sense? They run in 110mph paths, don't they? Thus 125mph (until a later timetable change) just means improved resilience.

Liverpool and Chester services have two additional minutes added in to what is a 125 mph MU path as far as the public timetable is concerned even though the working timetable suggests the same departure times. So xx43 WTTvs xx41 GBTT.
But from September the original departure times at xx43 from Euston, reapply in public timings.

 

[Tilting007]

What agreement needs to be struck?

Driver training for the new MU speeds profile.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are nearly 70 new speed changes to get to grips with.

As I said, not particualrly onerous.

 

[AndrewE]

As I said, not particualrly onerous.

and as I said, given that they are only slight variations on current maximum speeds, can they really not be accommodated by signs and advance signs at braking distances? Drivers know the road intimately and I am sure they could easily adapt to slightly relaxed limits on higher-speed sections.

Just compare the levels of risk here with the road equivalent, where there is no requirement for route knowledge, no AWS, no signalling other than traffic lights or intelligent motorway signs, no supervision of any kind - and ask yourself whether this change really would fatally undermine the railway's safety.

 

[Bald Rick]

and as I said, given that they are only slight variations on current maximum speeds, can they really not be accommodated by signs and advance signs at braking distances? Drivers know the road intimately and I am sure they could easily adapt to slightly relaxed limits on higher-speed sections.

Advanced warning signs for speed reductions are only given if certain criteria are met. Nevertheless Avanti drivers are generally superb and I’m sure will manage to take this in their stride quite easily.

 

[Pendomonium]

What agreement needs to be struck?

The training package & its delivery, not to mention the yet to be workable DAS.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2025 ==

They run in 125mph paths, hence generally losing time.

Not just this. They do have a propensity to loose time at PS speeds. Concentrating on the LIV services, they struggle to get to Crewe on time but do well on the section North Of Crewe because the timetable was padded to allow the forthcoming stops at Hartford & Liverpool South Parkway. MU speed ops would help claw back the greater times in section. The clock is ticking on the proposed in service date for MU operations for the 80x fleet & delays to route learning training is going to impact timescales. Plus there is something else to consider.... potential open access operators that may use future versions of the Hitachi IEP on the WCML may well be building a timetable & business case on being able to do MU speeds using the as yet installed mitigation measures on Avantis fleet.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

MU speed boards uncovered Crewe-Weaver Jn - is that because Voyagers no longer use this route since leaving Avanti?
From the SA, there is just one 221 differential on this section, a mile or so on the diverging route at Weaver Jn (PS 85, EPS 95/100) - no differential on the main WCML.
(Ironically, 221s rarely worked to Liverpool).
Other than that, the furthest north of a 221/390 differential is the 2 miles through Rugby, which is PS100, EPS 120/125.

 

[Tilting007]

MU speed boards uncovered Crewe-Weaver Jn - is that because Voyagers no longer use this route since leaving Avanti?
From the SA, there is just one 221 differential on this section, a mile or so on the diverging route at Weaver Jn (PS 85, EPS 95/100) - no differential on the main WCML.
Other than that, the furthest north of a 221/390 differential is the 2 miles through Rugby, which is PS100, EPS 120/125.

All the same EPS differential sites remain.
The Voyagers have not been removed from the Network so AWC could not get them EPS profile for them removed.
If they had the MU profile would have been different in a few places.
Where there is still an EPS differential MU trains can only run at PS.

 

[Railperf]

All the same EPS differential sites remain.
The Voyagers have not been removed from the Network so AWC could not get them EPS profile for them removed.
If they had the MU profile would have been different in a few places.
Where there is still an EPS differential MU trains can only run at PS.

Okay, so the latest version is that dual EPS limits will remain - and only MU where there is a single EPS limit? The plan was for the 221 EPS limits to be removed and replaced by MU where possible.

 

[Tilting007]

That’s correct.

 

[Narrowgauge725]

Driver training for the new MU speeds profile.

Why does any agreement need to be struck? If something new comes in then they should be happy to get training.

 

[Trainbike46]

Why does any agreement need to be struck? If something new comes in then they should be happy to get training.

This comes up regularly, and the general answer is that:
- training doesn't neatly fit within the standard contracted hours for drivers (e.g. training may be 9-5 for 5 days, whereas the normal driving pattern would never follow those hours)
- training is extra work, so often there is a need for drivers to work overtime to enable the training

Both good reasons for making an agreement covering those two points, and any others that may be relevant

 

[The_Train]

This comes up regularly, and the general answer is that:
- training doesn't neatly fit within the standard contracted hours for drivers (e.g. training may be 9-5 for 5 days, whereas the normal driving pattern would never follow those hours)
- training is extra work, so often there is a need for drivers to work overtime to enable the training

Both good reasons for making an agreement covering those two points, and any others that may be relevant

In essence, they don't have enough drivers to cover service diagrams if they start taking drivers into training during their actual shift?

I've never worked in a job where training is expected to be completed outside of my scheduled working hours!

 

[Trainbike46]

In essence, they don't have enough drivers to cover service diagrams if they start taking drivers into training during their actual shift?

I've never worked in a job where training is expected to be completed outside of my scheduled working hours!

Most TOCs don't have enough drivers to run all regular scheduled services without at least some drivers working overtime, let alone the extra workload from training.

 

[AndrewE]

given that they are only slight variations on current maximum speeds, can they really not be accommodated by signs and advance signs at braking distances? Drivers know the road intimately and I am sure they could easily adapt to slightly relaxed limits on higher-speed sections.

Just compare the levels of risk here with the road equivalent, where there is no requirement for route knowledge, no AWS, no signalling other than traffic lights or intelligent motorway signs, no supervision of any kind - and ask yourself whether this change really would fatally undermine the railway's safety.

Advanced warning signs for speed reductions are only given if certain criteria are met. Nevertheless Avanti drivers are generally superb and I’m sure will manage to take this in their stride quite easily.

probably gold-plated though... What are they?

This comes up regularly, and the general answer is that:
- training doesn't neatly fit within the standard contracted hours for drivers (e.g. training may be 9-5 for 5 days, whereas the normal driving pattern would never follow those hours)
- training is extra work, so often there is a need for drivers to work overtime to enable the training

Both good reasons for making an agreement covering those two points, and any others that may be relevant

I still think this is being completely overblown. We know that actually these sorts of speeds on curves are limited for passenger comfort reasons, and that minor over-speed won't have any significant safety consequences.

(And in the not-too-distant past when there wasn't cab logging and the signalling system oversight of drivers speeds all sorts of "overspeeding" occurred, with no adverse consequences. Obviously I'm not including the Peterborough incident or Stafford crash in the category of minor over-speed on plain line.)

It isn't as though there is a risk of taking a 50mph limit at 110mph is it?

 

[Trainbike46]

I still think this is being completely overblown. We know that actually these sorts of speeds on curves are limited for passenger comfort reasons, and that minor over-speed won't have any significant safety consequences.

(And in the not-too-distant past when there wasn't cab logging and the signalling system oversight of drivers speeds all sorts of "overspeeding" occurred, with no adverse consequences. Obviously I'm not including the Peterborough incident or Stafford crash in the category of minor over-speed on plain line.)

All I was saying in response to a direct question is that, in general, the reason training requires an agreement is to deal with changed working hours and overtime necessary to enable the training to happen. Agreeing this isn't usually a problem unless there is already an industrial dispute. What about that is overblown, or did you mean to reply to a different post?

 

[AndrewE]

All I was saying in response to a direct question is that, in general, the reason training requires an agreement is to deal with changed working hours and overtime necessary to enable the training to happen. Agreeing this isn't usually a problem unless there is already an industrial dispute. What about that is overblown, or did you mean to reply to a different post?

I was meaning the actual requirement for training in this specific circumstance seems to be OTT, when in reality it is no more than a minor reduction on pendolino / relaxation of non-tilting speed limits.

 

[Tilting007]

It’s a bit more than that when you look at the changes.
Compared to both PS and EPS there are so many changes in speed so ensuring the drivers are competent seems sensible, although the way the whole project has gone, I am sure there will be plenty more twists and turns.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2025 ==

Norton Bridge to Crewe will have the MU signs uncovered this weekend meaning Stafford to Weaver will be visible.

All other signs south of Stafford will be done over the next nine weeks ready for September.

 

[Bald Rick]

probably gold-plated though... What are they?

Its related to the % speed reduction.