12 car 350/1 to be tested at 110mph

[northwichcat]

http://www.publictenders.net/tender/116735

 

[DarloRich]

well that is interesting! What would a speed increase for the 350's mean for the timetable?

 

[sprinterguy]

Hmmm, this seems to tie in neatly with the proposed specification (IIRC) for 110mph capable EMU stock to run the Manchester to Scotland services following electrification...

 

[The Planner]

Been doing the rounds for a while now, it would allow LM to sneak some better paths in and more than likely get a Weedon path too.

 

[jopsuk]

Presumably if just the /1s get cleared that would help get them back to running the /1 and /2 fleets as they should be- /1 for longer distances, /2s for locals? Or would a succesful test for the /1s automatically see both sub classes OK-ed?

 

[DarloRich]

Been doing the rounds for a while now, it would allow LM to sneak some better paths in and more than likely get a Weedon path too.

I thought that might be the case

 

[TheWalrus]

Good!

 

[AlterEgo]

Been doing the rounds for a while now, it would allow LM to sneak some better paths in and more than likely get a Weedon path too.

Weedon is super-busy. Are there any available paths? Maybe one an hour in each direction?

 

[swt_passenger]

Presumably if just the /1s get cleared that would help get them back to running the /1 and /2 fleets as they should be- /1 for longer distances, /2s for locals? Or would a succesful test for the /1s automatically see both sub classes OK-ed?

I'd be surprised if certification of 350/1s wouldn't be read straight across to 350/2s to be honest. The traction package has to be practically identical - and that ITT suggests the only area they're actually looking at is the pantograph/OHLE interraction - having 3 pans up on a 12 car could cause issues at higher speeds that are not seen with a 110 mph loco.

 

[SS4]

Been doing the rounds for a while now, it would allow LM to sneak some better paths in and more than likely get a Weedon path too.

If they bypassed NMP (which I think Weedon path does) then where would they split. Alternatively could stations north of NMP cope with 12 car trains?

 

[swt_passenger]

If they bypassed NMP (which I think Weedon path does) then where would they split. Alternatively could stations north of NMP cope with 12 car trains?

Testing 12 car formations at 110 mph doesn't necessarily mean all 110 mph services have to run as twelve car though?

Rugby would be the probable place to split and join if not running via Northampton - I expect the platforms are definitely long enough, cos they were built for 11 car 390s?

 

[MCR247]

This is not only for LM, but Siemens want to see if it is possible for 110mph /3s for TPE is what I've also heard

 

[85A]

172s also available for 110mph but gear isolated to stop it doing above 100.

 

[bILLOO]

Been doing the rounds for a while now, it would allow LM to sneak some better paths in and more than likely get a Weedon path too.

I hope not. Our town already suffers from a lack of fast trains.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

well that is interesting! What would a speed increase for the 350's mean for the timetable?

Assuming the test works, how will they get round the "100mph" limit for MU passenger stock without redesigning the front coach of a 350 (like 180/22x/390)?

 

[TheWalrus]

172s also available for 110mph but gear isolated to stop it doing above 100.

Why's that?

 

[rail-britain]

Assuming the test works, how will they get round the "100mph" limit for MU passenger stock without redesigning the front coach of a 350 (like 180/22x/390)?

Front coach (or even portion of) locked out of use will simply solve that
Many of the BREL sprinter body units (DMU and EMU) had parcel areas towards the front of one end of one coach on each set which could be locked out of use, and this could easily be incorporated as part of an upgrade

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Front coach (or even portion of) locked out of use will simply solve that
Many of the BREL sprinter body units (DMU and EMU) had parcel areas towards the front of one end of one coach on each set which could be locked out of use, and this could easily be incorporated as part of an upgrade

So passengers might get from A to B a little bit faster, but they're less likely to get a seat.

That doesn't seem very sensible.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

172s also available for 110mph but gear isolated to stop it doing above 100.

New train specifications usually include a clause that says the train must be capable of operating at speeds 10% higher than their normal operating maximum speed.

My guess is that the design speed for a 172 is therefore 110 mph, that this was demonstrated during testing and that this capability has now been disabled, presumably in the electronics (although it may be in the hydro-mechanical drive as you suggest).

 

[ukrob]

Assuming the test works, how will they get round the "100mph" limit for MU passenger stock without redesigning the front coach of a 350 (like 180/22x/390)?

Front coach (or even portion of) locked out of use will simply solve that
Many of the BREL sprinter body units (DMU and EMU) had parcel areas towards the front of one end of one coach on each set which could be locked out of use, and this could easily be incorporated as part of an upgrade

So passengers might get from A to B a little bit faster, but they're less likely to get a seat.

That doesn't seem very sensible.

It is a possible scenario though to lock one end out of use (obviously dividers would need to be installed).

It would only be 12-16 seats lost on a train which already has a higher capacity than the train is replaces - 235 vs 169 seats.

I agree though, unlikely.

 

[MCR247]

It was the belief of a senior member of the H&SE (thankfully since retired) that no passengers shuold be seated in the leading 1/3 of a vehicle capable of travelling above 100mph, but it was never actually proper legislation, and since he's now gone, normality (and sense) has returned - or so I've read (several times) in various mags.

#

Someone posted this on another forum?

 

[ukrob]

Class 395s don't have 1/3 as a crumple zone anyhow.

 

[Thetrainspod]

I thought the 350's top speed was 100mph? Or would all units power to give the desired speed?

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought the 350's top speed was 100mph? Or would all units power to give the desired speed?

They are just doing a trial of having three pantographs up at 110 mph. The speed is within the 10% overspeed that the units have been tested at, but that doesn't mean those units will ever run at 110 in passenger service.

Perhaps we should just think of it as a test of the pantograph technology for a possible 110 mph 350/3, rather than the current units?

 

[Thetrainspod]

They are just doing a trial of having three pantographs up at 110 mph. The speed is within the 10% overspeed that the units have been tested at, but that doesn't mean those units will ever run at 110 in passenger service.

Perhaps we should just think of it as a test of the pantograph technology for a possible 110 mph 350/3, rather than the current units?

Why would LM waste money on new rolling stock when they could preform the job needed on their current units? Maybe the exception of two or three new units but if it's 12 car units being tested maybe new 351 units could be built that are 12 cars only with no front gangway because he maximum number of trains coupled together is three which is 12 cars? Could be a logical reason?

 

[notadriver]

I thought the 350's top speed was 100mph? Or would all units power to give the desired speed?

According to a Railway Magazine article, Class 350s can maintain 100 mph on 25% power

 

[MCR247]

Why would LM waste money on new rolling stock when they could preform the job needed on their current units? Maybe the exception of two or three new units but if it's 12 car units being tested maybe new 351 units could be built that are 12 cars only with no front gangway because he maximum number of trains coupled together is three which is 12 cars? Could be a logical reason?

350/3s are for TPE and LM cross city. LM wouldn't be spending anything on new stock. 12 car 350s are being tested because they want to know happens with 3 pantos running at 110mph

 

[Class172]

350/3s are for TPE and LM cross city. LM wouldn't be spending anything on new stock. 12 car 350s are being tested because they want to know happens with 3 pantos running at 110mph

What? Are the 323s on the Cross-city being replaced then? The 323s are perfectly suited to their job there; I don't see any need to replace them.

 

[WatcherZero]

If they wanted to test 110mph in service pantographs wouldnt they actually have to test them at 121mph for safety margin certification?

 

[colchesterken]

Please, please, will they run our 360 s at 110 on GEML... an hour to do 50 miles on a semi fast is not good.!!!..and how about our cl 90s 110 mph and our mk 3 125 cugging on at 100 on a good day..

 

[class156]

If they wanted to test 110mph in service pantographs wouldnt they actually have to test them at 121mph for safety margin certification?

I read somewhere (I think it was on here) that the 350s had been used at 140mph at the Siemens test track in Germany.