Caledonian Sleeper

[xotGD]

The one time I have travelled on the overnight to Aberdeen on a work trip the service was not offered by our corporate travel booking site. So I had to book direct and claim back on expenses, and then face an inquisition from our finance department as to why I hadn't used the corporate travel booking site.

 

[Gonzoiku]

*The RailForums standard minority of a deaf, blind, mute person who only uses cash for religious reasons excepted

...who would be en route to a pinball championship, perchance?

GZ

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Please could anyone work out the mileage I ran up on Sunday night's Lowlander to Glasgow with the ECML diversions and the somewhat interesting route from Edinburgh to Glasgow?

...and also tonight's Lowlander from Glasgow to Euston via Edinburgh and Bescot?

 

[zwk500]

Please could anyone work out the mileage I ran up on Sunday night's Lowlander to Glasgow with the ECML diversions and the somewhat interesting route from Edinburgh to Glasgow?

If it's this one: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C06479/2023-05-14/detailed

Then it comes to 458m63ch (thumbnail of mileages included, Wembley Yard area may be inaccurate - used http://www.railwaycodes.org.uk/elrs/elr0.shtm as source)

...and also tonight's Lowlander from Glasgow to Euston via Edinburgh and Bescot?

I make it 692m19ch, With reversal at Edinburgh. Same source, second thumbnail attached.

Very open to corrections, there's a moderate Margin of Error.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Thank you; that's good... but is there a typo in the source for the second one? I'd have thought 492 makes more sense than 692?

 

[jfollows]

Thank you; that's good... but is there a typo in the source for the second one? I'd have thought 492 makes more sense than 692?

Third mileage can’t be 203!

 

[SuspectUsual]

Third mileage can’t be 203!

Looks like the constituent mileages have been added together rather than one deducted from the other

 

[zwk500]

Thank you; that's good... but is there a typo in the source for the second one? I'd have thought 492 makes more sense than 692?

Not a typo in the source, but an error in the calculation - can you spot it?

The correct mileage comes to the far more reasonable 453m47ch.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Thank you everyone; now I can get my log done.

 

[jfollows]

Not a typo in the source, but an error in the calculation - can you spot it?

The correct mileage comes to the far more reasonable 453m47ch.

70.75 is wrong also, when you recalculate that and the 203.x you get closer

 

[zwk500]

70.75 is wrong also, when you recalculate that and the 203.x you get closer

Yep, I spotted that I'd simply added increasing mileages together, so I reran the spreadsheet with the correct maths on all sections to get the 453m47ch.

@Peter Mugridge you may find this site useful in future for your logs: https://railmap.azurewebsites.net/ although you may find the routing needs to be spelt out very specifically in complex areas. The maintainer of the site does post on these forums every now and again.

 

[xotGD]

I make it 692m19ch

A great example of the difference between accuracy and precision!

 

[zwk500]

A great example of the difference between accuracy and precision!

To be fair it was neither accurate nor precise. If anything it's a great example of why you should double check your working!

 

[SuspectUsual]

To be fair it was neither accurate nor precise. If anything it's a great example of why you should double check your working!

Moreover, its a great example of being able to estimate and then use that as a first sensecheck

 

[zwk500]

Moreover, its a great example of being able to estimate and then use that as a first sensecheck

Indeed. 50% variation should have been something of a warning flag!

 

[xotGD]

To be fair it was neither accurate nor precise. If anything it's a great example of why you should double check your working!

It was precise. Quoted to the nearest chain. (Something that always amuses me anyway.)

Just massively inaccurate.

 

[STINT47]

My experience is that 99% of passengers want to get off as soon as the train arrives. In the days of the Plymouth Portion of the Riviera the only people who stayed on the Plymouth Coach were train spotters who wanted the 08 haulage over to Platform 8.

It didn't use to be like this. In Scotrail days I remember being woken when the train had already arrived at Euston and been there for some time. I was not the only berth who was being woken at fhd same time and was grateful for the extra sleep.

 

[najaB]

It didn't use to be like this. In Scotrail days I remember being woken when the train had already arrived at Euston and been there for some time.

Did they perhaps run early more often in those days?

 

[paul1609]

It didn't use to be like this. In Scotrail days I remember being woken when the train had already arrived at Euston and been there for some time. I was not the only berth who was being woken at fhd same time and was grateful for the extra sleep.

I was a regular since the late 80s until I retired 4 years ago and I can't remember it ever being any different but Im a southern based customer on arrival at Euston/Paddington/Kings Cross I just want to get off to continue the journey home. Going north Ive often alighted at intermediate stations but at Glasgow I can't ever remember there not being a queue to get off as the train arrives.

 

[hexagon789]

Did they perhaps run early more often in those days?

I suppose back in Class 90/Mk3 days, they could run at 100mph if necessary. Now of course the maximum is 87mph.

 

[STINT47]

I was a regular since the late 80s until I retired 4 years ago and I can't remember it ever being any different but Im a southern based customer on arrival at Euston/Paddington/Kings Cross I just want to get off to continue the journey home. Going north Ive often alighted at intermediate stations but at Glasgow I can't ever remember there not being a queue to get off as the train arrives.

Personally I've only ever used sleepers for leisure trips and I've not been in a rush. For me the extra / getting the advertised sleeping time is more important but I can also understand why others want to be away as soon as they can.

 

[D6130]

Now of course the maximum is 87mph

Although the class 92 locos have a maximum permitted speed of 140 Km/h (87 mph), I always thought that sleeping car trains were limited to 80 mph....or does that not apply to Mark 5 stock?

 

[jfollows]

Although the class 92 locos have a maximum permitted speed of 140 Km/h (87 mph), I always thought that sleeping car trains were limited to 80 mph....or does that not apply to Mark 5 stock?

I think that the trains are timed to run at 80mph, including for reasons of comfort, but the Mark 5 stock can run at up to 100mph if required (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Mark_5_(CAF)) and with an engine capable of that speed.
EDIT The WCML sleepers used to have timing loads such as 80-92S07

 

[zwk500]

Although the class 92 locos have a maximum permitted speed of 140 Km/h (87 mph), I always thought that sleeping car trains were limited to 80 mph....or does that not apply to Mark 5 stock?

Sleepers are timed at 80mph for comfort and a bit of padding in case of engineering works/diversions. 90s certainly used to run at 100mph if running late, you could see the late reports come down very quickly at times.

 

[popeter45]

Timing wise don't think I would even want the lowlander running faster than 80mph, already painful enough getting turfed out at 6 of they arrived a hour early into Euston

Thou have been on a OBB nightjet that ran 200km/h to make up a 3hr delay last year

 

[JamieL]

Logged max speeds of 93mph on my last Highlander trip - although that would have been at any point on the journey (probably WCML) rather than the twists and turns of the West Highland Line.

 

[zwk500]

Logged max speeds of 93mph on my last Highlander trip - although that would have been at any point on the journey (probably WCML) rather than the twists and turns of the West Highland Line.

I suspect that would have been going down a steep bank, if it's accurate. As mentioned, the 92s are a nominal top speed of 87mph.

 

[D6130]

I suspect that would have been going down a steep bank, if it's accurate. As mentioned, the 92s are a nominal top speed of 87mph.

....and the driver would be heading for a no tea, no biscuits interview had they been downloaded.

 

[JamieL]

It was on a GPS tracker so probably a little inaccurate.

 

[popeter45]

Just got text that lowlander is canceled tonight