He points this out every month in Modern Railways. In fact, of the new generation trains only the 707 beats the Pacer. The lamentable 345 is bottom of the pile.
I can't speak for the 800s specifically, but on all modern stock I've travelled on where power has been lost, the lighting switches to emergency after 30-60 seconds or so, basically the minimum that's long enough that a fault has occurred, and it isn't just traversal of a neutral section. That isn't no lighting, I imagine the emergency lights would last several hours, but there are only a small number of them, it is not a pleasant environment to be in if it's dark outside. I haven't heard anything to suggest 800s differ from the norm in that regard. After all, you wouldn't want full lighting depleting the duration for which emergency lighting can be used!
As well he should. I know reliability isn't the reason people want the Pacers withdrawn but they don't score that well anyway, new stock shouldn't really be considered 'bedded in' until it is reliably surpassing those figures by considerable margin.Goldfish62 said:
The following graph illustrates the difference between 800 and 802's in electric mode.. 802's time from rest to 6 miles was 20 seconds quicker in this case!!
802 in red, 800 in blue.
I was once on a Class 360 that was stopped North of Chelmsford after a tree feel onto the line. Power had to be discharged. After 20 minutes - the batteries completely failed - no lights, no power doors, no toilets, no heating. It was a disgraceful situation - and i felt very strongly after that - that the train should have had at least its own emergency generator - or battery packs able to last at least an hour. In the end we were stuck longer than this.
Exactly - please try to delay til xx:04, no make it xx:05. I will tell you why - xx;00 is catching up the xx:52 to Moreton - Marsh by Maidenhead. The xx:52 makes a Slough stop - as I experienced yesterday. Fortunately TVSC managed to route him into 8 at Reading and we were quickly routed into 9 landing in just over 23 mins despite slowing for signals. So really the XX;00 should leave by xx:01, and probably the xx;03 should be leaving at xx;05. Because they are all catching each other up! Lol!
Remember, the timetable is still for HST's, so the IET's performance isn't taken into consideration yet.
That is confusing because the main lines have a 95mph speed limit through the station. So does that mean non-stop trains have to slow to 25mph before the starter will clear? Even GWRs record attempt came in on a green. It does save at least 30secs. Not that a stopping service will hit the east end if the platform more than 35mph anyway.
My fastest thro RDG so far on the 19.12 from PAD is 90. Usually only possible if it is delayed. And the 19.00 BRI, 19.03 PLY and 19.06 Bedwyn can usually be relied on to co-operate.
Equally with HST and 800s?
I cannot remember being aboard any train hitting the ramps at those speeds - even in good dry conditions. But yes i would agree that stops in general seem to be quicker aboard HST's. As you say - probably people are still getting used to the 800's - even though the brake is reported to be very good.
Platform 7 at reading need to be doing 10mph half way down the platform. Bloody pain in the arse. ATP can be as much of a hindrance as a help
The HST fast smooth stop is much more apparent with the ‘old hands’ and Drivers who cut their driving teeth on HST or Loco’s. Quite a few of the Drivers that transferred from DMU to HST try far too much to feather the brakes - probably because their traction training doesn’t explain how the brake system works. Their was always a rise in below average brake reports when a batch of converts were out, inevitably all reported at low speed stopping in a station, they just had to get used to a brake pipe system rather than a DMU type brake.
