• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

RIP Great western 125mph.... (IETs to have speed limiter automatically set)

Status
Not open for further replies.

northernbelle

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2018
Messages
776
It's probably worth highlighting that much older stock - for example Class 91s (which spent their lives running for hours on end non-stop) are fitted with a speed set, with the result that drivers could spend dozens of miles doing nothing except resetting the DSD or blowing the horn. I don't see how this mod to the 80x fleet results in any different a risk which seems to have been long-accepted by the industry.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,529
Location
Plymouth
It's probably worth highlighting that much older stock - for example Class 91s (which spent their lives running for hours on end non-stop) are fitted with a speed set, with the result that drivers could spend dozens of miles doing nothing except resetting the DSD or blowing the horn. I don't see how this mod to the 80x fleet results in any different a risk which seems to have been long-accepted by the industry.
Hmmmm so it was ok in the 90s so sure it will be fine now. NO. As drivers we are looking to improve safety, not just go along with old practices. And this will NOT improve safety, it will downgrade it.
I'll say it here again on record, from conversations I've had in past few days, I'm confident this won't last too long, but we shall see
.....
 

gabrielhj07

Established Member
Joined
5 May 2022
Messages
1,620
Location
Herts
I think the risk presented here is small. It does only take one ‘incident’ for things to change however.
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
2,233
Location
Dyfneint
The 80x class trains use KPH not MPH for measuring speed (although the drivers speedo IS still in MPH, therefore when converted from 125mph to KPH, for some reason it insists on 124mph being the max speed, and not 125mph.

Rounding can work in many ways, but if it's using the common way of anything below 0.5 being rounded down, then 200kph is 124mph.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,551
Location
Taunton or Kent
Now I know where Train Simulator 201x making a 125mph zone class as speeding above 124.9mph comes from ;)
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
3,272
Hmmmm so it was ok in the 90s so sure it will be fine now. NO. As drivers we are looking to improve safety, not just go along with old practices. And this will NOT improve safety, it will downgrade it.
I'll say it here again on record, from conversations I've had in past few days, I'm confident this won't last too long, but we shall see
.....

Speed set - a recipe for disaster. Don’t like to see it in cars, let alone trains!

I’ll say it here again, on the record, that v84 is not going away. GWR might have ATP but higher authorities want a limiter on all 80x stock that takes away any overspeed risk when the TMS is reset.

Personally speaking, having gone well over the limit on the ECML for the type of traction I am up front on (as a working member of the M&EE), I would prefer the old days when you relied on a very experienced driver doing his stuff with traction he knew well on a line he knew well but that was then and now is very different. Trying to turn drivers into identikit behavioural robots now seems to be the name of the game.

There are some good reasons for this in amongst the bad but when you get a driver hacking down the ECML at the speed he did, because a software reset did something it shouldn’t have done, you have to take that risk away at source.
 

geoffk

On Moderation
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,933
Location
Exeter
No of course not but its hardly a ringing endorsement of the current railway when we can no longer achieve the speeds attained in the 1970s.
The 1976 GWML timetable, when the HSTs were new, looks remarkably adventurous today, but we need to remember that today's trains make more stops. Just about everything now calls at Reading and Swindon, for example.
 

alxndr

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2015
Messages
1,694
So the onboard electronics and signalling system work in metric but the speedo is in imperial? That's confusing. Didn't the electrification project of GWML convert everything into metric on that line?

Is 200 km/h the configuration of the speed limiter?
It's a mixture. The electrification is metric, the signalling is calculated in metric (although the location cases are numbered with miles and meters), but the mileposts are still in miles. ATP still works in yards.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,891
I frequently use the manual limiter when driving my car, why would I not want one when driving a train where the consequences (both administrative and practical) may be much higher?

I'm really surprised they aren't already limited to 125. (I'm not sure that actually being 124.85 or whatever it is really matters).
I agree here.

I understand the frustration of drivers who have really got the knack for maintaining 125mph and certainly cognitive underload is a concern.

A alternative benefit is being able to accelerate right at the maximum rate right up to 125... (sorry - 124.141592...)

But this seems like a prudent thing to try. Faster accelerating units and improved junctions far offset the tiny increase in journey time.

That said, I would be lying if I said I didn't like being on a train pushing the boundaries of the speed limit a bit ;)
 

Railperf

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2017
Messages
3,684
Speed set - a recipe for disaster. Don’t like to see it in cars, let alone trains!

I’ll say it here again, on the record, that v84 is not going away. GWR might have ATP but higher authorities want a limiter on all 80x stock that takes away any overspeed risk when the TMS is reset.

Personally speaking, having gone well over the limit on the ECML for the type of traction I am up front on (as a working member of the M&EE), I would prefer the old days when you relied on a very experienced driver doing his stuff with traction he knew well on a line he knew well but that was then and now is very different. Trying to turn drivers into identikit behavioural robots now seems to be the name of the game.

There are some good reasons for this in amongst the bad but when you get a driver hacking down the ECML at the speed he did, because a software reset did something it shouldn’t have done, you have to take that risk away at source.
The problem with this is that any significant overspeed - say 10km/h or 5 or 6mph over any speed limit - is potentially a safety issue. In the case of TPE, we don't know what might have happened had the driver encountered double yellows approaching a junction at those sorts of speeds - would there have been time to bring the train to a halt safely?

It's good that something is being done. But is it the right intervention and was 200km/h the best limit to set?

I see this is an 'easy fix' over a single fleet and can be done with a few laptops. But why 200kph as a limit rather than 205.

Now a precedent has been set, do the higher authorities demand limiters be fitted to every fleet of trains to ensure they do not stray a single mph over the unit's maximum speed limit? And then how do you ensure that any train running cannot stray over any posted limit by a single mph?
Do C2C now fit a 'soft' limiter to their 100mph fleet to ensure the units cannot exceed 74mph? But how does that protect passengers as the train traverses low speed junctions?

In this day and age, what was needed is a simple app built in to the train dashboard or drivers tablet devices that uses GPS to recognise what route they are on, the direction of travel and a reminder of the speed limit - with some sort of audible warning to alert the driver if he is exceeding the limit.
A train specific version of Google Maps or Waze would do.
An allowance of +/- 2-3 mph should reasonable - and allow for wheelset wear.

Maybe we need to set the speed limit of each service 2-3 mph below the maximum speed limit now - just to be absolutely sure that no overspeeding occurs?

Although the underlying technology works to km/h - setting the limit to 200km/h or 124mph sends out an overall message to the industry that driving at the maximum speed limit in the right place is now almost seen as a crime. Before 2-3 mph over was understood to be acceptable , but now we setting an operational limit 1mph under that.

And as i noted before, sectional running times for trains are worked out at 125mph, not 200km/h, and so net running times will suffer as a result. the ability if drivers to keep their trains running to time is reduced!
There is an easy fix for that too - just add a minute here and there into the schedule to compensate.

There are too many mixed messages here - and the solution only takes away a tiny part of the problem.
But with energy prices on the increase - i wonder how long before operators and the higher authorities start looking at journey times and working out how to seriously reduce energy costs through the lowering of some speed limits - running at 110mph rather than 125mph possibly - which may have a positive effect on capacity - but could slowly increase journey times.



But for those who love to experience a true 125mph+ on a train, there is still HS1 through Kent, and one or two other operators whose trains don't have 200 km/h limiters fitted for now!
 

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,529
Location
Plymouth
The problem with this is that any significant overspeed - say 10km/h or 5 or 6mph over any speed limit - is potentially a safety issue. In the case of TPE, we don't know what might have happened had the driver encountered double yellows approaching a junction at those sorts of speeds - would there have been time to bring the train to a halt safely?

It's good that something is being done. But is it the right intervention and was 200km/h the best limit to set?

I see this is an 'easy fix' over a single fleet and can be done with a few laptops. But why 200kph as a limit rather than 205.

Now a precedent has been set, do the higher authorities demand limiters be fitted to every fleet of trains to ensure they do not stray a single mph over the unit's maximum speed limit? And then how do you ensure that any train running cannot stray over any posted limit by a single mph?
Do C2C now fit a 'soft' limiter to their 100mph fleet to ensure the units cannot exceed 74mph? But how does that protect passengers as the train traverses low speed junctions?

In this day and age, what was needed is a simple app built in to the train dashboard or drivers tablet devices that uses GPS to recognise what route they are on, the direction of travel and a reminder of the speed limit - with some sort of audible warning to alert the driver if he is exceeding the limit.
A train specific version of Google Maps or Waze would do.
An allowance of +/- 2-3 mph should reasonable - and allow for wheelset wear.

Maybe we need to set the speed limit of each service 2-3 mph below the maximum speed limit now - just to be absolutely sure that no overspeeding occurs?

Although the underlying technology works to km/h - setting the limit to 200km/h or 124mph sends out an overall message to the industry that driving at the maximum speed limit in the right place is now almost seen as a crime. Before 2-3 mph over was understood to be acceptable , but now we setting an operational limit 1mph under that.

And as i noted before, sectional running times for trains are worked out at 125mph, not 200km/h, and so net running times will suffer as a result. the ability if drivers to keep their trains running to time is reduced!
There is an easy fix for that too - just add a minute here and there into the schedule to compensate.

There are too many mixed messages here - and the solution only takes away a tiny part of the problem.
But with energy prices on the increase - i wonder how long before operators and the higher authorities start looking at journey times and working out how to seriously reduce energy costs through the lowering of some speed limits - running at 110mph rather than 125mph possibly - which may have a positive effect on capacity - but could slowly increase journey times.



But for those who love to experience a true 125mph+ on a train, there is still HS1 through Kent, and one or two other operators whose trains don't have 200 km/h limiters fitted for now!
This. Why can the limiter not be set at say 128mph? That way, should a driver have a " senior moment " the fastest they will go is 128, but in normal circumstances they will need to still work to keep the speed at 125 and therefore keep up their alertness.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
How is the speed measured? If it's by counting wheel revolutions, how much does the measured speed vary between brand new wheels and those at the minimum diameter before replacement? More than the 1% or so being discussed?
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
3,272
This. Why can the limiter not be set at say 128mph? That way, should a driver have a " senior moment " the fastest they will go is 128, but in normal circumstances they will need to still work to keep the speed at 125 and therefore keep up their alertness.

Because that is not deemed acceptable to the safety authorities. The maximum the train should be allowed to go is 125mph - that’s the nub of the issue.

To refer to other previous posts, I’m not personally in favour of adding yet more reminder or information appliances into the cab. There’s a lot in there already.

Drifting along at a set speed (effectively cruise controlling) is something I don’t like to see on road or rail because of the concentration risk, hence my dislike of cruise control speed setting but the risk of accelerating a piece of powerful kit like a cl.802 to some hairy speed is real, especially on the ECML and a speed limiter is probably the easiest way to eliminate that risk.
 

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,529
Location
Plymouth
Because that is not deemed acceptable to the safety authorities. The maximum the train should be allowed to go is 125mph - that’s the nub of the issue.

To refer to other previous posts, I’m not personally in favour of adding yet more reminder or information appliances into the cab. There’s a lot in there already.

Drifting along at a set speed (effectively cruise controlling) is something I don’t like to see on road or rail because of the concentration risk, hence my dislike of cruise control speed setting but the risk of accelerating a piece of powerful kit like a cl.802 to some hairy speed is real, especially on the ECML and a speed limiter is probably the easiest way to eliminate that risk.
I agree and we are on the same wave length I think, but the crucial bit for me is as you say the ECML is where this will be of benefit and not the Western. If only those that came out with these ideas could use a little common sense before knee jerk reactions.....
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,641
Location
Northampton
I agree and we are on the same wave length I think, but the crucial bit for me is as you say the ECML is where this will be of benefit and not the Western. If only those that came out with these ideas could use a little common sense before knee jerk reactions.....
I think the critical bit here is that people who are trying to find solutions need to talk to the people actually dealing with the problem first!
 

Railperf

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2017
Messages
3,684
I agree and we are on the same wave length I think, but the crucial bit for me is as you say the ECML is where this will be of benefit and not the Western. If only those that came out with these ideas could use a little common sense before knee jerk reactions.....
Am I right in believing a limiter was not required on GWR due to ATP protection - but probably because the IET was procured by DfT, any change to the ECML fleet has to be mirrored across the whole GWR fleet? And of course the 802's which were not part of the same contract require the same intervention as they are operationally integrated into the DfT IET fleet now?

Are GWR short formed HST GTi's now going to receive a 99mph limiter to ensure they cannot exceed 100mph? For that matter, which other legacy fleets in the country are now going to be fitted with top speed limiters? EMR/ Virgin Voyagers? Virgin Pendolino's? Every piece of stock that can easily run more than 1mph over its maximum operating speed?
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
3,272
I think the aim rather is to have a common software version for all 80x types.

I don’t think retrofitting speed limiters on their own is in anybody’s plans - interfacing with ETCS and what that does to the various traction/brake control mechanisms is the next challenge, as is the obsolescence rate of the GWR ATP system.
 

Railperf

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2017
Messages
3,684
I think the aim rather is to have a common software version for all 80x types.

I don’t think retrofitting speed limiters on their own is in anybody’s plans - interfacing with ETCS and what that does to the various traction/brake control mechanisms is the next challenge, as is the obsolescence rate of the GWR ATP system.
How many years does GW ATP have in it? Did I read somewhere that Chiltern's system is now obsolete?
 

D7666

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2013
Messages
998
Speed set - a recipe for disaster. Don’t like to see it in cars, let alone trains!

.....

There are some good reasons for this in amongst the bad but when you get a driver hacking down the ECML at the speed he did, because a software reset did something it shouldn’t have done, you have to take that risk away at source.

Despite all their on board safety gubbins, I have clocked a 700 north of Thames at 107 mph. I did mention this at the time, and there were howls of protest of "impossible" "three systems must agree" and so on.

The fact is, if something somewhere is calibrated incorrectly, systems will give an incorrect output if all the checks agree. Classic rubbish in = rubbish out.

The 700 I logged at that speed was on it's first day in passenger traffic, on IIRC only it's 2nd or 3rd run, which is why I was on it, red underlining, and, a bit later in the day it was swapped over, and went out of use for 2 weeks. This was in the period when there was a mass of different software mods on 700s for those early issues they had. And a period of very very low reliability and availability.

IMHO what happened here is possibly, maybe, the unit involved might have been whirling round Wildenrath test circuit at 170 km/h (~107 mph) for some reason, not been re-set to standard, and in the kaos they were probably in at the time got pushed into traffic in that state.

Being a commuter on the route, but not one who clocks trains normally, it was the fact of knowing the route back to front from years of commuting that made me notice the abnormal speed hence put a wrist watch on it. I accept the lack of precision with a (Casio) wrist watch lap timer, but, you can't repeat the same error over 5 consecutive quarter mileposts with the 4 sectional times all coming out at ~107 mph +/- insignificant decimal places.

Supports the whole point - a speed controlled train could be commanded to run at a much higher speed than the nominal limit by software, be it programming error or system glitch. And humans don't make programming errors and software never glitches does it ?
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,308
Did I read somewhere that Chiltern's system is now obsolete?
It‘s been mentioned in a thread somewhere before, but “rail engineer” magazine online version had an article explaining that TPWS version 4 will be fitted and their ATP will be switched off next year. Article can be found here:
 

357

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2018
Messages
2,284
Am I right in believing a limiter was not required on GWR due to ATP protection - but probably because the IET was procured by DfT, any change to the ECML fleet has to be mirrored across the whole GWR fleet? And of course the 802's which were not part of the same contract require the same intervention as they are operationally integrated into the DfT IET fleet now?

Are GWR short formed HST GTi's now going to receive a 99mph limiter to ensure they cannot exceed 100mph? For that matter, which other legacy fleets in the country are now going to be fitted with top speed limiters? EMR/ Virgin Voyagers? Virgin Pendolino's? Every piece of stock that can easily run more than 1mph over its maximum operating speed?
I think it makes sense for all the trains to run the same software if possible.

I think there is no need to fit a limited to stock if it has been assessed that there isn't an issue. There was a specific issue with 80x trains where a driver could think the speed set / limiter was active when it wasn't.

If you are driving a stock without speedset then I think there are bigger issues if you think you've set it!
 

alxndr

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2015
Messages
1,694
How many years does GW ATP have in it? Did I read somewhere that Chiltern's system is now obsolete?
The last rumours I heard was that there was going to be some life extension work done on the GWML version.
 

Astro_Orbiter

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2019
Messages
292
Location
UK
Don't understand where you drivers are coming from being against this to be honest. I use a form of speed set all day long on the trains I drive, removes the risk of overspending and intervention almost completely. You set the speed control at around 5 below the max permissive speed, and then leave the power full on. The 5 tolerance allows for gradients and it creeping slightly over.
Even if you didn't want to drive like that, you can set the limit at max line speed and if you're proper keen you can try hold the speed yourself at a few below linespeed, personally I find this a tiring way to drive a train for 2+ hours at a time.
 

VP185

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2010
Messages
401
What utter nonsense this is, another knee jerk reaction to an incident when presumably keeps someone who‘s never driven a train employed.
The result of this simple means drivers can simply switch off, there’s no real need to monitor anything. It will only lead to an increase in incidents.
The real root cause of the issues we have today comes from the fact new drivers are taught to drive by numbers. No one is permitted to find their own style of driving, something they are comfortable with, something that works for them. Unfortunately todays training is extremely poor.
 

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,529
Location
Plymouth
What utter nonsense this is, another knee jerk reaction to an incident when presumably keeps someone who‘s never driven a train employed.
The result of this simple means drivers can simply switch off, there’s no real need to monitor anything. It will only lead to an increase in incidents.
The real root cause of the issues we have today comes from the fact new drivers are taught to drive by numbers. No one is permitted to find their own style of driving, something they are comfortable with, something that works for them. Unfortunately todays training is extremely poor.
Agree with most of that. I think they do want us to drive a certain way (and Hell you know about it when you experience driving from some "fresh" drivers. ). Constant on / off the power, creeping into stations, losing time left right and centre. And I don't blame the driver, its the system telling them to drive robotically without a second thought for the poor passenger.
 
Joined
29 Oct 2021
Messages
180
Location
Newton Abbot
What utter nonsense this is, another knee jerk reaction to an incident when presumably keeps someone who‘s never driven a train employed.
The result of this simple means drivers can simply switch off, there’s no real need to monitor anything. It will only lead to an increase in incidents.
The real root cause of the issues we have today comes from the fact new drivers are taught to drive by numbers. No one is permitted to find their own style of driving, something they are comfortable with, something that works for them. Unfortunately todays training is extremely poor.
But incidents have gone down, in the modern era. 900 to 1000 Spads 1980s to about 300 per year now. The stats are on the ORR web site.
 

gabrielhj07

Established Member
Joined
5 May 2022
Messages
1,620
Location
Herts
new drivers are taught to drive by numbers. No one is permitted to find their own style of driving, something they are comfortable with, something that works for them.
I’m not a driver so this is speculative, however wouldn’t drivers naturally develop a style over time, in much the same way as happens on the roads, despite pretty samey training?
 

43066

Veteran Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
12,089
Location
London
What utter nonsense this is, another knee jerk reaction to an incident when presumably keeps someone who‘s never driven a train employed.
The result of this simple means drivers can simply switch off, there’s no real need to monitor anything. It will only lead to an increase in incidents.
The real root cause of the issues we have today comes from the fact new drivers are taught to drive by numbers. No one is permitted to find their own style of driving, something they are comfortable with, something that works for them. Unfortunately todays training is extremely poor.

Agree with this. Managers can make a huge difference here, the good ones allow leeway for drivers to find their own style rather than slavishly following the driving policy to the letter.


Don't understand where you drivers are coming from being against this to be honest. I use a form of speed set all day long on the trains I drive, removes the risk of overspending and intervention almost completely. You set the speed control at around 5 below the max permissive speed, and then leave the power full on. The 5 tolerance allows for gradients and it creeping slightly over.
Even if you didn't want to drive like that, you can set the limit at max line speed and if you're proper keen you can try hold the speed yourself at a few below linespeed, personally I find this a tiring way to drive a train for 2+ hours at a time.

Why not just drive at line speed? I have no problem doing so with no limiter or speed set, journeys of two hours and above.
 

Efini92

Established Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
2,137
The real root cause of the issues we have today comes from the fact new drivers are taught to drive by numbers. No one is permitted to find their own style of driving, something they are comfortable with, something that works for them. Unfortunately todays training is extremely poor.
I agree the training today is a lot worse, however for trains fitted with TASS, there’s only one way to drive them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top