• 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!

Slow running train (between Carlisle & Preston)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
8,322
A Class 66 can normally keep time on 4M27/
Looking at RTT, 4M27 had been delayed in Scotland, and in Carlisle Upperby loop to allow other passenger services to overtake it.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
6,524
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
Otherwise, letting it out at Carlisle (having known it haemorraged time over Beattock due to the traction, and knowing it would do the same over Shap) was a terrible bit of regulation.

With overlength trains the timetable only works if every train is on time. If not, no matter when the freight is despatched delay will result, and the train has to run at some point. Holding a late running overlength freight until guaranteed not to cause more delay would not be possible.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,237
Trains too long for the infrastructure are apparently also a feature of the stone trains from Westbury etc coming up the Berks & Hants/GWML to London. Discussion on why they were dispatched, significantly late, onward from Reading in the path for a Liz Line train on the Up Relief was that there was nowhere to stop it at Reading where it didn't block back.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,904
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Presumably the "WCML North" project just starting will re-design the loops (fewer but longer), as well as providing much-needed bi-di signalling.
I've never forgotten overtaking a long freight train on the Tauern route in Austria, using the "wrong line" uphill at speed.
Imagine doing that up Grayrigg, Shap and Beattock!
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,460
Location
Northampton
Presumably the "WCML North" project just starting will re-design the loops (fewer but longer), as well as providing much-needed bi-di signalling.
Depends what their scope and budget is. Ideally the loops would be extended to full running lines of 2-3 miles on the Uphill sections so both freight and passenger can keep rolling, but I suspect we'll be lucky if we get much more than a like-for-like replacement of the loops.
 

Port Road

Member
Joined
27 Sep 2025
Messages
89
Location
Scotland
I think that's the only thing you can take from this. Otherwise, letting it out at Carlisle (having known it haemorraged time over Beattock due to the traction, and knowing it would do the same over Shap) was a terrible bit of regulation.
Really? Keep it there all day then? The margins between the fast trains are the same every hour through the day.
When, in your infinite wisdom, should it have been let out?
 

D1537

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
2,036
Location
North Yorkshire
Really? Keep it there all day then? The margins between the fast trains are the same every hour through the day.
When, in your infinite wisdom, should it have been let out?
If you'd read my comment, it was in reply to "So realistically, looping it anywhere would've delayed passenger services as it wouldn't have a path anywhere they put it."

Thus, I was saying "Yes I agree. Otherwise (i.e. if that wasn't the case) letting it out was a poor idea." So I was actually agreeing.
 

QueensCurve

Established Member
Joined
22 Dec 2014
Messages
2,196
Originally under BR no freight train was allowed to run that did not fit into every loop on the route. The length of the loops was a factor of the maximum load that could be hauled over the route as shown in the freight train loads book.

Loops were originally designed to accommodate two locos to allow for a failed train to be dragged into the loop, plus an allowance at the entrance end to accommodate assistance from the rear and make sure that the assisting locos could stand in clear.

In the early 1980s the expansion of contained traffic resulted in traffic between Glasgow and Felixstowe exceeding the maximum that could be accommodated as the number of wagons from Basford Hall where additional freightliner wagon sets from Garston and Trafford Park were attached. The resultant train was both over-weight for a single class 86 as well as being over-length for the capacity of the loops south of Crewe.

Rather than run two trains the logical and most economical solution was taken to extend the length of the train. this being 4E76 19:30 Coatbridge FLT to Felixstowe MCT. This took 2 x 86s from Coatbridge to enable it to climb Beattock and Shap. Normally these would have come off at Basford Hall however they continued to Willesden where as far as I remember the train was worked forward by 2 x 37.

Because of the length and the weight, 4E76 was subject to special regulation in the former London Division as the only locations where it could be looped were Rugby on the Up TV slow, Bletchley in the UGL and Kings Langley Up Loop. The supervisors at Rugby and Bletchley PSBs would regularly converse with one-another with regards to the running of 4E76 when it was approaching from Nuneaton and when it would pass Rugby. Wherever possible the booked routing of 4E76 via the old line was adhered to even at the start of the morning peak to avoid the torturous diversion down into what was known as "the black hole" e.g. Northampton and the notorious 15mph PSR at the south end of the station at the bottom of the climb up to the birdcage at Roade.

Care also had to be taken in how 4E76 was run alongside other trains as if it was slowed or stopped, the two 86s would bring out the breakers if power was applied too quickly. This meant that re-starting the train or regaining speed could take a long distance. Many, many times when it was coming off a slack for example or getting a signal check, the ECR at Willesden would ring to report an OCB operation for which the ECR operator would simply simply reset the breakers and restore the traction current when we told him that 4E76 was in section. As far as I know this was the only train on BR that such arrangements applied to it.

Under Privatisation, as freight started to increase, the number of trains longer than loops along the route could accommodate increased. As I think another poster has alluded to the cost of even a small extension to a loop can result in very significant infrastructure costs, especially in terms of signalling especially should entrance signals need to be moved backwards as this will affect the spacing of signals to the rear potentially for some distance. That is why loops have not generally been extended.

I think long trains with limited looping capacity will be a long-standing feature of modern operations.

Hope this helps.
Thank you very much.
 

QueensCurve

Established Member
Joined
22 Dec 2014
Messages
2,196
Presumably the "WCML North" project just starting will re-design the loops (fewer but longer), as well as providing much-needed bi-di signalling.
I've never forgotten overtaking a long freight train on the Tauern route in Austria, using the "wrong line" uphill at speed.
Imagine doing that up Grayrigg, Shap and Beattock!
At Brig in Switzerland I remember seeing a very long and presumably very heavy freight train that had gone out of the Lötschberg route (a very steep climb) wrong line. It had 3, 10,000 hp, Class re 6/6 locos at the front and another three in middle. It had stopped until 2 passenger trains overtook it then started up again presumably to cross onto the left line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top