Timed for 50mph Max?

[trainmania100]

Ok so ive just seen an engineering train like no other
Its GBRf operated, and is timed for 50mph max
Its trailing load is an unusual 695 tonnes...
Ive seen 45mph max for Class 7 headcodes but what is special enough to dictate a 50mph max timetable at 695 tonnes diesel locomotive trailing load?

Please see below the timetable in question.
The heacode is 6G12, but why 50mph?

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/U20063/2017/04/23/advanced

Many thanks

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I would take the timing speed with a pinch of salt. Last time I looked at RTT it was a class 158 schedule claimed to be timed at 100mph.

 

[hexagon789]

RTT timing speeds can be pretty off sometimes. I've seen 125mph timings for an 80 mph route and even an ECS supposedly timed for 168 mph!!!

 

[headshot119]

I would take the timing speed with a pinch of salt. Last time I looked at RTT it was a class 158 schedule claimed to be timed at 100mph.

That's because that's how Network Rail provide the timings. It's not a fault with RTT.

RTT timing speeds can be pretty off sometimes. I've seen 125mph timings for an 80 mph route and even an ECS supposedly timed for 168 mph!!!

A train can be timed for 125mph irregardless of the maximum speed of the route. The acceleration characteristics will be different to for example a 75mph train.

168mph trains are caused by VSTP / STP workings being timed to meters per second, and not being calculated correctly.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

RTT timing speeds can be pretty off sometimes. I've seen 125mph timings for an 80 mph route and even an ECS supposedly timed for 168 mph!!!

The timing speed will relate to the traction, not the route. That doesn't explain 168mph though, perhaps it was a Series 1 Paris-Sud Est TGV? (Or a rail replacement bus.)

 

[hexagon789]

The 125 mph was for a Class 156 working on the Nith Valley line. I doubt anyone could coax a 156 up to 125.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

High output ballast cleaner being moved?

 

[hexagon789]

Very high output!

 

[najaB]

Or a rail replacement bus.

I didn't know Ferrari did RRBs now.

 

[PHILIPE]

There was a STP schedule for an ECS from Swansea to Canton as a 158 timed at 201 mph. This regular glitch just can't be sorted or a Network Rail not bothered

 

[cf111]

I would take the timing speed with a pinch of salt. Last time I looked at RTT it was a class 158 schedule claimed to be timed at 100mph.

This is quite useful (at least up in Scotland) to see if a 170 is scheduled to run the service, a 158 schedule at 100MPH will normally be a 170, but it if says 90MPH then it's normally a 158. Not foolproof but right 9 times out of 10 in my experience!

 

[najaB]

This regular glitch just can't be sorted or a Network Rail not bothered

The issue is that there are a lot of systems that have been coded to take the bug into consideration so 'fixing' it now would actually break a lot of code. There comes a point where "it's not a bug, it's an undocumented feature" actually becomes true.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Does the train weight sound right for the HOBC?

 

[The Planner]

The HOBC is normally 3000 odd tonnes when out and about. Its a bone fide timing load even if odd, may well be wagon related.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I didn't know Ferrari did RRBs now.

Neither did I until I did Grantham-Nottingham in under 30 mins on a coach which actually beat the booked train schedule. I swear we were on two wheels coming off a roundabout on the edge of Notts.

 

[trainmania100]

The HOBC is normally 3000 odd tonnes when out and about. Its a bone fide timing load even if odd, may well be wagon related.

2400 is usually HOBC I believe
Perhaps this is a mix of 45moh and 60moh wagons
Nothing unusual on the inbound paths so must be a mess up.
Was just seeing if anyone had any ideas but looks like everyone is as curious as I am
Maybe closer to the time someone could maybe find some information on the consist.
There were some Sevington sidings to three bridges paths for April but they seem to have gone now...

 

[The Planner]

Ive certainly timed the HOBC at 3000 in the past.

 

[185143]

This is quite useful (at least up in Scotland) to see if a 170 is scheduled to run the service, a 158 schedule at 100MPH will normally be a 170, but it if says 90MPH then it's normally a 158. Not foolproof but right 9 times out of 10 in my experience!

Same on ATW with 175s and 158s.

Then a 150 rolls up

 

[JN114]

2400 is usually HOBC I believe
Perhaps this is a mix of 45moh and 60moh wagons
Nothing unusual on the inbound paths so must be a mess up.
Was just seeing if anyone had any ideas but looks like everyone is as curious as I am
Maybe closer to the time someone could maybe find some information on the consist.
There were some Sevington sidings to three bridges paths for April but they seem to have gone now...

If it's a mix of 45mph and 60mph wagons then maximum speed will be 45mph - the lowest maximum permissible speed within the consist always applies. You won't do well timing a 45mph train to run at 50mph.

It means exactly what it says on the tin - this train has been timetabled as if it can run at a maximum of 50mph, trailing 695t. It's not a statement of what the consist is, just the minimum capability of the train the operates that service.

 

[D1009]

Ok so ive just seen an engineering train like no other
Its GBRf operated, and is timed for 50mph max
Its trailing load is an unusual 695 tonnes...
Ive seen 45mph max for Class 7 headcodes but what is special enough to dictate a 50mph max timetable at 695 tonnes diesel locomotive trailing load?

Please see below the timetable in question.
The heacode is 6G12, but why 50mph?

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/U20063/2017/04/23/advanced

Many thanks

When I worked in train planning 5 years ago there were certainly freight wagons with a maximum speed of 50 mph, and there were timings in the system over certain routes to cover that eventuality. Whether the train concerned really does have such wagons is questionable, I suspect that whoever planned it decided this was the most appropriate timing load.

 

[richw]

Neither did I until I did Grantham-Nottingham in under 30 mins on a coach which actually beat the booked train schedule. I swear we were on two wheels coming off a roundabout on the edge of Notts.

Yesterday I took the coach duplicate for the 1557 off Plymouth which was short formed. The coach was running first stop Liskeard whereas the train was running all shacks. The coach beat the train by around 5 minutes.

 

[trainmania100]

If it's a mix of 45mph and 60mph wagons then maximum speed will be 45mph - the lowest maximum permissible speed within the consist always applies. You won't do well timing a 45mph train to run at 50mph.

It means exactly what it says on the tin - this train has been timetabled as if it can run at a maximum of 50mph, trailing 695t. It's not a statement of what the consist is, just the minimum capability of the train the operates that service.

Ah okay thankyou for your reply

 

[GB]

It means exactly what it says on the tin - this train has been timetabled as if it can run at a maximum of 50mph, trailing 695t. It's not a statement of what the consist is, just the minimum capability of the train the operates that service.

Of course doesn't necessarily mean it's correct though.

6L48 Garston - Dagenham is timed to run at 60mph. However the train has a maximum permissible speed of 50mph.

 

[trainmania100]

If its not an X head code its probably nothing interesting
X engineers head codes often have point carriers etc.
I am yet to see point carriers and I wouldn't mind copping some autoballasters too

 

[kieron]

Same on ATW with 175s and 158s.

Then a 150 rolls up

I've never quite understood why (for instance) 170s and 175s are shown in the same way in the data, but don't use the same timings (170s can use sprinter speeds, for instance). If it doesn't tell you what's booked for a service, or what timings the train is expected to achieve, what is it for?

 

[yorkie]

I've never quite understood why (for instance) 170s and 175s are shown in the same way in the data, but don't use the same timings (170s can use sprinter speeds, for instance). If it doesn't tell you what's booked for a service, or what timings the train is expected to achieve, what is it for?

see: timing loads

There is no currently provision in the open data for indicating what type of traction is booked to work any service, though many people have called for it. Maybe one day...

 

[JN114]

I've never quite understood why (for instance) 170s and 175s are shown in the same way in the data, but don't use the same timings (170s can use sprinter speeds, for instance). If it doesn't tell you what's booked for a service, or what timings the train is expected to achieve, what is it for?

And herein lies, in my humble opinion, the problem with open data feeds in the first place.

A lot of the information within was never designed for public consumption, but it's easier and "more transparent" to publish everything and let the developer filter what needs to be seen and what is largely irrelevant to the end user. The problem is RTT and OTT and the many others have just published everything anyway, and leave it to the end user to decipher what it's all there for. That in turn leads to a handful of reliable people who actually haven't grasped it at all teaching others completely wrong and we end up with "RTT has this train running so it must be this" and so on.

The Timing Load is effectively a shorthand display name of sorts for the set of Sectional Running Times used to compile the schedule. It gives anyone using the timetable an at-a-glance insight into the theoretical performance capabilities of the train. They appear the same in RTT et al, but there are separate sets of SRTs for them each to use. As to why both types appear as DMU E 100 you'll have to grab a time machine and ask Railtrack Train Planning in the late 90s when the 170s and 175s timings were put into the database. Anyone who needs to know the consist, will (should) have access to systems that provide that information. I kind of understand the thinking behind the open data mob including it on their various sites, as it will give clues to someone who understands the basic principles of timing loads, but the information is generally meaningless to the public at large.

 

[JN114]

Of course doesn't necessarily mean it's correct though.

6L48 Garston - Dagenham is timed to run at 60mph. However the train has a maximum permissible speed of 50mph.

My understanding is that the (relatively) lightweight nature of Automotive trains, coupled with the ability of most automotive wagons to run on "PASS" brake timings/settings, means that any performance lost by running at below timetabled maximum speed is offset by greater acceleration and braking rates than typical freight trains.

 

[The Planner]

People also need to realise that what is shown in RTT as the timing load isn't necessarily the same as whats in the planning system. Class 168 is a prime example, they have their own set of SRTs but RTT doesn't show them as 168s.

 

[DarloRich]

If its not an X head code its probably nothing interesting
X engineers head codes often have point carriers etc.
I am yet to see point carriers and I wouldn't mind copping some autoballasters too

That isnt really true. Most engineers trains run under a different letter.

Mind you I have seen enough of those wagon types close up to have no lingering interest in them as individual units! The wagons also don't really do anything in transit