Northern don't want 142s back

[whole diary]

[devon_metro]

Can't really think of much stopping them, apart from Dawlish and Torre tunnels.

Where is this tunnel at Torre then? 

Fine, big bridge/cutting near the Shiphay Road. Always seems quite restrictive there.

[woody]

Perhaps you should join some of the many Northerners/Londoners/Others who use FGW^▸ (First Great Western)/XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) to travel to the SouthWest on holiday weekends through the summer & various other holiday times of the year and then tell me a HST^▸ (High Speed Train)/Voyager is wasted West of Bristol

Just the same as you could take a trip up to Blackpool, The Lake District or Scarborough and wonder why you're travelling on nothing better than a 185.

I don't disagree, and I am not isolated enough to know that the situation is the same/worse for other areas of the country, i'm just making the point that HSTs and Voyagers are suitable west of Exeter, due to the holiday destinations they serve, even though the average linespeed is poor from around Dawlish through to Penzance.

Dartmoor railway have a mile of track passed for 125mph,how much more of this route could be made fit for high speed running as a complimentary through route if the the money and political will was there.But its not of course.

[The SprinterMeister]

Dartmoor railway have a mile of track passed for 125mph,how much more of this route could be made fit for high speed running as a complimentary through route if the the money and political will was there.But its not of course.

The answer is not a lot. Apart from the four mile ruler straight section between Bow & Fullaford. The line becomes increasingly curvatious beyond Sampford Courtenay station. So we would need to add the words 'physically possible' to the words 'money' and 'polictical will' there I think.

You could of course build a new route straight over the moor to bypass the abandoned section I guess if money is no object, no doubt the conservationists and the Dartmoor National Park might have a few words to say on the matter. Nor do I think the decrease in journey time would generate sufficient extra revenue to even make a stab at defraying the construction cost.

[northwesterntrains]

Dartmoor railway have a mile of track passed for 125mph,how much more of this route could be made fit for high speed running as a complimentary through route if the the money and political will was there.But its not of course.

One issue with line speed is that it varies for different stock and if the usual traction type isn't the one that can do the highest speed then it may not be raised.

Examples that come to mind are:
1. Leftwich Viaduct (Northern's Chester to Manchester service) has a 20mph speed limit.  Network Rail tests have found it can be raised to 50mph for non-Pacers but as Pacers are common traction for the line it hasn't been done.
2. Parts of the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) have speed limits of 110mph for most stock and 125mph for 221s and 390s due to the tilting facility.  I don't know if the same could apply in the West Country where HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are more common than 221s.
3. The speed limit on Selby-Hull is lower for 185s than 158s and 170s due to the latter being lighter.

[brompton rail]

XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))'s 221s have had the tilt removed and theefore variable speed restrictions would be pointless anywhere south of Birmingham.

The Trans Pennine 185s are ill suited to their core routes (Preston / Manchester / Sheffield & Cleethorpes / Leeds, because as they are heavier than 158s and 170s they can't take advantage of higher Sprinter speed limits. However they accelerate quicker and are good for WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line), as well as having 3 cars and not 2.

[northwesterntrains]

The Trans Pennine 185s are ill suited to their core routes (Preston / Manchester / Sheffield & Cleethorpes / Leeds, because as they are heavier than 158s and 170s they can't take advantage of higher Sprinter speed limits. However they accelerate quicker and are good for WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line), as well as having 3 cars and not 2.

The 100mph speed is of advantage on the Newcastle/Scottish routes where speed limits can be 110 or 125.  However, Voyagers would be better on those services that can do the extra 25mph.

The 2 car 170s and 3 car 185s replaced 2 car 175s (on the old FNW routes), 2 and 3 car 158s (on the old ATN routes) and 4 car 220s (on the Scottish route.)  The 3 car 185s have less seating than the 3 car 158s.  They were due to get a fourth car but as has been mentioned hundreds of times DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) cut funding.  TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) are always keen at pointing out that a 185 only has 5 less standard class seats than a 4 car 220, but do have a much smaller 1st class area.

[The SprinterMeister]

Where is this tunnel at Torre then? 

Fine, big bridge/cutting near the Shiphay Road. Always seems quite restrictive there.

Lawes Road Bridge according to the Wessex Trains route learning pack. I don't think 16x would have a problem there as the curvature isn't that great and 150's (2.82 metres wide) get through there without any problems. Topsham Loop might be more of an issue due to the limited clearances and the slight curvature. No doubt somebody will do a gauging run if   the LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) services go over to EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) operation and the 16x become available.

[woody]

Dartmoor railway have a mile of track passed for 125mph,how much more of this route could be made fit for high speed running as a complimentary through route if the the money and political will was there.But its not of course.

The answer is not a lot. Apart from the four mile ruler straight section between Bow & Fullaford. The line becomes increasingly curvatious beyond Sampford Courtenay station. So we would need to add the words 'physically possible' to the words 'money' and 'polictical will' there I think.

You could of course build a new route straight over the moor to bypass the abandoned section I guess if money is no object, no doubt the conservationists and the Dartmoor National Park might have a few words to say on the matter. Nor do I think the decrease in journey time would generate sufficient extra revenue to even make a stab at defraying the construction cost.

Just as a matter of historical interest there was very nearly a main line built across Dartmoor linking Exeter and Plymouth in 1840.A serious scheme pre-dating Brunnels South Devon Railway was proposed.
 "RENDEL'S PROPOSAL: A RAILWAY ACROSS THE CENTRE OF DARTMOOR"
http://www.plymouthdata.info/Railways-Rendel%27s%20proposal.htm

[LiskeardRich]

Not really - firstly a trip from Paddington to Penzance will take very roughly 5 hours, as opposed to maybe 90 minutes Manchester to Blackpool. Secondly, those trains will travel over sections of track en route where the line speed is 125.

Use whatever perverse logic you like, but the 180s could be far better utilized by an intercity operator on an intercity service.

I was using the quicker CrossCountry time of approximately 240 minutes on the 180 miles between Bristol and Penzance.  This equates to a train running for 4 hours at an average speed of 45mph.  I haven't looked at the full timetable but  the 07:39 Penzance to Paddington service takes 4 hours 20 to reach Bristol so is has an avergage speed of just above 40mph on that section

you seem to of forgotten that the train stops at numerous stations for how ever long,  your quoted averages are based on journey times, not moving times, if you work out minus the stops then the speed is significantly faster, a slower train would take even longer as takes lnger to get between stations!

[northwesterntrains]

you seem to of forgotten that the train stops at numerous stations for how ever long,  your quoted averages are based on journey times, not moving times, if you work out minus the stops then the speed is significantly faster, a slower train would take even longer as takes lnger to get between stations!

I wasn't trying to say that a train that does 45mph average speed travels at a low speed all the time.  I was putting in to prospective how Hazel Grove/Manchester to Preston/Blackpool compare to other routes as some people were referring the use of 180s on those routes as 'scanadlous' due to there only being one 125mph section on route and it being a stopping service.  The Hazel Grove services take 5 minutes to do a couple of miles in Manchester due to the number of trains that use the line between Piccadilly and Deansgate. 

I'm 99% sure Northern would happily swap their 180s for 5x156s or 5x158s and the situation of Northern having the 180s is down to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) not wanting them and Scotrail demanding more 158s, when they could usefully use the 180s.

[A V Lowe]

Ominously the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) HST^▸ (High Speed Train) sets are only lettered for coaches A-F (in the reverse sense to ALL other HST's!) with a TSO^▸ (The Stationary Office (now OPSI)) having no identity in the middle of a 7 coach (was formation.  That along with the 11 XC HST TSO's (plus a few East Coast ones I counted at Craigentinny yesterday (and the TRUB^▸ (trailer, restaurant, unclassified, buffet)'s?) hiding at Willesden leaves a pile of coaches thet cannot be used with any of the currently available locomotives, and generally unsuitable for fast loading urban and inter-urban services.

One option might be to put a 3 phase convertor for the ETH (more compact than a diesel convertor coach) and use electric locos for push-pull. 

Ex CIE^» (Coras Iompair Eireann - Holding company for Irish transport companies - about) Mk 3's might also be available to swell the pool with regauging of bogies?

Perhaps the quickest and simplest way to release DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) stock could be to use the 3rd rail sleepers already reported to have been used for renewals on Reading-Reigate, and convert this route with infill from Wokingham and Reigate, if necessary in 2 phases.  The poor utilisation of Southern EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit)'s reversing at Reigate and laying over at Guildford should provide some trains for the stopping service between these points, and the 460's might be appropriate for Reading-Gatwick - without even needing to change the Gatwick Express Branding.   A bit of rehashing SWT^▸ (South West Trains) diagrams might even produce a few sets or just service changes to run Reading-Guildford stopping services.   

[The SprinterMeister]

Ex CIE^» (Coras Iompair Eireann - Holding company for Irish transport companies - about) Mk 3's might also be available to swell the pool with regauging of bogies.

The Iarnrod Eireann Mk3s aren't quite the ready made solution everyone seems to think they are. The BT10's have wider frames due the wheels being 6 & 1/2" further apart and would foul the underbody loading gauge if wheelsets for 4' 8 1/2" were substituted for the 5' 3" ones. New BT10's would be required although some bits could be salvaged off the old ones.

The Side buffers are also about 6 1/2" further apart than BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) buffer spacing and the buffers are mounted in large holes in the headstock with the spring units behind. A certain amount of headstock cutting / welding / modification is therefore required.

The ETS^▸ (Electric Train Supply) is 380v three phase at 50 - 60hz provided by the generator van which is also the guards / luggage van area. Using three phase AC negated the need to provide M/A sets on the coaches, as is the case with HST^▸ (High Speed Train) trailers. An M/A set or preferably a static convertor would be required as well as reconfiguring the heating circuits as these run directly off the ETS lines. 800 - 1000 volts single phase AC or DC^▸ (Direct Current) might be a bit too much to handle.

All eminently do-able and probably cheaper than new build but don't expect the Iarnrod Eireann Mk3's to run in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) with new wheelsets and a rub over with a damp cloth. Now all we need is someone with the brains and foresight to bring them back over...