Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 21:15 08 Jan 2025
 
- Mother 'not surprised' son killed on London bus
- Ryanair sues 'unruly' passenger over flight diversion
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 today - Steam loco restoration - IRTE
tomorrow - Bath Railway Society
24/01/25 - Westbury Station reopens
24/01/25 - LTP4 Wilts / Consultation end

On this day
8th Jan (1991)
Cannon Street buffer stop collision (link)

Train RunningCancelled
21:05 Liskeard to Looe
21:37 Looe to Liskeard
21:39 Paignton to Exmouth
21:53 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill
22:51 London Paddington to Worcestershire Parkway
23:20 Exmouth to Exeter St Davids
09/01/25 05:57 Liskeard to Looe
09/01/25 06:30 Looe to Liskeard
09/01/25 07:20 Liskeard to Looe
09/01/25 07:54 Looe to Liskeard
09/01/25 08:30 Liskeard to Looe
09/01/25 09:05 Looe to Liskeard
09/01/25 09:36 Liskeard to Looe
09/01/25 10:08 Looe to Liskeard
09/01/25 10:36 Liskeard to Looe
09/01/25 11:06 Looe to Liskeard
09/01/25 11:36 Liskeard to Looe
09/01/25 12:08 Looe to Liskeard
Short Run
19:56 Exmouth to Paignton
20:52 London Paddington to Great Malvern
Delayed
18:00 Cardiff Central to Penzance
19:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
19:51 Worcester Foregate Street to Bristol Temple Meads
20:22 Reading to Shalford
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
January 08, 2025, 21:25:15 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[201] 'Railway 200' events and commemorations 2025
[107] Oxford station - facilities, improvements, parking, incidents ...
[68] Views sought : how train companies give assistance to disabled...
[53] Bristol Rail Campaign AGM 2025
[44] senior railcard
[43] Coastal walks - station to station
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 30
  Print  
Author Topic: Stock cascade of class 150s  (Read 173549 times)
vacman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2530


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: March 18, 2011, 12:04:17 »

there is an Aberdeen to Penzance! thats my idea of hell!
Logged
Zoe
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 754


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: March 18, 2011, 12:08:51 »

New 7 car mk5 trains replace Voyagers on XC (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) routes.
Sorry but as discussed elsewhere there most likely won't ever be a new build of loco and stock.  Locomotive hauled stock quite simply can't offer all the benefits that multiple units can.  So the only options are DMUs (Diesel Multiple Unit), bi-mode or electrificaiton.
Logged
Ollie
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2308


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: March 18, 2011, 23:36:53 »

You're on yer own, Ollie. I'd rather go East Coast to London then FGW (First Great Western) on proper trains thanks. Grin
Such a let down. Tongue
Logged
northwesterntrains
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 324


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: March 19, 2011, 10:01:30 »

New 7 car mk5 trains replace Voyagers on XC (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) routes.
Sorry but as discussed elsewhere there most likely won't ever be a new build of loco and stock.  Locomotive hauled stock quite simply can't offer all the benefits that multiple units can.  So the only options are DMUs (Diesel Multiple Unit), bi-mode or electrificaiton.

The most likely proposal for XC is of course adding an additional vehicle to each Voyager containing a Pantograph allowing both diesel and electric operation as well as extra capacity.

At least with Voyagers you get a decent amount of natural light in the train and can see out of the windows from most seats, which you can't say the same about Pendolinos.

The longest I've done on a Voyager is Edinburgh to Leeds which took 2 hours longer than scheduled due to failed overhead electrics and I wouldn't say that was too long to be on a Voyager for. 
Logged
Zoe
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 754


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: March 19, 2011, 12:34:17 »

At least with Voyagers you get a decent amount of natural light in the train and can see out of the windows from most seats, which you can't say the same about Pendolinos.
Voyagers don't have to be crashworthy at 140 mph.
Logged
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2754



View Profile Email
« Reply #65 on: March 19, 2011, 14:31:02 »

If the voyagers had decent toilets a proper buffet and more capacity I wouldn't have an issue with them
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5335


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: March 19, 2011, 16:22:49 »

The most likely proposal for XC (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) is of course adding an additional vehicle to each Voyager containing a Pantograph allowing both diesel and electric operation as well as extra capacity.

As originally reported, the same plan was going to provide pantographs for the EMT» (East Midlands Trains - about) Meridian fleet.  Last month's Modern Railways reported EMT's MD as saying this was now very unlikely...

Paul
Logged
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5335


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: March 19, 2011, 16:26:47 »

At least with Voyagers you get a decent amount of natural light in the train and can see out of the windows from most seats, which you can't say the same about Pendolinos.
Voyagers don't have to be crashworthy at 140 mph.

Interesting point that the Pendolino's small windows and longer than usual 'crumple zones' are usually explained away by their top speed, because the 'Javelin' 395s don't have either of those features.  Perhaps technology has moved on, or else someone's interpreted the rules differently...

Paul 
Logged
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #68 on: March 19, 2011, 20:30:45 »

At least with Voyagers you get a decent amount of natural light in the train and can see out of the windows from most seats, which you can't say the same about Pendolinos.
Voyagers don't have to be crashworthy at 140 mph.

Interesting point that the Pendolino's small windows and longer than usual 'crumple zones' are usually explained away by their top speed, because the 'Javelin' 395s don't have either of those features.  Perhaps technology has moved on, or else someone's interpreted the rules differently...

Paul 
And don't forget INTERCITY 225s, they have bigger windows than Pendos as well don't they, and they should have been built to be crashworthy at 140mph because that's what they were designed to do.
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
vacman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2530


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: March 19, 2011, 22:06:26 »

but in the one (and hopefully only) crash involving a Pendo the design proved to be VERY crashworthy, wheras similar crashes involving MKIII and IIII have ended somewhat more tragic. (Hatfield, Ufton Nervert)
Logged
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #70 on: March 20, 2011, 00:12:46 »

but in the one (and hopefully only) crash involving a Pendo the design proved to be VERY crashworthy, wheras similar crashes involving MKIII and IIII have ended somewhat more tragic. (Hatfield, Ufton Nervert)
But was that crashworthyness anything to do with window size? And wasn't the Pendo writen off? At least some vehicles of the crashed 225 are still in service. Also, Hatfield was refered to as a crash but in everything I've heard about the Pendo incident it was refered to as a de-railment, which sounds like it was a less severe accident anyway.
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 19245



View Profile
« Reply #71 on: March 20, 2011, 00:59:38 »

A train leaving the tracks at 95mph is bloody serious, no matter whether you call it a crash or derailment. Semantics.

But just for the record, Hatfield is referred to as a derailment in the official report. Accident reports rarely use the word 'crash' - it's the media who use that word.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 01:08:02 by bignosemac » Logged

"A clear conscience laughs at a false accusation."
"Treat everyone the same until you find out they're an idiot."
"Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity."
The SprinterMeister
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 665


Trundling round the SW

Chris64ex4@hotmail.com
View Profile Email
« Reply #72 on: March 20, 2011, 09:16:08 »

But was that crashworthyness anything to do with window size? And wasn't the Pendo writen off? At least some vehicles of the crashed 225 are still in service. Also, Hatfield was refered to as a crash but in everything I've heard about the Pendo incident it was refered to as a de-railment, which sounds like it was a less severe accident anyway.

The construction technique used for Pendolino coaches requires the windows to be the size that they are in order to maintain strength and hoop stiffness in the bodyshell. The coaches are made from a series on large aluminium extrusions which are welded together, windows are then cut into the sides once the welding has been done. Unfortunately a weld line bisects the window line so the the dividing pillars have to be of a certain size in order not to create an excessive load on the weld during accidents or even as a result of normal operation.


It will be remembed that failure of the coach structure at the welds was the reason why the Thames Trains 165 unit leading coach disintegrated at Ladbrooke Grove although at that level of impact its distruction was inevitable.
Logged

Trundling gently round the SW
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 43062



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #73 on: March 20, 2011, 09:20:17 »

<pendant>

I would go with a "derailment" being where a train comes off the track, and a "crash" as being a colloquial term for a collision, whether it's a collision with summat else on the track, or with something that's not on the line where the train should have been going following on from a derailment.

You can have a crash without a derailment to start it off (Moorgate, February 1975) and you can have a derailment that doesn't result in a crash (Par, June 2010)

</pedant>
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
northwesterntrains
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 324


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: March 20, 2011, 11:57:28 »

As originally reported, the same plan was going to provide pantographs for the EMT» (East Midlands Trains - about) Meridian fleet.  Last month's Modern Railways reported EMT's MD as saying this was now very unlikely...


I think EMT adding in pantograph vehicles to the 222s was dependant on Midland Mainline electrification.  With XC (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) there are hundreds of miles of tracks they use already under overhead wires and more capacity problems than with EMT's London services.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 30
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page