Virgin trains to travel at up to 135mph?

[Arthur Figgis]

Chafford wrote:
> This report appeared recently on the businesstraveller.com website.
>
> Published: 26/06/2009
>
>
> Virgin’s train drivers believe there are stretches of the West Coast
> Main Line between London and Scotland where it would be safe for them
> to accelerate to 135mph.

Now for a trainspotter to shriek "but I once read there was *rule*
against it".

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

[rail]

In message <n_qdnX4y68SYtNDXnZ2dnUVZ8nxi4p2d@brightview.co.uk >
Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:

> Chafford wrote:
> > This report appeared recently on the businesstraveller.com website.
> >
> > Published: 26/06/2009
> >
> >
> > Virgin’s train drivers believe there are stretches of the West Coast
> > Main Line between London and Scotland where it would be safe for them
> > to accelerate to 135mph.
>
> Now for a trainspotter to shriek "but I once read there was *rule*
> against it".
>

'They've got no right...' Oh hang on, wrong arguement.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.*************/rail>

[allan tracy]

>
> > Complete smoke-and-mirrors PR puff. The "obvious reasons" have passed
> > me by. Given that Pendos are limited to, what, 127-128mph, maybe
>
> Pendos limited to 128mph, err, what? Obviously they're limited to
> 125mph in operation because they run on a 125mph railway - but they
> must be able to do at least 138mph, otherwise they wouldn't have
> passed testing to run at 125 in regular service.
>

The Pendolinos have a top speed of 140mph.

Their Italian cousins, on whom the UK design is based, have a top
speed of 155mph.

The current restriction on UK Pendolino speed is an arbitrary one said
to be down to inadequate signalling.

But we all know an extra 10 miles an hour would make a miniscule
difference to safety, just like getting rid of the second man in
125mph trains made i.e. no bloody difference.

All it would take is a stroke of a pen and a few bungs in appropriate
directions.

[Sam Wilson]

In article
<eb63c7a4-83df-4c21-be83-842dc1f132bc@t13g2000yqt.************.com>,
allan tracy <allandetracy@live.co.uk> wrote:

> But we all know an extra 10 miles an hour would make a miniscule
> difference to safety, just like getting rid of the second man in
> 125mph trains made i.e. no bloody difference.

I suspect that, given the relatively few places it's likely to be
possible and the time it'll take to accelerate and brake it'll also make
a miniscule difference to journey times.

Sam

[allan tracy]

>
> (although in the interests of fairness, it's also worth noting that
> Southall wouldn't have happened with double-manning.

I'm not so sure it is possible to arrive at that conclusion.

The enquiry into the head on collision on the Uckfield line (was it
Cowden?) concluded that the presence of a second man in the cab
(admittedly not a driver) served to act as a distraction and possible
cause.

[Roland Perry]

In message
<a49f39e0-943a-42f8-b34e-3712cb36b2c1@l31g2000yqb.************.com>, at
10:51:30 on Fri, 3 Jul 2009, allan tracy <allandetracy@live.co.uk>
remarked:
>> (although in the interests of fairness, it's also worth noting that
>> Southall wouldn't have happened with double-manning.
>
>I'm not so sure it is possible to arrive at that conclusion.
>
>The enquiry into the head on collision on the Uckfield line (was it
>Cowden?) concluded that the presence of a second man in the cab
>(admittedly not a driver) served to act as a distraction and possible
>cause.

So you are saying that Southall itself may not have happened, but other
accidents would?
--
Roland Perry

[Paul Scott]

John B wrote:
> On Jul 3, 7:58 pm, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
> wrote:

>> On the main issue, a line has to be drawn somewhere and I think that
>> 125mph is a convenient place to draw the line to avoid creep.
>
> I'd go for 140 myself, but I suspect neither of us is particularly
> aware of the research governing the issue. How did the ECML situation
> arise - did one study suggest that flashing-green 140mph operation was
> safe, and then another (after the signalling investments driven by the
> first) that it wasn't?

Isn't the problem (much discussed here) that because they chose flashing
green as the 5th aspect it needed significant additional sighting
distance/time - presumably at least a doubling (and more for the 140/125
ratio). Perhaps if they had chosen double green it could have worked - but
that would have needed additional signal heads, and it was an attempt to
provide a fifth aspect on the cheap?

Perhaps these Virgin proposals rely on a belief that a Pendolino can run at
135 mph on a steady green and still brake satisfactorily for a double
yellow - but surely the signal spacing (even in the Trent Valley) is only
designed to allow adequate sighting times at 125 mph, and braking distances
from 125 mph to whatever value a double yellow requires?

Paul

[Tony Polson]

"Paul Scott" <notvalidpmscott@***************> wrote:
>
>Perhaps these Virgin proposals rely on a belief that a Pendolino can run at
>135 mph on a steady green and still brake satisfactorily for a double
>yellow - but surely the signal spacing (even in the Trent Valley) is only
>designed to allow adequate sighting times at 125 mph, and braking distances
>from 125 mph to whatever value a double yellow requires?

Precisely so.

It's yet another Virgin publicity stunt. I am surprised that, after all
these years of Virgin publicity stunts, some people are still so easily
fooled.

[Paul Scott]

"Michael Bell" <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d24c917550.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co. uk...
> In message <iIOdnQkOyK_Kv9LXnZ2dnUVZ8vWdnZ2d@bt.com>
> "Paul Scott" <notvalidpmscott@***************> wrote:

>> Perhaps these Virgin proposals rely on a belief that a Pendolino can run
>> at
>> 135 mph on a steady green and still brake satisfactorily for a double
>> yellow - but surely the signal spacing (even in the Trent Valley) is only
>> designed to allow adequate sighting times at 125 mph, and braking
>> distances
>> from 125 mph to whatever value a double yellow requires?
>
>> Paul
>
> I missed the earlier discussion. I just take it that 135 mph is as
> near to 140 mph as Virgin feel they could get away without actually
> challenging the prohibition on 140 mph.

I don't think that's the right interpretation. Speeds above 125 mph are not
permitted without cab signalling.
That is definitely not the same as saying 140 mph is not permitted, but 135
should be ok...

Paul

[Michael Bell]

In message <UsmdnVkHFfUmFtLXnZ2dnUVZ8rednZ2d@bt.com>
"Paul Scott" <notvalidpmscott@***************> wrote:


> "Michael Bell" <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d24c917550.michaelbell@michael.beaverbell.co. uk...
>> In message <iIOdnQkOyK_Kv9LXnZ2dnUVZ8vWdnZ2d@bt.com>
>> "Paul Scott" <notvalidpmscott@***************> wrote:

>>> Perhaps these Virgin proposals rely on a belief that a Pendolino can run
>>> at
>>> 135 mph on a steady green and still brake satisfactorily for a double
>>> yellow - but surely the signal spacing (even in the Trent Valley) is only
>>> designed to allow adequate sighting times at 125 mph, and braking
>>> distances
>>> from 125 mph to whatever value a double yellow requires?
>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> I missed the earlier discussion. I just take it that 135 mph is as
>> near to 140 mph as Virgin feel they could get away without actually
>> challenging the prohibition on 140 mph.

> I don't think that's the right interpretation. Speeds above 125 mph are not
> permitted without cab signalling.
> That is definitely not the same as saying 140 mph is not permitted, but 135
> should be ok...

> Paul

It's the permission itself that is under discussion.

Michael Bell

--