Line speed through Banbury

"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@> wrote
>
> So I wondered, what is the line speed through Banbury?
>
AFAIK there isn't a significant speed restriction below line speed. This
year seems to be the first time that all passenger trains (except the
Blockbusters) are scheduled to stop there, but I suspect a Freightliner is
allowed through at 75 mph.

Peter

"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@> wrote in message
news:32a3c4thvl9uj78elqv9lfiv3dfnt3u3a3@...
>I was at Banbury today photographing Chiltern and CrossCountry
> services in torrential rain. Quite enjoyed it. ;-)
>
> Only one freight train passed in the 50 minutes I was there, a
> southbound Freightliner. Despite the clearly announced warning that
> the approaching train would not be stopping, I was still rather taken
> aback by the train's speed and the pressure wave it brought with it.
>
> So I wondered, what is the line speed through Banbury?
>
Container trains, possibly because of the gaps between boxes, seem to
generate much more turbulence than passenger, or indeed other freight,
trains travelling at similar speeds. Even if there was no restriction
through Banbury, the most that the train would have been travelling at would
have been 75mph/120kph, as this is the maximum speed permitted for the stock
involved,
Brian

On Sep 6, 1:10 am, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:

> You're right about the turbulence.  The sharp-edged square profile is
> not exactly aerodynamic, and as you say the gaps in the train had
> quite an effect.  


I have noticed (while wating for 319s at Harpenden, Snorbens and West
Hampstead) that passing 222s seem to generate more turbulence than
passing HSTs. Yet neither have gaps and neither are what you might
call square.

--
Nick

On Sep 5, 10:47 pm, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:
> I was at Banbury today photographing Chiltern and CrossCountry
> services in torrential rain.  Quite enjoyed it.  ;-)

That would make you a trainspotter, or variant thereof, would it not?

"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@> wrote in message
news:ieo5c45aeonb6lb3v9phs81l7gjjhvctsg@...
> EE507 <ee507.uk> wrote:
> >
> >That would make you a trainspotter, or variant thereof, would it not?
>
> Only in the alternative universe that you appear to inhabit.
>
A minor variant - not trainspotter but trainphotter.

Peter

On Sep 6, 9:11 pm, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@> wrote:
> "Tony Polson" <docnews2...@> wrote in message
>
> news:ieo5c45aeonb6lb3v9phs81l7gjjhvctsg@... > EE507 <ee.....uk> wrote:
>
> > >That would make you a trainspotter, or variant thereof, would it not?
>
> > Only in the alternative universe that you appear to inhabit.
>
> A minor variant - not trainspotter but trainphotter.

Recording the numbers by any means - pencil & paper, tape recorder or
camera - would qualify him as a trainspotter. Using Polson logic, his
views on any topic must therefore be disregarded as a trainspotter's
flight of fancy. Civil servant or trainspotter - either way it would
appear prudent to ignore his ramblings.

"Graeme Wall" <Rail@greywall.> wrote
>
> A rainspotter?
>
Rather more than spotting. TP said the rain was torrential.

Peter

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 21:11:14 +0100, "Peter Masson"
<peter.masson1@> wrote:

>A minor variant - not trainspotter but trainphotter.

I thought trainphotting was illegal these days!

--
Alasdair.