|
Title: New Train Post by: old original on October 17, 2017, 06:58:11 Just by accident, waiting for the 0706 Pad -Pnz and see the 0700 to Bristol is a new one....have to give it a go..
Title: Re: New Train Post by: grahame on October 29, 2017, 14:33:48 I came across my first one of Friday (no special trip - just a journey to make) ... report at https://www.facebook.com/graham.ellis.5055/posts/10155849399807094
Public post - which I think means it can be read even if you're not logged in to Facebook? Title: Re: New Train Post by: bobm on October 30, 2017, 17:59:16 Took my second trip last week after initially travelling on day one.
Seems some of the on board issues have been resolved - notably the seat reservation system. Although it will take time for passengers to get used to looking above the seats rather for paper slips on the seat backs. (http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/ietres1.jpg) (http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/ietres2.jpg) The trains continue to lose time at stations. On a trip to London in the late morning we sat at Reading for a full three minutes despite the train having the road out of the platform. The automated announcements seem to be working now but the train manager appears to have to over-ride them to announce short platforms at both Bath Spa and Didcot Parkway. The bike spaces, mentioned by Graham above, can also contribute to the delay. With the storage spaces now being in the train itself a cyclist getting off usually has to wait until the other passengers have passed them before getting their machine out of the space. By that time the gap in people disembarking has led to people starting to board, only to meet the cyclist who has now freed their bike. It is even worse if one of those alighting has a cycle too! Still issues with the external displays. When I arrived at London Paddington the screens were still showing the next stop as Bath Spa. The switch from diesel to electric at Maidenhead was still hard to detect. I happened to see the pantograph going up as the sun cast a shadow of it on the ground but couldn't tell when the method of propulsion changed. Title: Re: New Train Post by: grahame on October 30, 2017, 18:22:20 By that time the gap in people disembarking has led to people starting to board, only to meet the cyclist who has now freed their bike. <pedant> Hmmm ... the people who start to join are, of course, contravening the railway bylaws in their joining before the cyclist has left. Quote No person shall enter through any train door until any person leaving by that door has passed through. </pedant> https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/media/1058/railway-byelaws.pdf Title: Re: New Train Post by: bobm on October 30, 2017, 18:24:44 Hmmm ... the people who start to join are, of course, contravening the railway bylaws in their joining before the cyclist has left. Quote No person shall enter through any train door until any person leaving by that door has passed through. Totally agree - but if they cannot see them preparing to get off before they board it is natural to assume everyone wanting to alight has done so. Title: Re: New Train Post by: devonexpress on November 07, 2017, 23:46:17 Hmmm ... the people who start to join are, of course, contravening the railway bylaws in their joining before the cyclist has left. Quote No person shall enter through any train door until any person leaving by that door has passed through. Totally agree - but if they cannot see them preparing to get off before they board it is natural to assume everyone wanting to alight has done so. I've done it so many times as Exeter St Davids, though everyone had got off, so jumped on-board, only to find someone struggling to balance a overly heavy suitcase down from the racks and trying to get off the train. The you get people follow behind you and it all becomes very awkward. Title: Re: New Train Post by: ChrisB on November 08, 2017, 09:04:16 Many people don't arise from their seat to get off until the train has stopped....
Title: Re: New Train Post by: Tim on November 08, 2017, 09:20:10 The trains continue to lose time at stations. Might the problem with time keeping be that these trains are not supposed to be running as far west as Penzance. Such routes with inclines and long stretches which will never be wired, are supposed to be run by the yet to be introduced class 802s which have more power (940 HP versus 750 per engine). Title: Re: New Train Post by: grahame on November 08, 2017, 09:52:11 Many people don't arise from their seat to get off until the train has stopped.... They're told to stay seated on buses and planes until they come to a halt, so you can't blame 'em ... Title: Re: New Train Post by: chrisr_75 on November 08, 2017, 11:11:13 Many people don't arise from their seat to get off until the train has stopped.... They're told to stay seated on buses and planes until they come to a halt, so you can't blame 'em ... It's also safer to stay seated on a train. In the rare event of a low speed impact on a train, most of the injuries occur to standees. Title: Re: New Train Post by: ChrisB on November 08, 2017, 11:15:04 Agreed, but in which case, boarding pax need educating to allow time for them to get out of seats, collect any possessions and exit the train....
Title: Re: New Train Post by: lordgoata on November 08, 2017, 12:40:38 Agreed, but in which case, boarding pax need educating to allow time for them to get out of seats, collect any possessions and exit the train.... Good luck with implementing that at Maidenhead in the mornings! :o Title: Re: New Train Post by: TonyK on November 08, 2017, 14:58:14 The bike spaces, mentioned by Graham above, can also contribute to the delay. With the storage spaces now being in the train itself a cyclist getting off usually has to wait until the other passengers have passed them before getting their machine out of the space. By that time the gap in people disembarking has led to people starting to board, only to meet the cyclist who has now freed their bike. It is even worse if one of those alighting has a cycle too! [further pedant] It would be worse again if one of those boarding had a cycle too! [/further pedant] They're told to stay seated on buses and planes until they come to a halt, so you can't blame 'em ... True, but in the case of planes, there is often a lengthy wait for steps. In buses, I don't mind edging towards the front before we arrive at the stop, but not if I'm upstairs. Title: Re: New Train Post by: Phantom on November 15, 2017, 13:46:10 Many people don't arise from their seat to get off until the train has stopped.... They're told to stay seated on buses and planes until they come to a halt, so you can't blame 'em ... I guess with planes people aren't actually trying to board as you are getting off? With a bus at least a driver can signal to people getting on to wait for everyone to get off first Title: Re: New Train Post by: Sixty3Closure on November 15, 2017, 23:04:49 Agreed, but in which case, boarding pax need educating to allow time for them to get out of seats, collect any possessions and exit the train.... Good luck with implementing that at Maidenhead in the mornings! :o I'd hope that in the near future with less pressure on space and more chance of getting a seat passengers boarding at Maidenhead might relax a bit. I can understand people being a bit 'keen' when there's only a handful of seats in each carriage left and a crowded platform. Title: Re: New Train Post by: patch38 on November 16, 2017, 10:11:30 The automated announcements seem to be working now but the train manager appears to have to over-ride them to announce short platforms at both Bath Spa and Didcot Parkway. Going back a few posts to this comment - why are the rear two carriages locked out at Didcot? I have been in the rear coach of a 10-car service from SWI - PAD on several occasions (before they turned the sets round so that first class is now at the rear) and it has always appeared to be well within the bounds of the useable platform. Title: Re: New Train Post by: didcotdean on November 16, 2017, 10:38:41 It was announced as the rear three coaches when I was on one yesterday. Being in the front portion I couldn't see what was actually hanging off the end of Platform 1. The only platform which was down to be extended for these trains was Platform 3.
Title: Re: New Train Post by: patch38 on November 16, 2017, 10:46:38 Just to clarify - I was referring to platform 2 above. I very rarely alight at Didcot Parkway so I'm not over-familiar with platform numbers! 1A03 - the 0600 BRI - PAD is what I was aboard on all occasions.
Title: Re: New Train Post by: didcotdean on November 16, 2017, 11:15:13 Yes I believe it is 2 carriages locked out on Platform 2 - but in the Paddington direction the rearmost door can't be opened at Reading either.
Title: Re: New Train Post by: Bmblbzzz on November 16, 2017, 11:47:17 The bike spaces, mentioned by Graham above, can also contribute to the delay. With the storage spaces now being in the train itself a cyclist getting off usually has to wait until the other passengers have passed them before getting their machine out of the space. By that time the gap in people disembarking has led to people starting to board, only to meet the cyclist who has now freed their bike. It is even worse if one of those alighting has a cycle too! Whenever I'm travelling with my bike on a train (which I don't do much), I always get my bike off the dangly-thing about five minutes before the train gets into the station. This avoids the boarding problem. There is still a problem though if you have luggage (panniers) which are too wide to go through the doorway attached to the bike, as most are. You get the bike off, run over to lean it against a pillar or whatever, then run back to fetch your panniers, which are still in the gangway, but of course now the other passengers are alighting. Usually, though, you can ask someone to hand them out to you. Title: Re: New Train Post by: lbraine on November 18, 2017, 18:17:44 So I managed to end up on two of the new 800’s last week - both doing the 14:15 Cardiff - and I though I’d share some (uninformed) views of the experience.
The trains are smooth and quiet - the change over from electric to deisel at Maidenhead was imperceptible. I thought I deducted a slightly slower acceleration when not using the wires, but this might have been my brain playing tricks. The standard class decor is functional, with good alignment with seat to windows and more tables per coach being noticeable. I would say that the ‘functional’ statement is subjective as the comfort level is not as good as a MK3, but better than most suburban units. Be under no illusion - this is a train focused on commuter needs, not an intercity journey at comfort. On that point - the ride is OK - but again, not as smooth as a MK3 across the points. There is a distinct and noticeable translation of the track condition to the seat. Not unpleasant, just noticeable. On the first trip old fashioned cards for reservations were in use. On the second trip the above seat signage was operating. On both trips coach A was in the middle of the train ! So, the coaches, from the barrier end went E - D - C - B - A - J - I - H - G - F (or something like that - but A was definitely in the middle) Very odd and confusing to the numerous passengers who were wandering the corridors trying to find their seats, unsure of which direction to head in. And many were in the wrong train set, not realisizing there was a second set after the end of the first. On the second trip the train manager made two announcements 10 and 5 mins before departure to try and encourage people in the crammed London set to move to the near empty Country set. GWR has a massive education issue, to inform the public BEFORE boarding how to find their seats. Doorways are narrow - it will be interesting to see how dwell times are impacted, especially with the bike/luggage rack space adjacent to the door. All in all - not bad, but nothing exceptional. A good functional commuter train (maybe the GWR West Country units will offer more comfort for the longer journey times envolved) Title: Re: New Train Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on November 19, 2017, 14:40:39 So I managed to end up on two of the new 800’s last week - both doing the 14:15 Cardiff - and I though I’d share some (uninformed) views of the experience. Except I didn't find them smooth or quiet. In the leading coach out of Paddington (which is not powered) there is a noticeable continuous drone. In a powered coach, when the engines are running there is a noticeable vibration of the table - just rest your fingers on it. The ride is nothing to write home about, laterally it is no better than a Mark 3 and there is also a vertical 'nervousness' - small amplitude high(ish) frequency movements.The trains are smooth and quiet - the change over from electric to deisel at Maidenhead was imperceptible. I thought I deducted a slightly slower acceleration when not using the wires, but this might have been my brain playing tricks. The standard class decor is functional, with good alignment with seat to windows and more tables per coach being noticeable. I would say that the ‘functional’ statement is subjective as the comfort level is not as good as a MK3, but better than most suburban units. Be under no illusion - this is a train focused on commuter needs, not an intercity journey at comfort. On that point - the ride is OK - but again, not as smooth as a MK3 across the points. There is a distinct and noticeable translation of the track condition to the seat. Not unpleasant, just noticeable. On the first trip old fashioned cards for reservations were in use. On the second trip the above seat signage was operating. On both trips coach A was in the middle of the train ! So, the coaches, from the barrier end went E - D - C - B - A - J - I - H - G - F (or something like that - but A was definitely in the middle) Very odd and confusing to the numerous passengers who were wandering the corridors trying to find their seats, unsure of which direction to head in. And many were in the wrong train set, not realisizing there was a second set after the end of the first. On the second trip the train manager made two announcements 10 and 5 mins before departure to try and encourage people in the crammed London set to move to the near empty Country set. GWR has a massive education issue, to inform the public BEFORE boarding how to find their seats. Doorways are narrow - it will be interesting to see how dwell times are impacted, especially with the bike/luggage rack space adjacent to the door. All in all - not bad, but nothing exceptional. A good functional commuter train (maybe the GWR West Country units will offer more comfort for the longer journey times envolved) But you can see out of the windows - from most seats anyway... Title: Re: New Train Post by: ChrisB on November 19, 2017, 15:06:07 On that point - the ride is OK - but again, not as smooth as a MK3 across the points. There is a distinct and noticeable translation of the track condition to the seat. Not unpleasant, just noticeable. Hmm - agree but across the points etc I found a district rattle of the bogies could be heard & felt. I guess that might settle down with wear & tear. Title: Re: New Train Post by: old original on November 19, 2017, 17:28:09 All in all - not bad, but nothing exceptional. A good functional commuter train (maybe the GWR West Country units will offer more comfort for the longer journey times envolved) I don't think so. Had a look through the window of the 802 when it stopped in Truro and it looked identical to the one I caught from Paddington a couple of weeks ago Title: Re: New Train Post by: PhilWakely on November 19, 2017, 17:51:14 All in all - not bad, but nothing exceptional. A good functional commuter train (maybe the GWR West Country units will offer more comfort for the longer journey times envolved) I don't think so. Had a look through the window of the 802 when it stopped in Truro and it looked identical to the one I caught from Paddington a couple of weeks ago I concur with old original's observations as I did the same at Totnes :) Title: Re: New Train Post by: Tim on November 20, 2017, 11:36:42 I tend to agree that the ride quality is no better and perhaps not quite as good as a Mk III. However some caution is needed in making the comparison because it seems to me that the track quality is on a bit of a down swing at the moment. Maybe because NR is concentrating on spending its money and possession time on electrification, but track maintenance seems to have suffered.
Title: Re: New Train Post by: TonyK on November 20, 2017, 20:09:23 I don't think so. Had a look through the window of the 802 when it stopped in Truro and it looked identical to the one I caught from Paddington a couple of weeks ago So far as I know, the actual vehicles used for Class 800 and Class 802 are identical. The difference is in the engine power, which I believe is a software variation rather than the actual physical bits, and a bigger fuel tank on the 802 to cope with the longer off-wires journeys. Title: Re: New Train Post by: Tim on November 21, 2017, 10:11:14 I don't think so. Had a look through the window of the 802 when it stopped in Truro and it looked identical to the one I caught from Paddington a couple of weeks ago So far as I know, the actual vehicles used for Class 800 and Class 802 are identical. The difference is in the engine power, which I believe is a software variation rather than the actual physical bits, and a bigger fuel tank on the 802 to cope with the longer off-wires journeys. I think that is right. The software changes mean that the engine and traction components are subjected to more demanding loads and I assume that this is reflected in a different maintenance regime and a presumably higher charge by Hitachii for use of the trains. AIUI the class 800 which were originally intended to be purely electrical had their software changed to allow better performance off the wires (referred to as "unmuzzling") in addition to having extra engines added, but they have not been "unmuzzled" all the way to the performance of class 802s. Title: Re: New Train Post by: 1st fan on November 21, 2017, 12:22:57 I don't think so. Had a look through the window of the 802 when it stopped in Truro and it looked identical to the one I caught from Paddington a couple of weeks ago So far as I know, the actual vehicles used for Class 800 and Class 802 are identical. The difference is in the engine power, which I believe is a software variation rather than the actual physical bits, and a bigger fuel tank on the 802 to cope with the longer off-wires journeys. That won't please the Yorkshire man I met after his first trip on the Class 800. He told me "Well they're not Voyagers" which was apparently a good thing. Also said the seats are "Rock-Ard" and he didn't like them so I doubt he'd manage the trip to Penzance comfortably. Title: Re: New Train Post by: stuving on November 21, 2017, 14:11:44 I don't think so. Had a look through the window of the 802 when it stopped in Truro and it looked identical to the one I caught from Paddington a couple of weeks ago So far as I know, the actual vehicles used for Class 800 and Class 802 are identical. The difference is in the engine power, which I believe is a software variation rather than the actual physical bits, and a bigger fuel tank on the 802 to cope with the longer off-wires journeys. I think that is right. The software changes mean that the engine and traction components are subjected to more demanding loads and I assume that this is reflected in a different maintenance regime and a presumably higher charge by Hitachii for use of the trains. AIUI the class 800 which were originally intended to be purely electrical had their software changed to allow better performance off the wires (referred to as "unmuzzling") in addition to having extra engines added, but they have not been "unmuzzled" all the way to the performance of class 802s. Is there any evidence that there is still some power difference between 802s as ordered and 800s after unmuzzling? I can't think why there should be - other than for the 801s now coming with engines (800/3) and the 9-car 802s (802/1) where there's a small difference due to having five engines per nine cars rather than three per five. There was an long article in Rail Engineer in July (https://www.railengineer.uk/2017/07/04/take-a-look-around-hitachis-pistoia-train-production-plant/) about the Pistioa plant and the trains being made for GWR. It includes: Quote The Class 802 As far as traction equipment is concerned, the class 802 has four types of coaches as shown in the table. DPT — Driving pantograph trailer cab — Driving cab, trailer bogies, pantograph, transformer and auxiliary power supply M — Motor coach — Motor bogies with 226kW traction motors (904kW per car), diesel generator with fuel tank and traction converter T — Trailer coach — Trailer bogies and auxiliary power supply T — Trailer pantograph coach — Trailer bogies, pantograph, transformer and auxiliary power supply The arrangement of a nine-car class 802 is DPT-M-M-TP-M-T-M-M-DPT whilst that of the five-car unit is DPT-M-M-M-DPT. Although the class 802 is almost identical to the class 800, there are some differences to take account of it being diesel-powered for longer distances and having to run over the steeply graded lines in Devon and Cornwall. Hence its 1,550-litre fuel tank is larger, as is the toilet tank. The class 802 also has a larger brake resistor for increased dynamic braking capacity and, in diesel mode, is more powerful. Rolls-Royce Power Systems is supplying its MTU 12V 1600 R80L diesel power packs, which produce 700kW at 1900 rpm. The class 800 has an identical power pack, although software limits its output to 560 kW. (https://www.railengineer.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Class-802_4-768x431.jpg) GWR commercial development director, Matthew Golton, confirmed that the company intended to continue providing its Pullman restaurant service and was not looking to make significant changes to its fare structure because of the introduction of these new trains. ... Berry advised that the first Pistoia-built class 802 will arrive in Britain in December and that all 33 Italian-built class 802 units will be delivered by December 2018. Those delivery dates are a lot earlier than we were given previously. Wikipedia is convinced that the 9-car 800/3s will have the same 1.55 m3 fuel tanks as the 802s, but it is unclear whether any of the 800/0s will get/have got those or the 1.35 m3 ones. Note that's not exactly a huge difference. Title: Re: New Train Post by: Tim on November 21, 2017, 16:50:37 This may not be correct, but my impression was that although the unmuzzling of the 800s brought their total power up to the level of the 802s but that they were still subject to acceleration restriction not applicable to 802s.
I am ready to be corrected, Title: Re: New Train Post by: devonexpress on November 21, 2017, 23:57:48 Out of interest, do you think its likely in the future that the Reading to Paddington section will be increased from 125mph to 140mph, I know its happening on East Coast, but I'm sure GWR wanted to look at doing it too!
Title: Re: New Train Post by: JayMac on November 22, 2017, 02:02:55 Is a speed increase happening on the East Coast Main Line?
As far as I'm aware there are aspirations, but no firm plans yet. In cab signalling is being fitted to trains on the ECML, but Network Rail haven't committed to other infrastructure improvements to allow speed increases. The focus is on line capacity improvements, not top speed increases. Title: Re: New Train Post by: grahame on November 22, 2017, 07:19:21 The focus is on line capacity improvements, not top speed increases. Signalling changes - ERTMS? - which remove what I call "absolute block" but probably has a more technical name - should allow a closer headway between trains. Big question as to what happens at each end of such close headway sections; Reading "sprays" them out better than they use to. Flat crossings in and out of Paddington platforms may become the limiter - very tight at times already; coming in last night, good run all the way up from Wiltshire until a signal halt outside the terminal. Another capacity increase can be gained by longer trains, but there gets to be a point at which the benefits drop away; already reports of 5+5 IETs with imbalanced loads. I heard reports where 10 to 12 car increases have been made on London other lines that the two extra carriages have been added at the outer (country) end and not at the London end where the trains overcrowd and it's really needed, and of course longer trains take longer to pass over junctions and through speed restriction sections. Again at Paddington , there are issues as to how you could lengthen all but a few platforms. Title: Re: New Train Post by: SandTEngineer on November 22, 2017, 10:00:04 Sometimes lower overall linespeeds mean increased capacity as braking distances are shorter and signal sections can be closer together. The lines south of London are a good example of that. Same applies to ETCS.
The Southern Railway discovered that having lines paired by direction (i.e. UP SLOW/UP FAST/DOWN FAST/DOWN SLOW) was the best option for open stretches of main line, but paired by use (i.e. UP FAST/DOWN FAST/UP SLOW/DOWN SLOW) worked better for capacity at the approach to major terminal stations (a good example being the switch from one method to the other at Wimbledon Flyover on the SWML). Whoops, topic creep........ ::) Note to Grahame: The signalling control element of ERTMS is ETCS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System Title: Re: New Train Post by: Bmblbzzz on November 22, 2017, 10:13:28 The focus is on line capacity improvements, not top speed increases. Signalling changes - ERTMS? - which remove what I call "absolute block" but probably has a more technical name - should allow a closer headway between trains. Big question as to what happens at each end of such close headway sections; Reading "sprays" them out better than they use to. Flat crossings in and out of Paddington platforms may become the limiter - very tight at times already; coming in last night, good run all the way up from Wiltshire until a signal halt outside the terminal. Another capacity increase can be gained by longer trains, but there gets to be a point at which the benefits drop away; already reports of 5+5 IETs with imbalanced loads. I heard reports where 10 to 12 car increases have been made on London other lines that the two extra carriages have been added at the outer (country) end and not at the London end where the trains overcrowd and it's really needed, and of course longer trains take longer to pass over junctions and through speed restriction sections. Again at Paddington , there are issues as to how you could lengthen all but a few platforms. Title: Re: New Train Post by: Thatcham Crossing on November 22, 2017, 10:59:00 Coming along the down main out of Paddington to Reading, in a non-stop Turbo (at full chat) the other day, when a 2 x 800 set passed us going up. Can't say at what speed, but it was shifting and passed us very quickly.
Very noticeable how much less buffet/air disturbance there was from the 800's compared to the HST that passed us a few minutes later. If nothing else, I guess aerodynamics have improved in the last 40 years! Title: Re: New Train Post by: chrisr_75 on November 22, 2017, 11:15:45 I heard reports where 10 to 12 car increases have been made on London other lines that the two extra carriages have been added at the outer (country) end and not at the London end where the trains overcrowd and it's really needed ;D ;D Title: Re: New Train Post by: chrisr_75 on November 22, 2017, 11:19:15 Imbalanced loads? As in one 5-car section is crowded, the other empty? Or imbalanced in some other way? Everyone sat on the left, causing the train to list over to that side ;) Title: Re: New Train Post by: grahame on November 22, 2017, 16:33:54 Imbalanced loads? As in one 5-car section is crowded, the other empty? Or imbalanced in some other way? Everyone sat on the left, causing the train to list over to that side ;) Yes to the first, no to the second. Crammed at London end, space at country end. I WAS once on the paddle steamer on the Clyde and the Captain announced we were passing the royal yacht on the left hand side ... everyone rushed over and the next request was for some people to move back as we had lifted the right paddle wheel out of the water! Title: Re: New Train Post by: chrisr_75 on November 22, 2017, 17:04:16 Imbalanced loads? As in one 5-car section is crowded, the other empty? Or imbalanced in some other way? Everyone sat on the left, causing the train to list over to that side ;) Yes to the first, no to the second. Crammed at London end, space at country end. The HST's are often the same, though at least the contents can be re-distributed within a little easier than with a 2x5 IET. I have noticed if there is an imbalance on a Turbo leaving PAD, it's usually the other way round, country end busy, London end quiet(er). Title: Re: New Train Post by: TonyK on November 22, 2017, 18:38:21 That won't please the Yorkshire man I met after his first trip on the Class 800. He told me "Well they're not Voyagers" which was apparently a good thing. Also said the seats are "Rock-Ard" and he didn't like them so I doubt he'd manage the trip to Penzance comfortably. Did he ask the trolley operator "Ow much???" (I come from Lancashire). Title: Re: New Train Post by: stuving on November 22, 2017, 18:52:08 Coming along the down main out of Paddington to Reading, in a non-stop Turbo (at full chat) the other day, when a 2 x 800 set passed us going up. Can't say at what speed, but it was shifting and passed us very quickly. Very noticeable how much less buffet/air disturbance there was from the 800's compared to the HST that passed us a few minutes later. If nothing else, I guess aerodynamics have improved in the last 40 years! Now, would there be anything about that in the requirement, do you think? Of course there is! Quote 3.17 Aerodynamics & Pressure Effects TS361 The internal pressure changes within IEP Trains must not exceed 4kPa over a 4 second period under any conditions on the IEP Network, including operation in single bore/track tunnels and 2 single IEP Trains passing in twin track tunnels. TS1994 In addition to complying with the requirements set out in the TSI, the IEP Trains must exert no more than 1.44kPa peak to peak pressure on a train on an adjacent track when the IEP Train is travelling at all speeds on a windless day in open air on open track. TS1995 The IEP Trains shall meet the requirements of Railway Group Standard GM/RT2142, Issue 3, August 2009, ‘Resistance of Railway Vehicles to Roll Over in Gales’ without modifications to the infrastructure. Could you judge if the pressure from that passing HST was more than 1.44 kPa peak to peak? (That's the weight of two forum members per square metre, if that helps. The right two, obviously.) Maybe not. I understand that it is reducing the pressure "slam" going into or out of a tunnel, in particular, that has led to trains getting pointier noses recently. Though in the case of GWR's 800s, it may have more to do with the veracity of adverts for them. Title: Re: New Train Post by: 1st fan on November 22, 2017, 22:44:14 That won't please the Yorkshire man I met after his first trip on the Class 800. He told me "Well they're not Voyagers" which was apparently a good thing. Also said the seats are "Rock-Ard" and he didn't like them so I doubt he'd manage the trip to Penzance comfortably. Did he ask the trolley operator "Ow much???" (I come from Lancashire). Don't know about that ;) but he didn't fancy the "Bloody instant stuff" when asked if he wanted anything from the trolley ;D. I suspect he wasn't offered a filter coffee given he said he didn't buy anything. Title: Re: New Train Post by: devonexpress on November 22, 2017, 23:57:48 Sometimes lower overall linespeeds mean increased capacity as braking distances are shorter and signal sections can be closer together. The lines south of London are a good example of that. Same applies to ETCS. The Southern Railway discovered that having lines paired by direction (i.e. UP SLOW/UP FAST/DOWN FAST/DOWN SLOW) was the best option for open stretches of main line, but paired by use (i.e. UP FAST/DOWN FAST/UP SLOW/DOWN SLOW) worked better for capacity at the approach to major terminal stations (a good example being the switch from one method to the other at Wimbledon Flyover on the SWML). Whoops, topic creep........ ::) Note to Grahame: The signalling control element of ERTMS is ETCS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System That is true about slower speeds, but then if trains are faster then more services can run just a greater distances apart. I wouldn't be surprised in the future if the old Paddington Parcel depot(now a car park) is made into platforms. As for the up down thing, the Great Western is split with the fast lines together, slow lines together, all the way from Paddington to Didcot. The issue is mainly down to trains coming in late, staying in Paddington longer than booked, and then causing further delays. With the new IET's taking over HSTs timings should improve(which is being seen, and will get better as time goes on) however, the timetable change next year could be an issue, as whilst its taking full benefit of the IET acceleration, is it leaving enough time for a late service to catch up when running late? Title: Re: New Train Post by: SandTEngineer on November 23, 2017, 10:34:06 Sometimes lower overall linespeeds mean increased capacity as braking distances are shorter and signal sections can be closer together. The lines south of London are a good example of that. Same applies to ETCS. The Southern Railway discovered that having lines paired by direction (i.e. UP SLOW/UP FAST/DOWN FAST/DOWN SLOW) was the best option for open stretches of main line, but paired by use (i.e. UP FAST/DOWN FAST/UP SLOW/DOWN SLOW) worked better for capacity at the approach to major terminal stations (a good example being the switch from one method to the other at Wimbledon Flyover on the SWML). Whoops, topic creep........ ::) Note to Grahame: The signalling control element of ERTMS is ETCS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System That is true about slower speeds, but then if trains are faster then more services can run just a greater distances apart. I wouldn't be surprised in the future if the old Paddington Parcel depot(now a car park) is made into platforms. As for the up down thing, the Great Western is split with the fast lines together, slow lines together, all the way from Paddington to Didcot. The issue is mainly down to trains coming in late, staying in Paddington longer than booked, and then causing further delays. With the new IET's taking over HSTs timings should improve(which is being seen, and will get better as time goes on) however, the timetable change next year could be an issue, as whilst its taking full benefit of the IET acceleration, is it leaving enough time for a late service to catch up when running late? Sorry but your logic doesn't stack up for multi-use railways such as the GWML. Capacity is driven by a careful balance between train acceleration and braking rates, maximum train speed, line speed and station spacing. It would be great if all trains ran non-stop at the same speed between the origination and destination but that doesn't happen in the UK. Trains running at high speed (100mph+) need longer braking distances and an appropriate safety margin, and therefore by default need to be spaced further apart thus reducing overall capacity. The reason Paddington is such a 'bottle neck' is that the track layout in the station throat is not very flexible, and because the signalling is operated automatically (by ARS), many unneccessary conflicts are created due to routes being set in conflict with others that could be used for other services at the same time (i.e. the ARS sticks to its planned route regardless of what else is going on at the time). ...and the GW doesn't have FAST and SLOW lines, they are MAIN and RELIEF lines..... :) Time to start a new topic me thinks...... ::) Title: Re: New Train Post by: GBM on November 23, 2017, 10:46:54 ARS.
Could not ARS be taken out of use at peak times and the system revert to manual control. Or are there too many movements for a manual operation. Or even reprogramming of ARS to encompass 'semi logical thinking'? For the latter I dread to think how many millions that will cost (plus a cost & time over run with 'too many complexities') and also how long it would take to do. Title: Re: New Train Post by: 1st fan on November 23, 2017, 10:56:36 Sometimes lower overall linespeeds mean increased capacity as braking distances are shorter and signal sections can be closer together. The lines south of London are a good example of that. Same applies to ETCS. The Southern Railway discovered that having lines paired by direction (i.e. UP SLOW/UP FAST/DOWN FAST/DOWN SLOW) was the best option for open stretches of main line, but paired by use (i.e. UP FAST/DOWN FAST/UP SLOW/DOWN SLOW) worked better for capacity at the approach to major terminal stations (a good example being the switch from one method to the other at Wimbledon Flyover on the SWML). Whoops, topic creep........ ::) Note to Grahame: The signalling control element of ERTMS is ETCS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System That is true about slower speeds, but then if trains are faster then more services can run just a greater distances apart. I wouldn't be surprised in the future if the old Paddington Parcel depot(now a car park) is made into platforms. As for the up down thing, the Great Western is split with the fast lines together, slow lines together, all the way from Paddington to Didcot. The issue is mainly down to trains coming in late, staying in Paddington longer than booked, and then causing further delays. With the new IET's taking over HSTs timings should improve(which is being seen, and will get better as time goes on) however, the timetable change next year could be an issue, as whilst its taking full benefit of the IET acceleration, is it leaving enough time for a late service to catch up when running late? Sorry but your logic doesn't stack up for multi-use railways such as the GWML. Capacity is driven by a careful balance between train acceleration and braking rates, maximum train speed, line speed and station spacing. It would be great if all trains ran non-stop at the same speed between the origination and destination but that doesn't happen in the UK. Trains running at high speed (100mph+) need longer braking distances and an appropriate safety margin, and therefore by default need to be spaced further apart thus reducing overall capacity. The reason Paddington is such a 'bottle neck' is that the track layout in the station throat is not very flexible, and because the signalling is operated automatically (by ARS), many unneccessary conflicts are created due to routes being set in conflict with others that could be used for other services at the same time (i.e. the ARS sticks to its planned route regardless of what else is going on at the time). ...and the GW doesn't have FAST and SLOW lines, they are MAIN and RELIEF lines..... :) Time to start a new topic me thinks...... ::) Title: Re: New Train Post by: Tim on November 23, 2017, 14:29:57 ARS. Could not ARS be taken out of use at peak times and the system revert to manual control. Or are there too many movements for a manual operation. Or even reprogramming of ARS to encompass 'semi logical thinking'? For the latter I dread to think how many millions that will cost (plus a cost & time over run with 'too many complexities') and also how long it would take to do. My understanding is that the ARS can be manually overridden, but that the system and staffing is not set up to do that routinely. The day will come when ARS technology is more "intelligent", but for every good reasons signalling is a conservative (and expensive) business. Title: Re: New Train Post by: devonexpress on November 23, 2017, 18:43:06 Sorry but your logic doesn't stack up for multi-use railways such as the GWML. Capacity is driven by a careful balance between train acceleration and braking rates, maximum train speed, line speed and station spacing. It would be great if all trains ran non-stop at the same speed between the origination and destination but that doesn't happen in the UK. Trains running at high speed (100mph+) need longer braking distances and an appropriate safety margin, and therefore by default need to be spaced further apart thus reducing overall capacity. The reason Paddington is such a 'bottle neck' is that the track layout in the station throat is not very flexible, and because the signalling is operated automatically (by ARS), many unneccessary conflicts are created due to routes being set in conflict with others that could be used for other services at the same time (i.e. the ARS sticks to its planned route regardless of what else is going on at the time). ...and the GW doesn't have FAST and SLOW lines, they are MAIN and RELIEF lines..... :) Time to start a new topic me thinks...... ::) Well aren't you a little clever little know it all ::) Main and Relief, Fast and Slow, its still the same thing, just different names. Besides the Fast sorry *cough* Main tracks are limited to 125mph, where as the slow *cough* relief lines are limited to between 60 and 80mph. And actually its much more complicated than that, whilst you say that timings are built in for stops, this is very rare on GWML "main" tracks, apart from the occasional 180 stopping at Slough, and peak services calling at Maidenhead, very few services stop on the fast lines. With electric trains coming, acceleration will dramatically improve, therefore timings will go down, meaning more paths, and more trains can run, however the question is, do GWR reduce journey times, but keep enough back so that trains can keep up during delays, this would also allow for future services to be added by cutting journey times down to the bare minimum. Or do they just cut journey times to the maximum, use as many paths as they can, until they are back to the situation they have been in for the last 15 years? Title: Re: New Train Post by: IndustryInsider on November 23, 2017, 20:38:47 Twice an hour off-peak calls are made at Slough in each direction with a mixture of Turbos, HST'S and 180s (rather more than 'the occasional 180'), and as well as Maidenhead peaks calls, there are also some at Twyford. Relief linespeed in up to 90mph for the majority of the route for trains that are classed as 'MU' (which is the majority). Pathing also has to take into consideration crossing from main to relief and vice versa.
Paths will be created by increased performance of the new trains, and having a uniform fleet speed of 110-125mph will help, so that Turbos and their maximum of 90mph are out of the mix - there are up to three per hour in each direction currently. More paths would be created by getting rid of Heathrow Express, and a reduction in peak time movements from main relief lines and vice versa. Title: Re: New Train Post by: TonyK on November 23, 2017, 22:29:53 Could you judge if the pressure from that passing HST was more than 1.44 kPa peak to peak? (That's the weight of two forum members per square metre, if that helps. The right two, obviously.) Maybe not. The pressure of the "standard atmosphere" is 1013.25 hPa at mean sea level (latitude of Paris) and 15°C. 1.44 kPa is therefore a little over 14.22 times the standard atmosphere. It is therefore far from inconsiderable, but I wonder too how the measurement could be done? One for the fluid dynamicists on this forum to answer, I think. Two trains with opposing Pitot tubes attached to some very clever kit passing at high speed maybe? Title: Re: New Train Post by: stuving on November 23, 2017, 22:46:14 Could you judge if the pressure from that passing HST was more than 1.44 kPa peak to peak? (That's the weight of two forum members per square metre, if that helps. The right two, obviously.) Maybe not. The pressure of the "standard atmosphere" is 1013.25 hPa at mean sea level (latitude of Paris) and 15°C. 1.44 kPa is therefore a little over 14.22 times the standard atmosphere. It is therefore far from inconsiderable, but I wonder too how the measurement could be done? One for the fluid dynamicists on this forum to answer, I think. Two trains with opposing Pitot tubes attached to some very clever kit passing at high speed maybe? I fear your decimal point has gone walkabout. ICAO standard pressure is 101.325 kPa, so we're talking about 1.4% of that. And it's just static pressure - or rather hydrostatic, as it's also dynamic. Title: Re: New Train Post by: onthecushions on November 23, 2017, 22:52:50 I'm confused.
The Pascal (Pa) is a Newton (force)/m2 (area). A Newton is about the weight of an apple! That's very small over more than a yard square, so we put factors of 10 into it, for normal pressures. Mostly these are kilo (10^3) or mega (10^6) but there are lots more that really clever people can quote. Atmospheric pressure is about 10^5 Pa and we have a unit for this - bar. 1.44 kPa isn't very much compared to a standard atmosphere of 101.325kPa, but you'd need plenty of hairspray to save your wife's perm if it rose much higher. Pressure comes in three forms; static, velocity (or dynamic) and potential. Without friction, the sum at any point in a circuit is constant, because pressure is a form of energy per unit volume - can't be created or destroyed. My brain hurts. OTC Title: Re: New Train Post by: TonyK on November 23, 2017, 23:08:38 The pressure of the "standard atmosphere" is 1013.25 hPa at mean sea level (latitude of Paris) and 15°C. 1.44 kPa is therefore a little over 14.22 times the standard atmosphere. It is therefore far from inconsiderable, but I wonder too how the measurement could be done? One for the fluid dynamicists on this forum to answer, I think. Two trains with opposing Pitot tubes attached to some very clever kit passing at high speed maybe? Quote I fear your decimal point has gone walkabout. ICAO standard pressure is 101.325 kPa, so we're talking about 1.4% of that. And it's just static pressure - or rather hydrostatic, as it's also dynamic. Er, 1013.25 hPa. 1kPa = 10 hPa, so my decimal point is in the right place. It was a little wrong of me to mix fractions, but I am used to an altimeter calibrated in hectoPascals. But having read it again, I was wrong for a different miscounting of decimal places, and you are right. 1.4% isn't much, probably less than the difference in pressure at sea level and at the Dead Sea, which you wouldn't notice. I'm confused. Me too. It would have been easier just to throw apples at the windows. Title: Re: New Train Post by: Western Pathfinder on November 23, 2017, 23:23:14 Yes it might be but at what velocity and trajectory?. ;D.
Title: Re: New Train Post by: TonyK on November 24, 2017, 08:57:13 Yes it might be but at what velocity and trajectory?. ;D. More importantly, Braeburn or Golden Delicious? Mrs FT, N! is fond of Cox, she tells me. Title: Re: New Train Post by: Bmblbzzz on November 24, 2017, 09:33:21 Time for a musical interlude:
https://youtu.be/N5afiqamGUo Title: Re: New Train Post by: Western Pathfinder on November 24, 2017, 09:43:15 Yes it might be but at what velocity and trajectory?. ;D. More importantly, Braeburn or Golden Delicious? Mrs FT, N! is fond of Cox, she tells me. I will set them up you knock em down !. Title: Re: New Train Post by: stuving on November 24, 2017, 10:05:09 Did you spot this bit in that aerodynamic requirement?
Quote TS1995 The IEP Trains shall meet the requirements of Railway Group Standard GM/RT2142, Issue 3, August 2009, ‘Resistance of Railway Vehicles to Roll Over in Gales’ without modifications to the infrastructure. I can't think of any case of that happening in Britain (hurricanes abroad are different), but I suspect it has sometime. But what force on a train's side would it take to roll it off the track? Would 1.44 kPa (as a constant pressure, not a peak-peak transient) do it, I wonder? Anyone have any idea? Title: Re: New Train Post by: stuving on November 24, 2017, 10:23:33 Any sign of displays showing loading levels? The IEP requirement said they must count passengers:
Quote 4.16 Passenger Counting System TS299 Each IEP Vehicle must be installed with a system that automatically records the number of passengers boarding and alighting the IEP Train at each station. The system must record the individual journey, time and date for which this information applies. The system must provide data which shows for each IEP Vehicle: • the number of passengers aboard the IEP Train on approach to each station; • the number of passengers which alight the IEP Train at each station; • the number of passengers which board the IEP Train at each station; and • the number of passengers aboard the IEP Train on departure from each station. TS1993 The passenger counting systems must, in addition to the requirements of TS299, automatically record the number of people moving between IEP Vehicles to facilitate the calculation of the number of passengers per IEP Vehicle. TS1857 The system must be able to record the passenger numbers to within 5% or one person (whichever is the greater) of the actual number of people on board the IEP Train between each station stop. TS1859 Recorded data for the entire IEP Train must be downloadable via the TMS TS1860 All passenger count data must be accessible remotely and in real time from a control centre and operating depot. And also that loadings should be displayed inside the trains: Quote TS1931 The PIS must utilise the data from the passenger counting system to indicate to passengers within the IEP Train the status of the occupancy of each IEP Vehicle. I can't see anything about the outside of the train, and of course platform displays are up to GWR and NR to provide. Title: Re: New Train Post by: broadgage on November 24, 2017, 10:51:50 Regarding rail vehicles being blown over by extreme winds, IIRC a tram on a coastal route was once blown of the track.
Although trams are usually lighter in weight than proper railway coaches, traditional designs were much less in overall height than rail coaches. I think that some trams used in coastal resorts were equipped with water tanks as ballast weights, these being filled when extreme weather was expected, but being normally empty so as avoid energy waste in hauling weight that normally was not needed. Modern railway vehicles are generally required to be safe from overturning up to a certain maximum wind speed, specified in miles per hour or metric equivalent. I presume that such a wind speed is in the IET specification. Note that resistance to overturning is normally specified by wind speed, whereas resistance to pressure pulses from entering tunnels or passing other trains is normally specified in units of pressure. Title: Re: New Train Post by: Bmblbzzz on November 24, 2017, 10:54:00 As an aside, "the number of passengers which alight" sounds a little awkward to me as opposed to "the number of passengers who alight". If they used it with a singular verb, "the number of passengers which alights" it sound very awkward but at least be defensible grammatically.
Title: Re: New Train Post by: stuving on November 24, 2017, 11:03:07 As an aside, "the number of passengers which alight" sounds a little awkward to me as opposed to "the number of passengers who alight". If they used it with a singular verb, "the number of passengers which alights" it sound very awkward but at least be defensible grammatically. Nonsense - at least if grammar must serve to convey the intended meaning. Was it a number that got off? No, it was the passengers who got off. Title: Re: New Train Post by: TonyK on November 24, 2017, 16:11:04 Regarding rail vehicles being blown over by extreme winds, IIRC a tram on a coastal route was once blown of the track. Although trams are usually lighter in weight than proper railway coaches, traditional designs were much less in overall height than rail coaches. I think that some trams used in coastal resorts were equipped with water tanks as ballast weights, these being filled when extreme weather was expected, but being normally empty so as avoid energy waste in hauling weight that normally was not needed. I am not aware of that happening in my former home town of Blackpool, where the wind from the Irish Sea can be fearsome. The double-deck "Balloon" trams were left indoors in winter, just in case. Title: Re: New Train Post by: grahame on November 24, 2017, 16:23:49 Regarding rail vehicles being blown over by extreme winds, IIRC a tram on a coastal route was once blown of the track. http://www.londonderrysentinel.co.uk/news/the-tale-of-the-lough-swilly-railway-that-halted-back-in-1953-1-2095325 Quote Disaster occurred on the night of January 30, 1925 at the Owencarrow Viaduct in County Donegal. Winds of up to 120 mph derailed carriages of the train off the viaduct causing it to partially collapse. The roof of a carriage was torn off causing four people to be thrown to their deaths. The four killed were, Phillip Boyle and his wife Sarah, Una Milligan and Neil Duggan. Five people were seriously injured. The remains of the viaduct can be seen today from the road which carries on from the Barnes Gap on the road to Cresslough. Title: Re: New Train Post by: grahame on November 24, 2017, 16:40:38 Regarding rail vehicles being blown over by extreme winds, IIRC a tram on a coastal route was once blown of the track. http://www.londonderrysentinel.co.uk/news/the-tale-of-the-lough-swilly-railway-that-halted-back-in-1953-1-2095325 Quote Disaster occurred on the night of January 30, 1925 at the Owencarrow Viaduct in County Donegal. Winds of up to 120 mph derailed carriages of the train off the viaduct causing it to partially collapse. The roof of a carriage was torn off causing four people to be thrown to their deaths. The four killed were, Phillip Boyle and his wife Sarah, Una Milligan and Neil Duggan. Five people were seriously injured. The remains of the viaduct can be seen today from the road which carries on from the Barnes Gap on the road to Cresslough. And Also ... 9th October 1880 - http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/60095852 Quote TERRIBLE RAILWAY ACCIDENT AT WELLINGTON, N.Z. The New Zealand papers contain particulars of a terrible accident which occurred on the Wellington and Rimutaka railway on 11th September. The train was ascending the in- cline of 1 in 15, proceeding at the usual slow speed of about five milcs an hour, when, on emerging from a deep rocky cutting, and on entering an open embankment, a furious gust of wind from the right hand struck the leading carriage broadside on with terrific force, in- stantly hurling it off the rails on to its left side, taking with it the second carriage and the brake van. The combined effect of the wind force, and the violent concussion against the boulders at the side of the line, was to start the upper portion of the first carriage from the frame and flooring, and the breach once made, the whole body of the vehicle was dashed to pieces with extraordinary rapidity, the débris, together with the passsengers, being whirled down the steep declivity. The carrier, frame and wheels of the dismantled carriage were also thrown over the side of the embank- ment and dragged down, also the second car- riage and the brake van — these hanging down the bank at right angles to tho engine. Happily the couplings all held firm, and the Fell engine remained anchored, as it were, to the high middle rail, with the four horizontal steel, wheels gripped as if in a vyce under the prcssure of the powerful engine brake. Immediately the Fell brake van was taken off, the two goods waggons being held only at one end by the engine, they too were thrown off the rails, and partly over the side of the bank by the irresistible fury of the wind, thus leaving the engine alone on the rails. The scene at the foot of the pre- cipice is described by one of the passen- gers as most shocking. The killed and wounded lay scattered around in all directions, covered with blood and dirt, and mixed up with the wreckage of the carriages. Most of the passengers were stunned for a time, but on recovering consciousness those who were less severely injured did their best to assist the greater sufferers. A girl and two boys were killed and several other passengers seri- ously injured. The second carriage, although blown off the line, was not smashed, but left hanging end downwards, all the passengers being found in a confused masss against the end doors, which were closed. One boy was crushed to death through falling underneath the mass of people. The inmates of the car- riage at length, to extricate themselves, had to scramble up the bank with the help of a rope thrown to them from the engine. Title: Re: New Train Post by: stuving on November 24, 2017, 18:33:19 Modern railway vehicles are generally required to be safe from overturning up to a certain maximum wind speed, specified in miles per hour or metric equivalent. I presume that such a wind speed is in the IET specification. Note that resistance to overturning is normally specified by wind speed, whereas resistance to pressure pulses from entering tunnels or passing other trains is normally specified in units of pressure. The excerpted text cited GM/RT2142, which does give a wind speed. It also says a lot more about how to apply it, depending on the train's own speed, following an approach that I find rather odd. However, that initial fixed wind speed is the oddly precise 40.8 m/s (147 km/hr or 91 mi/hr). Title: Re: New Train Post by: lbraine on November 24, 2017, 21:49:45 Any sign of displays showing loading levels? The IEP requirement said they must count passengers: Quote 4.16 Passenger Counting System I can't see anything about the outside of the train, and of course platform displays are up to GWR and NR to provide. TS299 Each IEP Vehicle must be installed with a system that automatically records the number of passengers boarding and alighting the IEP Train at each station. The system must record the individual journey, time and date for which this information applies. The TS1857 The system must be able to record the passenger numbers to within 5% or one Vehicle. As you exit the IEP door there is - about knee height - a black and yellow cased sensor, presumably whose inner workings are disrupted by a passenger passing by why embarking/disembarking. Title: Re: New Train Post by: 1st fan on November 25, 2017, 11:32:54 Any sign of displays showing loading levels? The IEP requirement said they must count passengers: Quote 4.16 Passenger Counting System I can't see anything about the outside of the train, and of course platform displays are up to GWR and NR to provide. TS299 Each IEP Vehicle must be installed with a system that automatically records the number of passengers boarding and alighting the IEP Train at each station. The system must record the individual journey, time and date for which this information applies. The TS1857 The system must be able to record the passenger numbers to within 5% or one Vehicle. As you exit the IEP door there is - about knee height - a black and yellow cased sensor, presumably whose inner workings are disrupted by a passenger passing by why embarking/disembarking. Any idea how this info will be displayed to the Quote TS1931 The PIS must utilise the data from the passenger counting system to indicate to passengers within the IEP Train the status of the occupancy of each IEP Vehicle. I've rarely seen people move carriages but I have seen them running along the platform looking for a carriage with space in. This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. 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 content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |