|
Celestial
|
 |
« Reply #1020 on: June 06, 2020, 15:46:45 » |
|
The timetable of the late 70s didn't last too long into the 1980s. By 1986 there were no Paddington to Cardiff non-stop services, and only two Paddington to Bristol Parkway non-stop services. Was it unreliable? Were extra stops inserted because that made more money?
I don't think there were ever any services missing Newport (except perhaps the Fishguard service). From what I recall there was a two hourly pattern of three trains. Where two trains ran the fast was non stop between Newport and Paddington. So the headline 1 hr 45 min time was obtained every other hour during the day. It was certainly better than one peak service only delivering the headline figure, which often seems to be the case these days. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #1021 on: June 06, 2020, 15:52:54 » |
|
Yes, my apologies. The way Table 127 (as it was then) is laid out led me to miss the Newport stop. Original post amended.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
Bmblbzzz
|
|
« Reply #1022 on: June 06, 2020, 20:02:58 » |
|
Obviously those are best times, which might or might not be representative of typical times. But if we compare them with the "superfasts" today and see in effect no change (Cardiff 3 minutes slower now, Bristol 3 minutes faster, etc) despite advances in traction technology, why? Is it that the main limit on journey time is actually the track and its speed limits? Or are today's theoretically faster trains making more stops? Or being held up more by the more frequent other services? Or is there greater "buffer time" (I've forgotten the term, sorry) built into the timetables today to allow for making up time after delays? Or something else/
A little mix of all of that to be honest: * All the Cardiff services now stop at Bristol Parkway. All the Bristol TM‡ services now stop at Chippenham. * Trains are now driven differently to try and reduce operational incidents, and ATP▸ and TPWS▸ further reduce speeds trains are driven at. No more 130+ mph. Much less hard braking into stations.* The network is far busier - witness the performance statistics of the last two months - quite a lot of pathing allowance is allowed on the new SuperFasts because they catch up with other trains. * The HST▸ was a 125mph train and the IETs▸ are currently limited to 125mph. * The timetable of the late 70s didn't last too long into the 1980s. By 1986 there were no Paddington to Cardiff non-stop services, and only two Paddington to Bristol Parkway non-stop services. Was it unreliable? Were extra stops inserted because that made more money? Thanks. Regarding the point I've bolded, I'm aware that speed limits were fairly laxly enforced back then and that the HST was in practice capable of exceeding 125mph* but surely a timetable wouldn't have taken this into account? *Doesn't one still hold the world speed record for a diesel loco, something in excess of 140mph? Edit: Just looked it up: 148mph. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #1023 on: June 06, 2020, 22:16:00 » |
|
No it wouldn’t have been to be fair.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #1024 on: June 07, 2020, 16:08:54 » |
|
It's between Culham Station and the bridge over the Thames to the North, Nuneham Viaduct. It's rather pointless as it is about 200 yards from a brick overbridge. I have used it though sometime in the past ten years.
Yes, it really should be a nailed on closure priority for NR» : * It has a quite steep slope either side down to track level. * It is on the crest of a gradient on curving track offering poor sighting of trains either way. * It's not very well used at all. * There has been at least one fatality there in recent years. * There is a perfectly good short diversion adding only 400 metres (via the Thame Lane overbridge you mention). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
bobm
|
|
« Reply #1025 on: June 07, 2020, 21:45:14 » |
|
It does not take all the pumps to fail for the tunnel to start to ne inundated.
I can well imagine....  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #1026 on: June 08, 2020, 07:01:03 » |
|
It does not take all the pumps to fail for the tunnel to start to ne inundated.
I can well imagine.... I've seen "The Great Spring" that photo is a maar dribble in comparison. There are two pumping systems, The Great Spring, which is the largest system and used to supply water to a paper mill, brewery and local houses, this ceased when the water quality regs can in force. The other system is track drainage |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
SandTEngineer
|
|
« Reply #1027 on: June 12, 2020, 09:25:46 » |
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 12, 2020, 10:05:08 by SandTEngineer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
onthecushions
|
|
« Reply #1028 on: June 12, 2020, 09:56:17 » |
|
Even the portals look good, with the masts not projecting upwards randomly and correct latticed (or trussed) beams - good for strength/weight, probably hot dip galvanised too. 7450mm contact wire height! Even ORR» would be content.
Perhaps we should have asked India's Central Organisation for Railway Electrification for a quote.
Jai Hind,
OTC
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bmblbzzz
|
|
« Reply #1029 on: June 12, 2020, 10:29:15 » |
|
That is impressive.
Note the randoms standing on the track though, very Indian. I'm going for idli-sambar, you hungry?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
|
|
|
|
Surrey 455
|
|
« Reply #1030 on: June 12, 2020, 10:33:53 » |
|
Double deck trains ? I guess the days of sitting on the roof are gone then. Electric wires and an impossible / difficult climb to the top may be a deterrent.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 6438
The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!
|
|
« Reply #1031 on: June 12, 2020, 11:15:48 » |
|
It is a commendable step in a vast country, and shows what can be done with a bit of thought and money. Electrical standards in India have improved markedly since I was there last year.  That will probably cost me a statue. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Now, please!
|
|
|
|
eightonedee
|
|
« Reply #1032 on: June 12, 2020, 11:57:34 » |
|
For some reason the name of the biopic for Douglas Bader (Reach for the Sky) came to mind when looking at those extended pantographs |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SandTEngineer
|
|
« Reply #1033 on: June 12, 2020, 13:45:03 » |
|
It is a commendable step in a vast country, and shows what can be done with a bit of thought and money. Electrical standards in India have improved markedly since I was there last year. You obviously didn't look at the PDF linked to at the bottom of the article  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Noggin
|
|
« Reply #1034 on: June 12, 2020, 14:34:12 » |
|
I seem to recall US operators resisting electrification as it would prevent double-stack container operation. Looks like that excuse has gone. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
