| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:54:06 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,138 |
| Messages: | 111,071 |
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
It occurs to me that these trains would also be a good choice for HS2, with >>> speeds of up to 300 km/h and tilt of up to 8 degrees.
https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/high-speed-trains/avelia-stream-high-speed-trains-wide-range-applications
Does HS2 need tilt?
No, but the trains will be doing more mileage on the WCML than on the short high speed leg. As things stand, theyrCOll be running slower than the 390s for much of their journey.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
It occurs to me that these trains would also be a good choice for HS2, with
speeds of up to 300 km/h and tilt of up to 8 degrees.
https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/high-speed-trains/avelia-stream-high-speed-trains-wide-range-applications
Does HS2 need tilt?
No, but the trains will be doing more mileage on the WCML than on the short >> high speed leg. As things stand, theyrCOll be running slower than the 390s >> for much of their journey.
What loading gauge are they being built to? If it just for HS1 and cross >channel services will they be too big for classic lines.
Trains built to
allow for tilt and the normal UK loading gauge tend to be a bit cramped .
It was necessary to get the first Eurostars to Waterloo to build them to >fit the SR lines but it seems to be an unnecessary restriction for HS1.
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
It occurs to me that these trains would also be a good choice for HS2, with
speeds of up to 300 km/h and tilt of up to 8 degrees.
https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/high-speed-trains/avelia-stream-high-speed-trains-wide-range-applications
Does HS2 need tilt?
No, but the trains will be doing more mileage on the WCML than on the short >>> high speed leg. As things stand, theyrCOll be running slower than the 390s >>> for much of their journey.
What loading gauge are they being built to? If it just for HS1 and cross
channel services will they be too big for classic lines.
That idea was dropped long ago. All the HS2 fleet will be 'classic compatible'. And they'll not be running on HS1 at
all.
This new Virgin order will be running on HS1, but they'll be normal Continental sized.
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Trains built to
allow for tilt and the normal UK loading gauge tend to be a bit cramped . >>It was necessary to get the first Eurostars to Waterloo to build them to >>fit the SR lines but it seems to be an unnecessary restriction for HS1.
They only need a small amount of tilt, much less than the 8 degrees of the >390s, which were built for 140 mph running on
the WCML. We now know that they tilt more than they need to, even at 125mph. >So only perhaps 4 degrees would be needed
to run at 125 mph on the WCML. That shouldn't compromise the body profile.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
It occurs to me that these trains would also be a good choice for HS2, with
speeds of up to 300 km/h and tilt of up to 8 degrees.
https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/high-speed-trains/avelia-stream-high-speed-trains-wide-range-applications
Does HS2 need tilt?
No, but the trains will be doing more mileage on the WCML than on the short
high speed leg. As things stand, theyrCOll be running slower than the 390s >>>> for much of their journey.
What loading gauge are they being built to? If it just for HS1 and cross >>> channel services will they be too big for classic lines.
That idea was dropped long ago. All the HS2 fleet will be 'classic
compatible'. And they'll not be running on HS1 at
all.
This new Virgin order will be running on HS1, but they'll be normal Continental sized.
So in what way can they be a good choice for HS2
Your words .
rCLIt occurs to me that these trains would also be a good choice for HS2, with speeds of up to 300 km/h and tilt of up to 8 degrees.rCY
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:04:47 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Trains built toThey only need a small amount of tilt, much less than the 8 degrees of the >> 390s, which were built for 140 mph running on
allow for tilt and the normal UK loading gauge tend to be a bit cramped . >>> It was necessary to get the first Eurostars to Waterloo to build them to >>> fit the SR lines but it seems to be an unnecessary restriction for HS1. >>
the WCML. We now know that they tilt more than they need to, even at 125mph. >> So only perhaps 4 degrees would be needed
to run at 125 mph on the WCML. That shouldn't compromise the body profile.
Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're going
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with the
associated narrow cramped seats. And if they did 18m cars like LU, possibly articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which is
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without whacking the scenery so...
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
It occurs to me that these trains would also be a good choice for HS2, with >>> speeds of up to 300 km/h and tilt of up to 8 degrees.
https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/high-speed-trains/avelia-stream-high-speed-trains-wide-range-applications
Does HS2 need tilt?
No, but the trains will be doing more mileage on the WCML than on the short >high speed leg. As things stand, theyAll be running slower than the 390s
for much of their journey.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 20:53:58 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
It occurs to me that these trains would also be a good choice for HS2, with
speeds of up to 300 km/h and tilt of up to 8 degrees.
https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/high-speed-trains/avelia-stream-high-speed-trains-wide-range-applications
Does HS2 need tilt?
No, but the trains will be doing more mileage on the WCML than on the short >> high speed leg. As things stand, they-All be running slower than the 390s
for much of their journey.
But HS2 trains need to be classic-compatible, hence smaller than HS2 itself allows for. HS1/Eurotunnel trains don't, they can be UIC.
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
It occurs to me that these trains would also be a good choice for HS2, with
speeds of up to 300 km/h and tilt of up to 8 degrees.
https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/high-speed-trains/avelia-stream-high-speed-trains-wide-range-applications
Does HS2 need tilt?
No, but the trains will be doing more mileage on the WCML than on the short
high speed leg. As things stand, theyrCOll be running slower than the 390s >> for much of their journey.
What loading gauge are they being built to? If it just for HS1 and cross >channel services will they be too big for classic lines.
That idea was dropped long ago. All the HS2 fleet will be 'classic compatible'. And they'll not be running on HS1 at
all.
This new Virgin order will be running on HS1, but they'll be normal Continental sized.
Trains built to
allow for tilt and the normal UK loading gauge tend to be a bit cramped . >It was necessary to get the first Eurostars to Waterloo to build them to >fit the SR lines but it seems to be an unnecessary restriction for HS1.
They only need a small amount of tilt, much less than the 8 degrees of the 390s, which were built for 140 mph running on
the WCML. We now know that they tilt more than they need to, even at 125mph. So only perhaps 4 degrees would be needed
to run at 125 mph on the WCML. That shouldn't compromise the body profile.
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:04:47 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Trains built to
allow for tilt and the normal UK loading gauge tend to be a bit cramped . >>It was necessary to get the first Eurostars to Waterloo to build them to >>fit the SR lines but it seems to be an unnecessary restriction for HS1.
They only need a small amount of tilt, much less than the 8 degrees of the >390s, which were built for 140 mph running on
the WCML. We now know that they tilt more than they need to, even at 125mph. >So only perhaps 4 degrees would be needed
to run at 125 mph on the WCML. That shouldn't compromise the body profile.
Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're going
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with the
associated narrow cramped seats. And if they did 18m cars like LU, possibly articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which is
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without whacking the scenery so...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 20:53:58 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
It occurs to me that these trains would also be a good choice for HS2, with
speeds of up to 300 km/h and tilt of up to 8 degrees.
https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/high-speed-trains/avelia-stream-high-speed-trains-wide-range-applications
Does HS2 need tilt?
No, but the trains will be doing more mileage on the WCML than on the short >high speed leg. As things stand, they-All be running slower than the 390s >for much of their journey.
But HS2 trains need to be classic-compatible, hence smaller than HS2 itself allows for. HS1/Eurotunnel trains don't, they can be UIC.
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote: >>>
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
It occurs to me that these trains would also be a good choice for HS2, with
speeds of up to 300 km/h and tilt of up to 8 degrees.
https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/high-speed-trains/avelia-stream-high-speed-trains-wide-range-applications
Does HS2 need tilt?
No, but the trains will be doing more mileage on the WCML than on the short
high speed leg. As things stand, theyrCOll be running slower than the 390s
for much of their journey.
What loading gauge are they being built to? If it just for HS1 and cross >>>> channel services will they be too big for classic lines.
That idea was dropped long ago. All the HS2 fleet will be 'classic
compatible'. And they'll not be running on HS1 at
all.
This new Virgin order will be running on HS1, but they'll be normal Continental sized.
So in what way can they be a good choice for HS2
Your words .
rCLIt occurs to me that these trains would also be a good choice for HS2,
with speeds of up to 300 km/h and tilt of up to 8 degrees.rCY
I donrCOt mean the exact same trains, but another fleet from the same Alston family. Note the link I posted
https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/high-speed-trains/avelia-stream-high-speed-trains-wide-range-applications
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:04:47 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Trains built toThey only need a small amount of tilt, much less than the 8 degrees of the >> >390s, which were built for 140 mph running on
allow for tilt and the normal UK loading gauge tend to be a bit cramped . >> >>It was necessary to get the first Eurostars to Waterloo to build them to >> >>fit the SR lines but it seems to be an unnecessary restriction for HS1. >> >
the WCML. We now know that they tilt more than they need to, even at 125mph.
So only perhaps 4 degrees would be neededAnyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then
to run at 125 mph on the WCML. That shouldn't compromise the body profile. >>
they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're >going
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with >the
associated narrow cramped seats. And if they did 18m cars like LU, possibly >> articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which >is
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the >> WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without
whacking the scenery so...
Not sure about having individual tilt for each carriage
on articulated trains...
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote: >>>>
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
It occurs to me that these trains would also be a good choice for HS2, with
speeds of up to 300 km/h and tilt of up to 8 degrees.
https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/high-speed-trains/avelia-stream-high-speed-trains-wide-range-applications
Does HS2 need tilt?
No, but the trains will be doing more mileage on the WCML than on the short
high speed leg. As things stand, theyrCOll be running slower than the 390s
for much of their journey.
What loading gauge are they being built to? If it just for HS1 and cross >>>>> channel services will they be too big for classic lines.
That idea was dropped long ago. All the HS2 fleet will be 'classic
compatible'. And they'll not be running on HS1 at
all.
This new Virgin order will be running on HS1, but they'll be normal Continental sized.
So in what way can they be a good choice for HS2
Your words .
rCLIt occurs to me that these trains would also be a good choice for HS2, >>> with speeds of up to 300 km/h and tilt of up to 8 degrees.rCY
I donrCOt mean the exact same trains, but another fleet from the same Alston >> family. Note the link I posted
https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/high-speed-trains/avelia-stream-high-speed-trains-wide-range-applications
So really , not these trains but those trains.
Your posting was a bit Rolandesque.
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 07:00:40 GMT
Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wibbled: >boltar@galactica.caprica posted:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:04:47 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Trains built to
allow for tilt and the normal UK loading gauge tend to be a bit cramped .
It was necessary to get the first Eurostars to Waterloo to build them to
fit the SR lines but it seems to be an unnecessary restriction for HS1.
They only need a small amount of tilt, much less than the 8 degrees of the
390s, which were built for 140 mph running on
the WCML. We now know that they tilt more than they need to, even at 125mph.
isSo only perhaps 4 degrees would be needed
to run at 125 mph on the WCML. That shouldn't compromise the body profile.
Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then >> they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're >going
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with >the
associated narrow cramped seats. And if they did 18m cars like LU, possibly
articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the
WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without
whacking the scenery so...
Not sure about having individual tilt for each carriage
on articulated trains...
Is it not possible to tilt on articulate bogies? I have no idea.
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 20:53:58 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
It occurs to me that these trains would also be a good choice for HS2, with
speeds of up to 300 km/h and tilt of up to 8 degrees.
https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/high-speed-trains/avelia-stream-high-speed-trains-wide-range-applications
Does HS2 need tilt?
No, but the trains will be doing more mileage on the WCML than on the short >>> high speed leg. As things stand, they-All be running slower than the 390s >>> for much of their journey.
But HS2 trains need to be classic-compatible, hence smaller than HS2 itself >> allows for. HS1/Eurotunnel trains don't, they can be UIC.
Will we see double stack Eurotunnel non-shuttle trains soon?
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:04:47 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Trains built toThey only need a small amount of tilt, much less than the 8 degrees of the >>390s, which were built for 140 mph running on
allow for tilt and the normal UK loading gauge tend to be a bit cramped . >>>It was necessary to get the first Eurostars to Waterloo to build them to >>>fit the SR lines but it seems to be an unnecessary restriction for HS1. >>
the WCML. We now know that they tilt more than they need to, even at 125mph. >>So only perhaps 4 degrees would be needed
to run at 125 mph on the WCML. That shouldn't compromise the body profile.
Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then >they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're going
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with the
associated narrow cramped seats.
And if they did 18m cars like LU, possibly
articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which is
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the >WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without >whacking the scenery so...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:17:38 -0000 (UTC), boltar@galactica.caprica wrote: >>Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then >>they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're >going
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with >the
associated narrow cramped seats.
I believe they will have 25m carriages, formed as 8-carriage 200m trains. So >that suggests no more than 2.7m width, the
same as class 800s.
And if they did 18m cars like LU, possibly
articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which >is
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the >>WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without >>whacking the scenery so...
Why would S stock cars have ever visited Brum?
Why do you think articulation would allow wider trains? It has no effect.
What matters is the distance between bogie centres, and overhangs. The S stock >can be wider because the carriages are
short.
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:04:47 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Trains built toThey only need a small amount of tilt, much less than the 8 degrees of the >>390s, which were built for 140 mph running on
allow for tilt and the normal UK loading gauge tend to be a bit cramped . >>>It was necessary to get the first Eurostars to Waterloo to build them to >>>fit the SR lines but it seems to be an unnecessary restriction for HS1. >>
the WCML. We now know that they tilt more than they need to, even at 125mph. >>So only perhaps 4 degrees would be needed
to run at 125 mph on the WCML. That shouldn't compromise the body profile.
Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then >they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're going
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with the
associated narrow cramped seats. And if they did 18m cars like LU, possibly >articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which is
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the >WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without >whacking the scenery so...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:17:38 -0000 (UTC), boltar@galactica.caprica
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:04:47 +0100It isn't allowed through all scenery. The usual risk with LU surface
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Trains built toAnyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then
allow for tilt and the normal UK loading gauge tend to be a bit cramped . >>>> It was necessary to get the first Eurostars to Waterloo to build them to >>>> fit the SR lines but it seems to be an unnecessary restriction for HS1. >>>They only need a small amount of tilt, much less than the 8 degrees of the >>> 390s, which were built for 140 mph running on
the WCML. We now know that they tilt more than they need to, even at 125mph.
So only perhaps 4 degrees would be needed
to run at 125 mph on the WCML. That shouldn't compromise the body profile. >>
they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're going
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with the
associated narrow cramped seats. And if they did 18m cars like LU, possibly >> articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which is
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the >> WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without
whacking the scenery so...
stock is the corners whacking something on and around crossovers and
catching platform edges. The risk with tube trains possibly varies by
each type's profile rather than the corners.
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:31:15 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:17:38 -0000 (UTC), boltar@galactica.caprica wrote: >>> Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then >>> they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're
going
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with >> the
associated narrow cramped seats.
I believe they will have 25m carriages, formed as 8-carriage 200m trains. So >> that suggests no more than 2.7m width, the
same as class 800s.
Oh great, another cramped train.
And if they did 18m cars like LU, possibly
articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which >> is
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the >>> WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without
whacking the scenery so...
Why would S stock cars have ever visited Brum?
Yes, my mistake, Derby.
Why do you think articulation would allow wider trains? It has no effect.
It doesn't, but more bogies = greater weight which is probably a consideration
particularly with shorter carraiges which = more bogies for the same length train.
<boltar@galactica.caprica> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:31:15 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:17:38 -0000 (UTC), boltar@galactica.caprica wrote: >>>> Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then >>>> they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're >>> going
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with >>> the
associated narrow cramped seats.
I believe they will have 25m carriages, formed as 8-carriage 200m trains. So
that suggests no more than 2.7m width, the
same as class 800s.
Oh great, another cramped train.
Yes, unfortunately. And the argument that it wonrCOt matter with such fast journeys breaks down when much of the route will be on the classic WCML.
And if they did 18m cars like LU, possiblyis
articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the
WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without >>>> whacking the scenery so...
Why would S stock cars have ever visited Brum?
Yes, my mistake, Derby.
Why do you think articulation would allow wider trains? It has no effect. >>It doesn't, but more bogies = greater weight which is probably a consideration
particularly with shorter carraiges which = more bogies for the same length >> train.
True. But itrCOs hard to see how carriages can tilt independently when they share bogies. And they do need to tilt independently, as the front and back ends of the train will often be traversing different radius curves, or even reversed curves.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@galactica.caprica> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:31:15 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:17:38 -0000 (UTC), boltar@galactica.caprica wrote: >>>> Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then
they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're >>> goingthe
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with
associated narrow cramped seats.
I believe they will have 25m carriages, formed as 8-carriage 200m trains. So
that suggests no more than 2.7m width, the
same as class 800s.
Oh great, another cramped train.
Yes, unfortunately. And the argument that it wonrCOt matter with such fast journeys breaks down when much of the route will be on the classic WCML.
And if they did 18m cars like LU, possiblyis
articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the
WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without >>>> whacking the scenery so...
Why would S stock cars have ever visited Brum?
Yes, my mistake, Derby.
Why do you think articulation would allow wider trains? It has no effect.
It doesn't, but more bogies = greater weight which is probably a consideration
particularly with shorter carraiges which = more bogies for the same length
train.
True. But itrCOs hard to see how carriages can tilt independently when they share bogies. And they do need to tilt independently, as the front and back ends of the train will often be traversing different radius curves, or even reversed curves.
Alstom offer both tilting and non-tilting trains in the Avelia Stream
family. One of the predecessors, the AGV for Italo NTV, is articulated but non-tilting; the tilting trainsets for Italo have conventional bogies.
Talgos are articulated and tilt, but they essentially have a three-point suspension for each coach - wheels at one end and a pivot at the other so there are no shared bogies.
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:17:38 -0000 (UTC), boltar@galactica.caprica
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:04:47 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote: >>> Trains built to
allow for tilt and the normal UK loading gauge tend to be a bit cramped . >>>It was necessary to get the first Eurostars to Waterloo to build them to >>>fit the SR lines but it seems to be an unnecessary restriction for HS1. >>They only need a small amount of tilt, much less than the 8 degrees of the >>390s, which were built for 140 mph running on
the WCML. We now know that they tilt more than they need to, even at 125mph.
So only perhaps 4 degrees would be needed
to run at 125 mph on the WCML. That shouldn't compromise the body profile.
Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then >they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're going
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with the
associated narrow cramped seats. And if they did 18m cars like LU, possibly >articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which is
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the >WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without >whacking the scenery so...
It isn't allowed through all scenery. The usual risk with LU surface
stock is the corners whacking something on and around crossovers and
catching platform edges. The risk with tube trains possibly varies by
each type's profile rather than the corners.
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> posted:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@galactica.caprica> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:31:15 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:17:38 -0000 (UTC), boltar@galactica.caprica wrote: >>>>>> Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then
they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're >>>>> goingthe
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with
associated narrow cramped seats.
I believe they will have 25m carriages, formed as 8-carriage 200m trains. So
that suggests no more than 2.7m width, the
same as class 800s.
Oh great, another cramped train.
Yes, unfortunately. And the argument that it wonrCOt matter with such fast >>> journeys breaks down when much of the route will be on the classic WCML. >>>
And if they did 18m cars like LU, possiblyis
articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the
WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without >>>>>> whacking the scenery so...
Why would S stock cars have ever visited Brum?
Yes, my mistake, Derby.
Why do you think articulation would allow wider trains? It has no effect.
It doesn't, but more bogies = greater weight which is probably a consideration
particularly with shorter carraiges which = more bogies for the same length
train.
True. But itrCOs hard to see how carriages can tilt independently when they >>> share bogies. And they do need to tilt independently, as the front and back >>> ends of the train will often be traversing different radius curves, or even >>> reversed curves.
Alstom offer both tilting and non-tilting trains in the Avelia Stream
family. One of the predecessors, the AGV for Italo NTV, is articulated but >> non-tilting; the tilting trainsets for Italo have conventional bogies.
Talgos are articulated and tilt, but they essentially have a three-point
suspension for each coach - wheels at one end and a pivot at the other so
there are no shared bogies.
And, IIRC, they only use tilt for passenger comfort,
not for allowing higher curve speeds.
Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> posted:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@galactica.caprica> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:31:15 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:17:38 -0000 (UTC), boltar@galactica.caprica wrote:
Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars thengoing
they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width withthe
associated narrow cramped seats.
I believe they will have 25m carriages, formed as 8-carriage 200m trains. So
that suggests no more than 2.7m width, the
same as class 800s.
Oh great, another cramped train.
Yes, unfortunately. And the argument that it wonrCOt matter with such fast >>>> journeys breaks down when much of the route will be on the classic WCML. >>>>
And if they did 18m cars like LU, possiblyis
articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the
WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without >>>>>>> whacking the scenery so...
Why would S stock cars have ever visited Brum?
Yes, my mistake, Derby.
Why do you think articulation would allow wider trains? It has no effect.
It doesn't, but more bogies = greater weight which is probably a consideration
particularly with shorter carraiges which = more bogies for the same length
train.
True. But itrCOs hard to see how carriages can tilt independently when they
share bogies. And they do need to tilt independently, as the front and back
ends of the train will often be traversing different radius curves, or even
reversed curves.
Alstom offer both tilting and non-tilting trains in the Avelia Stream
family. One of the predecessors, the AGV for Italo NTV, is articulated but >>> non-tilting; the tilting trainsets for Italo have conventional bogies.
Talgos are articulated and tilt, but they essentially have a three-point >>> suspension for each coach - wheels at one end and a pivot at the other so >>> there are no shared bogies.
And, IIRC, they only use tilt for passenger comfort,
not for allowing higher curve speeds.
ThatrCOs always been the case in the UK as well - itrCOs definitely not a safety thing.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> posted:
It isn't allowed through all scenery. The usual risk with LU surface
stock is the corners whacking something on and around crossovers and
catching platform edges. The risk with tube trains possibly varies by
each type's profile rather than the corners.
For tube stock hauled in Austria/Germany see >https://www.lok-report.de/news/deutschland/mit-der-kamera-notiert/item/52959-lo
ndon-underground-2024-stock-ins-pcw-ueberfuehrt.html
one of the lessons from the APT was that using tilt to fully compensate
for the lateral forces greatly reduces comfort. ItrCOs one of the
reasons why APT passengers felt very uncomfortable.
The subsequent Pendolinos only partly compensate, but further research has >shown that the tilt can be further reduced without causing discomfort. ItrCOs >why AvantirCOs successor trains to the 221s donrCOt tilt at all.
<boltar@galactica.caprica> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:31:15 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:17:38 -0000 (UTC), boltar@galactica.caprica wrote: >>>> Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then >>>> they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're >>> going
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with >>> the
associated narrow cramped seats.
I believe they will have 25m carriages, formed as 8-carriage 200m trains. So
that suggests no more than 2.7m width, the
same as class 800s.
Oh great, another cramped train.
Yes, unfortunately. And the argument that it wonrCOt matter with such fast journeys breaks down when much of the route will be on the classic WCML.
And if they did 18m cars like LU, possiblyis
articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the
WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without >>>> whacking the scenery so...
Why would S stock cars have ever visited Brum?
Yes, my mistake, Derby.
Why do you think articulation would allow wider trains? It has no effect. >>It doesn't, but more bogies = greater weight which is probably a consideration
particularly with shorter carraiges which = more bogies for the same length >> train.
True. But itrCOs hard to see how carriages can tilt independently when they share bogies. And they do need to tilt independently, as the front and back ends of the train will often be traversing different radius curves, or even reversed curves.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@galactica.caprica> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:31:15 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:17:38 -0000 (UTC), boltar@galactica.caprica wrote: >>>>> Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then >>>>> they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're >>>> going
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width withthe
associated narrow cramped seats.
I believe they will have 25m carriages, formed as 8-carriage 200m trains. So
that suggests no more than 2.7m width, the
same as class 800s.
Oh great, another cramped train.
Yes, unfortunately. And the argument that it wonrCOt matter with such fast >> journeys breaks down when much of the route will be on the classic WCML.
And if they did 18m cars like LU, possiblyis
articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the
WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without >>>>> whacking the scenery so...
Why would S stock cars have ever visited Brum?
Yes, my mistake, Derby.
Why do you think articulation would allow wider trains? It has no effect.
It doesn't, but more bogies = greater weight which is probably a consideration
particularly with shorter carraiges which = more bogies for the same length >>> train.
True. But itrCOs hard to see how carriages can tilt independently when they >> share bogies. And they do need to tilt independently, as the front and back >> ends of the train will often be traversing different radius curves, or even >> reversed curves.
The APT was articulated and tiltedrCa
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> posted:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@galactica.caprica> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:31:15 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:17:38 -0000 (UTC), boltar@galactica.caprica wrote:
Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars thengoing
they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width withthe
associated narrow cramped seats.
I believe they will have 25m carriages, formed as 8-carriage 200m trains. So
that suggests no more than 2.7m width, the
same as class 800s.
Oh great, another cramped train.
Yes, unfortunately. And the argument that it wonrCOt matter with such fast
journeys breaks down when much of the route will be on the classic WCML. >>>>
And if they did 18m cars like LU, possiblyis
articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the
WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without
whacking the scenery so...
Why would S stock cars have ever visited Brum?
Yes, my mistake, Derby.
Why do you think articulation would allow wider trains? It has no effect.
It doesn't, but more bogies = greater weight which is probably a consideration
particularly with shorter carraiges which = more bogies for the same length
train.
True. But itrCOs hard to see how carriages can tilt independently when they
share bogies. And they do need to tilt independently, as the front and back
ends of the train will often be traversing different radius curves, or even
reversed curves.
Alstom offer both tilting and non-tilting trains in the Avelia Stream
family. One of the predecessors, the AGV for Italo NTV, is articulated but
non-tilting; the tilting trainsets for Italo have conventional bogies. >>>
Talgos are articulated and tilt, but they essentially have a three-point >>> suspension for each coach - wheels at one end and a pivot at the other so >>> there are no shared bogies.
And, IIRC, they only use tilt for passenger comfort,
not for allowing higher curve speeds.
ThatrCOs always been the case in the UK as well - itrCOs definitely not a safety thing.
Yes, thatrCOs correct. And one of the lessons from the APT was that using tilt to fully compensate for the lateral forces greatly reduces comfort. ItrCOs one of the reasons why APT passengers felt very uncomfortable.
The subsequent Pendolinos only partly compensate, but further research has shown that the tilt can be further reduced without causing discomfort.
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@galactica.caprica> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:31:15 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:17:38 -0000 (UTC), boltar@galactica.caprica wrote: >>>>>> Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then
they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're >>>>> goingthe
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with
associated narrow cramped seats.
I believe they will have 25m carriages, formed as 8-carriage 200m trains. So
that suggests no more than 2.7m width, the
same as class 800s.
Oh great, another cramped train.
Yes, unfortunately. And the argument that it wonrCOt matter with such fast >>> journeys breaks down when much of the route will be on the classic WCML. >>>
And if they did 18m cars like LU, possiblyis
articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the
WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without >>>>>> whacking the scenery so...
Why would S stock cars have ever visited Brum?
Yes, my mistake, Derby.
Why do you think articulation would allow wider trains? It has no effect.
It doesn't, but more bogies = greater weight which is probably a consideration
particularly with shorter carraiges which = more bogies for the same length
train.
True. But itrCOs hard to see how carriages can tilt independently when they >>> share bogies. And they do need to tilt independently, as the front and back >>> ends of the train will often be traversing different radius curves, or even >>> reversed curves.
The APT was articulated and tiltedrCa
Ah, yes, IrCOd forgotten it was articulated.
Do you remember how it managed it? Was the tilting mechanism in the
bodies, above the bogies? Or, did each bogie tilt independently, with the bodies mounted flexibly to them, with enough flex to cope with different
tilt at each end bogie?
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:CanrCOt answer that though I remembered that it was articulated but the power cars were on their own bogies so they could easily be moved out of a set
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@galactica.caprica> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:31:15 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:17:38 -0000 (UTC), boltar@galactica.caprica wrote:
Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars thengoing
they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width withthe
associated narrow cramped seats.
I believe they will have 25m carriages, formed as 8-carriage 200m trains. So
that suggests no more than 2.7m width, the
same as class 800s.
Oh great, another cramped train.
Yes, unfortunately. And the argument that it wonrCOt matter with such fast >>>> journeys breaks down when much of the route will be on the classic WCML. >>>>
And if they did 18m cars like LU, possiblyis
articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the
WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without >>>>>>> whacking the scenery so...
Why would S stock cars have ever visited Brum?
Yes, my mistake, Derby.
Why do you think articulation would allow wider trains? It has no effect.
It doesn't, but more bogies = greater weight which is probably a consideration
particularly with shorter carraiges which = more bogies for the same length
train.
True. But itrCOs hard to see how carriages can tilt independently when they
share bogies. And they do need to tilt independently, as the front and back
ends of the train will often be traversing different radius curves, or even
reversed curves.
The APT was articulated and tiltedrCa
Ah, yes, IrCOd forgotten it was articulated.
Do you remember how it managed it? Was the tilting mechanism in the
bodies, above the bogies? Or, did each bogie tilt independently, with the >> bodies mounted flexibly to them, with enough flex to cope with different
tilt at each end bogie?
for maintenance.
And during the research and testing phase one trailer had its own bogies. <https://www.apt-p.com/RDB977527.htm>
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:CanrCOt answer that though I remembered that it was articulated but the power
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
<boltar@galactica.caprica> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:31:15 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:17:38 -0000 (UTC), boltar@galactica.caprica wrote:
Anyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars thengoing
they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width withthe
associated narrow cramped seats.
I believe they will have 25m carriages, formed as 8-carriage 200m trains. So
that suggests no more than 2.7m width, the
same as class 800s.
Oh great, another cramped train.
Yes, unfortunately. And the argument that it wonrCOt matter with such fast
journeys breaks down when much of the route will be on the classic WCML. >>>>
And if they did 18m cars like LU, possiblyis
articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the
WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without
whacking the scenery so...
Why would S stock cars have ever visited Brum?
Yes, my mistake, Derby.
Why do you think articulation would allow wider trains? It has no effect.
It doesn't, but more bogies = greater weight which is probably a consideration
particularly with shorter carraiges which = more bogies for the same length
train.
True. But itrCOs hard to see how carriages can tilt independently when they
share bogies. And they do need to tilt independently, as the front and back
ends of the train will often be traversing different radius curves, or even
reversed curves.
The APT was articulated and tiltedrCa
Ah, yes, IrCOd forgotten it was articulated.
Do you remember how it managed it? Was the tilting mechanism in the
bodies, above the bogies? Or, did each bogie tilt independently, with the >> bodies mounted flexibly to them, with enough flex to cope with different >> tilt at each end bogie?
cars were on their own bogies so they could easily be moved out of a set for maintenance.
And during the research and testing phase one trailer had its own bogies. <https://www.apt-p.com/RDB977527.htm>
I think IrCOve found the answer: the bogies didnrCOt tilt, but the carriage ends were connected to the bogies with separate hydraulic tilting
mechanisms for each carriage body. So the carriages sharing a bogie could tilt independently. The tilt applied to each carriage was based on the preceding carriage, so carriages could be tilted as they entered a curve,
not afterwards, as happened originally. There would only be slight differences in the tilt applied to adjacent carriages, which could be accommodated in the flexible bellows.
The Wikipedia article also says that further research showed that the need for tilt was found to be much less than originally thought, casting doubt
on the whole project:
Among the improvements was a fix for the motion sickness being experienced
by passengers. The commissioning team had been well aware of this problem before it entered service, but this was not mentioned to the press when it was noticed on the public runs. The problem was due to two effects. One was that the control system did not respond instantly, so the cars tended to
not respond when the curve first started, and then reacted rapidly to make
up for this lag. The fix for this was to take information on the tilt from the car in front, giving the system the slight time advantage it needed.
The other problem was similar to sea sickness, but in reverse. Sea sickness is caused when the body's equilibrioception system can feel movement, but inside a closed room this movement cannot be seen. On APT, one could easily see the tilting as the train entered turns, but there was no perception of this motion. The result was the same, a confusion between the visual and
the equilibrioception system. The solution was almost trivial; slightly reducing the amount of tilt to be deliberately less than needed resulted in
a small amount of leftover centrifugal force that was perceived by the equilibrioception system as being perfectly natural, which proved to cure
the effect.
This also led to a further embarrassing discovery. The work that suggested the amount of tilt needed to reduce the lateral forces to acceptable levels was eventually traced to a short series of studies carried out by a steam train on a branch line in northern Wales in 1949. A series of updated
studies carried out in 1983 demonstrated less tilt was needed, about six degrees. This was within the range possible through superelevation, which suggested tilting might not be needed at all.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:17:38 -0000 (UTC), boltar@galactica.caprica
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 15:04:47 +0100It isn't allowed through all scenery. The usual risk with LU surface
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> Trains built toAnyone know what the length of the cars will be? If they're 20m cars then >>> they could use the full width of the loading gauge of 2.8+m but if we're going
allow for tilt and the normal UK loading gauge tend to be a bit cramped . >>>>> It was necessary to get the first Eurostars to Waterloo to build them to
fit the SR lines but it seems to be an unnecessary restriction for HS1.
They only need a small amount of tilt, much less than the 8 degrees of the >>>> 390s, which were built for 140 mph running on
the WCML. We now know that they tilt more than they need to, even at 125mph.
So only perhaps 4 degrees would be needed
to run at 125 mph on the WCML. That shouldn't compromise the body profile. >>>
to have yet another train of 23m cars then its going to be 2.7m width with the
associated narrow cramped seats. And if they did 18m cars like LU, possibly
articulated , then it could perhaps be pushed to 2.9m like LU S stock which is
close to UIC width though obviously this would require gauging runs on the >>> WCML to see if it can fit but then S stock got hauled from Brum without
whacking the scenery so...
stock is the corners whacking something on and around crossovers and
catching platform edges. The risk with tube trains possibly varies by
each type's profile rather than the corners.
I think the route between Derby and Ruislip is carefully chosen and
checked. The trains also travel slowly. Much of the route was former GWR,
so with a slightly wider loading gauge.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 08:31:55 GMT
Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> gabbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> posted:
It isn't allowed through all scenery. The usual risk with LU surface
stock is the corners whacking something on and around crossovers and
catching platform edges. The risk with tube trains possibly varies by
each type's profile rather than the corners.
For tube stock hauled in Austria/Germany see >>https://www.lok-report.de/news/deutschland/mit-der-kamera-notiert/item/52959-lo
ndon-underground-2024-stock-ins-pcw-ueberfuehrt.html
Deep level tube stock has a small loading guage even compared to UK mainline >stock so I can't imagine it causes any issues being hauled on german tracks >unless the shoebeams are an issue.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> posted:
On 14 Aug 2025 13:55:40 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
It occurs to me that these trains would also be a good choice for HS2, with
speeds of up to 300 km/h and tilt of up to 8 degrees.
https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/high-speed-trains/avelia-stream-high-speed-trains-wide-range-applications
Does HS2 need tilt?
No, but the trains will be doing more mileage on the WCML than on the short
high speed leg. As things stand, theyrCOll be running slower than the 390s
for much of their journey.
What loading gauge are they being built to? If it just for HS1 and cross >channel services will they be too big for classic lines.
That idea was dropped long ago. All the HS2 fleet will be 'classic compatible'. And they'll not be running on HS1 at
all.
This new Virgin order will be running on HS1, but they'll be normal Continental sized.
Trains built to
allow for tilt and the normal UK loading gauge tend to be a bit cramped . >It was necessary to get the first Eurostars to Waterloo to build them to >fit the SR lines but it seems to be an unnecessary restriction for HS1.
They only need a small amount of tilt, much less than the 8 degrees of the 390s, which were built for 140 mph running on
the WCML. We now know that they tilt more than they need to, even at 125mph. So only perhaps 4 degrees would be needed
to run at 125 mph on the WCML. That shouldn't compromise the body profile.
Depends on the speed allowed on the given section for
classic trains and on signalling.
In message <Y_YnQ.66$NTqf.0@fx10.ams1>, at 10:23:52 on Sat, 16 Aug 2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
one of the lessons from the APT was that using tilt to fully
compensate for the lateral forces greatly reduces comfort. ItrCOs one of
the reasons why APT passengers felt very uncomfortable.
The subsequent Pendolinos only partly compensate, but further research
has
shown that the tilt can be further reduced without causing discomfort.
ItrCOs
why AvantirCOs successor trains to the 221s donrCOt tilt at all.
On my Azuma back from Edinburgh earlier in the week, there was one point
my beercan started sliding sideways across the table towards the aisle,
and I only just caught it in time.
Maybe need to add some beermats to my travel kit.
On 16/08/2025 12:20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <Y_YnQ.66$NTqf.0@fx10.ams1>, at 10:23:52 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
one of the lessons from the APT was that using tilt to fully
compensate for the lateral forces greatly reduces comfort. ItrCOs one
of the reasons why APT passengers felt very uncomfortable.
The subsequent Pendolinos only partly compensate, but further
research has shown that the tilt can be further reduced without >>>causing discomfort. ItrCOs why AvantirCOs successor trains to the
221s donrCOt tilt at all.
On my Azuma back from Edinburgh earlier in the week, there was one
point my beercan started sliding sideways across the table towards
the aisle, and I only just caught it in time.
Maybe need to add some beermats to my travel kit.
I thought you has stopped plaguing the poor railway operatives now?
On my Azuma back from Edinburgh earlier in the week, there was one >>>point my beercan started sliding sideways across the table towards
the aisle, and I only just caught it in time.
Maybe need to add some beermats to my travel kit.
I thought you has stopped plaguing the poor railway operatives now?
There are times when, despite all their customer-hostile efforts, the
train is still the least-worst method of transport.
In message <qOUh3EFUi0roFA39@perry.uk>, at 19:04:04 on Wed, 27 Aug 2025, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
p
Slightly OT: I spent yesterday getting a roaming Starlink working and
was surprised how easy it was. Got around 190 Mbps. There is a railway connection though, because in 1993 I predicted that one use of wireless
data at home would be to examine Live Departure Boards to estimate when
to start driving to the station - because trains were so often either
very late or cancelled. LDBs weren't deployed until 1999.
In message <qOUh3EFUi0roFA39@perry.uk>, at 19:04:04 on Wed, 27 Aug 2025, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
On my Azuma back from Edinburgh earlier in the week, there was one >>>point my beercan started sliding sideways across the table towards >>>the aisle, and I only just caught it in time.
Maybe need to add some beermats to my travel kit.
I thought you has stopped plaguing the poor railway operatives now?
There are times when, despite all their customer-hostile efforts, the >train is still the least-worst method of transport.
Yesterday I was toying with the idea of collecting an item from
Edinburgh (for some reason large/fragile items on eBay are disproportionately offered for sale "Collection Only" in Scotland
as compared with England).
Too far to drive there and back in a day, and plane is clearly inappropriate. So LNER it would have been. But the sale fell through
in favour of a buyer in Newcastle who appeared to the vendor to be
promising a better chance of actually arriving to do the collection.
In message <qOUh3EFUi0roFA39@perry.uk>, at 19:04:04 on Wed, 27 Aug 2025, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
On my Azuma back from Edinburgh earlier in the week, there was one
point my beercan started sliding sideways across the table towards
the aisle, and I only just caught it in time.
Maybe need to add some beermats to my travel kit.
I thought you has stopped plaguing the poor railway operatives now?
There are times when, despite all their customer-hostile efforts, the
train is still the least-worst method of transport.
Yesterday I was toying with the idea of collecting an item from
Edinburgh (for some reason large/fragile items on eBay are disproportionately offered for sale "Collection Only" in Scotland
as compared with England).
Too far to drive there and back in a day, and plane is clearly inappropriate. So LNER it would have been. But the sale fell through
in favour of a buyer in Newcastle who appeared to the vendor to be
promising a better chance of actually arriving to do the collection.
Although I'd have been on the train today, had I won. It's wet and
miserable here, and of course a Friday, other reasons not to drive.
Slightly OT: I spent yesterday getting a roaming Starlink working and
was surprised how easy it was. Got around 190 Mbps. There is a railway connection though, because in 1993 I predicted that one use of wireless
data at home would be to examine Live Departure Boards to estimate when
to start driving to the station - because trains were so often either
very late or cancelled. LDBs weren't deployed until 1999.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <qOUh3EFUi0roFA39@perry.uk>, at 19:04:04 on Wed, 27 Aug 2025,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
p
Slightly OT: I spent yesterday getting a roaming Starlink working and
was surprised how easy it was. Got around 190 Mbps. There is a railway
connection though, because in 1993 I predicted that one use of wireless
data at home would be to examine Live Departure Boards to estimate when
to start driving to the station - because trains were so often either
very late or cancelled. LDBs weren't deployed until 1999.
Are you geeky enough to have one of these?
<https://ukdepartureboards.co.uk>
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <qOUh3EFUi0roFA39@perry.uk>, at 19:04:04 on Wed, 27 Aug 2025,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
On my Azuma back from Edinburgh earlier in the week, there was one
point my beercan started sliding sideways across the table towards
the aisle, and I only just caught it in time.
Maybe need to add some beermats to my travel kit.
I thought you has stopped plaguing the poor railway operatives now?
There are times when, despite all their customer-hostile efforts, the
train is still the least-worst method of transport.
Yesterday I was toying with the idea of collecting an item from
Edinburgh (for some reason large/fragile items on eBay are
disproportionately offered for sale "Collection Only" in Scotland
as compared with England).
Too far to drive there and back in a day, and plane is clearly
inappropriate. So LNER it would have been. But the sale fell through
in favour of a buyer in Newcastle who appeared to the vendor to be
promising a better chance of actually arriving to do the collection.
Although I'd have been on the train today, had I won. It's wet and
miserable here, and of course a Friday, other reasons not to drive.
Slightly OT: I spent yesterday getting a roaming Starlink working and
was surprised how easy it was. Got around 190 Mbps. There is a railway
connection though, because in 1993 I predicted that one use of wireless
data at home would be to examine Live Departure Boards to estimate when
to start driving to the station - because trains were so often either
very late or cancelled. LDBs weren't deployed until 1999.
I travelled for the first time on an LNER Azuma the other day. From Berwick >to Edinburgh, in Standard class. The seats are horrendously uncomfortable, >bad enough for the 40 minute journey. There is no way that IrCOd consider a >London or Peterborough to Edinburgh trip. Came back on an XC Voyager. Seats >are much better. Had airline seats on both, which are cramped. EasyJet is a >much more comfortable option for me.
The road network from the south is
also in a terrible state with the A1 suffering what seem to be permanent
road works, and the M1 north of Leeds coming out in sympathy.
In message <108rt5g$1thet$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:50:40 on Fri, 29 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <qOUh3EFUi0roFA39@perry.uk>, at 19:04:04 on Wed, 27 Aug 2025, >>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
On my Azuma back from Edinburgh earlier in the week, there was one >>>>>> point-a my beercan started sliding sideways across the table towards >>>>>> the aisle,-a and I only just caught it in time.
Maybe need to add some beermats to my travel kit.
I thought you has stopped plaguing the poor railway operatives now?
There are times when, despite all their customer-hostile efforts, the
train is still the least-worst method of transport.
Yesterday I was toying with the idea of collecting an item from
Edinburgh (for some reason large/fragile items on eBay are
disproportionately offered for sale "Collection Only" in Scotland
as compared with England).
Too far to drive there and back in a day, and plane is clearly
inappropriate. So LNER it would have been. But the sale fell through
in favour of a buyer in Newcastle who appeared to the vendor to be
promising a better chance of actually arriving to do the collection.
Although I'd have been on the train today, had I won. It's wet and
miserable here, and of course a Friday, other reasons not to drive.
Slightly OT: I spent yesterday getting a roaming Starlink working and
was surprised how easy it was. Got around 190 Mbps. There is a railway
connection though, because in 1993 I predicted that one use of wireless
data at home would be to examine Live Departure Boards to estimate when
to start driving to the station - because trains were so often either
very late or cancelled. LDBs weren't deployed until 1999.
I travelled for the first time on an LNER Azuma the other day. From
Berwick
to Edinburgh, in Standard class. The seats are horrendously
uncomfortable,
bad enough for the 40 minute journey. There is no way that IrCOd consider a >> London or Peterborough to Edinburgh trip. Came back on an XC Voyager.
Seats
are much better. Had airline seats on both, which are cramped. EasyJet
is a
much more comfortable option for me.
I have to get to/from Stansted as well, and with 30kg of fragile baggage
I don't think the plane is ideal.
The road network from the south is
also in a terrible state with the A1 suffering what seem to be permanent
road works, and the M1 north of Leeds coming out in sympathy.
On 29/08/2025 18:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <108rt5g$1thet$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:50:40 on Fri, 29 AugConsidering the difficulties you have when travelling on the railways
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <qOUh3EFUi0roFA39@perry.uk>, at 19:04:04 on Wed, 27 Aug 2025, >>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
There are times when, despite all their customer-hostile efforts, the >>>>> train is still the least-worst method of transport.On my Azuma back from Edinburgh earlier in the week, there was one >>>>>>> point-a my beercan started sliding sideways across the table towards >>>>>>> the aisle,-a and I only just caught it in time.
Maybe need to add some beermats to my travel kit.
I thought you has stopped plaguing the poor railway operatives now? >>>>>
Yesterday I was toying with the idea of collecting an item from
Edinburgh (for some reason large/fragile items on eBay are
disproportionately offered for sale "Collection Only" in Scotland
as compared with England).
Too far to drive there and back in a day, and plane is clearly
inappropriate. So LNER it would have been. But the sale fell through
in favour of a buyer in Newcastle who appeared to the vendor to be
promising a better chance of actually arriving to do the collection.
Although I'd have been on the train today, had I won. It's wet and
miserable here, and of course a Friday, other reasons not to drive.
Slightly OT: I spent yesterday getting a roaming Starlink working and
was surprised how easy it was. Got around 190 Mbps. There is a railway >>>> connection though, because in 1993 I predicted that one use of wireless >>>> data at home would be to examine Live Departure Boards to estimate when >>>> to start driving to the station - because trains were so often either
very late or cancelled. LDBs weren't deployed until 1999.
I travelled for the first time on an LNER Azuma the other day. From
Berwick
to Edinburgh, in Standard class. The seats are horrendously
uncomfortable,
bad enough for the 40 minute journey. There is no way that IrCOd consider a >>> London or Peterborough to Edinburgh trip. Came back on an XC Voyager.
Seats
are much better. Had airline seats on both, which are cramped. EasyJet
is a
much more comfortable option for me.
I have to get to/from Stansted as well, and with 30kg of fragile baggage
I don't think the plane is ideal.
The road network from the south is
also in a terrible state with the A1 suffering what seem to be permanent >>> road works, and the M1 north of Leeds coming out in sympathy.
why don't you try National Express?
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
(On 29/08/2025 18:07, Roland Perry wrote:)
In message <108rt5g$1thet$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:50:40 on Fri, 29 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Considering the difficulties you have when travelling on the railwaysThe road network from the south is
also in a terrible state with the A1 suffering what seem to be permanent >>> road works, and the M1 north of Leeds coming out in sympathy.
why don't you try National Express?
Have you seen how long their journey times are? Cambridge to Edinburgh is over 10 hours.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 29/08/2025 18:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <108rt5g$1thet$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:50:40 on Fri, 29 AugConsidering the difficulties you have when travelling on the railways
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <qOUh3EFUi0roFA39@perry.uk>, at 19:04:04 on Wed, 27 Aug 2025, >>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
There are times when, despite all their customer-hostile efforts, the >>>>>> train is still the least-worst method of transport.On my Azuma back from Edinburgh earlier in the week, there was one >>>>>>>> point-a my beercan started sliding sideways across the table towards >>>>>>>> the aisle,-a and I only just caught it in time.
Maybe need to add some beermats to my travel kit.
I thought you has stopped plaguing the poor railway operatives now? >>>>>>
Yesterday I was toying with the idea of collecting an item from
Edinburgh (for some reason large/fragile items on eBay are
disproportionately offered for sale "Collection Only" in Scotland
as compared with England).
Too far to drive there and back in a day, and plane is clearly
inappropriate. So LNER it would have been. But the sale fell through >>>>> in favour of a buyer in Newcastle who appeared to the vendor to be
promising a better chance of actually arriving to do the collection. >>>>>
Although I'd have been on the train today, had I won. It's wet and
miserable here, and of course a Friday, other reasons not to drive.
Slightly OT: I spent yesterday getting a roaming Starlink working and >>>>> was surprised how easy it was. Got around 190 Mbps. There is a railway >>>>> connection though, because in 1993 I predicted that one use of wireless >>>>> data at home would be to examine Live Departure Boards to estimate when >>>>> to start driving to the station - because trains were so often either >>>>> very late or cancelled. LDBs weren't deployed until 1999.
I travelled for the first time on an LNER Azuma the other day. From
Berwick
to Edinburgh, in Standard class. The seats are horrendously
uncomfortable,
bad enough for the 40 minute journey. There is no way that IrCOd consider a
London or Peterborough to Edinburgh trip. Came back on an XC Voyager.
Seats
are much better. Had airline seats on both, which are cramped. EasyJet >>>> is a
much more comfortable option for me.
I have to get to/from Stansted as well, and with 30kg of fragile baggage >>> I don't think the plane is ideal.
The road network from the south is
also in a terrible state with the A1 suffering what seem to be permanent >>>> road works, and the M1 north of Leeds coming out in sympathy.
why don't you try National Express?
Have you seen how long their journey times are? Cambridge to Edinburgh is over 10 hours.
On 31/08/2025 11:41, Tweed wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:I've never even considered travelling anywhere by coach. I very rarely travel on fail replacement buses as I wont travel if I cannot avoid them.
On 29/08/2025 18:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <108rt5g$1thet$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:50:40 on Fri, 29 Aug >>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:Considering the difficulties you have when travelling on the railways
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <qOUh3EFUi0roFA39@perry.uk>, at 19:04:04 on Wed, 27 Aug 2025, >>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
There are times when, despite all their customer-hostile efforts, the >>>>>>> train is still the least-worst method of transport.On my Azuma back from Edinburgh earlier in the week, there was one >>>>>>>>> point-a my beercan started sliding sideways across the table towards >>>>>>>>> the aisle,-a and I only just caught it in time.
Maybe need to add some beermats to my travel kit.
I thought you has stopped plaguing the poor railway operatives now? >>>>>>>
Yesterday I was toying with the idea of collecting an item from
Edinburgh (for some reason large/fragile items on eBay are
disproportionately offered for sale "Collection Only" in Scotland
as compared with England).
Too far to drive there and back in a day, and plane is clearly
inappropriate. So LNER it would have been. But the sale fell through >>>>>> in favour of a buyer in Newcastle who appeared to the vendor to be >>>>>> promising a better chance of actually arriving to do the collection. >>>>>>
Although I'd have been on the train today, had I won. It's wet and >>>>>> miserable here, and of course a Friday, other reasons not to drive. >>>>>>
Slightly OT: I spent yesterday getting a roaming Starlink working and >>>>>> was surprised how easy it was. Got around 190 Mbps. There is a railway >>>>>> connection though, because in 1993 I predicted that one use of wireless >>>>>> data at home would be to examine Live Departure Boards to estimate when >>>>>> to start driving to the station - because trains were so often either >>>>>> very late or cancelled. LDBs weren't deployed until 1999.
I travelled for the first time on an LNER Azuma the other day. From
Berwick
to Edinburgh, in Standard class. The seats are horrendously
uncomfortable,
bad enough for the 40 minute journey. There is no way that IrCOd consider a
London or Peterborough to Edinburgh trip. Came back on an XC Voyager. >>>>> Seats
are much better. Had airline seats on both, which are cramped. EasyJet >>>>> is a
much more comfortable option for me.
I have to get to/from Stansted as well, and with 30kg of fragile baggage >>>> I don't think the plane is ideal.
The road network from the south is
also in a terrible state with the A1 suffering what seem to be permanent >>>>> road works, and the M1 north of Leeds coming out in sympathy.
why don't you try National Express?
Have you seen how long their journey times are? Cambridge to Edinburgh is
over 10 hours.
I've even been kicked off Cardiff Central railway station when I was
sitting next a service waiting for a blockade to Newport (South Wales) railway station to end. The train crew were even sitting on the
adjacent bench. The ATW operatives wanted me to use a replacement bus
and arranged for BTP to eject me from the railway stations as
encouragement. Apparently the gWr crew complained to their control
about the incident!