Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2022-02-16 00:33:15 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 17:56:50 +0100
>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-14 16:45:46 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:02:20 +0100
>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-14 08:55:32 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>>>>> With the resignalling to ETCS2 on the ECML (as discussed in another
>>>>>>>> thread recently), the issues preventing >125 mph running on the ECML
>>>>>>>> will be resolved, and it will be possible to run trains at higher
>>>>>>>> speeds. Too late for the 91s, though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its *possible* to run the Javelins at 140mph on HS1 but apparently they're
>>>>>>> still limited to 125 for [reasons]. So wrt the ECML I'll believe it when I
>>>>>>> see it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are permitted to run at 140. They are timetabled at 125, with the
>>>>>> intention that higher speeds can be used to recover from delays and
>>>>>> ensure reliability of the service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which completely defeats the point. You wouldn't get the French saying
>>>>> "We can run our TGVs at 186 but we'll limit them to 170 so we can recover
>>>>> the timetable if they're running late". Its a utter farce and it'll be
>>>>> exactly the same nonsense on the ECML I can guarantee it.
>>>>
>>>> Given the length of HS1, the difference between 125 mph timings and 140
>>>> mph timings is going to be something like 2 minutes. Two minutes of
>>>> recovery time seems a reasonable ammount of padding to include on
>>>> routes like these.
>>>
>>> Problem is you can use that argument reducto as absurdum. The timing
>>> difference between 120 and 100mph would also be slight over that distance
>>> so why not reduce it down to 100? Ditto 100 and 70 etc etc. In the end
>>> you'd be down to the speed of horse drawn carraiges.
>
>> Pre-electrification timetable, GWML HSTs could maintain time but not regain
>> lost time if limited to 100mph (eg broken outer skin of double-glazed
>> window, one tone of horn not working). At 70mph you'd lose acres of time!
>
> That would suggest that timings are based on 100 mph maximum speed for
> the 125 mph HST (with higher speeds used to allow for delays), in the
> same way that on HS1 the Kent timings are based on 125 mph for 140 mph
> 395s. Useful data point, thanks. Out of curiosity, what situations
> might lead to an HST being restricted to 70 mph? Or is that just an
> arbitrary example speed.
>
>> One clue is that acceleration gets much slower as speed gets higher, so
>> 100->125 takes more distance than 0->100.
>
> Even at constant acceleration (ie speed gain per time), the distance
> covered would be greater for higher speeds. (going back to A-Level,
> s=ut+1/2at^2). At higher speeds, accelerating trains are going to be
> running at full power, so can be treated as having a fixed power
> output. P=F*v so as v increases, F (the force accelerating the train)
> decreases. Even in the absence of any resistance to motion, the
> acceleration would decrease, but at high speeds aerodynamic drag is
> going to dominate the resistance to motion, and that to a first
> approximation goes as the square of velocity, so the excess tractive
> force able to accelerate the train will reduce significantly as speed
> increases, hence that last bit up to top speed takes quite a long time.
>
> Electric trains generally have much more installed power than diesel
> ones, hence they accelerate better at higher speeds. That's why a
> 91+MK4s, although slower from a standing start than an HST (4 powered
> axles against 8), once they get past the point where the number of
> powered axles makes a difference, can significantly out-accelerate an
> HST at higher speeds. Obviously an IEP on electric has the advantage
> of both more powered axles to get a fast off-the-line acceleration at
> low speeds and also a high power output for better acceleration at
> higher speeds.
>
> For locomotives with DC traction motors there are other effects related
> to the characteristics of the traction motor itself, with things like
> field weakening needed to achieve higher speeds as the back-EMF becomes
> large, but that's a more advanced topic, and with AC traction motors
> that are now largely standard, things work differently anyway.
>

The DfT was very proud that an 800 on diesel power out-accelerated an HST
from standstill (because at least six axles were powered), though the HST
soon caught up at higher speeds.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:07:49 +0100
> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-02-16 00:33:15 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>> Electric trains generally have much more installed power than diesel
>> ones, hence they accelerate better at higher speeds. That's why a
>> 91+MK4s, although slower from a standing start than an HST (4 powered
>> axles against 8), once they get past the point where the number of
>> powered axles makes a difference, can significantly out-accelerate an
>
> Wouldn't the number of axles matter at any speed because at high speed you
> have a lot of wind and rolling resistence and in theory could get wheelslip
> because of it?
>
>

No, power is the limiting factor at higher speeds, not traction.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sugu8k$8ki$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:17:40 on Tue, 15 Feb
> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>> On 15/02/2022 16:09, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <sugdmh$m84$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:34:57 on Tue, 15 Feb
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <sufuvg$ogc$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:23:44 on Tue, 15 Feb
>>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <sub73d$kkl$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:11:41 on Sun, 13 Feb
>>>>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <sub2h3$kpq$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:53:39 on Sun, 13 Feb
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aren't multiple charging stations diametrically opposed to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition that there's now a mythical train that can do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on one charge?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So it seems, despite claims early in the thread, that were
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> mileage myths, as much as airbrushing out only-charge-at-the-ends
>>>>>>>>>>> operational issues.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The claims were that the current record distance is 15% or 25%
>>>>>>>>>> short of the  Inverness-Wick distance.  There was an initial typo
>>>>>>>>>> suggesting that the  record was 25% longer, but that was corrected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given that the consensus is now that charging stations only at
>>>>>>>>> the ends
>>>>>>>>> is a non-starter, the relevance of the "world record" is bleak.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It always was.  I don’t know how you got the idea that it was
>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>> other.  Perhaps you could go back and check the beginning of
>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>> again?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Original posting:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Add 10-15% to that [invisible words alert: "World Record"] and
>>>>>>> Inverness to Wick becomes possible."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to read just a little further.  In the very next message
>>>>>> Recliner
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “That record-breaking distance is 25% higher [later corrected to lower]
>>>>>> than Inverness-Wick. The reliable, operational range will be much
>>>>>> less, of
>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose the solution would be to have 2-3 top-up stations en
>>>>>> route, …”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the conversation proceeded on that basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed so. This subthread has been lagging the general discussion
>>>>> somewhat.
>>>>
>>>> Is that the closest we’re going to get to “ah, sorry, I missed that”?
>>> Obviously I hadn't missed the fact the discussion had proceeded on.
>>> Did you not see my several mentions of Thurso (rather than Wick)
>>> being the best place for the northern charging station, and Brora
>>> being the best places to add an intermediate charging station?
>>
>> I'm not convinced that anywhere other then the end points makes a good
>> place for a charging station, as the train won't be there long enough.
>
> As I pointed out earlier, the train already only stops for a few minutes
> at Inverness.
>
> "Ah, but you can change the timetable" was the reply.
>
> Well, you can also change the timetable to dwell at somewhere like Brora
> for ten minutes.
>
> If it's really that important to remove the final 1% of 0.4% of *gross*
> carbon emissions by doing that, the passengers will surely understand.
>
> Alternatively they might prefer a slightly higher fare so someone can
> plant a few carbon-offset trees.
>
> Although in practice, what with it being a 4.5hr journey, maybe the
> electric train could run just a few mph faster to make up the time (the
> current average speed is only 40mph)

The BEMU would accelerate faster than a DMU, so average speeds would
increase, even if line speeds were unchanged.

On 2022-02-16 08:54:49 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:

> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:07:49 +0100
> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-02-16 00:33:15 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>> Electric trains generally have much more installed power than diesel
>> ones, hence they accelerate better at higher speeds. That's why a
>> 91+MK4s, although slower from a standing start than an HST (4 powered
>> axles against 8), once they get past the point where the number of
>> powered axles makes a difference, can significantly out-accelerate an
>
> Wouldn't the number of axles matter at any speed because at high speed you
> have a lot of wind and rolling resistence and in theory could get wheelslip
> because of it?

A powered axle will have a maximum force that it can provide for
traction, if you put more torque on the wheel it will slip. I'll call
this F*. The power a driven axle is providing is the product of F
multiplied by the current speed of the train, v. For a train with n
driven axles, the total power of the train at any given time is given
by P=nFv (force per axle multiplied by number of driven axles
multiplied by present speed). A train will have a certain maximum
power output, P*, determined by either the size of the diesel engine(s)
or the electrical capacity of the tranformer/rectifier/power
electronics.

If I consider a limiting case, where the maximum power available is
being used, and the wheels are at their limit of slipping, I can find a
value of speed, v* for this limiting case, where v*=P*/nF*. F can
never be greater than F* and P can never be greater than P*. If v>v*,
then nF*v > P* so that is not possible, so F<F*. If v<v*, then P*/nv >
F*, so the wheels spin. In this case, P<P*.

v* is therefore the transitional speed. Faster than this speed, and
there is insufficient power to be able to overcome the limiting
friction and spin the wheels. Less than this speed, and it is not
possible to use the full installed power without spinning the wheels.

For a high powered four axle electric locomotive, that is where P* is
large and n is small, this will be a case of a high v*, and in this
case the value might be as high as 50 mph. For a DMU with lots of
small engines driving lots of axles, but a modest total installed
power, so n is large and P* is small, this will give a very low value
of v*, which might be around 10 mph. For the case of high speed
passenger trains running at ~100 mph, there will not be a case where
the train is running at less than v*.

Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
but if they are driving on the motorway, they can push their right foot
all the way to the floor and the wheels won't lose grip (Roland and
Anna may have different experiences, as each of them have made
references to owning or having owned "atypical" cars).

Robin

In message <suie4p$1gjg$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:54:49 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:07:49 +0100
>Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:

>>On 2022-02-16 00:33:15 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>>Electric trains generally have much more installed power than diesel
>>ones, hence they accelerate better at higher speeds. That's why a
>>91+MK4s, although slower from a standing start than an HST (4 powered
>>axles against 8), once they get past the point where the number of
>>powered axles makes a difference, can significantly out-accelerate an
>
>Wouldn't the number of axles matter at any speed because at high speed you
>have a lot of wind and rolling resistence and in theory could get wheelslip
>because of it?

I don't think trains have anything like the power to routinely spin the
wheels at anything but low speed. Unlike a car I once had, where you
could spin the back wheels on a dry road at 70mph in 3rd gear (that's
around 5,500rpm)

Even then, with a 0-60 time of under 8 seconds, 0-100 time was 20
seconds.
--
Roland Perry

In message <suiid3$7ba$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:07:31 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> I'm not convinced that anywhere other then the end points makes a good
>>> place for a charging station, as the train won't be there long enough.
>>
>> As I pointed out earlier, the train already only stops for a few minutes
>> at Inverness.
>>
>> "Ah, but you can change the timetable" was the reply.
>>
>> Well, you can also change the timetable to dwell at somewhere like Brora
>> for ten minutes.
>>
>> If it's really that important to remove the final 1% of 0.4% of *gross*
>> carbon emissions by doing that, the passengers will surely understand.
>>
>> Alternatively they might prefer a slightly higher fare so someone can
>> plant a few carbon-offset trees.
>>
>> Although in practice, what with it being a 4.5hr journey, maybe the
>> electric train could run just a few mph faster to make up the time (the
>> current average speed is only 40mph)
>
>The BEMU would accelerate faster than a DMU, so average speeds would
>increase, even if line speeds were unchanged.

I don't know what the linespeeds are, or whether they are the constraint
on the somewhat pedestrian pace.
--
Roland Perry

In message <suijgv$hh1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:26:39 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:

>Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,

I'm not sure that's true. I have a reasonably powered 4x4 but have never
been able to spin the wheels.

Some of that might be the transmission deliberately stopping me from
doing so, but then I wouldn't expect to spin the wheels, other than from
rest, on the majority of cars I've had.

>but if they are driving on the motorway, they can push their right foot
>all the way to the floor and the wheels won't lose grip (Roland and
>Anna may have different experiences, as each of them have made
>references to owning or having owned "atypical" cars).

Indeed.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:01:33 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <suijgv$hh1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:26:39 on Wed, 16 Feb
>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>
>>Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>>all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>
>I'm not sure that's true. I have a reasonably powered 4x4 but have never
>been able to spin the wheels.

I thought your car was quite low powered (158bhp) and also heavy? That would make it unable to spin the wheels except
on slippery ground.

>
>Some of that might be the transmission deliberately stopping me from
>doing so, but then I wouldn't expect to spin the wheels, other than from
>rest, on the majority of cars I've had.

You would hear it if the DSC was cutting the power.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 00:33:15 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On 15/02/2022 11:28, ColinR wrote:
>>> On 15/02/2022 09:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> On 15/02/2022 09:03, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> I would say its entirely reasonable to lay 3rd rail to Uckfield and
>>>>> Reading via Dorking given both lines are fimrly in 3rd rail territory
>>>>> and already have 3rd rail at one end.
>>>>
>>>> Reading - Dorking even more so as it has the Guildford third-rail
>>>> island in the middle. Someone has posted the correct mileages in the
>>>> past but I think it adds up to less than 10 route miles to be
>>>> converted in two bits. If the 769s ever get into service that will
>>>> partially solve the problem in the relatively short term. The longer
>>>> term solution is probably battery-electric hybrid units. Also
>>>> discussed on here in the past. That will probably work out cheaper
>>>> than either electrification system.
>>>>
>>> Maybe battery would be cheaper than electrification, but at what
>>> environmental cost? The manufacture of current battery technology relies
>>> on rare metals which have a significant environmental legacy with
>>> extraction. Maybe recycling of batteries will help this in the future
>>> but...
>>
>> I hope that worn-out vehicle batteries will find a second home as
>> static backup, either on premises or at grid level, where the lower
>> power to weight ratio matters less. However, they'll still need to
>> be scrapped eventually.
>>
>
>Almost every part can be recycled into new batteries.

Yes:

One of Britain's leading tech start-ups is to build a recycling plant for electric car batteries in Kent after joining
forces with global mining giant Glencore.

Britishvolt, which is also planning a "gigafactory" in Northumberland to make electric car batteries, has set out plans
to recycle more than 10,000 tonnes of battery packs a year.

It aims to power the new centre, in Northfleet, with wind and solar energy.

The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has previously said that Britishvolt is a part of "the UK’s place at the helm of the
global green industrial revolution".

Recycling dead batteries is necessary to reduce the environmental damage of electric vehicles which, while producing no
emissions, require dozens of kilograms of lithium, nickel, manganese and cobalt apiece, mostly obtained through mining.

Glencore took a stake in Britishvolt last summer. As well as trading metals it also operates mines and is one of the
largest producers of cobalt, an important metal in battery making.

Last month, Glencore set up a partnership with Morocco’s Managem to refine cobalt from recycled battery materials.

The plant should be ready to strip old parts from the middle of next year.

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/03/britishvolt-builds-recycling-plant-electric-car-batteries/>

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sugu8k$8ki$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:17:40 on Tue, 15 Feb
> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>> On 15/02/2022 16:09, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <sugdmh$m84$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:34:57 on Tue, 15 Feb
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <sufuvg$ogc$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:23:44 on Tue, 15 Feb
>>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <sub73d$kkl$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:11:41 on Sun, 13 Feb
>>>>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <sub2h3$kpq$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:53:39 on Sun, 13 Feb
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aren't multiple charging stations diametrically opposed to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition that there's now a mythical train that can do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on one charge?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So it seems, despite claims early in the thread, that were
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> mileage myths, as much as airbrushing out only-charge-at-the-ends
>>>>>>>>>>> operational issues.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The claims were that the current record distance is 15% or 25%
>>>>>>>>>> short of the  Inverness-Wick distance.  There was an initial typo
>>>>>>>>>> suggesting that the  record was 25% longer, but that was corrected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given that the consensus is now that charging stations only at
>>>>>>>>> the ends
>>>>>>>>> is a non-starter, the relevance of the "world record" is bleak.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It always was.  I don’t know how you got the idea that it was
>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>> other.  Perhaps you could go back and check the beginning of
>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>> again?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Original posting:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Add 10-15% to that [invisible words alert: "World Record"] and
>>>>>>> Inverness to Wick becomes possible."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to read just a little further.  In the very next message
>>>>>> Recliner
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “That record-breaking distance is 25% higher [later corrected to lower]
>>>>>> than Inverness-Wick. The reliable, operational range will be much
>>>>>> less, of
>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose the solution would be to have 2-3 top-up stations en
>>>>>> route, …”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the conversation proceeded on that basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed so. This subthread has been lagging the general discussion
>>>>> somewhat.
>>>>
>>>> Is that the closest we’re going to get to “ah, sorry, I missed that”?
>>> Obviously I hadn't missed the fact the discussion had proceeded on.
>>> Did you not see my several mentions of Thurso (rather than Wick)
>>> being the best place for the northern charging station, and Brora
>>> being the best places to add an intermediate charging station?
>>
>> I'm not convinced that anywhere other then the end points makes a good
>> place for a charging station, as the train won't be there long enough.
>
> As I pointed out earlier, the train already only stops for a few minutes
> at Inverness.
>
> "Ah, but you can change the timetable" was the reply.
>
> Well, you can also change the timetable to dwell at somewhere like Brora
> for ten minutes.
>
> If it's really that important to remove the final 1% of 0.4% of *gross*
> carbon emissions by doing that, the passengers will surely understand.
>
> Alternatively they might prefer a slightly higher fare so someone can
> plant a few carbon-offset trees.
>
> Although in practice, what with it being a 4.5hr journey, maybe the
> electric train could run just a few mph faster to make up the time (the
> current average speed is only 40mph)

If it runs faster it'll use more electricity and lower its range as a
trade-off ;)

Also I suspect that the low speed is mostly due to geography, and although
faster acceleration from stations will make a difference I don't think it's
that much of a difference. Perhaps slowing down in case there's someone
waiting at a request stop slows the journey too (see recent thread).

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
> On 2022-02-16 00:33:15 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 17:56:50 +0100
>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-14 16:45:46 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:02:20 +0100
>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-14 08:55:32 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>>>>> With the resignalling to ETCS2 on the ECML (as discussed in another
>>>>>>>> thread recently), the issues preventing >125 mph running on the ECML
>>>>>>>> will be resolved, and it will be possible to run trains at higher
>>>>>>>> speeds. Too late for the 91s, though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its *possible* to run the Javelins at 140mph on HS1 but apparently they're
>>>>>>> still limited to 125 for [reasons]. So wrt the ECML I'll believe it when I
>>>>>>> see it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are permitted to run at 140. They are timetabled at 125, with the
>>>>>> intention that higher speeds can be used to recover from delays and
>>>>>> ensure reliability of the service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which completely defeats the point. You wouldn't get the French saying
>>>>> "We can run our TGVs at 186 but we'll limit them to 170 so we can recover
>>>>> the timetable if they're running late". Its a utter farce and it'll be
>>>>> exactly the same nonsense on the ECML I can guarantee it.
>>>>
>>>> Given the length of HS1, the difference between 125 mph timings and 140
>>>> mph timings is going to be something like 2 minutes. Two minutes of
>>>> recovery time seems a reasonable ammount of padding to include on
>>>> routes like these.
>>>
>>> Problem is you can use that argument reducto as absurdum. The timing
>>> difference between 120 and 100mph would also be slight over that distance
>>> so why not reduce it down to 100? Ditto 100 and 70 etc etc. In the end
>>> you'd be down to the speed of horse drawn carraiges.
>
>> Pre-electrification timetable, GWML HSTs could maintain time but not regain
>> lost time if limited to 100mph (eg broken outer skin of double-glazed
>> window, one tone of horn not working). At 70mph you'd lose acres of time!
>>
>
> That would suggest that timings are based on 100 mph maximum speed for
> the 125 mph HST (with higher speeds used to allow for delays), in the
> same way that on HS1 the Kent timings are based on 125 mph for 140 mph
> 395s. Useful data point, thanks. Out of curiosity, what situations
> might lead to an HST being restricted to 70 mph? Or is that just an
> arbitrary example speed.
>

I quoted 70mph because Muttley mentioned 70mph in his post.

HST broken traction rod on trailer bogie restricts speed to 80mph but you'd
only ever be doing that to get to a place where the train can come out of
service, whereas sets would remain in traffic to the end of the day with a
100mph restriction.

On IETs, meanwhile, one tone of the horn restricts you to 100mph, defective
air suspension to 75mph (and portable headlight to 75mph, standard across
all types of stock).

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The DfT was very proud that an 800 on diesel power out-accelerated an HST
> from standstill (because at least six axles were powered), though the HST
> soon caught up at higher speeds.
>
>

The acceleration characteristics vary by speed, too; and IET diesel power
has been increased by a software update since then.

0-30mph HSTs are very slow, and IET, even on diesel, very fast.
40-70mph diesel IETs are slower and HST faster.
70-100mph about the same.
100-125mph HST faster.

Since the upgrade, 0-100mph, diesel IET is about 95% of HST performance
(slightly better than HST on a falling gradient, slightly worse than HST on
a rising gradient).

On 16/02/2022 12:37, Recliner wrote:
> One of Britain's leading tech start-ups is to build a recycling plant for electric car batteries in Kent after joining
> forces with global mining giant Glencore.
>
> Britishvolt, which is also planning a "gigafactory" in Northumberland to make electric car batteries, has set out plans
> to recycle more than 10,000 tonnes of battery packs a year.
>
> It aims to power the new centre, in Northfleet, with wind and solar energy.
>
> The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has previously said that Britishvolt is a part of "the UK’s place at the helm of the
> global green industrial revolution".

That could be the kiss of death for the enterprise!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <aurp0h9jjfks9al53ao5j4rm0b0mjdbqco@4ax.com>, at 12:37:51 on
Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>Britishvolt, which is also planning a "gigafactory" in Northumberland
>to make electric car batteries, has set out plans to recycle more than
>10,000 tonnes of battery packs a year.
>
>It aims to power the new centre, in Northfleet, with wind and solar energy.

Not exclusively, though, unless they install a very big set of their own
batteries. Sometimes we have a whole week with virtually no wind/sun,
and this time of year just no-wind would mean operating for only perhaps
five hours a day.
--
Roland Perry

In message <suiv22$dib$2@dont-email.me>, at 13:43:30 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>>> I'm not convinced that anywhere other then the end points makes a good
>>> place for a charging station, as the train won't be there long enough.
>>
>> As I pointed out earlier, the train already only stops for a few minutes
>> at Inverness.
>>
>> "Ah, but you can change the timetable" was the reply.
>>
>> Well, you can also change the timetable to dwell at somewhere like Brora
>> for ten minutes.
>>
>> If it's really that important to remove the final 1% of 0.4% of *gross*
>> carbon emissions by doing that, the passengers will surely understand.
>>
>> Alternatively they might prefer a slightly higher fare so someone can
>> plant a few carbon-offset trees.
>>
>> Although in practice, what with it being a 4.5hr journey, maybe the
>> electric train could run just a few mph faster to make up the time (the
>> current average speed is only 40mph)
>
>If it runs faster it'll use more electricity and lower its range as a
>trade-off ;)

Anyone know what the average speed of the record-breaking FLIRT was?
--
Roland Perry

In message <1erp0h14qr926eha3mofem4uf34nd2mnuh@4ax.com>, at 12:35:20 on
Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:01:33 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <suijgv$hh1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:26:39 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>
>>>Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>>>all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>>
>>I'm not sure that's true. I have a reasonably powered 4x4 but have never
>>been able to spin the wheels.
>
>I thought your car was quite low powered (158bhp) and also heavy? That
>would make it unable to spin the wheels except on slippery ground.

Being heavy (and hence grippy) is one of the advantages. 0-60 is 11sec,
so not particularly sluggish. If you put it into "Sport" (or whatever
they call it) shows quite a turn of speed.

>>Some of that might be the transmission deliberately stopping me from
>>doing so, but then I wouldn't expect to spin the wheels, other than from
>>rest, on the majority of cars I've had.
>
>You would hear it if the DSC was cutting the power.

The only time I've heard/felt anything was once on a bend covered in
ice, when the power reduced very slightly all by itself.

And that was when I was in the extra "icy road" mode. It doesn't so much
cut the power, as not let you apply it in the first place, due to the
fly-by wire.

All of this is more evidence of the slight exaggeration baked into the
earlier "any driver will know..." thing.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1erp0h14qr926eha3mofem4uf34nd2mnuh@4ax.com>, at 12:35:20 on
> Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:01:33 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <suijgv$hh1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:26:39 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>>>> all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that's true. I have a reasonably powered 4x4 but have never
>>> been able to spin the wheels.
>>
>> I thought your car was quite low powered (158bhp) and also heavy? That
>> would make it unable to spin the wheels except on slippery ground.
>
> Being heavy (and hence grippy) is one of the advantages. 0-60 is 11sec,
> so not particularly sluggish.

Very sluggish by modern standards.

> If you put it into "Sport" (or whatever
> they call it) shows quite a turn of speed.

That's almost certainly the mode used when the 0-60 11 sec time was
measured. It would be even more sluggish in D.

>
>>> Some of that might be the transmission deliberately stopping me from
>>> doing so, but then I wouldn't expect to spin the wheels, other than from
>>> rest, on the majority of cars I've had.
>>
>> You would hear it if the DSC was cutting the power.
>
> The only time I've heard/felt anything was once on a bend covered in
> ice, when the power reduced very slightly all by itself.
>
> And that was when I was in the extra "icy road" mode. It doesn't so much
> cut the power, as not let you apply it in the first place, due to the
> fly-by wire.

It probably starts in a higher gear (eg, third) in that mode. That would
significantly reduce the torque at the wheels.

>
> All of this is more evidence of the slight exaggeration baked into the
> earlier "any driver will know..." thing.

In message <suj4qs$j78$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:22:04 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <1erp0h14qr926eha3mofem4uf34nd2mnuh@4ax.com>, at 12:35:20 on
>> Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:01:33 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <suijgv$hh1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:26:39 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>>>>> all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure that's true. I have a reasonably powered 4x4 but have never
>>>> been able to spin the wheels.
>>>
>>> I thought your car was quite low powered (158bhp) and also heavy? That
>>> would make it unable to spin the wheels except on slippery ground.
>>
>> Being heavy (and hence grippy) is one of the advantages. 0-60 is 11sec,
>> so not particularly sluggish.
>
>Very sluggish by modern standards.

Never found it to be an issue.

>>>> Some of that might be the transmission deliberately stopping me from
>>>> doing so, but then I wouldn't expect to spin the wheels, other than from
>>>> rest, on the majority of cars I've had.
>>>
>>> You would hear it if the DSC was cutting the power.
>>
>> The only time I've heard/felt anything was once on a bend covered in
>> ice, when the power reduced very slightly all by itself.
>>
>> And that was when I was in the extra "icy road" mode. It doesn't so much
>> cut the power, as not let you apply it in the first place, due to the
>> fly-by wire.
>
>It probably starts in a higher gear (eg, third) in that mode. That would
>significantly reduce the torque at the wheels.

I'll try that out tomorrow. It's a bit reluctant to say what gear it's
in and starting off in 3rd at 1,000 rpm doesn't sound a very likely
combination.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <suj4qs$j78$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:22:04 on Wed, 16 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <1erp0h14qr926eha3mofem4uf34nd2mnuh@4ax.com>, at 12:35:20 on
>>> Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:01:33 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <suijgv$hh1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:26:39 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>>>>>> all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure that's true. I have a reasonably powered 4x4 but have never
>>>>> been able to spin the wheels.
>>>>
>>>> I thought your car was quite low powered (158bhp) and also heavy? That
>>>> would make it unable to spin the wheels except on slippery ground.
>>>
>>> Being heavy (and hence grippy) is one of the advantages. 0-60 is 11sec,
>>> so not particularly sluggish.
>>
>> Very sluggish by modern standards.
>
> Never found it to be an issue.

Perhaps not, but you have very low expectations.

These days, 0-60 in 7-8 sec is respectable in cheap family cars, and fast
cars have 0-62 times under 4 sec. Even the modern entry level Disco Sport
D200 does 0-62mph in 8.1 seconds, while the P300e PHEV version does it in
6.2 seconds. But if you want a seriously fast SUV, the Tesla Model X Plaid
has a 0-62 time of just 2.5 secs.

>
>>>>> Some of that might be the transmission deliberately stopping me from
>>>>> doing so, but then I wouldn't expect to spin the wheels, other than from
>>>>> rest, on the majority of cars I've had.
>>>>
>>>> You would hear it if the DSC was cutting the power.
>>>
>>> The only time I've heard/felt anything was once on a bend covered in
>>> ice, when the power reduced very slightly all by itself.
>>>
>>> And that was when I was in the extra "icy road" mode. It doesn't so much
>>> cut the power, as not let you apply it in the first place, due to the
>>> fly-by wire.
>>
>> It probably starts in a higher gear (eg, third) in that mode. That would
>> significantly reduce the torque at the wheels.
>
> I'll try that out tomorrow. It's a bit reluctant to say what gear it's
> in and starting off in 3rd at 1,000 rpm doesn't sound a very likely
> combination.

It may normally start in 2nd in D, and 1st only in S, so the Ice mode would
move up a gear.

On 16/02/2022 13:43, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The DfT was very proud that an 800 on diesel power out-accelerated an HST
>> from standstill (because at least six axles were powered), though the HST
>> soon caught up at higher speeds.
>>
>>
>
> The acceleration characteristics vary by speed, too; and IET diesel power
> has been increased by a software update since then.
>
> 0-30mph HSTs are very slow, and IET, even on diesel, very fast.
> 40-70mph diesel IETs are slower and HST faster.
> 70-100mph about the same.
> 100-125mph HST faster.
>
> Since the upgrade, 0-100mph, diesel IET is about 95% of HST performance
> (slightly better than HST on a falling gradient, slightly worse than HST on
> a rising gradient).
>
I assume you mean a 2+8 HST?

I would agree with your assessment. I just been on a couple of IETs on
the south Devon banks and subjectively thought their performance was a
bit lacklustre.

I was wondering if the 2+4 HSTs are allowed on the south Devon banks
with one dead power car.

I discovered the IETs are over automated. The IET I travelled on in
Cornwall was physically the normal way round but the announcements for
the short platforms were back to front. They told passengers to go
forwards when they meant backwards or vice versa for an opening door.

On 16/02/2022 13:52, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 16/02/2022 12:37, Recliner wrote:
>> One of Britain's leading tech start-ups is to build a recycling plant
>> for electric car batteries in Kent after joining
>> forces with global mining giant Glencore.
>>
>> Britishvolt, which is also planning a "gigafactory" in Northumberland
>> to make electric car batteries, has  set out plans
>> to recycle more than 10,000 tonnes of battery packs a year.
>>
>> It aims to power the new centre, in Northfleet, with wind and solar
>> energy.
>>
>> The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has previously said that
>> Britishvolt is a part of "the UK’s place at the helm of the
>> global green industrial revolution".
>
> That could be the kiss of death for the enterprise!
>
That was my feeling.

In message <suj823$c2g$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:17:07 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <suj4qs$j78$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:22:04 on Wed, 16 Feb
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <1erp0h14qr926eha3mofem4uf34nd2mnuh@4ax.com>, at 12:35:20 on
>>>> Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:01:33 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <suijgv$hh1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:26:39 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>>>>>>> all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure that's true. I have a reasonably powered 4x4 but have never
>>>>>> been able to spin the wheels.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought your car was quite low powered (158bhp) and also heavy? That
>>>>> would make it unable to spin the wheels except on slippery ground.
>>>>
>>>> Being heavy (and hence grippy) is one of the advantages. 0-60 is 11sec,
>>>> so not particularly sluggish.
>>>
>>> Very sluggish by modern standards.
>>
>> Never found it to be an issue.
>
>Perhaps not, but you have very low expectations.
>
>These days, 0-60 in 7-8 sec is respectable in cheap family cars, and fast
>cars have 0-62 times under 4 sec. Even the modern entry level Disco Sport
>D200 does 0-62mph in 8.1 seconds, while the P300e PHEV version does it in
>6.2 seconds. But if you want a seriously fast SUV, the Tesla Model X Plaid
>has a 0-62 time of just 2.5 secs.
>
>>
>>>>>> Some of that might be the transmission deliberately stopping me from
>>>>>> doing so, but then I wouldn't expect to spin the wheels, other than from
>>>>>> rest, on the majority of cars I've had.
>>>>>
>>>>> You would hear it if the DSC was cutting the power.
>>>>
>>>> The only time I've heard/felt anything was once on a bend covered in
>>>> ice, when the power reduced very slightly all by itself.
>>>>
>>>> And that was when I was in the extra "icy road" mode. It doesn't so much
>>>> cut the power, as not let you apply it in the first place, due to the
>>>> fly-by wire.
>>>
>>> It probably starts in a higher gear (eg, third) in that mode. That would
>>> significantly reduce the torque at the wheels.
>>
>> I'll try that out tomorrow. It's a bit reluctant to say what gear it's
>> in and starting off in 3rd at 1,000 rpm doesn't sound a very likely
>> combination.
>
>It may normally start in 2nd in D,

I very much doubt it. But will try this tomorrow.

>and 1st only in S, so the Ice mode would move up a gear.

What sort of ground-speed would you expect from 1,000 rpm in third?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <suj823$c2g$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:17:07 on Wed, 16 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <suj4qs$j78$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:22:04 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <1erp0h14qr926eha3mofem4uf34nd2mnuh@4ax.com>, at 12:35:20 on
>>>>> Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:01:33 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <suijgv$hh1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:26:39 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>>>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>>>>>>>> all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure that's true. I have a reasonably powered 4x4 but have never
>>>>>>> been able to spin the wheels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought your car was quite low powered (158bhp) and also heavy? That
>>>>>> would make it unable to spin the wheels except on slippery ground.
>>>>>
>>>>> Being heavy (and hence grippy) is one of the advantages. 0-60 is 11sec,
>>>>> so not particularly sluggish.
>>>>
>>>> Very sluggish by modern standards.
>>>
>>> Never found it to be an issue.
>>
>> Perhaps not, but you have very low expectations.
>>
>> These days, 0-60 in 7-8 sec is respectable in cheap family cars, and fast
>> cars have 0-62 times under 4 sec. Even the modern entry level Disco Sport
>> D200 does 0-62mph in 8.1 seconds, while the P300e PHEV version does it in
>> 6.2 seconds. But if you want a seriously fast SUV, the Tesla Model X Plaid
>> has a 0-62 time of just 2.5 secs.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Some of that might be the transmission deliberately stopping me from
>>>>>>> doing so, but then I wouldn't expect to spin the wheels, other than from
>>>>>>> rest, on the majority of cars I've had.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You would hear it if the DSC was cutting the power.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only time I've heard/felt anything was once on a bend covered in
>>>>> ice, when the power reduced very slightly all by itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that was when I was in the extra "icy road" mode. It doesn't so much
>>>>> cut the power, as not let you apply it in the first place, due to the
>>>>> fly-by wire.
>>>>
>>>> It probably starts in a higher gear (eg, third) in that mode. That would
>>>> significantly reduce the torque at the wheels.
>>>
>>> I'll try that out tomorrow. It's a bit reluctant to say what gear it's
>>> in and starting off in 3rd at 1,000 rpm doesn't sound a very likely
>>> combination.
>>
>> It may normally start in 2nd in D,
>
> I very much doubt it. But will try this tomorrow.
>
>> and 1st only in S, so the Ice mode would move up a gear.
>
> What sort of ground-speed would you expect from 1,000 rpm in third?

Why would it be so high? Won't it idle much lower? But I don't know the
ratios in your car.

Perhaps you could do an experiment to find out: start in S mode, and try
and detect when it changes into third. You should be able to estimate the
ratio.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <suie4p$1gjg$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:54:49 on Wed, 16 Feb
> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:07:49 +0100
>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>
>>> On 2022-02-16 00:33:15 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>>> Electric trains generally have much more installed power than diesel
>>> ones, hence they accelerate better at higher speeds. That's why a
>>> 91+MK4s, although slower from a standing start than an HST (4 powered
>>> axles against 8), once they get past the point where the number of
>>> powered axles makes a difference, can significantly out-accelerate an
>>
>> Wouldn't the number of axles matter at any speed because at high speed you
>> have a lot of wind and rolling resistence and in theory could get wheelslip
>> because of it?
>
> I don't think trains have anything like the power to routinely spin the
> wheels at anything but low speed. Unlike a car I once had, where you
> could spin the back wheels on a dry road at 70mph in 3rd gear (that's
> around 5,500rpm)
>
> Even then, with a 0-60 time of under 8 seconds, 0-100 time was 20
> seconds.

In HST days, during severe leaf fall, if I got to around 100mph and was
still experiencing wheelslip under power, I'd decide that that was probably
fast enough, because if I couldn't get the power down I probably wouldn't
be able to stop very well, either!

On IETs it's less obvious (not sitting above powered axles, for example; no
warning light to indicate wheelslip under power, and more effective WSP),
but on some days you can tell it's still struggling even at 120mph (the
traction motor outputs on the first few powered vehicles being lower than
on the last few vehicles, for example).

On a dry rail, I don't think any of the stock I've driven will wheelspin at
any speed; though I've not driven AC electric locomotives or heavy freight
trains.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:26:39 +0100
Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>On 2022-02-16 08:54:49 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>but if they are driving on the motorway, they can push their right foot
>all the way to the floor and the wheels won't lose grip (Roland and
>Anna may have different experiences, as each of them have made
>references to owning or having owned "atypical" cars).

Well I know thats not true because some wheel driven land speed record cars
started to have wheelsip at very high speed which limited their record run max V