https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-entertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working-from-home

Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?

On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-entertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working-from-home
>

Wrong link?

> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?

Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
interior.

--
Arthur Figgis

On 17/04/2022 20:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-entertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working-from-home
>>
>
> Wrong link?
>
>
>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>
> Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
> the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
> interior.
>

Also on the Beeb:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61136024

--
Colin

On 17/04/2022 20:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-entertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working-from-home
>>
>
> Wrong link?
>

Oopsie doodle. Try this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61136024

>
>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>
> Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
> the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
> interior.:-
>

The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>

Lumo is the operator (Firstgroup open access on the ECML); the train type
is IET, yes.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 20:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>
>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>
>> Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
>> the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
>> interior.:-
>>
>
> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>

It is as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but I don't know anywhere else
which refers to post-privatisation classes as "BR".

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-entertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working-from-home
>
> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>

Why not just call it a Class 803? No need for any BR prefix.

As an aside, the 803s have been one of the most reliable new fleets.

On 17/04/2022 20:54, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>
>
> Lumo is the operator (Firstgroup open access on the ECML); the train type
> is IET, yes.
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
Be interested to read what you hear on the Grapevine, Anna

PA

Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 20:54, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>
>>
>> Lumo is the operator (Firstgroup open access on the ECML); the train type
>> is IET, yes.
>>
>>
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>
> Be interested to read what you hear on the Grapevine, Anna
>
> PA
>
>

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/lumo-incident-at-peterborough-17-04.230537/

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote:
>> On 17/04/2022 20:54, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lumo is the operator (Firstgroup open access on the ECML); the train type
>>> is IET, yes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>
>> Be interested to read what you hear on the Grapevine, Anna
>>
>> PA
>>
>>
>
> https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/lumo-incident-at-peterborough-17-04.230537/
>

I've also seen on Twitter that the over-speeding 803 may have bern saved by
previously having had to slow while following a 90mph EMR train. That's why
it was 'only' travelling at 80mph over the 30mph points. Apparently the
(planned non-stopping) train was being routed through a different line
through the station to normal.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:27:41 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-entertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working-from-home
>>
>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>
>
>Why not just call it a Class 803? No need for any BR prefix.
>
>As an aside, the 803s have been one of the most reliable new fleets.
>
TOPS ?

In message <t3hubh$3cn$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:46:41 on Sun, 17 Apr
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote:
>> On 17/04/2022 20:54, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lumo is the operator (Firstgroup open access on the ECML); the train type
>>> is IET, yes.
>>>
>> Be interested to read what you hear on the Grapevine, Anna
>
>https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/lumo-incident-at-peterborough-
>17-04.230537/

My edits in [ ]

"I note it's booked the fast line at Tallington Junction then
straight on through platform three at Peterborough [? quite
fast, maybe not 125, but could easily be 100], but today it went
through platform one [80mph on 30mph line]. Presumably the
driver didn't slow down in enough time and took the points from
the fast line to platform one too fast?"

Exactly what I was going to suggest.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t3hvcs$ai9$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:04:28 on Sun, 17 Apr
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wrote:
>>> On 17/04/2022 20:54, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lumo is the operator (Firstgroup open access on the ECML); the train type
>>>> is IET, yes.
>>>>
>>> Be interested to read what you hear on the Grapevine, Anna
>>
>>
>>https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/lumo-incident-at-peterborough-17-0
>>4.230537/
>
>I've also seen on Twitter that the over-speeding 803 may have bern saved by
>previously having had to slow while following a 90mph EMR train. That's why
>it was 'only' travelling at 80mph over the 30mph points. Apparently the
>(planned non-stopping) train was being routed through a different line
>through the station to normal.

From Grantham to New England Junction the Lumo travelled 27 miles in
20min [versus 21.5min in the WTT], so 80mph; but was running 4 minutes
early. Was the driver in a hurry?

It was three minutes behind the EMR, which took 22mins to do Grantham-
New England Junction [pretty much spot-on the WTT], and that includes a
standing (rather than rolling) start at Grantham.

The EMR ended up in platform 6 at Peterborough (as we'd expect) at
10:18, but platform 3 had apparently been reserved for a late-running
LNER train - arrival 10:24.

The Lumo would have passed at 10:19.5 had it not come to grief.

On a regular weekday, Lumos do Grantham-Peterborough in 15 minutes: 29
miles @115mph.

Looks like the Lumo driver either didn't notice or (less plausibly)
wasn't told, about the loop from the UF to the US2, although being early
it could have used the UF anyway.
--
Roland Perry

On 17/04/2022 20:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:

> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800

Only by Wikipedia, and things copied from Wikpedia. I find it is a good
clue that something has been taken directly from Wikipedia, rather than
a primary source.

--
Arthur Figgis

In message <95CdnYVj0b68hcD_nZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
08:49:53 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
remarked:
>On 17/04/2022 20:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>
>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>
>Only by Wikipedia, and things copied from Wikpedia.

Is this copied (I suspect you mean 'syndicated') from Wikipedia?

<https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/magento/rightlines-article/hitachi-cl
ass-800.html>

>I find it is a good clue that something has been taken directly from
>Wikipedia, rather than a primary source.

--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:20:23 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk
wrote:

>On 17/04/2022 20:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-entertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working-from-home
>>>
>>
>> Wrong link?
>>
>
>Oopsie doodle. Try this
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61136024
>
>>
>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>
>> Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
>> the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
>> interior.:-
>>
>
>The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800

Wikipedia prefixes British railway classes with "British Rail" primarily
in order to disambiguate from other, similarly named locomotive classes
elsewhere in the world. It's a descriptive, rather than prescriptive
label. See, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_Railways_800_class

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_47
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR_Class_47

That said, the convention is also employed elsewhere.

https://www.hitachi-ip.com/products/traction_motors/casestudy/class_800.html

Mark

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 08:49:53 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:

>On 17/04/2022 20:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>
>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>
>Only by Wikipedia, and things copied from Wikpedia. I find it is a good
>clue that something has been taken directly from Wikipedia, rather than
>a primary source.

I'd call Hitachi a primary source:

https://www.hitachi-ip.com/products/traction_motors/casestudy/class_800.html

And documents produced for the Welsh government are probably a pretty
important secondary source:

https://maps.npt.gov.uk/iDocsPublic/ShowDocument.aspx?id=717443

It's also fairly common in general railway discussion, including places
that don't necessarily take their cue from Wikipedia. Stock photo
suppliers such as Alamy and Shutterstock also do it, although in their
case it's primarily to include relevant keywords for a search. So I
think it's fair to say that it's a common convention, rather than
Wikipedia specific, but it's not in any way official.

Mark

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>
> From Grantham to New England Junction the Lumo travelled 27 miles in
> 20min [versus 21.5min in the WTT], so 80mph; but was running 4 minutes
> early. Was the driver in a hurry?
>

Unless Lumo have DAS [2] (Driver Advisory System) active [1], drivers
aren't generally aware of the schedule besides times at (station) stopping
points; we will therefore generally run as fast as linespeed, signalling
(and habit) allows us to (so as not to hold up following trains). I'd
therefore suggest that the Lumo train running through the section in the
same time as the train it was following, seem perfectly normal.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

[1] it’s incorporated into to Train Management System (TMS) computer on
IETs, but relies on the data feed being made active; which it currently
isn’t on gWr IETs.

[2] a system which compares current time/location with scheduled
time/location and advises the driver what speed to run at, or to coast (the
original intention was to include 'brake' instruction also, but so far
TTBOMK this has always been replaced with 'coast'), with the intention of
saving fuel/energy; initially trialled on fGW/gWr HSTs it was also rolled
out by certain other TOCs including ATW/TfW and XC.

The next stage of plans have always been supposed to include C-DAS where
the signaller/signalling system can alter the information supplied; eg if a
train has several minutes recovery time approaching a junction (therefore
DAS will say coast or run at a lower speed), but for example the
conflicting train is late/cancelled, C-DAS will change the display for the
driver to get the train over the junction earlier than scheduled).

On 18/04/2022 16:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:20:23 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk
> wrote:
>> On 17/04/2022 20:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>> On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>
>>> Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
>>> the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
>>> interior.:-
>>
>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>
> Wikipedia prefixes British railway classes with "British Rail" primarily
> in order to disambiguate from other, similarly named locomotive classes
> elsewhere in the world. It's a descriptive, rather than prescriptive
> label. See, for example:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_Railways_800_class
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_47
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR_Class_47
>
> That said, the convention is also employed elsewhere.
>
> https://www.hitachi-ip.com/products/traction_motors/casestudy/class_800.html

Wikipedia's rail editors are well aware that British Rail no longer runs
our trains, but keep these article titles to disambiguate them from non-
British classes sharing the number, as suggested above.

Discussions over the years have raised many good points for and against
the convention but no consensus to change. The largest was in 2011:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_20#Naming_convention>

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 22:51:32 +0100, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:

>On 18/04/2022 16:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:20:23 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk
>> wrote:
>>> On 17/04/2022 20:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>> On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>
>>>> Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
>>>> the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
>>>> interior.:-
>>>
>>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>>
>> Wikipedia prefixes British railway classes with "British Rail" primarily
>> in order to disambiguate from other, similarly named locomotive classes
>> elsewhere in the world. It's a descriptive, rather than prescriptive
>> label. See, for example:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_Railways_800_class
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_47
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR_Class_47
>>
>> That said, the convention is also employed elsewhere.
>>
>> https://www.hitachi-ip.com/products/traction_motors/casestudy/class_800.html
>
>Wikipedia's rail editors are well aware that British Rail no longer runs
>our trains, but keep these article titles to disambiguate them from non-
>British classes sharing the number, as suggested above.
>
>Discussions over the years have raised many good points for and against
>the convention but no consensus to change. The largest was in 2011:
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_20#Naming_convention>
>
As there is no longer a "British Rail", don't their own formatting
rules dictate that the description should be "British _r_ail/ways" ?

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 22:51:32 +0100, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> On 18/04/2022 16:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:20:23 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 17/04/2022 20:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>> On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
>>>>> the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
>>>>> interior.:-
>>>>
>>>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>>>
>>> Wikipedia prefixes British railway classes with "British Rail" primarily
>>> in order to disambiguate from other, similarly named locomotive classes
>>> elsewhere in the world. It's a descriptive, rather than prescriptive
>>> label. See, for example:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_Railways_800_class
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_47
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR_Class_47
>>>
>>> That said, the convention is also employed elsewhere.
>>>
>>> https://www.hitachi-ip.com/products/traction_motors/casestudy/class_800.html
>>
>> Wikipedia's rail editors are well aware that British Rail no longer runs
>> our trains, but keep these article titles to disambiguate them from non-
>> British classes sharing the number, as suggested above.
>>
>> Discussions over the years have raised many good points for and against
>> the convention but no consensus to change. The largest was in 2011:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_20#Naming_convention>
>>
> As there is no longer a "British Rail", don't their own formatting
> rules dictate that the description should be "British _r_ail/ways" ?
>

Yes, that would make much more sense.

On 18/04/2022 22:58, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 22:51:32 +0100, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> On 18/04/2022 16:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:20:23 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 17/04/2022 20:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>> On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
>>>>> the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
>>>>> interior.:-
>>>>
>>>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>>>
>>> Wikipedia prefixes British railway classes with "British Rail" primarily
>>> in order to disambiguate from other, similarly named locomotive classes
>>> elsewhere in the world. It's a descriptive, rather than prescriptive
>>> label. See, for example:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_Railways_800_class
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_47
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR_Class_47
>>>
>>> That said, the convention is also employed elsewhere.
>>>
>>> https://www.hitachi-ip.com/products/traction_motors/casestudy/class_800.html
>>
>> Wikipedia's rail editors are well aware that British Rail no longer runs
>> our trains, but keep these article titles to disambiguate them from non-
>> British classes sharing the number, as suggested above.
>>
>> Discussions over the years have raised many good points for and against
>> the convention but no consensus to change. The largest was in 2011:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_20#Naming_convention>
>>
> As there is no longer a "British Rail", don't their own formatting
> rules dictate that the description should be "British _r_ail/ways" ?

Except there will, no doubt, be discussions soon over whether to rename
all the Articles GBR Class XX

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 18/04/2022 22:58, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 22:51:32 +0100, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> On 18/04/2022 16:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:20:23 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 17/04/2022 20:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>> On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
>>>>> the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
>>>>> interior.:-
>>>>
>>>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>>>
>>> Wikipedia prefixes British railway classes with "British Rail" primarily
>>> in order to disambiguate from other, similarly named locomotive classes
>>> elsewhere in the world. It's a descriptive, rather than prescriptive
>>> label. See, for example:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_Railways_800_class
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_47
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR_Class_47
>>>
>>> That said, the convention is also employed elsewhere.
>>>
>>> https://www.hitachi-ip.com/products/traction_motors/casestudy/class_800.html
>>
>> Wikipedia's rail editors are well aware that British Rail no longer runs
>> our trains, but keep these article titles to disambiguate them from non-
>> British classes sharing the number, as suggested above.
>>
>> Discussions over the years have raised many good points for and against
>> the convention but no consensus to change. The largest was in 2011:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_20#Naming_convention>
>>
> As there is no longer a "British Rail", don't their own formatting
> rules dictate that the description should be "British _r_ail/ways" ?

I take the view that it's British Rail's classification scheme and even
though that organisation is no longer responsible for the scheme it
should still be know by that title to distinguish it from any other.

I suppose it could be ATOC Class or whatever but plain Class is not
always particularly useful.

I believe Wikipedia has got it correct.

In message <t3kbqb$r0s$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:48:43 on Mon, 18 Apr
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> From Grantham to New England Junction the Lumo travelled 27 miles in
>> 20min [versus 21.5min in the WTT], so 80mph; but was running 4 minutes
>> early. Was the driver in a hurry?
>
>Unless Lumo have DAS [2] (Driver Advisory System) active [1], drivers
>aren't generally aware of the schedule besides times at (station) stopping
>points; we will therefore generally run as fast as linespeed, signalling
>(and habit) allows us to (so as not to hold up following trains). I'd
>therefore suggest that the Lumo train running through the section in the
>same time as the train it was following, seem perfectly normal.

Some differences about the trip in question. Perhaps because it was a
Sunday, or maybe just that Sunday [more research required] the Lumo
was scheduled to run much slower than a weekday from Grantham to
Peterborough; 80mph versus 115mph according to my earlier postings.

For those not familiar with it, the layout at Peterborough has the DF/UF
in the centre of the layout, with frequent trains (especially the Open
Access ones that never stop at Peterborough) rushing trough at high
speed. Not wanting to get bogged down, let's say at least 100mph.

The DF doesn't have a platform, and I think the UF only had a platform
*edge* [#3] reinstated during the recent rebuild that also introduced a
brand new island platform for East/West regional services. Previously
those regional services used, alternately, #5 the west-most at the time.
Nowadays #5 is the DS1, and rarely used (I can only see half a dozen
passengers services all day, on a quick scan just now).

Therefore northbound stopping services use almost exclusively the DS2,
which is a loop off DF.

Southbound, #2 (US1) a loop off the UF, and used for turning half the
Thameslink services, the rest using #1 (US2) which is an ever further
loop off the through lines.

Back in the day, all the southbound mainline services used #1, which of
course is more convenient, not requiring use of the overbridge. But now
that that's shared with Thameslink, #3 (UF) also sees stopping trains.

https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/ecm2#T_PBRO

I can only see three PASSes on #1 today, one of which is the sleeper {is
it diverted from Euston for some reason}.

I've also looked at next Sunday, and the only Lumo scheduled to use #1
is the last of the day, at 22:28, and strikingly, it has 9 minutes
allowed from Tallington to Peterborough, on the SL.

Therefore we can conclude that the daytime Lumo would have little
expectation to be switched onto the #1 loop (which we are told is 20mph)
and my question is therefore, absent any advance notice, what signalling
exists to slow a southbound train sufficiently to make the unexpected
diversion via #1?

I'm sure we've all seen "feathers" at junctions adjacent to stations,
but what's there out on the main line to trigger the required amount of
braking?

>Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
>[1] it’s incorporated into to Train Management System (TMS) computer on
>IETs, but relies on the data feed being made active; which it currently
>isn’t on gWr IETs.
>
>[2] a system which compares current time/location with scheduled
>time/location and advises the driver what speed to run at, or to coast (the
>original intention was to include 'brake' instruction also, but so far
>TTBOMK this has always been replaced with 'coast'), with the intention of
>saving fuel/energy; initially trialled on fGW/gWr HSTs it was also rolled
>out by certain other TOCs including ATW/TfW and XC.
>
>The next stage of plans have always been supposed to include C-DAS where
>the signaller/signalling system can alter the information supplied; eg if a
>train has several minutes recovery time approaching a junction (therefore
>DAS will say coast or run at a lower speed), but for example the
>conflicting train is late/cancelled, C-DAS will change the display for the
>driver to get the train over the junction earlier than scheduled).

--
Roland Perry

In message <t3ltkq$hf3$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:59:06 on Tue, 19 Apr
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>On 18/04/2022 22:58, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 22:51:32 +0100, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/04/2022 16:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:20:23 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 17/04/2022 20:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
>>>>>> the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
>>>>>> interior.:-
>>>>>
>>>>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia prefixes British railway classes with "British Rail" primarily
>>>> in order to disambiguate from other, similarly named locomotive classes
>>>> elsewhere in the world. It's a descriptive, rather than prescriptive
>>>> label. See, for example:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_Railways_800_class
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_47
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR_Class_47
>>>>
>>>> That said, the convention is also employed elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>https://www.hitachi-ip.com/products/traction_motors/casestudy/class_8
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wikipedia's rail editors are well aware that British Rail no longer runs
>>> our trains, but keep these article titles to disambiguate them from non-
>>> British classes sharing the number, as suggested above.
>>>
>>> Discussions over the years have raised many good points for and against
>>> the convention but no consensus to change. The largest was in 2011:
>>>
>>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/
>>>Archive_20#Naming_convention>
>>>
>> As there is no longer a "British Rail", don't their own formatting
>> rules dictate that the description should be "British _r_ail/ways" ?
>
>I take the view that it's British Rail's classification scheme and even
>though that organisation is no longer responsible for the scheme it
>should still be know by that title to distinguish it from any other.
>
>I suppose it could be ATOC Class

ATOC is now called RDG. Can you see the problem with picking names that
might rot away? Even GBR could turn out to be a temporary placeholder.

>or whatever but plain Class is not always particularly useful.
>
>I believe Wikipedia has got it correct.

Me too. At least for the next five years.
--
Roland Perry