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

A pretty good reason: as widely reported, Euston took an Easter break.
<https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/no-trains-out-of-euston-station-over-easter-52506/>

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

I would prefer 'British railways Class xxx', so it's not associated with
any particular organisation, current or defunct.

As an aside the numbering seemed to be a lot more logical in BR days. Now,
it's almost whimsical.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I would prefer 'British railways Class xxx', so it's not associated with
> any particular organisation, current or defunct.

Because British railways couldn’t possibly be confused with the defunct
British Railways… :-)

> As an aside the numbering seemed to be a lot more logical in BR days. Now,
> it's almost whimsical.

That’s true - all those 700-and-odds don’t seem to make any sense at all.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I would prefer 'British railways Class xxx', so it's not associated with
>> any particular organisation, current or defunct.
>
> Because British railways couldn’t possibly be confused with the defunct
> British Railways… :-)
>
>> As an aside the numbering seemed to be a lot more logical in BR days. Now,
>> it's almost whimsical.
>
> That’s true - all those 700-and-odds don’t seem to make any sense at all.
>

For example:

Aventra trains are Class 345, 701, 710, 720 or 730
CAF trains are Class 195, 197 or 331
Desiro City trains are Class 700, 707 or 717
Hitachi trains are Class 385, 395, 800, 801, 802, 803, 805, 807 or 810
Stadler trains are Class 231, 745, 755 or 777

There's no obvious logic for classifying DMUs, EMUs, battery or bi-modes.

In message <t3m04u$3m4$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:41:50 on Tue, 19 Apr
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t3kbqb$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}.
>
>A pretty good reason: as widely reported, Euston took an Easter break.

<Thread convergence> A good time to encourage people back onto the
railways for leisure travel.

> <https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/no-trains-out-of-euston-station-
>over-easter-52506/>

But Euston was open! Today's sleepers terminate there. However, via the
ECML.

Meanwhile:

"Network Rail says that future railway works are being designed
to avoid two major events in 2022, when demand for rail travel
is expected to be high: the Queen's Platinum Jubilee (June) and
the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham (July/August)"

I was under the impression the former at least was mainly celebrated
locally.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t3m04u$3m4$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:41:50 on Tue, 19 Apr
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t3kbqb$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}.
>>
>> A pretty good reason: as widely reported, Euston took an Easter break.
>
> <Thread convergence> A good time to encourage people back onto the
> railways for leisure travel.
>
>> <https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/no-trains-out-of-euston-station-
>> over-easter-52506/>
>
> But Euston was open! Today's sleepers terminate there. However, via the
> ECML.

It was closed over Easter. Today isn't Easter.

What route did the skeeper take from the ECML to Euston?

>
> Meanwhile:
>
> "Network Rail says that future railway works are being designed
> to avoid two major events in 2022, when demand for rail travel
> is expected to be high: the Queen's Platinum Jubilee (June) and
> the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham (July/August)"
>
> I was under the impression the former at least was mainly celebrated
> locally.

Aren't there big events in London?

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t3m04u$3m4$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:41:50 on Tue, 19 Apr
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t3kbqb$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}.
>>>
>>> A pretty good reason: as widely reported, Euston took an Easter break.
>>
>> <Thread convergence> A good time to encourage people back onto the
>> railways for leisure travel.
>>
>>> <https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/no-trains-out-of-euston-station-
>>> over-easter-52506/>
>>
>> But Euston was open! Today's sleepers terminate there. However, via the
>> ECML.
>
> It was closed over Easter. Today isn't Easter.
>
> What route did the skeeper take from the ECML to Euston?
>
The last time I took the sleeper it used the ECML. It goes from Euston to
Wembley goods yard, where it reverses and uses the NLL to get to ECML. It
took well over an hour to get to the ECML.

In message <t3m591$82h$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:09:21 on Tue, 19 Apr
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>> I can only see three PASSes on #1 today, one of which is the sleeper {is
>>>>> it diverted from Euston for some reason}.
>>>>
>>>> A pretty good reason: as widely reported, Euston took an Easter break.
>>>
>>> <Thread convergence> A good time to encourage people back onto the
>>> railways for leisure travel.
>>>
>>>> <https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/no-trains-out-of-euston-station-
>>>> over-easter-52506/>
>>>
>>> But Euston was open! Today's sleepers terminate there. However, via the
>>> ECML.
>>
>> It was closed over Easter. Today isn't Easter.
>>
>> What route did the skeeper take from the ECML to Euston?
>>
>The last time I took the sleeper it used the ECML. It goes from Euston to
>Wembley goods yard, where it reverses and uses the NLL to get to ECML. It
>took well over an hour to get to the ECML.

Today's southbound sleepers (only one used the loop platform at
Peterborough, which was the original topic), both went Copenhagen
Junction, Camden, then faffed about in Willedon/Wembley for getting on
for an hour, before arriving at Euston nearly two hours after passing
Finsbury Park.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:22:52 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <t3m591$82h$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:09:21 on Tue, 19 Apr
>2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>>> I can only see three PASSes on #1 today, one of which is the sleeper {is
>>>>>> it diverted from Euston for some reason}.
>>>>>
>>>>> A pretty good reason: as widely reported, Euston took an Easter break.
>>>>
>>>> <Thread convergence> A good time to encourage people back onto the
>>>> railways for leisure travel.
>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/no-trains-out-of-euston-station-
>>>>> over-easter-52506/>
>>>>
>>>> But Euston was open! Today's sleepers terminate there. However, via the
>>>> ECML.
>>>
>>> It was closed over Easter. Today isn't Easter.
>>>
>>> What route did the skeeper take from the ECML to Euston?
>>>
>>The last time I took the sleeper it used the ECML. It goes from Euston to
>>Wembley goods yard, where it reverses and uses the NLL to get to ECML. It
>>took well over an hour to get to the ECML.
>
>Today's southbound sleepers (only one used the loop platform at
>Peterborough, which was the original topic), both went Copenhagen
>Junction, Camden, then faffed about in Willedon/Wembley for getting on
>for an hour, before arriving at Euston nearly two hours after passing
>Finsbury Park.

Yes, that sounds like the same route. It was the only one I could think of, but wondered if there was some obscure short
cut route it could use.

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

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

Yes, Euston has been shut for four days over the Easter weekend for
(HS2-related?) engineering works
<https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:EUS/2022-04-15/0000-2359?stp=WVSC&show=all&order=wtt>

> 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?
>

It depends by location, linespeed, junction speed and signalling geography
behind and ahead of the junction, but there are five main types (plus one
obsolete) of junction signalling used on colour-light signalling in the UK.
From reading the thread linked to earlier, I think that in this location it
was flashing yellows.

A) No indication; if the junction speed is within 10mph of linespeed, no
advance indication is required; examples include Cogload Junction and until
recently, the junction (whose name I forget) where third rail turns left
and diesel carries on straight, for Salisbury. That junction had some third
rail installed on the diesel line to assist in recovering wrong-routed
trains!

B) PRI, "Preliminary Route Indicator" - an illuminated arrow added between
signals before the junction at a location which would otherwise have no
indication (see A) giving the driver opportunity to stop if wrongly routed.

C) Flashing yellows - the signal (or two, if in a four-aspect area) before
the junction signal will flash yellow or double yellow if the junction is
set; drivers must still assume that the signal beyond the junction could be
red, until they see the aspect displayed in the junction signal. The signal
aspects on approach will therefore be green-flashing double yellow-flashing
single yellow-yellow (or higher) with junction indicator-(junction)-red (or
higher).

D) Splitting distant - the signal before the junction has an additional
head alongside the main head, and the signal displays green (or double
yellow) in the head for which the route is set (left or right) and yellow
in the head for which the route is not set.

E) Approach control - the signal will be held at red until the train
approaches, this is triggered either by the train passing a certain point
(track circuit or axle counter) or by a timer started when the train passes
a certain point. The location of the trigger point will depend on junction
speed and local geography.

Signals which have a flashing or splitting distant approach, will revert to
approach control if the route is set after the train passes the previous
signal.

F) in the past, 'free yellow' approach was sometimes used; the junction
signal would be held at yellow with junction indicator. This relies on the
junction speed and geography to be suitable; the junction signal must be
clearly visible on approach, and the junction speed must be on or higher
than, the braking curve to stop at the red after the junction. Signal
aspects on approach: green-double yellow-yellow with junction
indicator-red. The example I previously signed (now removed) was at
Wilmslow.

In examples CDE&F, the signal with the junction indicator may first show
(or be released to) yellow, and then to a higher aspect at a point when the
train gets closer, in some instances after the AWS magnet; or it may
release straight to the correct aspect.

Sometimes that 'fake yellow' is more obvious than others, eg when the first
signal on the diverging route can't display a red aspect! (Or when it's
clearly visible as you approach the junction signal!)

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <t3m9lk$7ju$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:24:20 on Tue, 19 Apr
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> I can only see three PASSes on #1 today, one of which is the sleeper {is
>> it diverted from Euston for some reason}.
>>
>
>Yes, Euston has been shut for four days over the Easter weekend for
>(HS2-related?) engineering works
><https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:EUS/2022-04-15/0
>000-2359?stp=WVSC&show=all&order=wtt>
>
>> 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?
>
>It depends by location, linespeed, junction speed and signalling geography
>behind and ahead of the junction, but there are five main types (plus one
>obsolete) of junction signalling used on colour-light signalling in the UK.
>From reading the thread linked to earlier, I think that in this location it
>was flashing yellows.

....

>C) Flashing yellows - the signal (or two, if in a four-aspect area) before
>the junction signal will flash yellow or double yellow if the junction is
>set; drivers must still assume that the signal beyond the junction could be
>red, until they see the aspect displayed in the junction signal. The signal
>aspects on approach will therefore be green-flashing double yellow-flashing
>single yellow-yellow (or higher) with junction indicator-(junction)-red (or
>higher).

Therefore we should expect there to be such flashing yellow signals
sufficiently far from the 20mph junction to allow a 125 (or whatever)
mph train that would normally be taking the through-fast line, to apply
a normal service brake for the loop.

[Incidentally, how far would that be in practice?]

No doubt there will be some more information eventually[*], but I think
we still have three possibilities:

1) The flashing yellow isn't sufficiently far away - should be unlikely
because the Lumo in question was only doing 80mph rather than the
regular full line speed.

2) The driver didn't initially respond to the albeit very unexpected
flashing yellow in the way which was hoped/expected.

3) The flashing yellow wasn't activated for some reason, or very late.

[*] A spokesperson for Lumo said:

"Today the driver on our 0820 service from Newcastle had to apply the
emergency brake near Peterborough.

Such events can be jolting for passengers and we took great care to
check on everybody's welfare. There was some falling luggage and
naturally many people will have felt the effects of the sudden halt.
...

"A full investigation is now underway and we are supporting the Rail
Accident Investigations Branch to determine precisely what happened."
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t3m04u$3m4$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:41:50 on Tue, 19 Apr
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> I can only see three PASSes on #1 today, one of which is the sleeper {is
>>> it diverted from Euston for some reason}.
>>
>> A pretty good reason: as widely reported, Euston took an Easter break.
>
> <Thread convergence> A good time to encourage people back onto the
> railways for leisure travel.
>
>> <https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/no-trains-out-of-euston-station-
>> over-easter-52506/>
>
> But Euston was open! Today's sleepers terminate there. However, via the
> ECML.
>

They were among the first trains there today; perhaps the possession time
would have made a later arrival if they'd had to wait somewhere north on
the WCML for the possession to be lifted?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t3m04u$3m4$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:41:50 on Tue, 19 Apr
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I can only see three PASSes on #1 today, one of which is the sleeper {is
>>>> it diverted from Euston for some reason}.
>>>
>>> A pretty good reason: as widely reported, Euston took an Easter break.
>>
>> <Thread convergence> A good time to encourage people back onto the
>> railways for leisure travel.
>>
>>> <https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/no-trains-out-of-euston-station-
>>> over-easter-52506/>
>>
>> But Euston was open! Today's sleepers terminate there. However, via the
>> ECML.
>
> It was closed over Easter. Today isn't Easter.
>
> What route did the skeeper take from the ECML to Euston?
>

<https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C02169/2022-04-18/detailed#allox_id=1>

Camden Road Incline, Primrose Hill, Wembley Yard.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t3m9lk$7ju$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:24:20 on Tue, 19 Apr
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I can only see three PASSes on #1 today, one of which is the sleeper {is
>>> it diverted from Euston for some reason}.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, Euston has been shut for four days over the Easter weekend for
>> (HS2-related?) engineering works
>> <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:EUS/2022-04-15/0
>> 000-2359?stp=WVSC&show=all&order=wtt>
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> It depends by location, linespeed, junction speed and signalling geography
>> behind and ahead of the junction, but there are five main types (plus one
>> obsolete) of junction signalling used on colour-light signalling in the UK.
>> From reading the thread linked to earlier, I think that in this location it
>> was flashing yellows.
>
> ...
>
>> C) Flashing yellows - the signal (or two, if in a four-aspect area) before
>> the junction signal will flash yellow or double yellow if the junction is
>> set; drivers must still assume that the signal beyond the junction could be
>> red, until they see the aspect displayed in the junction signal. The signal
>> aspects on approach will therefore be green-flashing double yellow-flashing
>> single yellow-yellow (or higher) with junction indicator-(junction)-red (or
>> higher).
>
> Therefore we should expect there to be such flashing yellow signals
> sufficiently far from the 20mph junction to allow a 125 (or whatever)
> mph train that would normally be taking the through-fast line, to apply
> a normal service brake for the loop.
>
> [Incidentally, how far would that be in practice?]
>

The flashing yellow (or double yellow) is at full braking distance from the
signal with the junction indicator, because if it shows steady rather than
flashing yellow, the signal with the junction indicator will be red.

> No doubt there will be some more information eventually[*], but I think
> we still have three possibilities:
>
> 1) The flashing yellow isn't sufficiently far away - should be unlikely
> because the Lumo in question was only doing 80mph rather than the
> regular full line speed.
>

Also it would surely have been noted before, in the however-many years
since the area was last resignalled.

> 2) The driver didn't initially respond to the albeit very unexpected
> flashing yellow in the way which was hoped/expected.
>

That would seem to be the case.

> 3) The flashing yellow wasn't activated for some reason, or very late.
>

In which case it would have been a steady yellow, for a red at the signal
with the junction indicator. If that signal had previously been cleared for
the other route (therefore green at our flashing yellow), then (a)
signallers aren't supposed to put signals 'back' in front of trains unless
there's an emergency, and (b) there will be a time-out before the signal
can be cleared for the other route, to ensure any train approaching it as
it was placed to danger, will have stopped. That timeout is
location-specific, but usually 30s-3min.

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.

Wikipedia is international… they could call it “British railways”, which
would be correct.
>
> As an aside, the 803s have been one of the most reliable new fleets.
>

--
Jeremy Double

Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Wikipedia is international… they could call it “British railways”, which
> would be correct.

I wasn't referring to Wikipedia, which hadn't been mentioned in the thread
at that point. I was simply questioning the need for the redundant words in
a uk.r post. We all *know* what Class 80x means.

In message <t3mcjj$ur3$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:14:27 on Tue, 19 Apr
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t3m04u$3m4$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:41:50 on Tue, 19 Apr
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I can only see three PASSes on #1 today, one of which is the sleeper {is
>>>> it diverted from Euston for some reason}.
>>>
>>> A pretty good reason: as widely reported, Euston took an Easter break.
>>
>> <Thread convergence> A good time to encourage people back onto the
>> railways for leisure travel.
>>
>>> <https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/no-trains-out-of-euston-station-
>>> over-easter-52506/>
>>
>> But Euston was open! Today's sleepers terminate there. However, via the
>> ECML.
>
>They were among the first trains there today;

Really? They look like at least two hours later than that to me.

>perhaps the possession time would have made a later arrival if they'd
>had to wait somewhere north on the WCML for the possession to be lifted?

Even having spent two hours from Finsbury Park to Euston?
--
Roland Perry

In message <t3miab$c5e$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:55 on Tue, 19 Apr
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-en
>>>>tertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working-f>>>>rom-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.
>>
>> Wikipedia is international… they could call it “British
>>railways”, which
>> would be correct.
>
>I wasn't referring to Wikipedia, which hadn't been mentioned in the thread
>at that point. I was simply questioning the need for the redundant words in
>a uk.r post. We all *know* what Class 80x means.

Noted that you are suddenly OK about "invisible words".

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t3miab$c5e$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:55 on Tue, 19 Apr
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-en
>>>>> tertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working-f>>>>rom-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.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia is international… they could call it “British
>>> railways”, which
>>> would be correct.
>>
>> I wasn't referring to Wikipedia, which hadn't been mentioned in the thread
>> at that point. I was simply questioning the need for the redundant words in
>> a uk.r post. We all *know* what Class 80x means.
>
> Noted that you are suddenly OK about "invisible words".
>

Redundant words are not invisible words. Your 'invisible' words are
important ones whose presence would have altered the meaning of the
sentence.

On 19/04/2022 09:59, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> 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.

It is logical and easily understandable for the average reader.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/04/2022 09:59, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It is logical and easily understandable for the average reader.
>

Is it? Doesn't 'British Rail Class 800' imply that the 800s were
introduced and classified by British Rail?

That's fine for the trains that really were operated by BR, but is
confusing for later classes.

On 19/04/2022 13:24, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> A) No indication; if the junction speed is within 10mph of linespeed, no
> advance indication is required; examples include Cogload Junction and until
> recently, the junction (whose name I forget) where third rail turns left
> and diesel carries on straight, for Salisbury. That junction had some third
> rail installed on the diesel line to assist in recovering wrong-routed
> trains!

Worting Junction?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 19/04/2022 17:13, Recliner wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 19/04/2022 09:59, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> It is logical and easily understandable for the average reader.
>>
>
> Is it? Doesn't 'British Rail Class 800' imply that the 800s were
> introduced and classified by British Rail?
>
> That's fine for the trains that really were operated by BR, but is
> confusing for later classes.
>

Not for the average punter who still seems to only dimly aware that
privatisation happened. After all the stations still display the
indecisive arrow…

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 19/04/2022 17:15, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 19/04/2022 13:24, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> A) No indication; if the junction speed is within 10mph of linespeed, no
>> advance indication is required; examples include Cogload Junction and
>> until
>> recently, the junction (whose name I forget) where third rail turns left
>> and diesel carries on straight, for Salisbury. That junction had some
>> third
>> rail installed on the diesel line to assist in recovering wrong-routed
>> trains!
>
> Worting Junction?
>

Maybe, but the electric route is the straight ahead one with the
diseasel line to Salisbury diverting off to the right.

--
Colin

On 19/04/2022 17:31, ColinR wrote:
> On 19/04/2022 17:15, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 19/04/2022 13:24, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> A) No indication; if the junction speed is within 10mph of linespeed, no
>>> advance indication is required; examples include Cogload Junction and
>>> until
>>> recently, the junction (whose name I forget) where third rail turns left
>>> and diesel carries on straight, for Salisbury. That junction had some
>>> third
>>> rail installed on the diesel line to assist in recovering wrong-routed
>>> trains!
>>
>> Worting Junction?
>>
>
> Maybe, but the electric route is the straight ahead one with the
> diseasel line to Salisbury diverting off to the right.
>

Agreed but it is the left of the two routes coming from London.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.