https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-62203435

I'm speachless!

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-62203435
>
> I'm speachless!
>

I don’t think they operators did say that, you know!

Sam

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

In message <tb5lsi$uh81$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:18:41 on Tue, 19 Jul
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-62203435
>
>I'm speachless!

My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen... if trains run slower then they
are over any particular stretch of track for longer, and the extra
shade therefore cools them a tiny bit.
--
Roland Perry

On 19/07/2022 10:48, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tb5lsi$uh81$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:18:41 on Tue, 19 Jul
> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-62203435
>>
>> I'm speachless!
>
> My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen... if trains run slower then they
> are over any particular stretch of track for longer, and the extra
> shade therefore cools them a tiny bit.

But conversely there will be longer intervals between the trains so it
balances out.

In message <tb635l$11ts5$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:05:25 on Tue, 19 Jul
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>On 19/07/2022 10:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tb5lsi$uh81$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:18:41 on Tue, 19 Jul
>>2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-62203435
>>>
>>> I'm speachless!

>> My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen... if trains run slower then they
>> are over any particular stretch of track for longer, and the extra
>> shade therefore cools them a tiny bit.
>
>But conversely there will be longer intervals between the trains so it
>balances out.

I don't think the gaps should necessarily be bigger, because (as
Londoners often forget) there's an awful lot of lines with only 1tph. So
even if the trains are slower, and running late, there's no reason they
can't remain one very 60 minutes.
--
Roland Perry

On 2022-07-19 12:54:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <tb635l$11ts5$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:05:25 on Tue, 19 Jul
> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>> On 19/07/2022 10:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tb5lsi$uh81$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:18:41 on Tue, 19 Jul
>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-62203435
>>>>
>>>> I'm speachless!
>
>>> My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen... if trains run slower then they
>>> are over any particular stretch of track for longer, and the extra
>>> shade therefore cools them a tiny bit.
>>
>> But conversely there will be longer intervals between the trains so it
>> balances out.
>
> I don't think the gaps should necessarily be bigger, because (as
> Londoners often forget) there's an awful lot of lines with only 1tph.
> So even if the trains are slower, and running late, there's no reason
> they can't remain one very 60 minutes.

If a journey at normal speeds takes two hours to depart from one end,
arrive at the other end and be ready to depart back in the other
direction again, then to maintain one train every hour in each
direction requires 4 trains and 4 concurrent sets of traincrew. If slow
running means it now takes 3 hours, then you need 6 trains and 6
concurrent sets of traincrew. Where do the extra trains and train crew
come from?

Robin

In message <tb6b9o$13rpk$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:24:06 on Tue, 19 Jul
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-07-19 12:54:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <tb635l$11ts5$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:05:25 on Tue, 19 Jul
>>2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>> On 19/07/2022 10:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <tb5lsi$uh81$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:18:41 on Tue, 19
>>>>Jul 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-62203435
>>>>> I'm speachless!
>>
>>>> My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen... if trains run slower then they
>>>> are over any particular stretch of track for longer, and the extra
>>>> shade therefore cools them a tiny bit.
>>> But conversely there will be longer intervals between the trains so
>>>it balances out.

>> I don't think the gaps should necessarily be bigger, because (as
>>Londoners often forget) there's an awful lot of lines with only 1tph.
>>So even if the trains are slower, and running late, there's no reason
>>they can't remain one very 60 minutes.
>
>If a journey at normal speeds takes two hours to depart from one end,
>arrive at the other end and be ready to depart back in the other
>direction again, then to maintain one train every hour in each
>direction requires 4 trains and 4 concurrent sets of traincrew. If slow
>running means it now takes 3 hours, then you need 6 trains and 6
>concurrent sets of traincrew. Where do the extra trains and train crew
>come from?

Mainly by not having really short layovers at the reversing points.

When I lived in Nottingham the HSTs to and from St Pancras had 58 minute
layovers[1], the northbound one arriving as soon as the southbound one
had cleared the platform. That's an extreme example, but then there are
many trains which don't shuttle at all, they start and finish at
carriage sheds.

[1] At the St Pancras end they also had significant layovers, which I
don't recall the precise length (the 58 mins at Nottingham stood
out like a sore thumb), but they struggled to turn 4tph in four
platforms, so long were the layovers.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <tb635l$11ts5$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:05:25 on Tue, 19 Jul
> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>> On 19/07/2022 10:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tb5lsi$uh81$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:18:41 on Tue, 19 Jul
>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-62203435
>>>>
>>>> I'm speachless!
>
>>> My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen... if trains run slower then they
>>> are over any particular stretch of track for longer, and the extra
>>> shade therefore cools them a tiny bit.
>>
>> But conversely there will be longer intervals between the trains so it
>> balances out.
>
> I don't think the gaps should necessarily be bigger, because (as
> Londoners often forget) there's an awful lot of lines with only 1tph. So
> even if the trains are slower, and running late, there's no reason they
> can't remain one very 60 minutes.

If it takes twice as long to complete the journey, then to maintain the
same frequency you need twice as many trains. That's why many services are
cut to at least 50% yesterday and today.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <tb6ggg$14fqf$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:53:04 on Tue, 19 Jul
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tb635l$11ts5$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:05:25 on Tue, 19 Jul
>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>> On 19/07/2022 10:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <tb5lsi$uh81$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:18:41 on Tue, 19 Jul
>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-62203435
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm speachless!
>>
>>>> My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen... if trains run slower then they
>>>> are over any particular stretch of track for longer, and the extra
>>>> shade therefore cools them a tiny bit.
>>>
>>> But conversely there will be longer intervals between the trains so it
>>> balances out.
>>
>> I don't think the gaps should necessarily be bigger, because (as
>> Londoners often forget) there's an awful lot of lines with only 1tph. So
>> even if the trains are slower, and running late, there's no reason they
>> can't remain one very 60 minutes.
>
>If it takes twice as long to complete the journey, then to maintain the
>same frequency you need twice as many trains. That's why many services are
>cut to at least 50% yesterday and today.

See my earlier comments about dwell times at the turn-round points.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <tb6b9o$13rpk$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:24:06 on Tue, 19 Jul
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 2022-07-19 12:54:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <tb635l$11ts5$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:05:25 on Tue, 19 Jul
>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>> On 19/07/2022 10:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <tb5lsi$uh81$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:18:41 on Tue, 19
>>>>> Jul 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-62203435
>>>>>> I'm speachless!
>>>
>>>>> My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen... if trains run slower then they
>>>>> are over any particular stretch of track for longer, and the extra
>>>>> shade therefore cools them a tiny bit.
>>>> But conversely there will be longer intervals between the trains so
>>>> it balances out.
>
>>> I don't think the gaps should necessarily be bigger, because (as
>>> Londoners often forget) there's an awful lot of lines with only 1tph.
>>> So even if the trains are slower, and running late, there's no reason
>>> they can't remain one very 60 minutes.
>>
>> If a journey at normal speeds takes two hours to depart from one end,
>> arrive at the other end and be ready to depart back in the other
>> direction again, then to maintain one train every hour in each
>> direction requires 4 trains and 4 concurrent sets of traincrew. If slow
>> running means it now takes 3 hours, then you need 6 trains and 6
>> concurrent sets of traincrew. Where do the extra trains and train crew
>> come from?
>
> Mainly by not having really short layovers at the reversing points.
>

You still need extra trains for that, though.

Bristol TM-Paddington, 1h45. Train every 30 minutes = three trains in
motion in each direction at any time.

Suddenly the journey takes 3h30. Now you have at least six trains in motion
in each direction.

You seem to be proposing to have trains with 90 minutes layover at each end
due normal times, in order to run without delay or frequency reduction
during blanket speed restrictions; those three extra trains laying over st
Paddington need to come from somewhere; they'd be additional to the current
fleet.

> When I lived in Nottingham the HSTs to and from St Pancras had 58 minute
> layovers[1], the northbound one arriving as soon as the southbound one
> had cleared the platform.

With the current restrictions, some journeys are taking twice as long.
Bristol-London trains all arriving at least 90 minutes late. Your 58 minute
layover won't help beyond a certain point.

And haven't we had complaints here in the past about excessively long
layovers wasting assets which could be in service? They certainly consume
platform capacity.

> That's an extreme example, but then there are
> many trains which don't shuttle at all, they start and finish at
> carriage sheds.

"Many"?

> [1] At the St Pancras end they also had significant layovers, which I
> don't recall the precise length (the 58 mins at Nottingham stood
> out like a sore thumb), but they struggled to turn 4tph in four
> platforms, so long were the layovers.

To provide long enough layovers for your proposed disruption-proof service
pattern, Paddington would need about double the platforms.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-62203435
>
> I'm speachless!
>

'Slowing trains down kept the tracks cooler and reduced the risk of them
buckling, operators said.'

What's wrong with that? Slower trains will put less energy and lower
forces into the rails. The former will keep them a little cooler, and the
latter will reduce the chances of derailment.

On 2022-07-19 13:52:30 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <tb6b9o$13rpk$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:24:06 on Tue, 19 Jul
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 2022-07-19 12:54:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <tb635l$11ts5$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:05:25 on Tue, 19 Jul
>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>> On 19/07/2022 10:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <tb5lsi$uh81$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:18:41 on Tue, 19 Jul
>>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-62203435
>>>>>> I'm speachless!
>>>
>>>>> My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen... if trains run slower then they
>>>>> are over any particular stretch of track for longer, and the extra
>>>>> shade therefore cools them a tiny bit.
>>>> But conversely there will be longer intervals between the trains so it
>>>> balances out.
>
>>> I don't think the gaps should necessarily be bigger, because (as
>>> Londoners often forget) there's an awful lot of lines with only 1tph.
>>> So even if the trains are slower, and running late, there's no reason
>>> they can't remain one very 60 minutes.
>>
>> If a journey at normal speeds takes two hours to depart from one end,
>> arrive at the other end and be ready to depart back in the other
>> direction again, then to maintain one train every hour in each
>> direction requires 4 trains and 4 concurrent sets of traincrew. If slow
>> running means it now takes 3 hours, then you need 6 trains and 6
>> concurrent sets of traincrew. Where do the extra trains and train crew
>> come from?
>
> Mainly by not having really short layovers at the reversing points.
>
> When I lived in Nottingham the HSTs to and from St Pancras had 58
> minute layovers[1], the northbound one arriving as soon as the
> southbound one had cleared the platform. That's an extreme example, but
> then there are many trains which don't shuttle at all, they start and
> finish at carriage sheds.
>
> [1] At the St Pancras end they also had significant layovers, which I
> don't recall the precise length (the 58 mins at Nottingham stood
> out like a sore thumb), but they struggled to turn 4tph in four
> platforms, so long were the layovers.

On the St.P-Nottingham route, there are two per hour each way, the
faster one only calling at Liecester, Market Harborough and Kettering,
the other additionally calling at Beeston, East Midlands Parkway and
Loughborough (obviously in the appropriate order).

The faster trains are xx.35 departure, +2.08 arrival northbound, and
xx.50 departure, +2.27 arrival southbound.
The slower ones are xx.05 departure and +1.48 arrival northbound, and
xx.12 departure, +1.54 arrival southbound.

If the fast northbound leaves as the next fast southbound, that would
be xx.08 arrive and xx.50 depart, with the slow being xx.48 arrive and
xx.12 depart. This would allow 42 mins to turn around the fast and 24
mins to turn around the slow.

If they swap, so the fast arrival becomes the slow deparutre and vice
versa, the xx.08 arrival becomes the xx.12 departure and the xx.48
arrival becomes the +1.50 departure. This would allow 4 mins to turn
around the fast-to-slow and 62 mins to turn around the slow-to-fast.

It seems unlikely they are planning to turn around a train in 4
minutes, so that would imply the fast-to-fast and slow-to-slow pattern
is how they operate. That gives the slower trains a 102 or 103 minute
journey time with 24 mins to reverse. It doesn't take much of a slow
down in journey times from speed restrictions to eat up those 24
minutes and require extra sets/crews to maintain the service interval.

Robin

On 20/7/22 00:53, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:

>
> If it takes twice as long to complete the journey, then to maintain the
> same frequency you need twice as many trains. That's why many services are
> cut to at least 50% yesterday and today.

And even if you manage some fancy diagramming to keep as many trains
actually moving as possible, with very short breaks, you need to find
crew to operate them. The crews need breaks - or do you expect them to
work 12 hours straight with no meal breaks or 'comfort' stops.?

In message <tb6muh$156gj$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:42:57 on Tue, 19 Jul
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-07-19 13:52:30 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <tb6b9o$13rpk$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:24:06 on Tue, 19 Jul
>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 2022-07-19 12:54:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>
>>>> In message <tb635l$11ts5$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:05:25 on Tue, 19
>>>>Jul 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>> On 19/07/2022 10:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tb5lsi$uh81$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:18:41 on Tue, 19
>>>>>>Jul 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-62203435
>>>>>>> I'm speachless!
>>>>
>>>>>> My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen... if trains run slower then they
>>>>>> are over any particular stretch of track for longer, and the extra
>>>>>> shade therefore cools them a tiny bit.
>>>>> But conversely there will be longer intervals between the trains
>>>>>so it balances out.
>>
>>>> I don't think the gaps should necessarily be bigger, because (as
>>>>Londoners often forget) there's an awful lot of lines with only
>>>>1tph. So even if the trains are slower, and running late, there's
>>>>no reason they can't remain one very 60 minutes.
>>> If a journey at normal speeds takes two hours to depart from one
>>>end, arrive at the other end and be ready to depart back in the
>>>other direction again, then to maintain one train every hour in each
>>>direction requires 4 trains and 4 concurrent sets of traincrew. If
>>>slow running means it now takes 3 hours, then you need 6 trains and
>>>6 concurrent sets of traincrew. Where do the extra trains and train
>>>
>> Mainly by not having really short layovers at the reversing points.
>> When I lived in Nottingham the HSTs to and from St Pancras had 58
>>minute layovers[1], the northbound one arriving as soon as the
>>southbound one had cleared the platform. That's an extreme example,
>>but then there are many trains which don't shuttle at all, they start
>>and finish at carriage sheds.
>> [1] At the St Pancras end they also had significant layovers, which
>>
>> don't recall the precise length (the 58 mins at Nottingham stood
>> out like a sore thumb), but they struggled to turn 4tph in four
>> platforms, so long were the layovers.
>
>On the St.P-Nottingham route, there are two per hour each way, the
>faster one only calling at Liecester, Market Harborough and Kettering,
>the other additionally calling at Beeston, East Midlands Parkway and
>Loughborough (obviously in the appropriate order).
>
>The faster trains are xx.35 departure, +2.08 arrival northbound, and
>xx.50 departure, +2.27 arrival southbound.
>The slower ones are xx.05 departure and +1.48 arrival northbound, and
>xx.12 departure, +1.54 arrival southbound.
>
>If the fast northbound leaves as the next fast southbound, that would
>be xx.08 arrive and xx.50 depart, with the slow being xx.48 arrive and
>xx.12 depart. This would allow 42 mins to turn around the fast and 24
>mins to turn around the slow.
>
>If they swap, so the fast arrival becomes the slow deparutre and vice
>versa, the xx.08 arrival becomes the xx.12 departure and the xx.48
>arrival becomes the +1.50 departure. This would allow 4 mins to turn
>around the fast-to-slow and 62 mins to turn around the slow-to-fast.
>
>It seems unlikely they are planning to turn around a train in 4
>minutes, so that would imply the fast-to-fast and slow-to-slow pattern
>is how they operate. That gives the slower trains a 102 or 103 minute
>journey time with 24 mins to reverse. It doesn't take much of a slow
>down in journey times from speed restrictions to eat up those 24
>minutes and require extra sets/crews to maintain the service interval.

WHOOSH! again. But of course, just cancelling the fasts and leaving only
the semi-fasts would be better than cancelling the whole lot because of
seemingly insuperable arithmetic.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tb6jvc$14s52$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:52:12 on Tue, 19 Jul
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tb6b9o$13rpk$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:24:06 on Tue, 19 Jul
>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 2022-07-19 12:54:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>
>>>> In message <tb635l$11ts5$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:05:25 on Tue, 19 Jul
>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>> On 19/07/2022 10:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tb5lsi$uh81$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:18:41 on Tue, 19
>>>>>> Jul 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-62203435
>>>>>>> I'm speachless!
>>>>
>>>>>> My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen... if trains run slower then they
>>>>>> are over any particular stretch of track for longer, and the extra
>>>>>> shade therefore cools them a tiny bit.
>>>>> But conversely there will be longer intervals between the trains so
>>>>> it balances out.
>>
>>>> I don't think the gaps should necessarily be bigger, because (as
>>>> Londoners often forget) there's an awful lot of lines with only 1tph.
>>>> So even if the trains are slower, and running late, there's no reason
>>>> they can't remain one very 60 minutes.
>>>
>>> If a journey at normal speeds takes two hours to depart from one end,
>>> arrive at the other end and be ready to depart back in the other
>>> direction again, then to maintain one train every hour in each
>>> direction requires 4 trains and 4 concurrent sets of traincrew. If slow
>>> running means it now takes 3 hours, then you need 6 trains and 6
>>> concurrent sets of traincrew. Where do the extra trains and train crew
>>> come from?
>>
>> Mainly by not having really short layovers at the reversing points.
>>
>
>You still need extra trains for that, though.
>
>Bristol TM-Paddington, 1h45. Train every 30 minutes = three trains in
>motion in each direction at any time.
>
>Suddenly the journey takes 3h30. Now you have at least six trains in motion
>in each direction.
>
>You seem to be proposing to have trains with 90 minutes layover at each end
>due normal times, in order to run without delay or frequency reduction
>during blanket speed restrictions; those three extra trains laying over st
>Paddington need to come from somewhere; they'd be additional to the current
>fleet.

The MML HSTs I mentioned had at least 90 minutes layover time per return
trip.

Don't make the mistake of thinking all trains have short layovers.

>To provide long enough layovers for your proposed disruption-proof service
>pattern, Paddington would need about double the platforms.

There's total disruption (like almost no trains all day) versus partial
disruption (perhaps 0.5tph turning into 1tph.)

But anyway WHOOSH! My thing about the slow trains shielding the track
from the sun a little longer was so obviously a spoof. Shame it's not
1st April today.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tb6l8f$150pb$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:14:07 on Tue, 19 Jul
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-62203435
>>
>> I'm speachless!
>
>'Slowing trains down kept the tracks cooler and reduced the risk of them
>buckling, operators said.'
>
>What's wrong with that? Slower trains will put less energy and lower
>forces into the rails.

Perhaps you could show your working, when it comes to energy lost to
friction on the rails, compared to solr gain.

And of course (modulo WHOOSH!) running half as many trains because of
diagramming issues means the sun is shining directly on tracks,
therefore not in the trains' shadow, for longer.
--
Roland Perry