I.E.P.

[kenw]

I understood testing was always planned to start on the ECML as already electrified and the proximity to Old Dalby

 

They seem to be in the right places for the tunnels around Grantham. 

 

Don't know the other routes shown, but the yellow 'blobs' on ECML either side of Grantham are the right places for Peascliffe and Stoke tunnels.

Perhaps the testing also needs sections with tunnels for testing pressure effects passing through at speed.

(and hopefully no MkIV 'blowbacks')

 

Is that bit of the ECML still signalled for 140mph running under certain conditions? I remember a non-stop Stevenage - Grantham run in 38 minutes back in the late 1990s.

 

Yes, the flashing green aspects between Stoke Summit and New England (Peterborough) are still operational

[kenw]

 I suspect over-speed will be limited by the ECML ohle (hence no doubt the earlier plan to test on the GWML which would allow higher speeds for overspeed tests if needed). 

 

It didn't though prevent 91110 setting the British locomotive speed record of 161.7 mph on this section

[pete_mcfarlane]

It didn't though prevent 91110 setting the British locomotive speed record of 161.7 mph on this section

A class 91 has only got a single pantograph raised when it's running, so no problems with a second pantograph further down the train losing contact with the wire. 

[lmsforever]

How about calling it Hashemoto Express ,no.. 21 no30.and no35.  not available on menu due to wok broken and chef is illegal imagrant! 

[Corbs]

From Japan? Seems unlikely.

[kenw]

A class 91 has only got a single pantograph raised when it's running, so no problems with a second pantograph further down the train losing contact with the wire. 

 

Won't IEP also run with a single pan raised then, as, I believe, Eurostar did when used on the ECML?

Or, alternatively, it'll need a pan design that can run at high speed on ECML wires with two pans raised,

and this would need testing.

Remember they are intended for ECML use too, so will need to operate at high speed with the ECML wiring

[Edwin_m]

I think Eurostar had to run with two pans as the train is designed to be split in a Tunnel emergency and they couldn't take a high voltage bus line through where the train can be uncoupled.  However a Eurostar is much longer than a SET and I think was limited to 110mph on the ECML for this reason.  Pendolinos are a similar length to SET but despite having two pans they only run with one raised. 

[Fat Controller]

I think Eurostar had to run with two pans as the train is designed to be split in a Tunnel emergency and they couldn't take a high voltage bus line through where the train can be uncoupled.  However a Eurostar is much longer than a SET and I think was limited to 110mph on the ECML for this reason.  Pendolinos are a similar length to SET but despite having two pans they only run with one raised. 

Each pantograph on a Eurostar supplies the adjacent power cars only; thus, to have both power cars working, both pans must be raised. The problem with this is that, the first pantograph sets up a 'wave' in the contact wire, which is amplified by the second one. Dependent on the train speed and the 'rigidity' of the catenary, this could lead to a dewiring. The  knitting on the LGVs and HS1 are designed with E*/ multiple-worked TGVs in mind; the ECML is not; even so, there were some concerns about contact-wire behaviour when it was initially proposed that Class 395 units work in multiple, as the pantographs on the two units would be closer together than on a E* or multiple-worked TGV.

[The Stationmaster]

Each pantograph on a Eurostar supplies the adjacent power cars only; thus, to have both power cars working, both pans must be raised. The problem with this is that, the first pantograph sets up a 'wave' in the contact wire, which is amplified by the second one. Dependent on the train speed and the 'rigidity' of the catenary, this could lead to a dewiring. The  knitting on the LGVs and HS1 are designed with E*/ multiple-worked TGVs in mind; the ECML is not; even so, there were some concerns about contact-wire behaviour when it was initially proposed that Class 395 units work in multiple, as the pantographs on the two units would be closer together than on a E* or multiple-worked TGV.

When a Regional Eurostar set was first tested on the ECML there were immediate concerns about 'bounce' in the contact wire so further test were carried out at a range of speeds and it was found that the 'bounce' became dangerous if speeds were high enough with the contact wire moving vertically through 12 inches or more.  This created a situation where the rear pan could potentially de-wire.  Hence speed being restricted to 110 mph and the re-design of the 'BR' pantograph to reduce the uplift pressure (which was mainly considered to be the cause of the excessive contact wire bounce although the construction of the ohle was also partly responsible as it wasn't 'stiff' enough to withstand high uplift forces).

 

So no doubt there is a need to test the consequences of whatever uplift force the Class 800/801 pantograph has.