DfT start Pendolino lengthening process

[gothicform]

running to edinburgh it would save a lot more time though. south of newcastle not much but the big markets are london > leeds and london > edinburgh.

[Mostly Lurking]

Originally Posted by gothicform

running to edinburgh it would save a lot more time though. south of newcastle not much but the big markets are london > leeds and london > edinburgh.

How much is 'a lot more' though?

Is a 10 minute saving enough to justify the tens of millions of £'s required?

[gothicform]

well the govt spends another 900 million on the wcml to shave off 10 mins despite the project being condemned as "financial a black hole"! how many billions do they have to spend to try and get the passenger levels up to those of a line starved of money for decades? tilting trains on the ECML they would reduce the journey time from london to edinburgh to 3 hours 30 minutes without ANY upgrades at all - thats simply thanks to the tilt on the trains.

[elfabyanos]

Mostly Lurking - The class 91 and it's rake of Mark IV were designed to have tilt technology retro-fitted, partly as the implementation of the much lamented APT project. This never went ahead - but the fact that it was designed into the vehicles as an option suggests that British Rail thought it was a good idea. At the moment there are significant stretches that are below 125 mph - various distances between Peterborough and Doncaster, particularly through the stations, all of Doncaster to Leeds, just north of Northallerton all the way to Edinburgh and Glasgow. The accelerations it would have brought to Aberdeen services had that route been electrified would have been amazing. Some of the 125mph parts would have needed tilt to get up to 140mph. All in all London - Edinburgh could have been brought down to under 3 hours 30 minutes with a few stops. Indeed the record stands at 3 hours 29 for a shortened train on a special run with two drivers allowing the full 140 mph speed to be used on favourable straight sections. It would have been well worth it IMO. I'm annoyed that the government at the time got the jitters.

[gothicform]

from what i understand at the time intercity was actually a seperate body from british rail and run profitably. intercity reinvested the profits from it back into its own network hence things like the ecml upgrade. the tories in the late 80s merged british rail and intercity fully into one again (along with network southeast and scotrail) and this change of structure saw brijtish rail swallow up the profits made by intercity which was then subsidising normal BR services, something that basically still happens today. the ECML is fabulously profitable and any expansion would easily pay for itself by simply pumping the profits it makes back in (and of course return increased profits as a result). this is a solution that the french have found works so well that SNCF is basically subsidised by TGV but also makes enough money for the network to gradually be expanded and improved with more and more TGV lines. the trick is to let the profitable services reach critical mass so their profits and ability to pay for improvements dont get entirely swallowed up, something that has not happened in the uk. the 3 hours 30 they were talking about by the way is tilt with the existing stops, not eliminating some!

[Mostly Lurking]

Originally Posted by gothicform

well the govt spends another 900 million on the wcml to shave off 10 mins despite the project being condemned as "financial a black hole"! how many billions do they have to spend to try and get the passenger levels up to those of a line starved of money for decades? tilting trains on the ECML they would reduce the journey time from london to edinburgh to 3 hours 30 minutes without ANY upgrades at all - thats simply thanks to the tilt on the trains.

But the WCML needed modernising to start with. Passenger numbers are up and still rising very quickly, hence the increased frequency of services (and Pendolino lengthing) from December - when did BR last run three fast trains an hour to Birmingham or Manchester?

Originally Posted by elfabyanos

Mostly Lurking - The class 91 and it's rake of Mark IV were designed to have tilt technology retro-fitted, partly as the implementation of the much lamented APT project. This never went ahead - but the fact that it was designed into the vehicles as an option suggests that British Rail thought it was a good idea. At the moment there are significant stretches that are below 125 mph - various distances between Peterborough and Doncaster, particularly through the stations, all of Doncaster to Leeds, just north of Northallerton all the way to Edinburgh and Glasgow. The accelerations it would have brought to Aberdeen services had that route been electrified would have been amazing. Some of the 125mph parts would have needed tilt to get up to 140mph. All in all London - Edinburgh could have been brought down to under 3 hours 30 minutes with a few stops. Indeed the record stands at 3 hours 29 for a shortened train on a special run with two drivers allowing the full 140 mph speed to be used on favourable straight sections. It would have been well worth it IMO. I'm annoyed that the government at the time got the jitters.

The Mk4 was not desinged to have tilt retro fitted - it was designed so that the option was available, a subtle but important difference - the tilt specification also had a lot to do with the fact that it was originally planned to order Mk4s for the WCML - which obviously never happened.

You say that currently there are stretches especially through stations that are not 125mph - tilt would not improve this unless the station is on a significant bend. Would tilt significantly increase linespeeds on other sections you mention, for example, Peterborough to Doncaster, or is it just the track is not upto 125mph? I don't claim to be an expert on the geography of the ECML, so I'm genuinely curious.

There are also power issues at some places on the ECML which may affect preformance, in simple terms, too many trains drawing more power than there is to go around.

[gothicform]

Passenger numbers are up and still rising very quickly, hence the increased frequency of services (and Pendolino lengthing) from December

however the cost benefits are falling. they are under 1.7 to 1 now.

But the WCML needed modernising to start with.

and the ECML doesnt with power issues and the lack of in car signalling which means the trains cant even go as fast as they should!

There are also power issues at some places on the ECML which may affect preformance, in simple terms, too many trains drawing more power than there is to go around.

yes which is why the new trains should have regenerative braking. new trains also use less power

[Mostly Lurking]

Originally Posted by gothicform

and the ECML doesnt with power issues and the lack of in car signalling which means the trains cant even go as fast as they should!


yes which is why the new trains should have regenerative braking. new trains also use less power

I think were getting somewhat off the point Which was that does a comparitively small time saving justify the massive investment required?

Of course it would be nice for the ECML to have all its issues solved (including new overhead equipment which isn't flimsy), but it is not comparing like for like when comparing with the WCML 10 years ago with the ECML now.

Regen braking is not a solution of course, it is just a byproduct which eases the burden somewhat - it would be nice to have no power problems before regen comes into the equation.

I would be interested to see how much energy a Pendolino and a 91+MK4 rake use on a typical 200 mile journey, if anyone has any figures. I don't entirely trust the ones on the Virgin Trains website as they are in a 'look how green we are' context and could be biased/exaggerated.

[elfabyanos]

I can't see the difference between retro-fitting and designing a vehicle so that it can be fitted later.

Most of the line Peterborough to Doncaster is OK for 125mph, with some slacks in there, but there are more slacks if you're running at 140mph, which would be negated by tilt. North of Darlington almost none of the route is better than 110mph due the seriously curved nature of the line. This stretch was not built by the same company that built the rest, which I believe was actually made up of other companies anyway, but the southerly sections I believe came after. About half an hour at least could be saved on the section north of Darlington, with tilt. A lot of the southern end of the route is OK for 140mph already, we just need in cab signalling or a change of heart from HMRI as to go 140mph you need two drivers currently under the regulations without in cab signalling.

[gothicform]

yup. all it requires for 140mph running south of doncaster is two drivers in the cab or in-cab signalling! this signalling is hardly complex technology to introduce. there are of course lots of choke points in the ECML but you dont have to remodel these to increase running speeds, they will simply help, for example sorting out the newark crossing or the welwyn viaduct. its remodelling the choke points that are the really expensive things.

[Mostly Lurking]

Originally Posted by gothicform

yup. all it requires for 140mph running south of doncaster is two drivers in the cab or in-cab signalling! this signalling is hardly complex technology to introduce. there are of course lots of choke points in the ECML but you dont have to remodel these to increase running speeds, they will simply help, for example sorting out the newark crossing or the welwyn viaduct. its remodelling the choke points that are the really expensive things.

On what basis are you saying that in cab signalling is "hardly complex technology to introduce"? Is that hearsay/opinion or professional knowledge? Because I can assure you it is not as simple a you suggest

[elfabyanos]

Originally Posted by gothicform

yup. all it requires for 140mph running south of doncaster is two drivers in the cab or in-cab signalling! this signalling is hardly complex technology to introduce. there are of course lots of choke points in the ECML but you dont have to remodel these to increase running speeds, they will simply help, for example sorting out the newark crossing or the welwyn viaduct. its remodelling the choke points that are the really expensive things.

Well, there's almost funding for a flyover at Hitchin junction, and Finsbury Park has got funding. Unfortunately Railtrack found out to their cost that actually in cab signalling is quite hard to implement. It also requires that all vehicles to use the line are equipped, which for the ECML means about a third of all UK rolling stock that may possibly use this line. I thing Network Rail objective is to just do everything entirely, which obviously makes it a much bigger task and puts back its implementation. The Newark crossing is mental, and a flyover or two at Doncaster would go down a treat. Also, until the whole fleet is 140mph capable I can't see Network Rail, or NXEC bothering. Such a shame, I lament for the class 91, IMO the best train to be hauled on classic routes in the world. Such is the demise of BR and the politics that surrounded it. I was reading O.S.Nocks book about the APT and I almost cried - the quality of engineering this country has developed and then thrown away, destroying it and then forcing us a few decades later to buy an Italian design instead. Rubbish.

[gothicform]

the entire fleet used to be capable of 140mph. the ecml is gradually having more and more 125s on it though. i never used to travel on one ever but now they are actually getting the old locos other intercity companies no longer want. the whole thing, as youve mentioned, is horrifically managed.

[elfabyanos]

I've been trying to find this out but to no avail. Currently 6 of the 9 cars are powered, does anyone know what of the new cars? I would expect at least one of them to be, making 7 out of 11 cars, otherwise they wouldn't be as fast quick to accelerate or deal with hills.

[Republica]

So why arent they waiting for the IEP trains for this? Is it too long a wait? A stop gap?

[Mostly Lurking]

Originally Posted by Republica

So why arent they waiting for the IEP trains for this? Is it too long a wait? A stop gap?

Not quite sure what you mean? West Coast won't be getting IEP for a very long time if ever - there are options available to buy more Pendolinos for other west coast routes ie Birmingham to Scotland.

[Republica]

oh, so where will the IEP trains be used? Just everywhere else currently/preivously using HST's minus the WCML?

[Chafford1]

Originally Posted by Mostly Lurking

Not quite sure what you mean? West Coast won't be getting IEP for a very long time if ever - there are options available to buy more Pendolinos for other west coast routes ie Birmingham to Scotland.

There's an option to introduce IEP for London -Birmingham - Wolverhamption from 2014. This may tie into DfT plans for accelerated services to Euston via Northampton from 2014.


The extra Pendolinos will replace current Voyager services under the wires.

On IEP, the most likely scenario at the moment is an electric version for London - Edinburgh. The diesel version is now seen as unlikely as DfT explores further electrification of the GW Main Line.

[Republica]

isnt north of edinburgh not electrified either?

[Mostly Lurking]

Originally Posted by Chafford1

There's an option to introduce IEP for London -Birmingham - Wolverhamption from 2014. This may tie into DfT plans for accelerated services to Euston via Northampton from 2014.


The extra Pendolinos will replace current Voyager services under the wires.

On IEP, the most likely scenario at the moment is an electric version for London - Edinburgh. The diesel version is now seen as unlikely as DfT explores further electrification of the GW Main Line.

There is no such option for the IEP in 2014. The first deliveries of production units to other regions aren't even *scheduled* to start until 2014. Any west coast build would not be until 2019-2020 when other regions have theirs.

The IEP is doomed to fail or be massively MASSIVELY delayed anyhow - the spec that has been given is far far too complex, hence Alsthom have already withdrawn.

Here are just two examples of silly requirements:

1) Electric versions must be able to move for upto an hour at upto 30mph without any electricity.

2) It must be possible for two units to couple or split whilst at a station, with passengers onboard, with the doors open. In a maximum of three minutes from both units arriving to leaving.

The DFT don't actually know what they want - they are waiting for the train builders to tell them what is possible, which is not a lot with the specification given. I can't see either of the two remaining builders producing anything that meets all the requirements.


If, and only if the option for another Pendolino build was agreed (beyond the current lengthning), they would replace the Voyagers used between Birmingham and Scotland.