Why not 140mph operation for Pendolinos?

[nuneatonmark]

I have been travelling quite a lot between Nuneaton and Glasgow over the last few weeks and it occurred to me that despite the faster journey times now using Pendo's there is a lot of scope for further improvements if slow sections like Colwich, Stafford, Norton Bridge, Crewe and Carstairs were sorted. However, can anyone confirm why the go ahead was never given for the Pendos to operate at 140mph? I think I remember something about 'in cab signalling' needed? Surely it would be much cheaper to implement that and sort out the slow sections than HS2 and still reduce journey times quite a lot? Or am I missing something?

 

[daikilo]

I have been travelling quite a lot between Nuneaton and Glasgow over the last few weeks and it occurred to me that despite the faster journey times now using Pendo's there is a lot of scope for further improvements if slow sections like Colwich, Stafford, Norton Bridge, Crewe and Carstairs were sorted. However, can anyone confirm why the go ahead was never given for the Pendos to operate at 140mph? I think I remember something about 'in cab signalling' needed? Surely it would be much cheaper to implement that and sort out the slow sections than HS2 and still reduce journey times quite a lot? Or am I missing something?

1) More energy required 2) fewer train paths if some are at 140.

 

[cf111]

They need in-cab signalling and I imagine implimenting it on the WCML would be expensive and prone to teething issues. Fitting the Cambrian Line with ERTMS cost £59 million, if you believe Wikipedia.

 

[AM9]

I have been travelling quite a lot between Nuneaton and Glasgow over the last few weeks and it occurred to me that despite the faster journey times now using Pendo's there is a lot of scope for further improvements if slow sections like Colwich, Stafford, Norton Bridge, Crewe and Carstairs were sorted. However, can anyone confirm why the go ahead was never given for the Pendos to operate at 140mph? I think I remember something about 'in cab signalling' needed? Surely it would be much cheaper to implement that and sort out the slow sections than HS2 and still reduce journey times quite a lot? Or am I missing something?

If every bit of track that Pendolinos ran over was given a 140mph compatible signalling system, the line speed limit raised to 140mph wherever possible and trains run at minimum headways, there still wouldn't be enough route capacity for more than a few years. HS2 is the preferred fix for the next few decades.

 

[heart-of-wessex]

I suppose the other thing is if in-cab signalling was implemented, then everything that uses the WCML would need it fitted too, 350's, 321's, 323's, Voyagers then the freight locos etc etc?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I have been travelling quite a lot between Nuneaton and Glasgow over the last few weeks and it occurred to me that despite the faster journey times now using Pendo's there is a lot of scope for further improvements if slow sections like Colwich, Stafford, Norton Bridge, Crewe and Carstairs were sorted. However, can anyone confirm why the go ahead was never given for the Pendos to operate at 140mph? I think I remember something about 'in cab signalling' needed? Surely it would be much cheaper to implement that and sort out the slow sections than HS2 and still reduce journey times quite a lot? Or am I missing something?

As I understand it the rules (set by RSSB for the industry) require in-cab signalling for speeds over 125mph.
That was planned for the WCML south of Crewe for 140mph Pendolinos, but Railtrack found the technology didn't exist c2000.
Pendolinos in fact use in-cab signalling over 110mph anyway to control tilt (TASS), in addition to the fixed signals.
Supposedly ERTMS (ETCS on trains) will deliver cab signalling, starting on the GW main line and then the ECML south of Doncaster, by about 2020.
So IEPs may well be able to run at 140mph with it.

But RSSB/NR and the TOCs haven't developed the rules for 125mph+ working. That's the stumbling block for any higher speed operation.
Virgin still want higher speeds, maybe 135mph, and were looking at the new Trent Valley section, and another stretch near Lockerbie.
The remaining slow sections of the WCML are not likely to change, except for Stafford-Norton Bridge where an upgrade to 125mph has begun (flyover towards Stoke, eliminating Norton Bridge Junction).
Carstairs is being looked at again I think, particularly regarding speeds towards Edinburgh.

The slowest sections now are the 20mph environs of Preston and Carlisle which weren't touched by any of the WCRM upgrade work.
Crewe (80mph) might well get remodelled for 125mph in the HS2 work - though stopping the Liverpools there doesn't help the case.
Colwich (90) isn't likely to change, and Warrington-Wigan (80-110) is still stuck in the 1970s, without tilt being fitted.
Atherstone is still quite restricted (75/85EPS).
Edit: I forgot the final crawls from Law Jn into Glasgow, and Midcalder into Edinburgh - both very poor line speeds and unchanged for years.

Meanwhile, there's a view that higher top speeds would actually reduce capacity on a mixed-speed railway.
140mph Pendos around Lockerbie would have to coexist with 110mph class 350s and 60/75mph freights.
Not so troublesome on the 4-track Trent Valley.

 

[dave59]

Increasing speeds in the evirons of the major stations would seem to be more effective than 135mph sections. Presumably the ICWC TOC has been pushing for this?

 

[The Planner]

TASS counts as in cab? I thought it was just balises on the track to tell the train to tilt and how much. Norton Bridge doesnt deliver 125 through the junction, only 115.

 

[Class 170101]

Upgrading to 140mph doesn't guarantee extra capacity and indeed journey times may well be able to be shortened by improving some of the lower spped limits. Improving minimum speeds is better than improving your maximum speeds particularly as more trains will be able to exploit them not just Pendolinos.

 

[Hadders]

HS2 is about capacity rather than speed. Even if we'd got 140mph running throughout on the WCML there would still be a capacity issue.

I suspect if HS2 had a different name, emphasising capacity rather than speed, then there wouldn't be as much opposition.

 

[Class 170101]

But RSSB/NR and the TOCs haven't developed the rules for 125mph+ working. That's the stumbling block for any higher speed operation.

Sorry???

Why do they need to?

Whats wrong with the rules that already exist for HS1?

No wonder UK Rail PLC is so expensive it was the same for the MCB ODs different rules in the UK to the rest of Europe an does it work reliably here. No. Doubtless there are other examples.

 

[yorkie]

Whats wrong with the rules that already exist for HS1?.

HS1 has in-cab signalling.

 

[route:oxford]

Carstairs is being looked at again I think, particularly regarding speeds towards Edinburgh.

Carstairs is a disgrace - as is the slow trek from the outskirts of Edinburgh.

Then there is always the long wait outside Haymarket for a path to Waverley. Just long enough to know that had the service been allowed to arrive early - you would have caught the earlier connection home...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

TASS counts as in cab? I thought it was just balises on the track to tell the train to tilt and how much. Norton Bridge doesnt deliver 125 through the junction, only 115.

The SS in TASS means "Speed Supervision", kicks in above 110mph (or maybe on all EPS sections), sets the maximum speed and replicates the signal aspects in the cab so the driver doesn't have to rely on sighting them.
The public CP5 plan carefully doesn't specify what the new line speed at Norton Bridge will be, just the extra capacity it will generate.

 

[Railsigns]

The SS in TASS means "Speed Supervision", kicks in above 110mph (or maybe on all EPS sections), sets the maximum speed and replicates the signal aspects in the cab so the driver doesn't have to rely on sighting them.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't do that!

 

[Carlisle]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't do that!

Yes I agree, I think it works at all speeds whilst tilt is activated and gives a warning sound and light if the line speed is exceeded by about 4-5 mph and applies the brakes if not corrected within a few seconds, I'm sure plenty of drivers will correct this if wrong

 

[The Planner]

The SS in TASS means "Speed Supervision", kicks in above 110mph (or maybe on all EPS sections), sets the maximum speed and replicates the signal aspects in the cab so the driver doesn't have to rely on sighting them.
The public CP5 plan carefully doesn't specify what the new line speed at Norton Bridge will be, just the extra capacity it will generate.

I'd echo the previous posts, I dont believe TASS does that and I can confirm Norton Bridge is 115 as the signalling plans show it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yes I agree, I think it works at all speeds whilst tilt is activated and gives a warning sound and light if the line speed is exceeded by about 4-5 mph and applies the brakes if not corrected within a few seconds, I'm sure plenty of drivers will correct this if wrong

I'm sure all that is true, but I believe the (variable) maximum line speed is also displayed in the cab, as in ETCS.
Probably doesn't replicate the signal aspects though.

This is from an Alstom article:

TASS on-board equipment is based on ALSTOM-made ETCS "EVC", in a version not
including all hardware and software which would be required for ETCS, and a simplified
odometry. The trackside equipment for TASS is itself only made of fixed
balises (beacons) giving information about the track ahead to the train, i.e. to allow tilt or not,
what speed the train may follow, etc.

 

[driver_m]

Yes I agree, I think it works at all speeds whilst tilt is activated and gives a warning sound and light if the line speed is exceeded by about 4-5 mph and applies the brakes if not corrected within a few seconds, I'm sure plenty of drivers will correct this if wrong

That is mostly right. It starts an alarm if you go over 3mph over the limit but it doesn't put the brakes on if you don't respond. That only happens if you then go 6mph over the speed limit. It works for all tass monitored speeds including locations where tilt is inhibited ie Wolverhampton. The speeds are not displayed in cab as said above. Its down to our route knowledge. There is no signal replication. Just a big space where the in cab signalling should have gone. Is this what some of you are on about re signalling in cab?

The bit where you have limited time is when TASS is lost by missing a balise. The train needs a 25mph reduction of the last speed it registered. If you don't respond quickly enough it dumps the brake. Especially a 221 where it is quicker to dump the brake and it will bring the train to a stand whereas a 390 can release the brakes after a 25mph speed reduction.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Carstairs is a disgrace

I have wondered why the route between Carstairs Junction and Glasgow Central has not been upgraded and tilt enabled.

On their own, speed increases do not impress the travelling public. But further upgrades to give a headline journey time of (say) 3 hrs 55 mins between Glasgow Central and London Euston must have appeal ?

 

[nuneatonmark]

It sounds like there are loads of opportunities to bring down the journey times to stations north of Birmingham, just by sorting out the existing bottlenecks? Also given that most of the track south of Crewe is 4 track why not go ahead with 140mph operation on the fast lines as soon as possible? Get rid of the LM trains on the fast lines by replacing them with a proper 125/140mph service for the main TV stations i.e. Nuneaton, Lichfield and Tamworth.

Personally I don't think HS2 is good value for money and the money would be better spent improving the whole network, removing bottlenecks, some new sections of railway especially for freight etc etc

 

[Manchester77]

It sounds like there are loads of opportunities to bring down the journey times to stations north of Birmingham, just by sorting out the existing bottlenecks? Also given that most of the track south of Crewe is 4 track why not go ahead with 140mph operation on the fast lines as soon as possible? Get rid of the LM trains on the fast lines by replacing them with a proper 125/140mph service for the main TV stations i.e. Nuneaton, Lichfield and Tamworth.

Personally I don't think HS2 is good value for money and the money would be better spent improving the whole network, removing bottlenecks, some new sections of railway especially for freight etc etc

They weren't addressed in the initial WCRM plan because that was £10bn which didn't really do what it was set out to and got scaled back because signalling systems didn't exist and Railtrack weren't the best at managing stuff.

140mph operation eats capacity even more than 125mph operation does. The 350s have recently been modified for 110mph working to take up less capacity on the WCML so to remove them from the fast lines and out them on the slow lines sharing it with freight and slower trains would be a step back only to benefit the few intercity trains.

That's what HS2 does (or the London, midland and northern capacity bypass to get the idea of it being about speed out of people's minds) it removes all the intercity stuff off the busy southern WCML and ECML freeing paths for freight and passenger workings.

 

[The Planner]

The Trent Valley wouldn't get much benefit from 125mph running as the distances between stations is too short, also, what are you going to do with the freight? 140mph doesn't actually deliver a huge amount either over 125mph, only 3 seconds a mile, so 20 miles to save a minute. HS2 has its own dedicated sub-forum if you want to rant about that one.

 

[northernrail14]

It would cost a lot of wonga.

 

[DarloRich]

This issue again:cry::roll:

140mph isn’t all that it is cracked up to be. It would, I think, REDUCE capacity on the WCML when you consider the mixed traffic environment and infrastructure limitiations.

As for in cab signalling on a pendo I think you may be getting confused a little. What you are suggesting sounds terribly like an ECTS DMI display. I don’t think Pendos have that, nor do they have “in cab signalling” as known by a railway definition.

 

[AM9]

It would cost a lot of wonga.

What would?

 

[DarloRich]

What would?

making the WCML 140mph

 

[driver_m]

It sounds like there are loads of opportunities to bring down the journey times to stations north of Birmingham, just by sorting out the existing bottlenecks? Also given that most of the track south of Crewe is 4 track why not go ahead with 140mph operation on the fast lines as soon as possible? Get rid of the LM trains on the fast lines by replacing them with a proper 125/140mph service for the main TV stations i.e. Nuneaton, Lichfield and Tamworth.

Personally I don't think HS2 is good value for money and the money would be better spent improving the whole network, removing bottlenecks, some new sections of railway especially for freight etc etc

No good making it 140 as you'd just catch trains up that bit quicker. Its already tight as it is now. If anything gets delayed it impacts not just the one behind but 2,3 or even 4 trains in rear. There is a 7 min gap out of Euston between a 110 and a 125 service and we can sometimes catch a service up very quickly. Put a non tilt train in the mix and its the same problem. Some trains run with a 3 min gap from for over 100 miles so its more important to just have the equipment working perfectly all the time than running at 140

 

[Class 170101]

HS1 has in-cab signalling.

Yes so why not implement the rules used on HS1 rather than create different ones for the classic lines? Its already been decided by the authorities that anything running above 125 has to have in cab signalling.

 

[HSTEd]

Because the system installed on HS1 is basically the French cab signalling system with the serial numbers filed off.

It would have trouble integrating with British signalling practice - remember HS1 is basically an LGV.