Why not 140mph operation for Pendolinos?

[Class 170101]

Would it have trouble integrating with British signalling practise though? There are already interfaces at Ashford and St Pancras which must work currently.

I guess what I don't want to see also is the shambles that was the Cambrian when ERTMS Level 2 was installed. Delays for fun extended to the rest of the network.

 

[moggie]

Think about the M25 (just for a minute). Without the enforced variable speed restrictions it's always stop go rev up then stop go. Put a temporary 50mph on and the traffic keeps rolling mostly.

140mph would just return to stop go again with the mix of current traffic. Precisely what HS2 will resolve assuming all trains move at the same maximum speed whatever that may be.

 

[HSTEd]

Would it have trouble integrating with British signalling practise though? There are already interfaces at Ashford and St Pancras which must work currently.

There is no interface with British signals at St Pancras IIRC - the signals in the international platforms are I believe laid out according to French practice.

And I have a nasty feeling that interfaces between the TVM and British signals at Dollands Moor and in other places involve rather primitive block systems that probably wouldn't like intensive use or installation in an environment as complex as a true main line railway.

 

[DownSouth]

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.

This is all very sensible.

An increase from 125mph to 140mph saves you three seconds for every mile at the most (i.e. assuming acceleration from 125 to 140 at the start of the section and ) but converting roughly a mile of 20mph through Carlisle to 30mph would significantly decrease track occupancy through a major pinch point and save about a minute for a train passing through.

 

[Yew]

Pendolinos dont travel at 140mph as the government chickened out and cut the funding for it, like they did with the APT, and the IC250 project

 

[DarloRich]

And pendolinos dont travel at 140mph as the government chickened out and cut the funding for it, like they did with the APT, and the IC250 project

or undertook value engineering and scope reviews to ensure best return on tax players money?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

And pendolinos dont travel at 140mph as the government chickened out and cut the funding for it,

No, Railtrack blew it and couldn't deliver what it promised.

 

[ainsworth74]

I've had to delete a number of off topic posts from this thread. This thread is about why Pendolinos don't travel at 140mph on the WCML. If people wish to discuss other issues (such as HS2 or politics and money) then I would ask that they do so either in existing threads or start new threads on appropriate sub-forums.

Many thanks

 

[Howardh]

Reading this thread, I can assume the best way to cut long-distance journey times is to improve speeds where trains have to go slowly (stations, bottlenecks etc)? Sounds reasonable to me.

One blatantly obvious one is to cut down the number of stops. Eg the WCML has trains stopping at Carlisle, Penrith, Oxenholme, Lancaster, Preston, Wigan and Warrington. Not sure if any pendos stop at ALL of those on one journey, but most stop at a substantial number.

Considering TPX could be used for travellers between Oxenholme, Lancaster, Preston and now Wigan, could there be scope for most Virgin trains to fly past Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster, call at preston and then one of Wigan/Warrington? And, yes, that would affect me as I prefer Virgin PRE - Oxenholme over TPE!!

 

[driver_m]

Reading this thread, I can assume the best way to cut long-distance journey times is to improve speeds where trains have to go slowly (stations, bottlenecks etc)? Sounds reasonable to me.

One blatantly obvious one is to cut down the number of stops. Eg the WCML has trains stopping at Carlisle, Penrith, Oxenholme, Lancaster, Preston, Wigan and Warrington. Not sure if any pendos stop at ALL of those on one journey, but most stop at a substantial number.

Considering TPX could be used for travellers between Oxenholme, Lancaster, Preston and now Wigan, could there be scope for most Virgin trains to fly past Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster, call at preston and then one of Wigan/Warrington? And, yes, that would affect me as I prefer Virgin PRE - Oxenholme over TPE!!

Have you thought about how you'd get between Wigan and Warrington if you did your proposal? Plus the connection opportunities from Liverpool that you're potentially cutting in half, funny how many people say that Wigan services should be cut not thinking that thats the main connecting point for Liverpool people to go north.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One blatantly obvious one is to cut down the number of stops. Eg the WCML has trains stopping at Carlisle, Penrith, Oxenholme, Lancaster, Preston, Wigan and Warrington. Not sure if any pendos stop at ALL of those on one journey, but most stop at a substantial number.

Excellent idea! How about we remove the stop at Euston. That would easily shave well over an hour off the end-to-end journey times of the current London-Glasgow pendolinos

 

[Class 170101]

There is no interface with British signals at St Pancras IIRC - the signals in the international platforms are I believe laid out according to French practice.

And I have a nasty feeling that interfaces between the TVM and British signals at Dollands Moor and in other places involve rather primitive block systems that probably wouldn't like intensive use or installation in an environment as complex as a true main line railway.

St Pancras what about the links to the North London Line and ECML?

 

[Howardh]

Must admit - didn't know Wigan-Warrington was so devoid of local services! Is inter-city the only way to travel between the two, and are there any other such stations in the UK if that's the case?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Must admit - didn't know Wigan-Warrington was so devoid of local services! Is inter-city the only way to travel between the two, and are there any other such stations in the UK if that's the case?

The whole of the WCML between Preston and Carlisle is basically the same. Take out the London-Scotland and Manchester-Scotland trains and you'd have basically nothing connecting any of the towns along that line, apart from a few Manchester-Windermere/Barrow trains per day).

 

[Welshman]

Have you thought about how you'd get between Wigan and Warrington if you did your proposal? Plus the connection opportunities from Liverpool that you're potentially cutting in half, funny how many people say that Wigan services should be cut not thinking that thats the main connecting point for Liverpool people to go north.

And Warrington for North Wales people.

 

[DarloRich]

Would it have trouble integrating with British signalling practise though? There are already interfaces at Ashford and St Pancras which must work currently.

I guess what I don't want to see also is the shambles that was the Cambrian when ERTMS Level 2 was installed. Delays for fun extended to the rest of the network.

What problems were those?

 

[HSTEd]

St Pancras what about the links to the North London Line and ECML?

As I understand it those connections are incredibly rarely used and are essentially the kind of thing where you have stop boards and you get talked from one area to another by the signaller.

 

[DownSouth]

As I understand it those connections are incredibly rarely used and are essentially the kind of thing where you have stop boards and you get talked from one area to another by the signaller.

But if a regular service was to be introduced that required the use of these links, a more workable link would be worked out in no time. All that would be needed is the will to make it happen.

 

[rebmcr]

But if a regular service was to be introduced that required the use of these links, a more workable link would be worked out in no time. All that would be needed is the will to make it happen.

No, the regular service would likely just not be introduced because nobody would pay to develop interworking.

 

[AM9]

No, the regular service would likely just not be introduced because nobody would pay to develop interworking.

Moreover, what sort of a regular service is there a demand for over the links?

 

[moggie]

What problems were those?

Drivers understanding where to stop?

 

[DarloRich]

Drivers understanding where to stop?

eh? I dont understand

 

[DownSouth]

No, the regular service would likely just not be introduced because nobody would pay to develop interworking.

Exactly – that's why I wrote about the will to make it happen being all that's needed to make it happen.

Isn't the connection to the North London Line being proposed as part of the currently preferred option for the HS1-HS2 link?

 

[swt_passenger]

Isn't the connection to the North London Line being proposed as part of the currently preferred option for the HS1-HS2 link?

Not any longer, because the HS1 - HS2 link has been completely withdrawn from the Bill.

If you hadn't already seen it, this was announced in March:

Sir David[Higgins] is clear that he does not think the existing proposals for the HS2-HS1 link meet those tests. His report concludes that the link proposed in the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill has not secured a consensus. The link requires too many compromises in terms of impacts on freight, passengers and the community in Camden. I, therefore, intend to take the necessary steps to remove the link from the Bill and withdraw the safeguarding of this section of the route as soon as possible.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/higgins-review

 

[Bald Rick]

or undertook value engineering and scope reviews to ensure best return on tax players money?

Indeed. Rugby remodelling came from a proposal by the WCRM permanent way engineer that demonstrated broadly the same time saving was achieved by sorting out Rugby as was available for 140mph running on all the 125 sections south thereof. Much cheaper and (overruns not withstanding) easier than delivering an untested cab signalling system on the country's busiest mixed use railway. Plus a few other things: 140mph required the OLE to be further upgraded, and all crossings in point work to be removed, ie swing nose crossings everywhere. All very, very expensive for not much gain.