Should Scotrail order tilting trains?

[Bald Rick]

On the WCML, where the speed differential between slow trains and fast trains is at its most extreme and curves are plentiful, the application of enough cant to enable 125mph for LDHSSs resulted in significant excess cant for freight trains and an unacceptable long-term maintenance liability. Hence the development and use of the tilting train, which essentially adds its own cant on top of that applied by track engineers

Unfortunately, the opening premise of the article is only partially correct.

There are lots of places on the WCML where maximum cant is applied. And yes, this results in ‘excess cant’ for slower trains (including freight). And the ‘long term maintenance liability’ is, really, some extra grinding of the low rail and rerailing at a slightly increased frequency. This might be ‘unacceptable’ to track engineers seeking perfection, but is perfectly acceptable when taking a broader view of railway operations and economics. And that is why it was done.

 

[tiptoptaff]

This link https://garethdennis.medium.com/is-the-end-already-in-sight-for-britains-tilting-trains-b6ebb496433c from railway engineer Gareth Dennis, helps explain why I am saying that there is no need for tilting trains, once the class 390's have come to the end of their service life.

Here is a section of this piece:

"On the WCML, where the speed differential between slow trains and fast trains is at its most extreme and curves are plentiful, the application of enough cant to enable 125mph for LDHSSs resulted in significant excess cant for freight trains and an unacceptable long-term maintenance liability. Hence the development and use of the tilting train, which essentially adds its own cant on top of that applied by track engineers.

Over the years, however, permanent way engineers have realised that maximising cant deficiency is actually beneficial for the operational railway, particularly in reducing the occurrence of rolling contact fatigue (gauge corner cracking, a type of rolling contact fatigue, caused the 2000 Hatfield derailment).

At the same time, the performance of stopping passenger and “slow” freight trains has increased. More electric trains and multiple units with faster acceleration, freight wagons that are capable of better ride quality at higher speeds, as well as the great leap in intermodal rather than bulk freight all contribute to a reduced speed differential between the slowest and fastest trains."

As the document states tilting trains are like bi-mode trains, there are a solution as an answer cannot be found with the infrastructure. However, in the link it does go on to say "On the WCML, there’s another factor at play. Unlike the East Coast Mainline with its long straight sections and the occasional curvy bit, the West Coast Mainline has a speed profile like a sawtooth, with or without tilt in operation. Even the Pendolino isn’t particularly quick at accelerating out of curves and, in a few cases, drivers can’t make much use of the short stretches of higher permissible speeds."

The above and what is within the link, is why I don't think that Scotrail should purchase tilt trains, as work by engineers on the tracks of the rails is making it such that with the newer trains such as class 8xx and class 397 that have faster acceleration than the class 390 because of the weight that it is carrying, it would be better for Scotrail to invest in bi-mode trains that have fast acceleration speed.

You also got to ask yourself, why would Avanti West coast hire class 8xx units that don't tilt to replace class 221 units that do?

Unfortunately, the opening premise of the article is only partially correct.

There are lots of places on the WCML where maximum cant is applied. And yes, this results in ‘excess cant’ for slower trains (including freight). And the ‘long term maintenance liability’ is, really, some extra grinding of the low rail and rerailing at a slightly increased frequency. This might be ‘unacceptable’ to track engineers seeking perfection, but is perfectly acceptable when taking a broader view of railway operations and economics. And that is why it was done.

It's best to take anything Gareth Dennis says with a massive pinch of salt.

He often comments on areas outside of his expertise and gets it wrong. And his specialist area, permanent way, is often like above not exactly accurate.

Made a name for himself by being on twitter and bootlicking LNER 800s, rather than a reputable engineer

 

[RobShipway]

It's best to take anything Gareth Dennis says with a massive pinch of salt.

He often comments on areas outside of his expertise and gets it wrong. And his specialist area, permanent way, is often like above not exactly accurate.

Made a name for himself by being on twitter and bootlicking LNER 800s, rather than a reputable engineer

So as I have asked before, why as the likes of Advanti West Coast decided to go with a non-tilt 125mph train to replace the class 221 Voyagers which tilt?

The only thing that I can see would be the fact that the class 805 and 807 units for the most part would be working some of services south of Preston, where there is little or no need for tilt trains.

This issue was thoroughly discussed in the thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/why-arent-there-more-tilting-trains-in-the-uk.110348/page-2 back in 2015, but even since then technology has moved on.

As one of the posts in the above mentioned thread states, there is a lot of extra weight being carried by a class 221 super voyager than there is with a class 220. So even if you can go quicker round a bend in a class 390 at speed, a class 8xx which is a lot lighter and has quicker acceleration, I believe be able to keep up with the timings of a class 390. Hence why I think that the class 807 as well as replacing voyagers may replace class 390 on some services such as Euston - Blackpool North or services to Wolverhampton.

 

[tiptoptaff]

So as I have asked before, why as the likes of Advanti West Coast decided to go with a non-tilt 125mph train to replace the class 221 Voyagers which tilt?

The only thing that I can see would be the fact that the class 805 and 807 units for the most part would be working some of services south of Preston, where there is little or no need for tilt trains.

This issue was thoroughly discussed in the thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/why-arent-there-more-tilting-trains-in-the-uk.110348/page-2 back in 2015, but even since then technology has moved on.

As one of the posts in the above mentioned thread states, there is a lot of extra weight being carried by a class 221 super voyager than there is with a class 220. So even if you can go quicker round a bend in a class 390 at speed, a class 8xx which is a lot lighter and has quicker acceleration, I believe be able to keep up with the timings of a class 390. Hence why I think that the class 807 as well as replacing voyagers may replace class 390 on some services such as Euston - Blackpool North or services to Wolverhampton.

No idea. I was just speaking generally to relying on him for factual or accurate "information" or his credibility as an "expert"

 

[skyhigh]

So as I have asked before, why as the likes of Advanti West Coast decided to go with a non-tilt 125mph train to replace the class 221 Voyagers which tilt?

Mainly because no bi-mode 125mph tilting train exists. And nobody is going to pay to design one for the relatively tiny number of orders it would get.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2021 ==

He often comments on areas outside of his expertise and gets it wrong. And his specialist area, permanent way, is often like above not exactly accurate.

Recent examples being:
Suggesting the 80x cracks were due to the train being designed to be electric only
Saying that HSTs are 'unsafe'
Complaining that headspans should be removed from the ECML because they're too fragile after the recent dewirement at King's Cross (which was in an area that didn't use headspans)

 

[RobShipway]

Mainly because no bi-mode 125mph tilting train exists. And nobody is going to pay to design one for the relatively tiny number of orders it would get.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2021 ==


Recent examples being:
Suggesting the 80x cracks were due to the train being designed to be electric only
Saying that HSTs are 'unsafe'
Complaining that headspans should be removed from the ECML because they're too fragile after the recent dewirement at King's Cross (which was in an area that didn't use headspans)

But the class 807 units are not bi-mode, they are fully electric. I can understand why with the class 805 units, which yes will be bi-mode. But would have thought that the class 807 would have been built to tilt in case of needing to be used on services to Glasgow, unless they are only being kept to services within England?

 

[The Planner]

So as I have asked before, why as the likes of Advanti West Coast decided to go with a non-tilt 125mph train to replace the class 221 Voyagers which tilt?

The only thing that I can see would be the fact that the class 805 and 807 units for the most part would be working some of services south of Preston, where there is little or no need for tilt trains.

This issue was thoroughly discussed in the thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/why-arent-there-more-tilting-trains-in-the-uk.110348/page-2 back in 2015, but even since then technology has moved on.

As one of the posts in the above mentioned thread states, there is a lot of extra weight being carried by a class 221 super voyager than there is with a class 220. So even if you can go quicker round a bend in a class 390 at speed, a class 8xx which is a lot lighter and has quicker acceleration, I believe be able to keep up with the timings of a class 390. Hence why I think that the class 807 as well as replacing voyagers may replace class 390 on some services such as Euston - Blackpool North or services to Wolverhampton.

The 805 and 807 will not match the SRTs for a 390, even with the non tilt speed increases being proposed south of Weaver Jn, which is in part why there will be a bit of a recast in Dec 22.

 

[Journeyman]

But the class 807 units are not bi-mode, they are fully electric. I can understand why with the class 805 units, which yes will be bi-mode. But would have thought that the class 807 would have been built to tilt in case of needing to be used on services to Glasgow, unless they are only being kept to services within England?

The class 397s built for TPE for services from Edinburgh and Glasgow to Manchester are non-tilt.

It's a dead end technologically. No-one really wants the hassle, expense, extra weight and complexity of it, when you can now match tilt timings with non-tilt stock. No more tilting trains will ever be needed again.

 

[RobShipway]

The class 397s built for TPE for services from Edinburgh and Glasgow to Manchester are non-tilt.

It's a dead end technologically. No-one really wants the hassle, expense, extra weight and complexity of it, when you can now match tilt timings with non-tilt stock. No more tilting trains will ever be needed again.

That is pretty much my point. Despite some people seemingly suggesting that timings in December 2022 needing to be recast for the non tilting Class 805/807 units. I cannot see timings would need to b recast, when at the end of the day all the tilt is giving is saving of seconds, possibly a few minutes per corner and then it would only be a saving on a few routes at most.

 

[Failed Unit]

Because over the next 20 years, their ability to not pollute/consume vast quantities of carbon fuel whilst running under OLE from London to Wolverhampton or Crewe is very important. Despite dragging diesel gensets along under the wires, their carbon profile is way better than the Voyagers.

At least Scotrail can take said Voyagers - but I suspect that if they do replace the HSTs the 222s will probably be more desirable to them. Personally I can't see anything changing Scotrail's ROSCO have invested too much in the HST so unless they get a significant saving they will be staying put. (Not impossible that the 222's owners could put a more financially lucrative offer out of course)

 

[Bald Rick]

a class 8xx which is a lot lighter and has quicker acceleration, I believe be able to keep up with the timings of a class 390.

You can believe all you like, but the 8xx will not keep up with 390 timings!

 

[Journeyman]

You can believe all you like, but the 8xx will not keep up with 390 timings!

It'll get close enough, though. Certainly close enough to make tilt unjustifiable.

 

[Bald Rick]

It'll get close enough, though. Certainly close enough to make tilt unjustifiable.

Not close enough to fit in the current paths though, hence the need to recast. And because they are slower that rather complicates matters. Typically for a recast for new trains, the new trains are quicker, so it doesn’t matter if they are introduced before the new timetable (see GWR, LNER). And that means it doesn’t matter if they are delivered late.

But for this timetable the new, ‘slower’ timetable will have to be introduced before any of the trains are expected in service. And if the trains are late you have slowed down the timetable for nothing.

 

[The Planner]

It'll get close enough, though. Certainly close enough to make tilt unjustifiable.

Its not close, believe me, I have seen the times.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2021 ==

That is pretty much my point. Despite some people seemingly suggesting that timings in December 2022 needing to be recast for the non tilting Class 805/807 units. I cannot see timings would need to b recast, when at the end of the day all the tilt is giving is saving of seconds, possibly a few minutes per corner and then it would only be a saving on a few routes at most.

Makes no odds to me if you don't believe me, facts are facts.

 

[Wolfie]

Faster accelerating reduces journey times, but tilt would add to that, I don't see why faster acceleration negates the need for tilt, used together will lead to even better improvements. As for electrification, it is overrated. Many lines simply will not be viable to electrify, and its not like we're running out of fuel.

Re your last sentence dirty, polluting, diesel is increasingly unacceptable to the majority of the population.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2021 ==

Because over the next 20 years, their ability to not pollute/consume vast quantities of carbon fuel whilst running under OLE from London to Wolverhampton or Crewe is very important. Despite dragging diesel gensets along under the wires, their carbon profile is way better than the Voyagers.

Absolutely.

 

[RailWonderer]

Re your last sentence dirty, polluting, diesel is increasingly unacceptable to the majority of the population.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2021 ==


Absolutely.

I honestly don't think most people care, we've had diesel for decades, it's the government that wants to improve the environment even if that cost burden lies on the taxpayer and the rail passenger. I do believe in more electrification (Wellingboro' - Sheffield, Didcot - Oxford and maybe the Manchester - Leeds corridor), but mass electrification won't pay for itself.

 

[RobShipway]

I honestly don't think most people care, we've had diesel for decades, it's the government that wants to improve the environment even if that cost burden lies on the taxpayer and the rail passenger. I do believe in more electrification (Wellingboro' - Sheffield, Didcot - Oxford and maybe the Manchester - Leeds corridor), but mass electrification won't pay for itself.

Correct. Most people just want to get from A to B in as quick as time as possibly and it does not matter how it is done. Hence why you have many people that travel by plane from Manchester to Heathrow even though they may live in the centre of Manchester or just on the outskirts. They find it quicker and easier to travel to Manchester Airport, fly to Heathrow and then travel into London from that point either via the tube or Heathrow Express service.

Getting it back more in context with the subject of the thread, there is also many people I believe that travel by plane from Glasgow to London as well. The main reason for this is that they can be assured of a seat and I know having spoken to a few people that prior to Covid travelled regularly by plane either from Glasgow to Edingburgh that even if they reserved a seat on a train, it did not always mean that they would get a seat if the reservation system had issues. But this is where I think after Covid, the likes of the TOC's should continue on the basis that if you have not got a reservation for a interCity train service such as those run by LNER and Advanti West Coast, then you cannot just turn up buy a ticket and travel unless it has been done about 2 hours before travelling. That way people can be more assured of a seat.

 

[Journeyman]

Correct. Most people just want to get from A to B in as quick as time as possibly and it does not matter how it is done. Hence why you have many people that travel by plane from Manchester to Heathrow even though they may live in the centre of Manchester or just on the outskirts. They find it quicker and easier to travel to Manchester Airport, fly to Heathrow and then travel into London from that point either via the tube or Heathrow Express service.

Actually, the number of people who fly from Manchester to London is now absolutely tiny, and consists almost entirely of people making flight connections. The significant upgrade and speed increase when the Pendolinos were introduced practically destroyed the market for Manchester to London flights.

 

[Failed Unit]

But this is where I think after Covid, the likes of the TOC's should continue on the basis that if you have not got a reservation for a interCity train service such as those run by LNER and Advanti West Coast, then you cannot just turn up buy a ticket and travel unless it has been done about 2 hours before travelling. That way people can be more assured of a seat.

I think that would kill off the main reason business people use rail. I have in the past finished my meeting early. Booked on the 1700 train, no problem I can get the 1500. If it was all AP only - I might as well fly. I know it is a different thread - but this reservation only on IC service needs to end ASAP.

 

[skyhigh]

Correct. Most people just want to get from A to B in as quick as time as possibly and it does not matter how it is done. Hence why you have many people that travel by plane from Manchester to Heathrow even though they may live in the centre of Manchester or just on the outskirts. They find it quicker and easier to travel to Manchester Airport, fly to Heathrow and then travel into London from that point either via the tube or Heathrow Express service.

How many people fly from Manchester to Heathrow annually? How many people take the train? I honestly doubt a double-figure number of people living in central Manchester find it easier to fly then get the train to London.

 

[Journeyman]

How many people fly from Manchester to Heathrow annually? How many people take the train? I honestly doubt a double-figure number of people living in central Manchester find it easier to fly then get the train to London.

Yeah, that hypothesis is nonsense. I doubt anyone travelling from central Manchester to central London flies. There's no way you'd beat the train doing that.

 

[Bald Rick]

Actually, the number of people who fly from Manchester to London is now absolutely tiny, and consists almost entirely of people making flight connections. The significant upgrade and speed increase when the Pendolinos were introduced practically destroyed the market for Manchester to London flights.

I wouldn’t say ‘tiny’ - Pre Covid it was still more than half a million people a year; more than 10k a week flying Manchester <> Heathrow. The West Coast upgrade did put a sizeable dent in the MAN - LON market of course, but it is still Manchester’s largest domestic flow. Something like 70-80% are connecting st Heathrow though.

How many people fly from Manchester to Heathrow annually? How many people take the train? I honestly doubt a double-figure number of people living in central Manchester find it easier to fly then get the train to London.

Plenty of people from central Manchester fly to London - but usually to connect at Heathrow to a BA long haul. Much more convenient, and cheaper, than taking the train.

 

[Journeyman]

I wouldn’t say ‘tiny’ - Pre Covid it was still more than half a million people a year; more than 10k a week flying Manchester <> Heathrow. The West Coast upgrade did put a sizeable dent in the MAN - LON market of course, but it is still Manchester’s largest domestic flow. Something like 70-80% are connecting st Heathrow though.




Plenty of people from central Manchester fly to London - but usually to connect at Heathrow to a BA long haul. Much more convenient, and cheaper, than taking the train.

Yeah, BA primarily run domestic flights for connecting purposes. I often fly from Edinburgh to London, and it's pretty obvious most other passengers on BA flights are connecting in or out of other flights. It's usually possible to fly cheaper on Ryanair or EasyJet if you're not going any further.

 

[RobShipway]

Yeah, BA primarily run domestic flights for connecting purposes. I often fly from Edinburgh to London, and it's pretty obvious most other passengers on BA flights are connecting in or out of other flights. It's usually possible to fly cheaper on Ryanair or EasyJet if you're not going any further.

Can I ask when you flying Edingburgh to London, is that for connecting flights to elsewhere or are you going into the City?

If you are going into the city, then you are the type of people that I am stating should be looked at, as to why are you flying instead of taking the train? Especially with what has happened in the world over the last 16 months or more.

 

[D365]

Not sure what relevance there is between Scotland <> England flights, and the speculative idea of ScotRail ordering domestic tilting trains for travel north of Edinburgh…

 

[Journeyman]

Can I ask when you flying Edingburgh to London, is that for connecting flights to elsewhere or are you going into the City?

If you are going into the city, then you are the type of people that I am stating should be looked at, as to why are you flying instead of taking the train? Especially with what has happened in the world over the last 16 months or more.

Generally when I was doing it (I haven't since the pandemic kicked off) I flew to Gatwick, as my final destination was very close by, and I also live closer to Edinburgh Airport than I do to Haymarket or Waverley stations. Therefore in my case, it had specific advantages.

 

[RobShipway]

Generally when I was doing it (I haven't since the pandemic kicked off) I flew to Gatwick, as my final destination was very close by, and I also live closer to Edinburgh Airport than I do to Haymarket or Waverley stations. Therefore in my case, it had specific advantages.

Thank you for the reply. To try to get it back on subject, if you where working in Aberdeen would you travel to either Haymarket or Waverley stations to travel by train or if there was a flight would you fly?

Not sure what relevance there is between Scotland <> England flights, and the speculative idea of ScotRail ordering domestic tilting trains for travel north of Edinburgh…

Apologies, but the relevance is if the tilting trains where to be used on Scotrail services that went between Scotland and England then it is a case of how many people would be using them as any of the routes that the short HST fleets that Scotrail have, I doubt would pay for the extra cost of the tilting trains. You would probably have to be charging a lot larger fare for the journey to help pay for those tilting trains.

The only other answer if Scotrail did feel that they require a tilting fleet, would be to purchase a small fleet second hand and maybe reduce the carriages within each unit.

 

[Wolfie]

Thank you for the reply. To try to get it back on subject, if you where working in Aberdeen would you travel to either Haymarket or Waverley stations to travel by train or if there was a flight would you fly?


Apologies, but the relevance is if the tilting trains where to be used on Scotrail services that went between Scotland and England then it is a case of how many people would be using them as any of the routes that the short HST fleets that Scotrail have, I doubt would pay for the extra cost of the tilting trains. You would probably have to be charging a lot larger fare for the journey to help pay for those tilting trains.

The only other answer if Scotrail did feel that they require a tilting fleet, would be to purchase a small fleet second hand and maybe reduce the carriages within each unit.

The only tilting trains potentially available second hand would be the 220/221/222s. There is no way that Avanti would release any 390s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only tilting trains potentially available second hand would be the 220/221/222s. There is no way that Avanti would release any 390s.

Only Avanti's 221s have tilt, none of the other 22x classes do (XC removed it from their 221s).

 

[Journeyman]

Thank you for the reply. To try to get it back on subject, if you where working in Aberdeen would you travel to either Haymarket or Waverley stations to travel by train or if there was a flight would you fly?

I'd get the train. A flight to Aberdeen is far too short a journey and would be ridiculously inconvenient.