Freight multiple unit train and freight tram - They are really the future？

[HSTEd]

On HS2 you would be talking a speed difference of 200km/h for 2-300km. There are no paths for freight.

There is always that US Army mobilisation train study for a high speed tank carrying train........

(and the aerodynamic effect of a very high speed train passing a curtain sided freight vehicle).

In Japan, in order to increase the speed Shinkansen can pass through the Seiken tunnel at, they have installed a special signalling system that changes the speed limit if any freight trains are in the tunnel, and are apparently constructing a carrier train that the narrow gauge trains will be loaded into, specifically to protect them from aerodynamic forces.

This is a substantial amount of work, as you say, and I doubt it is worth it.

 

[Bald Rick]

My no doubt is based on the fact that you have DB Cargo UK running freight services on High Speed 1 using adapted Class 92 locomotives, enabling flat wagons to be carrying continental-size swap body containers to reach London for the first time. The class 92's in operating that service are running at no more than 87mph, yet is fitted in between trains doing anything from 140mph to 180mph.

These trains (and there are very few of them) are all either operating after Eurostar have run their last services but before the line shuts, or are looped at the various loops built specifically for that purpose, or both. HS2 will close after the last high speed services operate (much later than Eurostar), and there are no loops for this purpose on HS2. And these are swapbodies, not road trailers.

The same could happen with HS2, except that the trains in question would need to be doing 100mph - 120mph, which given the technology since the class 92 was built is more than possible.

Can you send me a link which shows how this technology is possible? Ie containerised / road trailer heavy freight operating at 160-200km/h on purpose built high speed passenger lines?

Can you provide a link from HS2 Ltd states that HS2 will just be for passenger trains only?

AIUI it’s all in the extensive documentation provided for the enabling act. Conversely, can you find a source anywhere that suggests HS2 will be used for freight?


Just to close this do some simple maths. The running time from Old Oak to Birmingham interchange for an HS2 passenger train is going to be 32 minutes for the 145 km. Work out how long a freight train would take to do the same, and then work out how many passenger trains you could work around it in an hour.

 

[Irascible]

Well one of the major advantages of 25kV, especially modern 25kV installations, is that relatively inexpensive modifications (to trackside infrastructure) can increase power delivery limits almost without limit.

We could put Eurostar 400m set levels of installed power into them if we wanted.

Although a proper fleet of Class 92 successors showing what modern power electronics can do would be a big advance over the status quo.

We'd also need to get this electric spine done. Electrics with battery installs would also not only let you get away without wiring terminals, but lessen the power draw from the knitting under acceleration. Radio multiple control - which is very much not a new technology! - would let you put a locomotive on each end too, which solves run-round issues & any worries about coupler strength.

Also the several seconds it takes for a driver to apply brakes before the train brakes are actually fully applied on an ~800m freight train.
And fundamental control limits from the air brake.

We can probably get near EMU levels of performance with ECP braking (effectively a more modern two wire version of an EPB brake).

But ECP brakes are going to cost significant amounts of money for retrofit, although obviously cheaper than EMUs and it would allow distributed power with no additional cabling.

Control wires for ECP brakes certainly wouldn't take traction power! but honestly distributed traction is probably the last thing to attempt on freight stock when you can add another locomotive on instead ( although I suppose there are limits to loop lengths & signalling in places ). Still the main issue is going to be just getting all that mass stopped. I seem to remember there is a RSSB doc about adhesion so we could do some actual estimates of the sort of axle loads & energy dissipation you'd need to get anywhere near compatible braking performance with an EMU.

 

[XAM2175]

Control wires for ECP brakes certainly wouldn't take traction power! but honestly distributed traction is probably the last thing to attempt on freight stock when you can add another locomotive on instead

"Distributed power" in this sense refers to distributing additional locomotives through the consist and controlling them from the leading locomotive:

Distributed power - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Strictly speaking we already use a basic form of it here in HSTs.

 

[Irascible]

"Distributed power" in this sense refers to distributing additional locomotives through the consist and controlling them from the leading locomotive:

Distributed power - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Strictly speaking we already use a basic form of it here in HSTs.

In the US sense yes - previously we were talking about distributing power in the MU sense of having multiple powered axles remote from the power transformer ( the thread started out by talking about full freight MUs ), which is a vastly different sense of scale...

An advantage to distributing locomotives along the train is you can make brake applications from all of them simultaneously if you want, so it reduces propogation delays.

 

[XAM2175]

In the US sense yes - previously we were talking about distributing power in the MU sense of having multiple powered axles remote from the power transformer ( the thread started out by talking about full freight MUs ), which is a vastly different sense of scale...

An advantage to distributing locomotives along the train is you can make brake applications from all of them simultaneously if you want, so it reduces propogation delays.

I read @HSTEd's comment as meaning that introducing ECP braking would obviate much of the apparent need for freight MUs, so they were talking about distributed power in the "US sense" and you were mistaken to read it the way you did.

 

[RobShipway]

These trains (and there are very few of them) are all either operating after Eurostar have run their last services but before the line shuts, or are looped at the various loops built specifically for that purpose, or both. HS2 will close after the last high speed services operate (much later than Eurostar), and there are no loops for this purpose on HS2. And these are swapbodies, not road trailers.




Can you send me a link which shows how this technology is possible? Ie containerised / road trailer heavy freight operating at 160-200km/h on purpose built high speed passenger lines?




AIUI it’s all in the extensive documentation provided for the enabling act. Conversely, can you find a source anywhere that suggests HS2 will be used for freight?


Just to close those do some simple maths. The running time from Old Oak to Birmingham interchange for an HS2 passenger train is going to be 32 minutes for the 145 km. then work out how long a freight train would take to do the same, and then work out how many passenger trains you could work around it in an hour.

There is no HS2 documentation that states that it is for passenger use only, if you go through the documentation within https://www.hs2.org.uk/documents/ It is also not stated for passenger use only within https://assets.publishing.service.g...-state-for-transport-and-high-speed-2-ltd.pdf. Yes there is no mention of freight either, so HS2 is a new line being built for the country to have a better rail network which I would have thought, would include freight!

With regards containerised / road trailer heavy freight operating at 160-200km/h on purpose built high speed passenger line, HST-ed has provided one such solution in the post before yours. But if you want more info, can I suggest that you read https://etrr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12544-020-00453-3.

 

[zwk500]

There is no HS2 documentation that states that it is for passenger use only, if you go through the documentation within https://www.hs2.org.uk/documents/ It is also not stated for passenger use only within https://assets.publishing.service.g...-state-for-transport-and-high-speed-2-ltd.pdf. Yes there is no mention of freight either, so HS2 is a new line being built for the country to have a better rail network which I would have thought, would include freight!

You don't build motorways to include cycle lanes. Why, why oh why would you box yourself in by including freight in the design process for a dedicated high-speed passenger railway. HS2 permits better operation of the network for freight by releasing space on the more suitable lines. Including freight means you have a much bigger dynamic profile, greater variance in centre of mass and completely different sets of forces around corners and up and down hills. It affects things like the maximum gradients, allowable cant, maximm curvature, etc.

 

[Bald Rick]

But if you want more info, can I suggest that you read https://etrr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12544-020-00453-3.

I’ve read it before. That is an economic / environmental study, ie with no discussion of engineering viability. In any event it is not for containerised / road trailer freight - it specifies pallets with a max load of 350kg.

 

[XAM2175]

There is no HS2 documentation that states that it is for passenger use only, if you go through the documentation within https://www.hs2.org.uk/documents/ It is also not stated for passenger use only within https://assets.publishing.service.g...-state-for-transport-and-high-speed-2-ltd.pdf. Yes there is no mention of freight either, so HS2 is a new line being built for the country to have a better rail network which I would have thought, would include freight!

Your enthusiasm is touching but @Bald Rick works in the industry and is highly informed. His posts here are about as close to official pronouncements as you're going to get.

 

[HSTEd]

Control wires for ECP brakes certainly wouldn't take traction power! but honestly distributed traction is probably the last thing to attempt on freight stock when you can add another locomotive on instead ( although I suppose there are limits to loop lengths & signalling in places ). Still the main issue is going to be just getting all that mass stopped. I seem to remember there is a RSSB doc about adhesion so we could do some actual estimates of the sort of axle loads & energy dissipation you'd need to get anywhere near compatible braking performance with an EMU.

Sorry, switched to the US meaning! Oops!

But distributed power in the US sense still has some interesting implications in the UK system.
If you are going to double head trains it makes it better to simply top and tail and avoid runaarounds etc etc.

And potentially if train length limits can be ameliorated (in infrastructure etc) you can just tack multiple freight trains together without any serious shunting operations, if they happen to be going in the same direction

 

[RobShipway]

You don't build motorways to include cycle lanes. Why, why oh why would you box yourself in by including freight in the design process for a dedicated high-speed passenger railway. HS2 permits better operation of the network for freight by releasing space on the more suitable lines. Including freight means you have a much bigger dynamic profile, greater variance in centre of mass and completely different sets of forces around corners and up and down hills. It affects things like the maximum gradients, allowable cant, maximm curvature, etc.

Yeah right. Over 20 years ago the same was being said about HS1 and that freight should be kept to classic lines in Kent. But then it was realised, many of the Berne Gauge Freight trains from Europe through the channel tunnel would not fit on the classic lines in Kent, so they would have be moved on HS1.

I am not sure why you bring up cycle lanes with motorways, as they are two different types of motive power, so for that reason only you would not mix them. Whereas an electric passenger train and electric freight train are using the same type of motive power, i.e. electricity. In your way of thinking you would be separating the lorries from the cars on the motorways, which is done by the fact that the lorries where the motorway is three lanes, as they can only use the first two lanes from the left.

Many companies that build rail units that are used in taking freight, will tell there have been improvements on how those vehicles handle being pulled behind a locomotive when it comes to being pulled on gradients and curvatures of the track that they are travelling along.

The problem with many within these forums, is that if you mention the word freight and future ideas on how that freight can be transported from A to B and it is like uttering rude words. Yet, if you saw how much money is being made by many in the airline industry or road haulage in getting items from A to B, which could be done just as quick, if not quicker by rail without damaging the environment, you would see that freight is just as much a way for UK rail to be making money as it is to take a passenger from A to B. Given that we as a country and for that matter the world is recovering from a pandemic, where we may not see the same number of passengers coming back to rail than there was before Covid-19, then surely you have to look at other ways the rail infrastructure in this country can be used to be useful.

Yes, because of Covid-19 you have had a downturn in certain types of freight. But this thread is about what can be done to move freight better in the future. Specifically Multiple Unit freight or freight tram. It is not about what is able to happen today or for that matter what the original intentions or purpose of a high speed line, it is about the future. Hence why it is in the speculation ideas area.

 

[XAM2175]

But distributed power in the US sense still has some interesting implications in the UK system.
If you are going to double head trains it makes it better to simply top and tail and avoid runaarounds etc etc.

If I'm not mistaken the data communication element of ECP braking also allows for on-board proving of train continuity and integrity, which in turn enables moving-block signalling with ETCS Level 3.

 

[HSTEd]

If I'm not mistaken the data communication element of ECP braking also allows for on-board proving of train continuity and integrity, which in turn enables moving-block signalling with ETCS Level 3.

That's my understanding as well, since it has to provide safety grade train continuity checking for the air brake functionality to work correctly in the case of a split train

 

[zwk500]

Yeah right. Over 20 years ago the same was being said about HS1 and that freight should be kept to classic lines in Kent. But then it was realised, many of the Berne Gauge Freight trains from Europe through the channel tunnel would not fit on the classic lines in Kent, so they would have be moved on HS1.

Kent isn't cleared for W12, and Ripple lane isn't accessible from the Kent classic network. Where HS2 will run, W10/12 is clear and Yards are connected better to the classic network than to the HS network.

I am not sure why you bring up cycle lanes with motorways, as they are two different types of motive power, so for that reason only you would not mix them. Whereas an electric passenger train and electric freight train are using the same type of motive power, i.e. electricity. In your way of thinking you would be separating the lorries from the cars on the motorways, which is done by the fact that the lorries where the motorway is three lanes, as they can only use the first two lanes from the left.

It was an example of traffic that needs completely different considerations when building it's infrastructure. The traction power is not really an issue here.

Many companies that build rail units that are used in taking freight, will tell there have been improvements on how those vehicles handle being pulled behind a locomotive when it comes to being pulled on gradients and curvatures of the track that they are travelling along.

Improvements only get you so far. You're still not going to get 1600 tonnes over a hill in the same time as 400 tonnes unless you've got a lot more power, and ways to put it down.

The problem with many within these forums, is that if you mention the word freight and future ideas on how that freight can be transported from A to B and it is like uttering rude words. Yet, if you saw how much money is being made by many in the airline industry or road haulage in getting items from A to B, which could be done just as quick, if not quicker by rail without damaging the environment, you would see that freight is just as much a way for UK rail to be making money as it is to take a passenger from A to B. Given that we as a country and for that matter the world is recovering from a pandemic, where we may not see the same number of passengers coming back to rail than there was before Covid-19, then surely you have to look at other ways the rail infrastructure in this country can be used to be useful.

I'd check what people's day jobs are before accusing them of being anti freight. I'm well aware of the benefits of railfreight, and the current demand for more paths. I'm also well aware of the issue running freight in and around the Southern Region. I don't have the experience others do on here, nor their knowledge of the overall railfreight market, but there's no need to explain the basics to me.

Yes, because of Covid-19 you have had a downturn in certain types of freight. But this thread is about what can be done to move freight better in the future. Specifically Multiple Unit freight or freight tram. It is not about what is able to happen today or for that matter what the original intentions or purpose of a high speed line, it is about the future. Hence why it is in the speculation ideas area.

MU freight is only going to be viable for high-value, low-volume/weight cargoes such as parcels and mail. In the UK, the requirement to maximise economic train length means you don't want to have multiple cabs in the middle of trains. And despite the usual method of operation being fixed-formations, there's still a large amount of shunting that goes on at places like Wembley and Basford Hall. Also the constraints of the infrastructure mean you wouldn't want any MU too long, as it would mean either running a shorter train than you might or running trains too long for loops, restricting opportunities for pathing.

 

[RobShipway]

I'd check what people's day jobs are before accusing them of being anti freight. I'm well aware of the benefits of railfreight, and the current demand for more paths. I'm also well aware of the issue running freight in and around the Southern Region. I don't have the experience others do on here, nor their knowledge of the overall railfreight market, but there's no need to explain the basics to me.

Your name or your day job is not showing in your profile, so how would I know that you worked in the rail industry?

 

[zwk500]

Your name or your day job is not showing in your profile, so how would I know that you worked in the rail industry?

If you didn't know why put yourself in such a position? My location and comments would have given you a fair clue though.

 

[RobShipway]

If you didn't know why put yourself in such a position? My location and comments would have given you a fair clue though.

There is many things in Milton Keynes to do with the railways and forgive me for saying this, but I know with having 30 years working with IT systems, many people can talk and comment. It does not always mean that the comment that they are making relates to what they do day in day out. It might be just that they have done their research, where others have not.

 

[zwk500]

There is many things in Milton Keynes to do with the railways and forgive me for saying this, but I know with having 30 years working with IT systems, many people can talk and comment. It does not always mean that the comment that they are making relates to what they do day in day out. It might be just that they have done their research, where others have not.

Its OK to apologise for having jumped to a conclusion. I've been in that position before.

 

[Bald Rick]

Over 20 years ago the same was being said about HS1 and that freight should be kept to classic lines in Kent.

I’m afraid that’s not true. HS1 was planned, from the outset, to have a freight capability. T was always expected to carry freight and was designed as such.

But then it was realised, many of the Berne Gauge Freight trains from Europe through the channel tunnel would not fit on the classic lines in Kent, so they would have be moved on HS1.

There have never been, nor have there ever been planned to be, ‘Berne Gauge’ trains through the Channel Tunnel, other than those heading for HS1. (Excluding the Tunnel maintenance trains, and some SNCF locos hauling U.K. gauge freight through the tunnel for onward haulage by Class 47s etc up the boat train routes.)

The problem with many within these forums, is that if you mention the word freight and future ideas on how that freight can be transported from A to B and it is like uttering rude words. Yet, if you saw how much money is being made by many in the airline industry or road haulage in getting items from A to B, which could be done just as quick, if not quicker by rail without damaging the environment, you would see that freight is just as much a way for UK rail to be making money as it is to take a passenger from A to B. Given that we as a country and for that matter the world is recovering from a pandemic, where we may not see the same number of passengers coming back to rail than there was before Covid-19, then surely you have to look at other ways the rail infrastructure in this country can be used to be useful.

The trouble with these forums is that some people hold deeply seated views that can not be shaken even when presented with hard facts.
So, to summarise:

HS1 was designed for freight, including GC gauge to Barking / Ripple Lane Exchange sidings.

GC Gauge (4650mm height above rail level) does not allow standard height road trailers (4000mm) on standard height ro-ro wagons (1000mm), nor any low floor equivalents (c800mm). You have to have special kit, well wagons with cranes of diagonal sideloading. This needs special terminal facilities, which in turn drives the need for either very high volumes or long hauls.

HS1 sees some limited freight, being standard containerised swap bodies. It would like to see more.

But ... there isn’t much of a market for it. Not least because of wider logistics chains.

HS2 is not designed for freight.

However HS2 does have significant benefits for freight, in that it releases capacity in the WCML and ECML for more services, including those carrying swapbodies.

 

[RobShipway]

Its OK to apologise for having jumped to a conclusion. I've been in that position before.

My apologies, but as I stated further up in the thread the Speculation Area is not for here and now, in many cases it is about what can be achieved in the future. Who knows we may have a fast freight train in 5 - 20 years, if it is just for Postal services with converting a class 390 or it maybe something new that could run on HS2. If it is something new, whether that in anyway could be adapted to take containers as well who knows. But I do know from seeing how freight is moved about in Europe that it is best to have a locomotive at each end, rather than one just at the front doing all the work.

Not sure if a thunderbird still gets stored in the sidings at Lickey Hill, but if it does then that would be a prime example where locomotive power at each end would not need use of a Thunderbird loco.

I’m afraid that’s not true. HS1 was planned, from the outset, to have a freight capability. T was always expected to carry freight and was designed as such.





There have never been, nor have there ever been planned to be, ‘Berne Gauge’ trains through the Channel Tunnel, other than those heading for HS1. (Excluding the Tunnel maintenance trains, and some SNCF locos hauling U.K. gauge freight through the tunnel for onward haulage by Class 47s etc up the boat train routes.)





The trouble with these forums is that some people hold deeply seated views that can not be shaken even when presented with hard facts.
So, to summarise:

HS1 was designed for freight, including GC gauge to Barking / Ripple Lane Exchange sidings.

GC Gauge (4650mm height above rail level) does not allow standard height road trailers (4000mm) on standard height ro-ro wagons (1000mm), nor any low floor equivalents (c800mm). You have to have special kit, well wagons with cranes of diagonal sideloading. This needs special terminal facilities, which in turn drives the need for either very high volumes or long hauls.

HS1 sees some limited freight, being standard containerised swap bodies. It would like to see more.

But ... there isn’t much of a market for it. Not least because of wider logistics chains.

HS2 is not designed for freight.

However HS2 does have significant benefits for freight, in that it releases capacity in the WCML and ECML for more services, including those carrying swapbodies.

I will take your word that Freight was planned on HS1, but from details I remember reading at the time when HS1 was being planned that seemed to suggest the line was going to be dedicated to passenger trains. Unfortunately, I cannot find that documentation on any of the DFT/Government sites, so it has probably long since been removed. But there seems to be no such comments in any documentation that I have found for HS2, which makes me suspect that there is a possibility of freight on HS2, even if it is fast postal trains such as the French had with the TGV La Poste trains. Which would mean that other freight trains is as you say, then using WCML or ECML.

You may say that the postal trains can stay on the WCML & ECML with using the class 325's, but with other EMU's from the 1990's being replaced currently, it is silly if you don't replace the Class 325 units with something that can travel at 125mph plus, but can if necessary be used on either classic or HS2 lines. I know many that would ask the question, what is the point of HS2 if it is just being designed to carry passengers without being used for freight in some form, even if it is just for post and packages? Yes, it is to free up capacity, but that could be done with increasing the line speed on the WCML & ECML, plus making sure that the freight trains can travel at faster speed than they currently do. Having been born late 1960's, I know through the 1970's the country was being promised that we would have 140 - 180mph lines for both WCML & ECML, which would be helped by new train designs like the APT. Such advancements in passengers trains, need also to be done with freight is my point and we seem to be waiting for other countries to make the developments for us to use, yet we developed technology such as tilting passenger trains which then got further developed by the Italians because this country gave up!

 

[Domh245]

Another "nail in the coffin" for HS2 freight is who wants it? At incredibly optimistic 45minute run from Old Oak to Birmingham Interchange, vs a 1:50 drive time down the M40*, you can only lose an hour in transferring to/from the train before the train becomes slower - and that margin only gets smaller if the origin or destination aren't near OOC or Birmingham Interchange. I struggle to imagine that there's enough demand for time sensitive freight in those locations for it to make any sense


*in an unrestricted van

 

[RobShipway]

Another "nail in the coffin" for HS2 freight is who wants it? At incredibly optimistic 45minute run from Old Oak to Birmingham Interchange, vs a 1:50 drive time down the M40*, you can only lose an hour in transferring to/from the train before the train becomes slower - and that margin only gets smaller if the origin or destination aren't near OOC or Birmingham Interchange. I struggle to imagine that there's enough demand for time sensitive freight in those locations for it to make any sense


*in an unrestricted van

Well certainly for packages, it could be something that is used as part of services from Amazon and the like, to get packages from one distribution site to another depending on their locations which would then remove some of their lorries from the roads and give their customers a quicker service. It could also be used, more importantly to be moving medical supplies as well, which could be time critical.

 

[Domh245]

Well certainly for packages, it could be something that is used as part of services from Amazon and the like, to get packages from one distribution site to another depending on their locations which would then remove some of their lorries from the roads and give their customers a quicker service. It could also be used, more importantly to be moving medical supplies as well, which could be time critical.

Oh sure, there'd be some market, but enough to justify driving up cost and comprising the design of HS2? I highly doubt it

 

[Bald Rick]

I will take your word that Freight was planned on HS1, but from details I remember reading at the time when HS1 was being planned that seemed to suggest the line was going to be dedicated to passenger trains. Unfortunately, I cannot find that documentation on any of the DFT/Government sites, so it has probably long since been removed. But there seems to be no such comments in any documentation that I have found for HS2, which makes me suspect that there is a possibility of freight on HS2, even if it is fast postal trains such as the French had with the TGV La Poste trains.

The Environmental Impact Assessment for HS1, which was published in 1993 from memory (before the enabling Bill was introduced to Parliament a couple of years later), included the freight loops.

It won’t be explicitly stated that HS2 won’t carry freight. But as I said upthread, have a look at the train service specification and you’ll see it’s impossible to find paths for freight. Freight in this context is containers etc, postal trains are treated as passenger services on NR.

Re postal services - I think this is very unlikely on HS2. The issue (aside from spending £20m per train on 350km/h compatible rolling stock) is loading and unloading the services. This could not be done at Euston or OOC as there is not platform capacity to do so. Today, all postal services are loaded / unloaded at dedicated Royal Mail sites, which means trains using HS2 would have to get to and from those sites. There are no connections at the London end to get to PRDC at Willesden, and none of the other sites are in places where services would use HS2 to get to them.

Same goes for Amazon etc, they are not going to change their whole logistics operation - which they have invested billions in - to fit around one new transport link, which for them makes little difference in the overall logistics chain. It would make them less efficient, and cost them more cash.

Yes, it is to free up capacity, but that could be done with increasing the line speed on the WCML & ECML

Increasing speeds of an already quick railway does not increase capacity.

I know through the 1970's the country was being promised that we would have 140 - 180mph lines for both WCML & ECML, which would be helped by new train designs like the APT.

I can remember suggestions of 140mph, even 155mph (the latter being rather fanciful on existing lines), but not 180mph.

 

[D365]

You may say that the postal trains can stay on the WCML & ECML with using the class 325's, but with other EMU's from the 1990's being replaced currently, it is silly if you don't replace the Class 325 units with something that can travel at 125mph plus, but can if necessary be used on either classic or HS2 lines.

With the amount of money and time that is currently going into the 325s (ETCS fitment), I'd be disappointed if they are binned within the next 15 years.

I know many that would ask the question, what is the point of HS2 if it is just being designed to carry passengers without being used for freight in some form, even if it is just for post and packages?

I get that you have good intentions but HS2 will be built to do one job. By removing InterCity trains from the West and East Coast, you're removing the highest [average] speed services and thus enabling the mainlines to be better suited at mixed traffic, whether that be inter-town "regional" services or 75mph goods trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2021 ==

I can remember suggestions of 140mph, even 155mph (the latter being rather fanciful on existing lines), but not 180mph.

Very much agree, a flight of fancy.

 

[RobShipway]

With the amount of money and time that is currently going into the 325s (ETCS fitment), I'd be disappointed if they are binned within the next 15 years.


I get that you have good intentions but HS2 will be built to do one job. By removing InterCity trains from the West and East Coast, you're removing the highest [average] speed services and thus enabling the mainlines to be better suited at mixed traffic, whether that be inter-town "regional" services or 75mph goods trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2021 ==


Very much agree, a flight of fancy.

Er... as per Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_Kingdom under the heading

Heathrow Airport to Gatwick Airport - High Speed 4Air.​

"In 2011, the Department for Transport confirmed that ministers were studying a proposal for a 180 mph line between London Heathrow and Gatwick Airports. The journey would take 15 minutes and provide the first direct rail link between the two airports. The plan could virtually make Heathrow and Gatwick into a single hub.[51] In 2018 a proposal was put forward by a British engineering consultancy, Expedition Engineering, for HS4Air, a high-speed railway line that would run to the south of Greater London, creating a 140 km link between HS2 and HS1 via Heathrow and Gatwick Airports."

There was talk of the above, even before the 2011 study and you have the following from UK Parliament that dates from the 1990:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...3-5769-4633-92a0-da0f665b1a85/PublicTransport

Roger King the MP for Birmingham Northfield states the following:

"I welcome the debate on railways and public transport policy. It is interesting that whenever railways are debated in the House, there is an inevitable comparison between the investment that British Rail puts into the industry and the investment that is put in by our continental cousins, especially the French. The comparison between British Rail investment and that of SNCF with the TGV concept is always made. It is true that the TGV is a glamorous form of rail transport and that every country would like one. With France's land mass and ability to drive railways through the countryside more easily than we can, it has a transport system that is the envy of most of us.


How modernised are the rural railways in the Pyrenees or in other parts of France when one goes off the main glamour rail routes into areas that do not have the benefit of such investment? There is no doubt that railway investment in the United Kingdom stretches from Penzance to Thurso. Wherever the railway is in operation, especially in rural areas such as mid-Wales and the north of Scotland, new forms of signalling equipment, radio telephone equipment and rolling stock have been introduced. That has transformed the railway system in the area. That is the sum total of our investment, which has reached all parts of the country. The French railway system does not reach every part of France. We must be sure in our minds that we seek from a modern railway system not necessarily high speeds of 180mph or 200mph, nice though that might be, but punctuality, cleanliness and reliability.


We still have some way to go, but I am convinced that the people on the east coast route, who are in the process of receiving a brand new railway system, as we did on the west coast route 20 to 25 years ago, will come to appreciate the terms and concept of investment that the Government, through British Rail, are bringing to a large part of the country. I warmly welcome that."

You also have from 2005, the following article http://www.apt-p.com/BBCTTONTT.htm where the person interviewed engineers from the development of APT where the site owner states "I had many conversations with APT engineers, obviously glowing with pride that their child had finally come good. "Of course she could do 180mph if she were allowed to..."

While a flight of fancy that freight trains would do 180mph, it was certainly thought about for passengers trains.

 

[CBlue]

Er... as per Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_Kingdom under the heading

Heathrow Airport to Gatwick Airport - High Speed 4Air.​

"In 2011, the Department for Transport confirmed that ministers were studying a proposal for a 180 mph line between London Heathrow and Gatwick Airports. The journey would take 15 minutes and provide the first direct rail link between the two airports. The plan could virtually make Heathrow and Gatwick into a single hub.[51] In 2018 a proposal was put forward by a British engineering consultancy, Expedition Engineering, for HS4Air, a high-speed railway line that would run to the south of Greater London, creating a 140 km link between HS2 and HS1 via Heathrow and Gatwick Airports."

There was talk of the above, even before the 2011 study and you have the following from UK Parliament that dates from the 1990: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...3-5769-4633-92a0-da0f665b1a85/PublicTransport

Roger King the MP for Birmingham Northfield states the following:

"I welcome the debate on railways and public transport policy. It is interesting that whenever railways are debated in the House, there is an inevitable comparison between the investment that British Rail puts into the industry and the investment that is put in by our continental cousins, especially the French. The comparison between British Rail investment and that of SNCF with the TGV concept is always made. It is true that the TGV is a glamorous form of rail transport and that every country would like one. With France's land mass and ability to drive railways through the countryside more easily than we can, it has a transport system that is the envy of most of us.


How modernised are the rural railways in the Pyrenees or in other parts of France when one goes off the main glamour rail routes into areas that do not have the benefit of such investment? There is no doubt that railway investment in the United Kingdom stretches from Penzance to Thurso. Wherever the railway is in operation, especially in rural areas such as mid-Wales and the north of Scotland, new forms of signalling equipment, radio telephone equipment and rolling stock have been introduced. That has transformed the railway system in the area. That is the sum total of our investment, which has reached all parts of the country. The French railway system does not reach every part of France. We must be sure in our minds that we seek from a modern railway system not necessarily high speeds of 180mph or 200mph, nice though that might be, but punctuality, cleanliness and reliability.


We still have some way to go, but I am convinced that the people on the east coast route, who are in the process of receiving a brand new railway system, as we did on the west coast route 20 to 25 years ago, will come to appreciate the terms and concept of investment that the Government, through British Rail, are bringing to a large part of the country. I warmly welcome that."

You also have from 2005, the following article http://www.apt-p.com/BBCTTONTT.htm where the person interviewed engineers from the development of APT where the site owner states "I had many conversations with APT engineers, obviously glowing with pride that their child had finally come good. "Of course she could do 180mph if she were allowed to..."

While a flight of fancy that freight trains would do 180mph, it was certainly thought about for passengers trains.

"Discussion" in the form of soundbites from politicians on such things isn't the same as a chance of it being reality. A high speed line through leafy Surrey and the stockbroker belt, too....wonder why that didn't happen?


Any upgrades to the ECML or WCML to allow 180mph running would have required rebuilding to the extent that a totally new alignment would be easier. Oddly enough, that's exactly what's happening with HS2 - just because APT was mechanically capable of higher speeds doesn't mean the track was suitable for it.

 

[D365]

Er... as per Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_Kingdom under the heading

Heathrow Airport to Gatwick Airport - High Speed 4Air.​

"In 2011, the Department for Transport confirmed that ministers were studying a proposal for a 180 mph line between London Heathrow and Gatwick Airports. The journey would take 15 minutes and provide the first direct rail link between the two airports. The plan could virtually make Heathrow and Gatwick into a single hub.[51] In 2018 a proposal was put forward by a British engineering consultancy, Expedition Engineering, for HS4Air, a high-speed railway line that would run to the south of Greater London, creating a 140 km link between HS2 and HS1 via Heathrow and Gatwick Airports."

There was talk of the above, even before the 2011 study and you have the following from UK Parliament that dates from the 1990: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...3-5769-4633-92a0-da0f665b1a85/PublicTransport

Roger King the MP for Birmingham Northfield states the following:

"I welcome the debate on railways and public transport policy. It is interesting that whenever railways are debated in the House, there is an inevitable comparison between the investment that British Rail puts into the industry and the investment that is put in by our continental cousins, especially the French. The comparison between British Rail investment and that of SNCF with the TGV concept is always made. It is true that the TGV is a glamorous form of rail transport and that every country would like one. With France's land mass and ability to drive railways through the countryside more easily than we can, it has a transport system that is the envy of most of us.


How modernised are the rural railways in the Pyrenees or in other parts of France when one goes off the main glamour rail routes into areas that do not have the benefit of such investment? There is no doubt that railway investment in the United Kingdom stretches from Penzance to Thurso. Wherever the railway is in operation, especially in rural areas such as mid-Wales and the north of Scotland, new forms of signalling equipment, radio telephone equipment and rolling stock have been introduced. That has transformed the railway system in the area. That is the sum total of our investment, which has reached all parts of the country. The French railway system does not reach every part of France. We must be sure in our minds that we seek from a modern railway system not necessarily high speeds of 180mph or 200mph, nice though that might be, but punctuality, cleanliness and reliability.


We still have some way to go, but I am convinced that the people on the east coast route, who are in the process of receiving a brand new railway system, as we did on the west coast route 20 to 25 years ago, will come to appreciate the terms and concept of investment that the Government, through British Rail, are bringing to a large part of the country. I warmly welcome that."

You also have from 2005, the following article http://www.apt-p.com/BBCTTONTT.htm where the person interviewed engineers from the development of APT where the site owner states "I had many conversations with APT engineers, obviously glowing with pride that their child had finally come good. "Of course she could do 180mph if she were allowed to..."

While a flight of fancy that freight trains would do 180mph, it was certainly thought about for passengers trains.

I wasn’t intending for the word ”flight” to be taken literally

Many cars exist with top speeds of 180mph+. A lot of them will never be driven at their top speed. The engineers were clearly referencing the mechanical capability of the train and hypothesising a scenario where the British Rail infrastructure was capable of supporting speeds beyond 125mph.

 

[RobShipway]

I wasn’t intending for the word ”flight” to be taken literally

Many cars exist with top speeds of 180mph+. A lot of them will never be driven at their top speed. The engineers were clearly referencing the mechanical capability of the train and hypothesising a scenario where the British Rail infrastructure was capable of supporting speeds beyond 125mph.

Many answers for linking Gatwick and Heathrow have been done over the years, with helicopters being used by Bcal/BA to fly passengers between the two airports and more recent times you have seen at least 4 coach companies (National Express, Magabus(Easybus), RailAir and 'The AirLine') providing passengers linkage between the two. I say this in jest, but I am just waiting for someone to suggest, an underground tunnel between the two airports with a railway line that trains can travel over 200mph and get you between the two airports in about 15 minutes. Now some might ask what has a fast line between Gatwick and Heathrow got to do with freight, well I know a person that did suggest this plan to the DFT and was was sked that question, whose reply was that the line could be used overnight to be shifting goods from Heathrow on to distribution centres around Gatwick.