What would be needed to upgrade the WCML from 125mph to 140mph

[RichW1]

That's a fair comment, but would Newcastle benefit by default. I think they deserve better times and HS2 will not help them even in the next 25years. So by bringing Newcastle and Edinburgh times down, then this could possibly be a good enough reason? Even HS2 re-joining ECML at York it won't benefit Newcastle or Edinburgh from the times they already have. As over half of passenger traffic still uses planes to London from Newcastle and almost 80% from Edinburgh, there could be a good case for offering these cities faster times as they won't benefit from new lines.

 

[ainsworth74]

So by bringing Newcastle and Edinburgh times down, then this could possibly be a good enough reason?

Again shaving off 5, 10, 15 minutes isn't worth billions of pounds.

Even HS2 re-joining ECML at York it won't benefit Newcastle or Edinburgh from the times they already have.

I would like to see a source for that, as everything I've heard suggest significant time savings on existing times once we get the route further north of Birmingham up and running.

As over half of passenger traffic still uses planes to London from Newcastle and almost 80% from Edinburgh, there could be a good case for offering these cities faster times as they won't benefit from new lines.

Also what is your source for Newcastle still being 50% by air, last I heard rail beat out domestic air travel heavily on every route bar those to Scotland (and even then it's not doing too badly). Also I still don't see how you can say that Newcastle or Edinburgh aren't going to receive decent time savings when HS2 makes it to Leeds. We have a route that runs 200mph for nearly half the distance to Scotland and 2/3 of the way to Newcastle, there are going to be significant time savings.

Upgrading the ECML to 140mph (where possible) doesn't make any economic sense alongside building HS2 nor as a project by itself for that matter. If it did I suspect we would be building it rather than HS2

 

[RichW1]

It's such a shame everything comes down to return on investment over 10minute saving to Newcastle...once upon a time that would've been well worth it! 2hr30mins to Newcastle is a tasty proposition!

The reason I state there'll be no time savings for Newcastle or Edinburgh over existing ones is....The geography of the route gives a estimated time of 1hr20 mins to Leeds. Ok, so let's assume that's true... by the time the train has traversed the line over to just south of York that'll take it 25 minutes anyway (without the time stationary at Leeds), this means it'll take a total of about 1hr50mins to York station, it'll then trundle on to the rest of the ECML at no faster speed than now (assuming we don't upgrade any part of ECML to 140mph). Therefore I make that a grand saving of zero minutes on the eastern side of the country (namely Newcastle and Edinburgh) from the existing timetable, hence my timesaving argument for 140mph upgraded sections of ECML serving those destinations better.

My figures are 2 years old for Newcastle so maybe you have more up to date ones (which i guess wouldn't be difficult after 2 years). Mine came from Rail magazine at the time when this debate sprung up to do with HS and modal shift alongside that doom-mongering misery Andrew Wolmar I think it was!

 

[swt_passenger]

A five minute time saving would be nice however it's not worth the millions probably more like billions it would cost to upgrade the ECML (or any other route) to 140mph running. Far better to spend that money on a dedicated high speed line that will operate at 200mph and provide savings on the order of 30mins+.

You can probably get a 5 min time saving by taking out two stops instead, and transferring calls to other services - which seems to be the current plan...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I will add that there are several other investments n the infrastructure which would increase the point to point journey time on long distance journeys which compete with air travel - and which do NOT require increasing linespeed above 125 max. (and therefore do not introduce the difficulties of higher speed differentials between traffic).
These would simply be to remove some of the lower speeds.
Extremes are the 15mph Carstairs curve, the 25mph max between Edinburgh Waverley and Haymarket, and the 50mph Morpeth curve.
But there are fairly long stretches in open countryside where alignments could be improved for a fraction of the cost of similar works near London. I'm thinking particularly of Somerset (Bristol - Exeter), Lanarkshire (Abington - Carluke), Northumberland (Newcastle - Reston) and Central Scotland (Edinburgh - Stirling).
Another way to improve apparent journey time is to increase the service frequency. That becomes possible through ensuring that speed differentials are low and that there are few conflicting moves (which is where the odd flyover/under at busy junctions can help greatly).
140mph travel isn't the only way to improve journey time!

 

[RichW1]

Well why not do both and double the benefits?!! Anything above 125 is welcome after 35years! There are areas of open country where the ECML is not at full capacity where every train putting their foot down wouldn't harm other traffic and there are options to segregate traffic with investment by 2030. I'm not suggesting the whole ECML is speeded up, just sections. Combine the few minutes from that where you can achieve continuous running with the improvements stated above and you have an even better set of timings.

ECML (apart from Leeds) will not benefit from HS2 so any improvments should happen in my book.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Back on the question of speed ugrades on the WCML....

Southbound from Glasgow Central, EPS seems to start at Carstairs Junction. Is that right ? If so, where there any plans to upgrade between Glasgow Central to Carstairs Junction to EPS, or were these scaled back when WCML cost overruns kicked in ? And what would be the time benefits if it were ?

 

[tbtc]

I will add that there are several other investments n the infrastructure which would increase the point to point journey time on long distance journeys which compete with air travel - and which do NOT require increasing linespeed above 125 max. (and therefore do not introduce the difficulties of higher speed differentials between traffic).
These would simply be to remove some of the lower speeds.
Extremes are the 15mph Carstairs curve, the 25mph max between Edinburgh Waverley and Haymarket, and the 50mph Morpeth curve.
But there are fairly long stretches in open countryside where alignments could be improved for a fraction of the cost of similar works near London. I'm thinking particularly of Somerset (Bristol - Exeter), Lanarkshire (Abington - Carluke), Northumberland (Newcastle - Reston) and Central Scotland (Edinburgh - Stirling).
Another way to improve apparent journey time is to increase the service frequency. That becomes possible through ensuring that speed differentials are low and that there are few conflicting moves (which is where the odd flyover/under at busy junctions can help greatly).
140mph travel isn't the only way to improve journey time!

Concentrate on fixing the slowest parts of the line (rather than increasing the speed on the fastest sections)?

Increase frequency through minimising speed differentials/ conflicting movements?

Dave - I agree with everything in this post - well put Sir

 

[Failed Unit]

Back on the question of speed ugrades on the WCML....

Southbound from Glasgow Central, EPS seems to start at Carstairs Junction. Is that right ? If so, where there any plans to upgrade between Glasgow Central to Carstairs Junction to EPS, or were these scaled back when WCML cost overruns kicked in ? And what would be the time benefits if it were ?

I suspect very little as you start hitting the SPT area and get mingled in with the local services. As you get closer to Motherwell capacity is already low and train tend to trundle along as they catch up with stopping services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Concentrate on fixing the slowest parts of the line (rather than increasing the speed on the fastest sections)?

Increase frequency through minimising speed differentials/ conflicting movements?

Dave - I agree with everything in this post - well put Sir

I wonder how much time getting a Morpeth curve bypass would save? I suspect it would quite easily be 10 minutes, but if it was ever built it would make a good loop for passing freight and local services (should the unlikely Newcastle - Scotland local ever happen).

 

[tbtc]

It seems to me paths that are used by freight and local services is cited much as a reason not to implement higher speeds. If ALL Intercity's under the wires could achieve the same speeds then surely faster services frees up paths when using ERTMS

...but we don't have many tracks which are only used by "fast" trains.

Much of the ECML is two (or three) track - I have no figures available, but I'd imagine the four track sections are a minority. There are few flyovers/ grade separated junctions. This means that the "Inter City" services have to share the tracks with the freight trains, the Pacers, the conflicting movements, the flat junctions (Newark).

To give an example, IIRC the southbound sprinter from Grantham to Peterborough (the EMT service from Liverpool) has to cross the northbound "fast" line twice, which cuts the number of paths avaiable.

You can have all the "Intercity" services doing 140, which is fine on a contained stand-alone route, but little use when the freight in front is only going at half that speed.

Nah, for me higher speed is only worthwhile on a dedicated line (like HS2), because otherwise the speed differentials are too significant, and you catch up with the slow trains in front far too quickly.

Instead of trying to turn the ECML into a 140+mph railway, you'd be better starting from scratch with a purpose-built line (like Virgin planned to do on the ECML if they won the bid from GNER, or like HS2)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wonder how much time getting a Morpeth curve bypass would save? I suspect it would quite easily be 10 minutes, but if it was ever built it would make a good loop for passing freight and local services (should the unlikely Newcastle - Scotland local ever happen).

This was one of Virgin's planned "avoider lines". Personally I think that this would be a better use of resources than trying to increase the line speed elsewhere.

Bypass Morpeth and you have a lovely long "dynamic" loop (since some of the loops on the ECML are only really long enough for freight to sit in, meaning it has to come to a halt, and start up again once the path is free, which is a lot slower than if it could maintain momentum).

You also have the possibility of more local trains serving Morpeth (as you say), because they could do this without occupying the main line.

I think your ten minutes figure sounds reasonable - its a long stretch to slow down for, maintain a slower speed and speed up again - much faster to maintain speed on a new line. The accident with the Sleeper is a reminder of why the Morpeth curve needs to be treated with care.

 

[Failed Unit]

...but we don't have many tracks which are only used by "fast" trains.

Much of the ECML is two (or three) track - I have no figures available, but I'd imagine the four track sections are a minority. There are few flyovers/ grade separated junctions. This means that the "Inter City" services have to share the tracks with the freight trains, the Pacers, the conflicting movements, the flat junctions (Newark).

To give an example, IIRC the southbound sprinter from Grantham to Peterborough (the EMT service from Liverpool) has to cross the northbound "fast" line twice, which cuts the number of paths avaiable.

You can have all the "Intercity" services doing 140, which is fine on a contained stand-alone route, but little use when the freight in front is only going at half that speed.

Nah, for me higher speed is only worthwhile on a dedicated line (like HS2), because otherwise the speed differentials are too significant, and you catch up with the slow trains in front far too quickly.

Instead of trying to turn the ECML into a 140+mph railway, you'd be better starting from scratch with a purpose-built line (like Virgin planned to do on the ECML if they won the bid from GNER, or like HS2)

From Memory,

London - Huntingdon all 4 tracks (apart from Welwyn North)
Huntingdon - Peterborough 50% 3 tracks / 2 track
Peterborough - Grantham mainly 4 tracks (apart from a few miles short of Grantham)
Grantham - York 2 track
York - Northallerton 4 track
North of Northallerton mainly 2 track.

The ECML plan of using the Joint line via Lincoln as the way of losely 4 tracking Peterborough - Doncaster has the problem crossing the ECML on the flat at Peterborough, railtracks plan did talk about removing this. Doncaster is grade separated.

Likewise we all know of the plan to "4 track" from Northallerton - Newcastle by using disused line via Washington or the Hartlepool coast.

The joint line looks to have funding, but any traffic doing Ely - Spalding will cause problems at the moment. As does the Nottingham - Peterborough service at the moment. (BR diverted via Stamford but it was deemed the decrease in speed was not acceptable)

 

[tbtc]

Doncaster is grade separated

There's been talk locally of the hourly Pacers from Sheffield to Scunthorpe and Adwick being chopped back to become a Sheffield - Doncaster service, since the conflicting movements over the ECML are quite a cost to planners (esp given freight movements). Not sure whether this will ever happen, but each service which crosses the ECML at a flat junction comes at a cost (one reason for the Lincoln - Nottingham service being cut to hourly?)

 

[Failed Unit]

There's been talk locally of the hourly Pacers from Sheffield to Scunthorpe and Adwick being chopped back to become a Sheffield - Doncaster service, since the conflicting movements over the ECML are quite a cost to planners (esp given freight movements). Not sure whether this will ever happen, but each service which crosses the ECML at a flat junction comes at a cost (one reason for the Lincoln - Nottingham service being cut to hourly?)

I should have beign clear about the "grade separated" comment, but I think you knew where I meant. The Lincoln - Doncaster line is grade separated. The sheffield line is of course a major problem.

A don't think that is a bad idea, but I don't know how big the Kirk Sandall - Meadowhall flow is. At the moment you have 3 TPH each way crossing all the lines (Hull - Sheffield, Scunthorpe - Sheffield and Cleethorpes - Manchester). So splitting the Scunthorpe - Sheffield service could help reduce congestion. Then you could also include the southbound Leeds - London and Newcastle - Sheffield.

I notice when I am travelling on an Edinburgh - London service not scheduled to stop at Doncaster we are normally held just north at Doncaster. (normally to let a Leeds service go into Doncaster to stop)

I have no idea how they could practically grade separate the sheffield route with how close to the station it diverges.

 

[Pumbaa]

Back on the question of speed ugrades on the WCML....

Southbound from Glasgow Central, EPS seems to start at Carstairs Junction. Is that right ? If so, where there any plans to upgrade between Glasgow Central to Carstairs Junction to EPS, or were these scaled back when WCML cost overruns kicked in ? And what would be the time benefits if it were ?

There are EPS speeds, with TASS balises through Carstairs well into SPT territory. The first ballise coming from Glasgow is just as you get off the bridge and the linespeed shoots up.

 

[Deerfold]

A five minute time saving would be nice however it's not worth the millions probably more like billions it would cost to upgrade the ECML (or any other route) to 140mph running. Far better to spend that money on a dedicated high speed line that will operate at 200mph and provide savings on the order of 30mins+.

Well they seem to have saved 10-15 minutes on the slower trains with the new Eureka timetable (based on the draft). It that can be done with planning and a lot less expense it seems worth it. I'm looking forward to a regular 2h10 service.

 

[Failed Unit]

Well they seem to have saved 10-15 minutes on the slower trains with the new Eureka timetable (based on the draft). It that can be done with planning and a lot less expense it seems worth it. I'm looking forward to a regular 2h10 service.

When you look at the draft they are taking about 4h20 calling, York, Darlington, Newcastle, Berwick and Edinburgh. This is the current pattern of the 1500 which does it in 4h13 so they still have a little fat. The 1100 can do it in 4h20 now with the call at Peterborough that everyone wants.

 

[tbtc]

I should have beign clear about the "grade separated" comment, but I think you knew where I meant. The Lincoln - Doncaster line is grade separated. The sheffield line is of course a major problem.

A don't think that is a bad idea, but I don't know how big the Kirk Sandall - Meadowhall flow is. At the moment you have 3 TPH each way crossing all the lines (Hull - Sheffield, Scunthorpe - Sheffield and Cleethorpes - Manchester). So splitting the Scunthorpe - Sheffield service could help reduce congestion. Then you could also include the southbound Leeds - London and Newcastle - Sheffield.

I notice when I am travelling on an Edinburgh - London service not scheduled to stop at Doncaster we are normally held just north at Doncaster. (normally to let a Leeds service go into Doncaster to stop)

I have no idea how they could practically grade separate the sheffield route with how close to the station it diverges.

Yeah, I knew what you meant - the Lincoln route is pretty much self-contained at Donny and can move in/out without crossing anything else. However, the Sheffield - Scunthorpe/ Cleethorpes/ Hull services mean six services each hour crossing the entire station (so no way for the 225s to avoid them).

I don't think there's room for any flyover/underpass, so the way to do it is either
1. Accept the problem as a necessary evil
2. Chop at least one of the services at Doncaster to cut down on conflicting movements
3. Run a "fast" service via the freight line which avoids Doncaster (a bad move, since it'd cut the Sheffield/Meadowhall - Doncaster and Doncaster - Humberside links, but listed for the sake of completeness)

A lot of effort seems to be going into avoiding the problem of the Liverpool - Scarborough service crossing every path at Manchester Victoria, but problems like Doncaster (or Derby, where the XC service from Nottingham to Birmingham must cross the whole "throat", so gets in the way of the MML services).

An alternative would be to introduce portions - a "fast" Sheffield - Hull (un) coupled to a portion for Scunthorpe (all stops east of Kirk Sandall) at Kirk Sandall once an hour, then a "fast" Sheffield - Cleethorpes does the same with a "slow" Hull portion... you'd get a half hourly service from Sheffield to Kirk Sandall (and the "all stops" service from Sheffield to Doncaster becomes a self-contained service)... getting carried away?

 

[Deerfold]

When you look at the draft they are taking about 4h20 calling, York, Darlington, Newcastle, Berwick and Edinburgh. This is the current pattern of the 1500 which does it in 4h13 so they still have a little fat. The 1100 can do it in 4h20 now with the call at Peterborough that everyone wants.

Apologies - I didn't mention I was on about the Leeds - London services. I'm not quite sure about the York/Scotland services.

 

[Failed Unit]

Apologies - I didn't mention I was on about the Leeds - London services. I'm not quite sure about the York/Scotland services.

No problem, not a timetable I have investigated as much to compare if 2h10 also has a bit of slack in it. They have got the Headline Edinburgh - London service in place at 4h, Would Leeds - London be possible in under 2 hours? The fastest non-stop services can do London - Doncaster in about 1h26, so it may be possible. Wonder why they are not trying to bring back "the Yorkshire Pullman" of BR days non-stop Wakefield!

 

[Deerfold]

No problem, not a timetable I have investigated as much to compare if 2h10 also has a bit of slack in it. They have got the Headline Edinburgh - London service in place at 4h, Would Leeds - London be possible in under 2 hours? The fastest non-stop services can do London - Doncaster in about 1h26, so it may be possible. Wonder why they are not trying to bring back "the Yorkshire Pullman" of BR days non-stop Wakefield!

There were rumours of a 1h59 service in the morning peak Southbound (possibly the service from Bradford {time from Leeds}). Doesn't stop much at all though. That one's 2h08 under the current timetable stopping only at Wakefield and Doncaster. Missing out Wakefield would impact the Wakefield - Doncaster service currently 2 fasts (both EC) and 1 slow an hour which has a reasonable amount of traffic on it.

 

[chris_uk]

Cab signalling is required for speed above 125mph. Track side signal visibility will be poor and not safe for speed above 125mph. The current cab signalling under European Directive is ERTMS-ETCS.