Accommodating HS2 trains on the northern WCML?

[Tobbes]

If you look at high speed lines in Italy and Spain, particularly, much new construction has been through hilly/mountainous territory.
However, long tunnels don't do much for the view from the train.
Bologna-Florence is 78.5 km, 94% of which is in tunnel.

Oouf! Forgive me, I thought that one of the attractions of the original LGVs was that the sheer power of the trainsets meant that sharper grades than conventional lines (3.5% on LGV Sud Est according to Wiki - 1 in 29!) could be utilised - in which case I was thinking would reduce the number of tunnels. Clearly tunnels under the fells would be more weather friendly.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

3.5% is certainly feasible in undulating country, but not much used since LGV Sud Est was built.
Higher speeds as now designed also mean vertical curvature has to be less.
But in serious mountain country they prefer to tunnel a straight and level alignment, especially if the line is to carry freight.
I would have thought tunnels would be essential through the high fells and under Beattock, as there are no straight alignments.
The national park also presents its problems.

 

[Tobbes]

3.5% is certainly feasible in undulating country, but not much used since LGV Sud Est was built.
Higher speeds as now designed also mean vertical curvature has to be less.
But in serious mountain country they prefer to tunnel a straight and level alignment, especially if the line is to carry freight.
I would have thought tunnels would be essential through the high fells and under Beattock, as there are no straight alignments.
The national park also presents its problems.

Every day is school day here - wonderful, many thanks!

Sounds like tunnels Biggar-Lockerbie and Penrith-Oxenholme, then.

 

[Bald Rick]

A couple of years ago people were looking at increasing the non-EPS speeds on the WCML - with no 125mph non-tilt stock in use there hasn't been any reason to until recently. Have any of these changes been implemented on the track yet?

No, none.

Is there any hope for non tilting trains that can go the faster speed in a decade or two?

In some places, yes. soon in fact - south of Weaver Jn.

Is there actually an outline plan for a proper HSR to the Central Belt? How much time would it save - based on a distance of c 400 miles, (well) under 3 hours should presumably be possible, presumably?

There was a study about 10 years ago that I was involved in. 3hr is possible with bypassing of quite a lot of the existing route and HSR all the way would do considerably better.

The first study I was involved in had a 2h30 time London - Central belt. It’s definitely possible, and doesn’t need much in the way of tunnels from an engineering perspective, but is likely to through environmental choice. Environmentally, the difficult part is construction - as we are seeing now the construction period takes up a lot of land, but much of it is restored on completion and within a few years is back to nature.

It’s reasonable to assume that if we had the French Government in charge we would have a high speed line to Scotland by now. If you can put an LGV down the Rhône Valley, or through the Pyrenees, or (soon) down the Maurienne valley, then you can definitely do one on the edge of the Lake District and across Scottish moorland.

Whilst there is little chance of Government proposing this anytime soon, I do wonder if Scotland might steal a march and do something at their end. An HS ‘Tartan’ for 60miles from Gretna to Carstairs-ish would knock 17 minutes off the Carlisle to Glasgow / Edinburgh time, and also release a load of freight capacity. Should be doable for under £10bn (current prices).

 

[kevin_roche]

If you look at high speed lines in Italy and Spain, particularly, much new construction has been through hilly/mountainous territory.
However, long tunnels don't do much for the view from the train.
Bologna-Florence is 78.5 km, 94% of which is in tunnel (trains take 37 minutes).

I once took that Bologna-Florence route and was disappointed with the view. Should have done my homework beforehand.

 

[Richard Scott]

I once took that Bologna-Florence route and was disappointed with the view. Should have done my homework beforehand.

It's OK in the dark!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I once took that Bologna-Florence route and was disappointed with the view. Should have done my homework beforehand.

Curiously, the older Bologna-Florence Diretissima (built in 1934) had the longest tunnel outside the Alps at 18.5 km when built (total route length 97km, 37% in tunnel, 180km/h speed, 55m journey time).
The new line has 9 separate tunnels, the longest being 18.7km, but there is very little distance between them and some of that is in cuttings.

 

[Tobbes]

Whilst there is little chance of Government proposing this anytime soon, I do wonder if Scotland might steal a march and do something at their end. An HS ‘Tartan’ for 60miles from Gretna to Carstairs-ish would knock 17 minutes off the Carlisle to Glasgow / Edinburgh time, and also release a load of freight capacity. Should be doable for under £10bn (current prices).

Would this alignment be the preferred alignment for a LON-EDI/LON-GLA HSR? I can't see Holyrood funding it at those numbers either, but if we can build bits of the HSR on the alignment of the whole scheme and pick off the timesavings as we go along, that's certainly better than nothing - and would presumably improve the case for the 'orphaned' sections. Not ideal, but pragmatism and all of that.

How much freight capacity, @Bald Rick ? And how tight is the northern WCML for freight capacity at the moment?

 

[Roast Veg]

It's easy to say that, but the 390s are no slouches.
There may also be power limits on the classic WCML, unlike on HS2 itself.
The northern section (north of Oxenholme) never got its intended autotransformer upgrade.

Worth noting I suppose that the 390s are some of the electrically thirstiest things going.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Worth noting I suppose that the 390s are some of the electrically thirstiest things going.

The 390/0 (9-car, the rough equivalent of the 200m HS2 train) is rated at 5.1MW.
I can't find a power rating for the 9-car LNER 801 or any of the AT300 types.
The 200m TI FR 1000, which may or may not be the platform adopted for HS2 trains, is rated at 9.8MW.
What power it, or the version adopted, can/will be able to run on the WCML is unknown, but no doubt NR will be on to the problem.

 

[edwin_m]

What power it, or the version adopted, can/will be able to run on the WCML is unknown, but no doubt NR will be on to the problem.

It would almost certainly have to be de-rated to stay within the capacity of the supply. It's basically a software change as used on many of the modern EMU fleets on the third rail network. The HS2 trains don't need full power when they are limited to a speed well below their maximum, though the acceleration will suffer. And interestingly it will suffer more for a coupled unit, as it's the consumption of the entire train that's significant.

 

[reddragon]

All electric transport and to a lesser degree fossil engine transport has mapped performance characteristics set by the ECU.

The class 800s on GWR diesel engines were remapped as class 802s due to delayed electrification and on cars you can now buy power upgrades done over the air.

I am sure instead of constructing any type of power upgrades only usable by HS2 stock, remapping for conventional networks will be done because in reality with train paths, HS2 stock going faster will just take up paths & get stuck behind slower trains.

 

[edwin_m]

All electric transport and to a lesser degree fossil engine transport has mapped performance characteristics set by the ECU.

The class 800s on GWR diesel engines were remapped as class 802s due to delayed electrification and on cars you can now buy power upgrades done over the air.

I am sure instead of constructing any type of power upgrades only usable by HS2 stock, remapping for conventional networks will be done because in reality with train paths, HS2 stock going faster will just take up paths & get stuck behind slower trains.

Other units will also be able to take advantage of any speed upgrades. I don't think anything currently on the WCML has the sort of artificial power restriction that the HS2 units will need unless some major power upgrade is done in the meantime. That implies that the power upgrade wouldn't help any other passenger services.

One of the major issues is the impact of slow diesel freights, which take much longer over Shap and Beattock than an electric. Buying electric locos and handing them over cheap or even free to freight operators on condition they use them for all WCML services may actually create more extra capacity for less money than building new infrastructure. I'm not sure if extra electric haulage of freight would also need some power upgrade.

 

[jfowkes]

One of the major issues is the impact of slow diesel freights, which take much longer over Shap and Beattock than an electric. Buying electric locos and handing them over cheap or even free to freight operators on condition they use them for all WCML services may actually create more extra capacity for less money than building new infrastructure. I'm not sure if extra electric haulage of freight would also need some power upgrade.

I presume some/all these locomotives would have to be bi-mode? How many WCML freight services are pure electric all the way? And are all terminals are set up to handle freight that arrives hauled by an electric loco?

 

[Nottingham59]

I don't think anything currently on the WCML has the sort of artificial power restriction that the HS2 units will need

I understand that double-headed class 90s need to be restricted on the WCML.

 

[ABB125]

I understand that double-headed class 90s need to be restricted on the WCML.

From previous discussions on here, I think they are restricted to effectively "1.5 locomotives" rather than 2

 

[HSTEd]

I would have thought tunnels would be essential through the high fells and under Beattock, as there are no straight alignments.
The national park also presents its problems.

Well you can always do the Chinese approach and just put the whole thing on a continuous hundred mile long viaduct. If the viaduct gets taller and shorter it can absorb the undulations - doing that in the National Park would be totally impractical though.

Although myself I prefer a route via the A68 corridor rather than the conventional Beattock alignment. With NPR and the deletion of the Golborne spur I have to wonder about the best way to get to Scotland, given where we are now.

 

[haggishunter]

Don’t shoot me, but if the HS2 classic compatible stock is going to be slower because of lack of tilt, why can’t the Pendolinos run on HS2, even if nonstop over HS2 rails from Scotland into classic platforms at Euston ?

 

[JamesT]

Don’t shoot me, but if the HS2 classic compatible stock is going to be slower because of lack of tilt, why can’t the Pendolinos run on HS2, even if nonstop over HS2 rails from Scotland into classic platforms at Euston ?

The classic compatibles may be slower on the classic network, but they’re designed to be massively faster on HS2. Pendolinos are only capable of running at 140mph, whereas the HS2 stock is being designed for a 225mph top speed. The HS2 service is being designed around having a uniform fleet speed wise, unlike the existing network where everything has to be planned carefully to avoid faster trains being held up by slower ones.

 

[haggishunter]

The classic compatibles may be slower on the classic network, but they’re designed to be massively faster on HS2. Pendolinos are only capable of running at 140mph, whereas the HS2 stock is being designed for a 225mph top speed. The HS2 service is being designed around having a uniform fleet speed wise, unlike the existing network where everything has to be planned carefully to avoid faster trains being held up by slower ones.

Brain fart!

Of course it’s 225mph for HS2, I was thinking 225km/h which is 140mph!