ECML Speed - Will trains ever reach 140mph?

[The Planner]

ETCS will only reach Grantham in 2029 and as far as I am aware nothing further north is pencilled in.

Thats only because that is the end of CP7 and no one has thought about 8 or 9 yet.

 

[Trestrol]

If its as bad as 7 then it won't get any further in 8 or9!

 

[zwk500]

I have to ask, why have we seemingly given up on improving speeds on Britain's railways? It seems like 20-30 years ago the railways were doing everything they could to make 140mph the new norm for mainline expresses, and designed trains like the 91 and 390 to do just that.

I know there are other probably better ways to improve journey times, but back then there seemed to be so much more enthusiasm for it. Have we simply lost all pride in our railways?

Largely because the focus has shifted to raising other lines from lower speeds to existing speeds so that the network overall is better, rather than putting all the eggs into one basket. Especially as the ECML has lost the speed crown to HS1.

 

[trebor79]

To run at 140mph from the existing 125mph sections on the ECML would require ETCS L2 without lineside signals (although a hybrid mode is possible where <125mph trains can use signals but 140mph trains can use the in-cab), OLE upgrades, ballast work, track upgrades, swingnose points, structure and stock clearance reassessment, a timetable rewrite, and somebody to fund all of this. The benefit of 140mph over 125mph is c.3 seconds a mile.

I get the in cab signalling thing. But why are all the other things like swing nose points required when they weren't when the flashing green aspect was proposed to be used (and was used for test trains) for 140mph running?

 

[zwk500]

I get the in cab signalling thing. But why are all the other things like swing nose points required when they weren't when the flashing green aspect was proposed to be used (and was used for test trains) for 140mph running?

Can't answer about swing nose points hut I'd guess limited testing puts a different wear and maintenance load on the points to full service.
Regarding OLE and Ballast, alignment etc they need to be upgraded because of the laws of physics, as speed increases so does force, and the infrastructure needs to be able to handle those forces for every train with a reasonable maintenance regime.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have to ask, why have we seemingly given up on improving speeds on Britain's railways?

We haven’t. See Carstairs for example.

I get the in cab signalling thing. But why are all the other things like swing nose points required when they weren't when the flashing green aspect was proposed to be used (and was used for test trains) for 140mph running?

For the test section on Stoke Bank, there weren‘t any level crossings, platforms or point work. And as it was only to be used for occasional testing, the relevant Engineers presumably determined that all the other items would be ok. Just one example - the power demand increase for an occasional service at 140mph is noise in the system; if every train is doing it it means additional supply capacity.

On swing nose crossings, it has always been the case for as long as I can remember that going above 125mph in regular service requires there to be no discontinuity in the rail.

 

[Halish Railway]

I know there are other probably better ways to improve journey times, but back then there seemed to be so much more enthusiasm for it. Have we simply lost all pride in our railways?

The North Transpennine route is set to receive many points at which trains can exceed 100mph, including between Leeds and Manchester where the highest linespeed is 85mph, and that's only in Standedge Tunnel for westbound services.

 

[adamedwards]

Transpennine fast lines from Huddersfield to Dewsbury are being built for 110mph.

On the ECML, getting rid of lower speed limits and junctions without flyovers is surely more useful than 140mph? Morpeth (50mph?) if bypassed with a new 125mph line would surely save a few of minutes. Where else might we get rid of junctions and curves to good effect? I would also guess eliminating the level crossings has to help too.

As for the Welwyn Viaduct, the speed is limited here due to the aerodynamics in the two tunnels to the north of the station, so the whole project has to include two new tunnels parallel to the existing ones. When planned by Railtrack it got massive oposition as there would be a whole 1980s housing estate which has to be demolished, plus some large detached houses up the hill and the new viaduct looks down on some very nice houses as you can see from the swimming pool when you go over the bridge. HS2 to Leeds would of course make this redundant for a very long time.

 

[Bald Rick]

Morpeth (50mph?) if bypassed with a new 125mph line would surely save a few of minutes.

As I mention in post #21 above, it would save 1 minute In the timetable, possibly a half minute more in reality due to rounding.

Non-stop LNER trains are currently timed 5 minutes pass to pass for the 8.6 miles from Cramlington to Pegswood. In reality, that is a bit tight (Average 103mph), and trains tend to take an extra half minute. Four miles of new line from Stannington to Pegswood would reduce this to 7.8 miles. However it’s only 110 either end (actually 105 at Pegswood) therefore the train would need to accelerate up to 125 and brake the other end. Being generous that means 4 minutes for the 7.8 miles (Avg 117mph).

 

[Trainbike46]

The fastest timetabled Edinburgh-KGX train i'm aware of was the 5:40 am departure southbound, which did it in 4 hours. What kind of work would be needed to match that more regularly? The 5:40 only stops in Newcastle (it even skips York!), which obviously wouldn't be realistic for a more regular service, but could it be matched for, say, the fastest LNER service each hour?

 

[zwk500]

Where else might we get rid of junctions and curves to good effect? I would also guess eliminating the level crossings has to help too.

Realistically, to gain any significant advantage you would need to build a completely off-line bypass, not just short deviations. That's essentially what the eastern leg of HS2 was meant to do.

 

[AngusH]

Given that the headline speed usually isn't available for the whole route, I've occasionally wondered whether a really short section of 140mph running would be feasible.

It would have to be long enough to allow trains to reach the speed for at least a couple of minutes (or at least a couple of miles?), thus claiming the speed, but be short enough that it wouldn't actually cost too much to maintain.

Obviously you'd also need trains that were rated to run at the speed, but the 80x supposedly can and presumably a signalling system that supports in-cab signalling on that route section anyway.

Maintenance regime on the train might be an issue since you'd have to maintain at least some units for the speed.

It might also be necessary to have two sections, to make it clear that it wasn't a cynical exercise in PR.

Any thoughts?

 

[Bald Rick]

The fastest timetabled Edinburgh-KGX train i'm aware of was the 5:40 am departure southbound, which did it in 4 hours. What kind of work would be needed to match that more regularly? The 5:40 only stops in Newcastle (it even skips York!), which obviously wouldn't be realistic for a more regular service, but could it be matched for, say, the fastest LNER service each hour?

Yihve answered your own question. No work required, just don’t stop (and rewrite the timetable).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Sep 2023 ==

Given that the headline speed usually isn't available for the whole route, I've occasionally wondered whether a really short section of 140mph running would be feasible.

It would have to be long enough to allow trains to reach the speed for at least a couple of minutes (or at least a couple of miles?), thus claiming the speed, but be short enough that it wouldn't actually cost too much to maintain.

Obviously you'd also need trains that were rated to run at the speed, but the 80x supposedly can and presumably a signalling system that supports in-cab signalling on that route section anyway.

Maintenance regime on the train might be an issue since you'd have to maintain at least some units for the speed.

It might also be necessary to have two sections, to make it clear that it wasn't a cynical exercise in PR.

Any thoughts?

Just one - why would you do it?

 

[Trainbike46]

Given that the headline speed usually isn't available for the whole route, I've occasionally wondered whether a really short section of 140mph running would be feasible.

It would have to be long enough to allow trains to reach the speed for at least a couple of minutes (or at least a couple of miles?), thus claiming the speed, but be short enough that it wouldn't actually cost too much to maintain.

Obviously you'd also need trains that were rated to run at the speed, but the 80x supposedly can and presumably a signalling system that supports in-cab signalling on that route section anyway.

Maintenance regime on the train might be an issue since you'd have to maintain at least some units for the speed.

It might also be necessary to have two sections, to make it clear that it wasn't a cynical exercise in PR.

Any thoughts?

What you're proposing does kind of sound like a cynical PR exercise though?

 

[zwk500]

Given that the headline speed usually isn't available for the whole route, I've occasionally wondered whether a really short section of 140mph running would be feasible.

It would have to be long enough to allow trains to reach the speed for at least a couple of minutes (or at least a couple of miles?), thus claiming the speed, but be short enough that it wouldn't actually cost too much to maintain.

Any thoughts?

Why? HS1 is already 140mph domestic/186mph international so you're not doing anything that isn't already done. The only reason to go for 140mph would be to reduce key journey times below certain milestones or to improve the efficiency of the operation by allowing a higher throughput of trains, neither of which a very short section achieves. Instead you get all the cost of 140mph running for a tiny demonstration section that makes things worse in many ways.

 

[Trainbike46]

Yihve answered your own question. No work required, just don’t stop (and rewrite the timetable).

True, but there are good connectivity reasons for having at least a few stops on london-Edinburgh

I guess you would need to win 3-5 minutes in running time for every extra stop you wanted to add beyond Newcastle?

 

[zwk500]

True, but there are good connectivity reasons for having at least a few stops on london-Edinburgh

I guess you would need to win 3-5 minutes in running time for every extra stop you wanted to add beyond Newcastle?

5 minutes for a stop from 125mph. York and Newcastle cost somewhat less as the curves at each station are very slow anyway.

 

[AngusH]

Possibly if we ever go back to franchises or the Great British railway thing ever really happens, (or whatever fashion of the day arrives), someone might decide that "upgrading the speeds of our existing lines" is cheaper than building new ones.

Push a short stretch of 140mph running and advertise the wonders that the new regime has arranged, much faster line speed on our key routes!

Instead you get all the cost of 140mph running for a tiny demonstration section that makes things worse in many ways.

yes, this is a side-effect which would be ignored.

 

[zwk500]

Possibly if we ever go back to franchises or the Great British railway thing ever really happens, someone might decide that "upgrading the speeds of our existing lines" is cheaper than building new ones.

On what grounds? It's usually cheaper to build from new, as the cost of disrupting the existing railway needs to be factored in.

Push a short stretch of 140mph running and advertise the wonders that the new regime has arranged, much faster line speed on our key routes.

15mph increase is 'much faster'?. They've been trying to sell the benefits of 250mph trains between the UK's 3 biggest cities, and it hasn't exactly gone down swimmingly...

 

[AngusH]

The cost saving would be between actually building a railway line and upgrading a few miles of token effort.
I see it as a political move solely, it's not engineering led.

 

[Bald Rick]

True, but there are good connectivity reasons for having at least a few stops on london-Edinburgh

I guess you would need to win 3-5 minutes in running time for every extra stop you wanted to add beyond Newcastle?

I quite agree about the stops.

South of Newcastle, every 2 minute stop costs 5 minutes, except York which is 3 (more if dwell is longer)

 

[mike57]

Just had a look at the current timetable, and a typical 'fast' service, say the 08:00 from Kings Cross, First stop York, then Darlington, Newcastle, Berwick and Edinburgh takes 4h 22m. Run time to York is 1h 49m, even if all the bits capable of upgrade to 140mph south of York were to be upgraded to 140mph at 3s a mile my guess is savings would be 5 minutes tops, probably less. York to Darlington is mainly 4 track, and straight, so could be a easy win, but again savings are going to be around a minute, may be two. North of Darlington the alignment of the route appears to be the limiting factor, so if you saved a further 2 minutes I would be surprised.

Given current stops and dwell times you may get down to ~4h 10m at 140mph, is that going to generate a massive increase in business. That stopping pattern for an hourly fast service is probably the least stops that would be viable. 6 minutes dwell at York seems a bit much, but again its only tweaking around the edges,

My view is 140mph wouldn't be the step change that HST introduction was well over 40 years ago (and which I clearly remember), and its interesting that the headline London York time has stayed pretty constant since the Selby diversion was fully operational, that points to the current railway being at the limit of what can be acheived. My view is to get below 4hr London Edinburgh on a regular basis, i.e. most of the hourly fast services then you are going need to build new sections of railway, and in the current climate, and with the issues surrounding HS2 that will not happen.

Although I am using London Edinburgh times any improvements could flow though into other services, the main one being London Leeds, but again they will be minimal. If anything London Leeds is the route that would benefit most from a speed up, ideally to below 2hrs, with 2tph is there scope to speed up one of them, fast to Doncaster maybe. faster running Doncaster - Wakefield, I dont know if 125mph would be possible, line is pretty straight but 140mph south of Doncaster isn't going to make much difference on its own either.

So as a regular ECML user do I want an overall saving of 10 minutes given the cost and disruption of delivering it, no I dont think its worth it, either personally or taking a wider 'GBR' view.

The eastern leg HS2 approach was the right one, but has failed, and I dont see it, or anything similar being back on the agenda for many years.

The ECML issue that is going to constrain services is the capacity for growth, not journey time improvements.

 

[ainsworth74]

Is this issue that faces further journey time savings on the ECML not quite strongly related to the fact that over the course of the 60s, 70s, 80 and into the early 90s most, if not all, the easy (read cheap) wins were already made? The fettling a crossing a here, increasing the speed of a turnout there, eliminating a slow permeant speed restriction somewhere else were all already achieved? Meaning that the only things left are the big expensive jobs (like the Morpeth curve or perhaps Digswell viaduct) but they themselves may only add up to handful of minutes but cost many millions to achieve?

At which point there's no point fiddling around the edges and if you want to make significant further journey time reductions you require either a fairly comprehensive rebuild of large chunks of the route (very expensive, very disruptive, see West Coast Route Modernisation but on steroids) and still leaves you with the issue of threading your new high speed passengers services amongst freight and regional/local services or you need to build a new railway with dedicated high speed infrastructure from the off which gets these passenger services the journey time savings without also having to worry about knitting them into the freight and regional/local service.

As said earlier, the reality is that if you want to make substantial journey time improvements, you need HS2 and it's eastern leg as the ECML is tapped out...

 

[Bald Rick]

Just had a look at the current timetable, and a typical 'fast' service, say the 08:00 from Kings Cross, First stop York, then Darlington, Newcastle, Berwick and Edinburgh takes 4h 22m. Run time to York is 1h 49m, even if all the bits capable of upgrade to 140mph south of York were to be upgraded to 140mph at 3s a mile my guess is savings would be 5 minutes tops, probably less. York to Darlington is mainly 4 track, and straight, so could be a easy win, but again savings are going to be around a minute, may be two. North of Darlington the alignment of the route appears to be the limiting factor, so if you saved a further 2 minutes I would be surprised.

There’s 9 minutes pathing time in that train (which is a typical amount for that type of London - Edinburgh service). Pathing time isn’t ‘padding’, it’s time in the timetable necessary to keep trains from conflicting with each other.

One output of the recast with a ‘clean sheet of paper‘ could be to prioritise the London - Edinburgh trains such that they get a cleaner path; that would also take 3 mins out of the York call. That’s 12 minutes without any change to the linespeed profile.

To answer your other question - yes, taking 12 minutes out of a 4h22 journey will make a difference to demand. It’s nearly a 5% reduction in journey time.

 

[whoosh]

All this, "It's only 3 seconds a mile," talk!

It's only 15mph. That's why it's not worth doing for all the extra money.

Back in the 1980s, 140mph was fast, and as the ECML was being electrified, it made sense to have 140mph as an aspiration.
Now though... with in-cab signalling, why isn't it 160mph or above we are looking at?

Probably because we've lumbered ourselves with another generation of trains that will only do 140mph - and therefore it isn't worth upgrading the route!

 

[Energy]

Probably because we've lumbered ourselves with another generation of trains that will only do 140mph - and therefore it isn't worth upgrading the route!

Are there any bits of the route which can do 160mph without significant change?

I'm sure Hitachi can price out motor upgrades to get the 801s going quicker.

 

[Speed43125]

Are there any bits of the route which can do 160mph without significant change?

I'm sure Hitachi can price out motor upgrades to get the 801s going quicker.

I believe the alignment of the Selby diversion was designed with a theoretical aspiration of 160 mph. York to Darlington as a whole is in the main very straight as well.

 

[ainsworth74]

Now though... with in-cab signalling, why isn't it 160mph or above we are looking at?

Good luck pathing all the freight and local/regional services around those 160mph paths...

 

[Trainbike46]

Good luck pathing all the freight and local/regional services around those 160mph paths...

oh that's easy, just build the 160 mph bits as a separate line.

Wait, if we're building a separate line anyway, why stick to 160 mph? We might as well go for 225 mph at that point

And what if then routed these new lines so that it's useful for many different destinations?

*accidentally redesigns HS2*

 

[Sonik]

As said earlier, the reality is that if you want to make substantial journey time improvements, you need HS2 and it's eastern leg as the ECML is tapped out...

Greengage21 have an interesting (post IRP) proposal to build HS2 East as a series of bypasses to ECML, between Newark and the Selby Diversion

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/GG21-East-Coast-High-Speed-FINAL.pdf

It does have the advantage that ECML trains from Kings Cross could use it too, much like SouthEastern on HS1. And the alignment should be much cheaper to build than the original phase 2b design.