Longer (400m?) trains on the ECML - what work would be needed?

[Bletchleyite]

Hot on the heels of the thread about Manchester Piccadilly, and noting how busy LNER is, I thought I'd widen the discussion a little.

What would it take to run 400m trains (e.g. spare HS2 units) on Kings Cross to Edinburgh services in particular? Or if that's really impossible, how long could we go?

Kings Cross would I suspect be the biggest constraint if we could, through reservations, ensure people were in the right portion at some intermediates to allow the back unit to hang off?

 

[HSTEd]

I did a thought experiment/Google Earth exercise about trying to get 400m platforms into KGX a few years ago.

It rapidly turns into a massive project.
400m from the buffer stops gets you almost to the tunnel entrances as it is.

You might gain a little distance by erasing that plaza that replaced the old BR concourse. But beyond that you'd be looking at closing the canal and converting it into an aqueduct above the new station throat.

 

[The Planner]

Hot on the heels of the thread about Manchester Piccadilly, and noting how busy LNER is, I thought I'd widen the discussion a little.

What would it take to run 400m trains (e.g. spare HS2 units) on Kings Cross to Edinburgh services in particular? Or if that's really impossible, how long could we go?

Kings Cross would I suspect be the biggest constraint if we could, through reservations, ensure people were in the right portion at some intermediates to allow the back unit to hang off?

You would hang over the throat of Kings Cross as no platform is over 305m.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You would hang over the throat of Kings Cross as no platform is over 305m.

The thread encompasses making changes to stations, though Kings Cross does look particularly difficult.

I do wonder if you could get a single 400m platform if Platform 0 was abolished and you extended P1 all the way to the tunnel, but it wouldn't be straight so may not be allowed, and might not quite get you to 400, though it might get to 350/375 which would be something.

 

[The Planner]

The thread encompasses making changes to stations, though Kings Cross does look particularly difficult.

I do wonder if you could get a single 400m platform if Platform 0 was abolished and you extended P1 all the way to the tunnel, but it wouldn't be straight so may not be allowed, and might not quite get you to 400, though it might get to 350/375 which would be something.

Like @HSTEd has noted though, the tunnels are about 110m off the platform ends. You would have to extend 0 or 1 out 95 odd metres and then you just constrain yourself operationally.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Like @HSTEd has noted though, the tunnels are about 110m off the platform ends. You would have to extend 0 or 1 out 95 odd metres and then you just constrain yourself operationally.

Hence HS2 I suppose...but unless we get 2B and Handsacre back the WCML option is a bit weak.

Maybe we should still do the Scottish HS2 services as 2 units splitting at Carlisle and sending one to Edinburgh. Even if it's slower it'd at least be more capacity.

 

[HSTEd]

LNER could get a bit more capacity if it traded some of its five-car IEPs for ten-car ones.

But after that it starts to get a bit hairy.

How many platforms could on the ECML could fit a ~300m 12-car IEP?

 

[Bletchleyite]

LNER could get a bit more capacity if it traded some of its five-car IEPs for ten-car ones.

An additional option would be finding a way to extend the 9-car IETs to 10. Nominally you can only have odd numbers but there must be a way to do it, it'll just require modifications. Or would 11 fit everywhere an Edinburgh fast calls? Or 12 as you say?

The idea of the 9/10 thing was that a 9 and a 10 have the same capacity, but that doesn't need to remain the case.

 

[mike57]

What proportion of services are running at less than the 9/10 car current maximum? Hull trains are looking to run more 10 car services, Grand Central, Lumo are 5 car as are some LNERs. If you have limited capacity then that has to be the first fix, but not sure how you would address the problems of the OA operators. Inevitably you get into splitting and joining en-route, as the outer ends of the various routes couldn't handle even 9 cars, and this introduces its own issues. (Although other countries manage it, and it was common on Southern Region during my formatative years in the 60s).

I think extending Kings Cross is a non starter, the cost and disruption would just kill it. Its a shame as when Kings Cross area was redeveloped and cleaned up more space should have been allowed for future expansion, but a quick look on Google Maps shows that any increases that could be acheived with the existing tunnel mouths are small even if some space around the various bits of rail infrastructure had been left.

Obviously HS2 curtailment is going to mean the ECML remains the main route to Yorkshire, the NE and Edinburgh, which probably means that a number of issues which would have remained in the 'pending' pile will have to be looked at again, surely the Welwyn viaduct has to be the biggest of them.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Hot on the heels of the thread about Manchester Piccadilly, and noting how busy LNER is, I thought I'd widen the discussion a little.

Im rather pleased you done this as it give me the perfect opportunity to say that platforms on the ECML at Doncaster, York, Darlington and Newcastle are also long enough already to accommodate 300m services. By the looks of things it would appear platforms at Kings Cross are too...

You would hang over the throat of Kings Cross as no platform is over 305m.

Maybe 300m long services is just the optimum solution for long distance services in the UK!

 

[JKF]

How about sending a 200m ‘stopper’ out of KX, then a while later send another fast 200m that runs non-stop and catches up with it at (for example) York, then join there to make a 400m set. Not quite sure what the benefit would be other than saving paths & staff north of York, and I guess an operational headache if one or other delayed.

 

[Halifaxlad]

How about sending a 200m ‘stopper’ out of KX, then a while later send another fast 200m that runs non-stop and catches up with it at (for example) York, then join there to make a 400m set. Not quite sure what the benefit would be other than saving paths & staff north of York, and I guess an operational headache if one or other delayed.

Good luck getting a 400m service in at Newcastle!

 

[Bletchleyite]

How about sending a 200m ‘stopper’ out of KX, then a while later send another fast 200m that runs non-stop and catches up with it at (for example) York, then join there to make a 400m set. Not quite sure what the benefit would be other than saving paths & staff north of York, and I guess an operational headache if one or other delayed.

The point of the discussion is that:

1. HS2 in full isn't happening
2. Edinburgh services are too busy
3. There aren't paths to make it 4tph which is the other fix.

 

[Krokodil]

Hence HS2 I suppose...but unless we get 2B and Handsacre back the WCML option is a bit weak.

Maybe we should still do the Scottish HS2 services as 2 units splitting at Carlisle and sending one to Edinburgh. Even if it's slower it'd at least be more capacity.

If we assume that extending KGX is too difficult, and that some future government saw sense and completed HS2, what work would be required to extend the 200m Newcastle trains (Euston-OOC-York-Darlington-Newcastle) to 400m?

Could York be adapted to accommodate 400m trains? In which case you could at least run them that far before splitting (pick your destination for the second set, Sunderland/Middlesbrough or wherever) if running 400m trains through to Newcastle isn't possible

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we assume that extending KGX is too difficult, and that some future government saw sense and completed HS2, what work would be required to extend the 200m Newcastle trains (Euston-OOC-York-Darlington-Newcastle) to 400m?

Could York be adapted to accommodate 400m trains? In which case you could at least run them that far before splitting (pick your destination for the second set, Sunderland/Middlesbrough or wherever) if running 400m trains through to Newcastle isn't possible

Don't forget you'd have 400m an hour (2x200) direct to Edinburgh too. The full HS2 plan is a near doubling of east coast capacity given that the ECML wouldn't be grassed over.

But I think it's now a given HS2 isn't happening past phase 1. Might be possible to do some targetted interventions to get more capacity on the north WCML to allow the originally planned Glasgow/Edinburgh service (2x200 to each per hour splitting/joining at Carlisle) to run, and just do the Edinburgh as a budget service as it'd be slower than the ECML?

 

[A0]

The point of the discussion is that:

1. HS2 in full isn't happening
2. Edinburgh services are too busy
3. There aren't paths to make it 4tph which is the other fix.

Bit in bold - but are they really and where's the evidence for that ? And are they busy "end to end" or are they just busy to somewhere like Peterborough (because they are fast to Peterborough) or York ?

North of York there is an hourly XC also providing capacity onto Edinburgh.

 

[Krokodil]

Don't forget you'd have 400m an hour (2x200) direct to Edinburgh too. The full HS2 plan is a near doubling of east coast capacity given that the ECML wouldn't be grassed over.

I never understood why the Newcastle service wasn't planned to continue to Edinburgh, it would be faster (3:30) than the one via Carlisle. Run the via Newcastle either as a duplicate of the Carlisle service or extend Glasgow Central to accommodate 400m sets and dispense with splitting at Carlisle. Remaining services out of KGX can have extra stops added as there's no longer a need for speed.

2,000 seats per hour to each Scottish city with timings of 3:40 or less would decimate the air travel market as fares could drop.

Shame our current government is on the side of the polluter though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I never understood why the Newcastle service wasn't planned to continue to Edinburgh, it would be faster (3:30) than the one via Carlisle. Run the via Newcastle either as a duplicate of the Carlisle service or extend Glasgow Central to accommodate 400m sets and dispense with splitting at Carlisle. Remaining services out of KGX can have extra stops added as there's no longer a need for speed.

Or use 300m sets, which are much easier to fit in everywhere with smaller modifications... 200m really is an inconvenient length for anything other than the entirely captive services.

 

[Krokodil]

Or use 300m sets, which are much easier to fit in everywhere with smaller modifications... 200m really is an inconvenient length for anything other than the entirely captive services.

300m would suffice in the short term, but eventually we'll want the capacity brought by 400m sets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

300m would suffice in the short term, but eventually we'll want the capacity brought by 400m sets.

This assumes infinite growth in travel. COVID has proven that this isn't a given.

To be fair, though, one issue I have with the HS2 spec is that it doesn't leave any space for later frequency improvements - if built in full it was basically at full capacity from day one. For instance if there's a need for six trains an hour from London to Manchester at 300m why not build that in?

 

[HSTEd]

This assumes infinite growth in travel. COVID has proven that this isn't a given.

To be fair, though, one issue I have with the HS2 spec is that it doesn't leave any space for later frequency improvements - if built in full it was basically at full capacity from day one. For instance if there's a need for six trains an hour from London to Manchester at 300m why not build that in?

Because the BCR would be appalling if it's not full from day one.
In order to sell an extremely expensive scheme it has to have extreme benefits

On another note, even at the original price each core path has a capital cost of about two billion pounds. Do you really want them left empty?

 

[Krokodil]

This assumes infinite growth in travel.

Not infinite, no. But I count 39 flights per day between Edinburgh and London. That's around 7,000 seats which are ripe for pillaging, not to mention any traffic that can be poached from cars or coaches - that's not even considering growing the overall market. The way to poach from other modes will be to be more competitive. More competitive on price (the SSS was probably in the right ballpark, you can only go back to those days if you have the capacity), and more competitive on comfort/convenience (a seat should be as good as guaranteed, and you shouldn't have to look hard or split up your family to find it even if you are a walk-up passenger).

COVID has proven that this isn't a given.

Long distance travel is booming - or at least it's booming where capacity and reliability allow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because the BCR would be appalling if it's not full from day one.
In order to sell an extremely expensive scheme it has to have extreme benefits

On another note, even at the original price each core path has a capital cost of about two billion pounds. Do you really want them left empty?

Ask SNCF or DB perhaps? They seem to be able to build in future growth rather than making that outrageously expensive. Look at the UK - Euston did!

 

[MotCO]

Is there any easy access from the ECML to Euston? If so, there is a long platform used for the sleeper which might be available for longer trains.

Also, do longer trains on the ECML actually reduce line capacity if the gaps between signals is less than the length of the proposed trains?

 

[A0]

Not infinite, no. But I count 39 flights per day between Edinburgh and London.

11 of which are BA to Heathrow and as has been previously discussed are used by people connecting onto other long haul destinations rather than heading to London as their final destination - dumping them on the train isn't particularly helpful or constructive.

Another 4 of them are EasyJet to Gatwick - given Gatwick is an hour south of London and closer for most of the south coast than London, you'll never compete on time for those journeys either.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Could York be adapted to accommodate 400m trains? In which case you could at least run them that far before splitting (pick your destination for the second set, Sunderland/Middlesbrough or wherever) if running 400m trains through to Newcastle isn't possible

Are you suggesting splitting Edinburgh services at York, running one 200m to Edinburgh then the second half either directly behind it or about 20 miniutes apart from one another simply because you won't be able to get 400m through Newcastle in one go ?

300m would suffice in the short term, but eventually we'll want the capacity brought by 400m sets.

Why not 450m or 500m ?

I may be being facetious here!

 

[Krokodil]

Are you suggesting splitting Edinburgh services at York, running one 200m to Edinburgh then the second half either directly behind it or about 20 miniutes apart from one another simply because you won't be able to get 400m through Newcastle in one go ?

No, the second set wouldn't go to Newcastle if Newcastle couldn't be adapted to accept 400m trains, hence the suggestion of sending the second set to Sunderland/Middlesbrough/wherever. Obviously this is all well in the future, one can look at platform extensions in 30 years once the Eastern Leg has been open long enough to build demand.

Why not 450m or 500m ?

Do you think that it is a coincidence that most TGV, ICE, Shinkensen, AVE and Railjet sets are composed of 200m formations (running individually or in pairs)? There are exceptions of course but clearly it works. 400m is a length that the dedicated HS2 platforms are built to. It is also a length that many other stations which HS2 trains might serve can accommodate, or wouldn't require much work to do so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you think that it is a coincidence that most TGV, ICE, Shinkensen, AVE and Railjet sets are composed of 200m formations (running individually or in pairs)? There are exceptions of course but clearly it works. 400m is a length that the dedicated HS2 platforms are built to. It is also a length that many other stations which HS2 trains might serve can accommodate, or wouldn't require much work to do so.

It's a TSI (Technical Standards for Interoperability) thing which doesn't make sense for the UK to blindly follow because we never have and never will have interoperability with other European railways aside from Eurostar.

What we do should be driven wholly by domestic requirements. And domestic requirements dictate that a single 200m unit isn't very much use for anything (that was about the length of the original 8 car Pendolinos which were woefully inadequate).

The obsession with precisely 400m seems to be driven solely by a desire not to renegotiate a rolling stock contract when just about everything else about HS2 bar "Aston to Acton" has changed. We could have 400m just for Old Oak-Brum self-contained services wholly on HS2 (and in that case why not single 400m units rather than doubles?) but for everything else you either go a bit shorter or you get stuck with seriously sub-optimal formations for the foreseeable.

 

[The Planner]

Is there any easy access from the ECML to Euston? If so, there is a long platform used for the sleeper which might be available for longer trains.

Also, do longer trains on the ECML actually reduce line capacity if the gaps between signals is less than the length of the proposed trains?

There is access, but its a pain and adds substantial amounts of time to a journey. We do it with the sleeper when the WCML is shut, it goes via ECML then around the houses to Wembley and back into Euston. You will be hard pressed to find signal sections less than 400m, so it isn't an issue.

 

[Halifaxlad]

No, the second set wouldn't go to Newcastle if Newcastle couldn't be adapted to accept 400m trains, hence the suggestion of sending the second set to Sunderland/Middlesbrough/wherever. Obviously this is all well in the future, one can look at platform extensions in 30 years once the Eastern Leg has been open long enough to build demand.


Do you think that it is a coincidence that most TGV, ICE, Shinkensen, AVE and Railjet sets are composed of 200m formations (running individually or in pairs)? There are exceptions of course but clearly it works. 400m is a length that the dedicated HS2 platforms are built to. It is also a length that many other stations which HS2 trains might serve can accommodate, or wouldn't require much work to do so.

HS2 was designed without taking the North and running upon the existing rail network into consideration!