Tilting trains: How will history look back on them?

[Sorcerer]

Something that's been on my mind recently is the question of how railway history will look back on tilting trains. Railway technology has evolved over the centuries it has been a form of transport, be that steam engines being replaced with diesels because they simply could not match their convenience and performance, or diesel now looking to eventually be replaced with electric and bi-mode for the same reasons and also because they can't match the fuel efficiency and environmental impact. Maybe even to some extent many of the loco-hauled sets being replaced with multiple units, though loco-hauled sets still retain an advantage of flexibility that makes it suitable for charter or sleeper trains.

For tilting trains specifically, they were advantageous at a point in time when railways were looking to squeeze what they could out of 19th century infrastructure. For Britain specifically it was a choice to try and increase speeds and journey times on twisting routes like the West Coast Main Line while post-war France and Japan were instead investing in dedicated high-speed rail routes dedicated exclusively to passenger trains. While the APT was somewhat ill-fated, the Pendolino that came later turned out to be quite a success which enabled a very high frequency timetable for intercity services including the first hourly London-Glasgow trains.

The Pendolino by most metrics was worth it, and it is easily my favourite train of all time. But for quite some time now it seems that the advantages of tilting trains haven't exactly been big enough to justify them on a mass scale. For the UK the Pendolino order was huge, but in countries like the Czech Republic they were merely premium flagship trains not operating as intercity workhorses like our ones. Additionally we're now seeing non-tilting trains being cleared to run at similar line speeds with greater acceleration, afforded in part due to the lighter weight not carrying the tilting equipment and electronics.

The WCML is now also at full line capacity hence the idea behind HS2 that would've seen much straighter tracks. It seems that throughout most of the world where speed became a priority for railways, the focus was largely on building new dedicated routes.So with that in mind, how will history look back on tilting trains? Will they be seen as something of a fad by national railways trying to squeeze what they could out of their existing infrastructure, or will they be seen in a more positive light as something that has it's own niche as either a stop gap or a train that can bridge the gap between conventional intercity and high-speed travel?

All things considered, I definitely wouldn't see them on the level of Gadgetbahns like monorails, Maglevs or Hyperloops because they actually have had some benefits and success beyond the initial hype, but when speed is actually important to railways it just seems more practical long-term to go for dedicated lines instead. But what does everybody else think? I'd be very open to changing my mind on this one!

 

[The Pelican]

I think they will be seen as something like a Deltic- reasonably specialised, adapted for speed on their route rather than general speed etc. I wouldn't be suprised if we see more tilting trains in future- it will have to be on a route which is well-built but twisty, though.

 

[yorksrob]

We were never going to build a new high speed line along the WCML in the early 90's (certainly not the wobbly bit North of Preston), so tilting trains were the ideal solution, much like IC125 was for main lines unlikely to be electrified.

We're a relatively cramped island. Are we ever going to go for a network of dedicated high speed lines (the existing and under construction ones aside) ?

 

[RailWonderer]

They reduced journey times in countries with a lot of twisted track (the UK, Switzerland, parts of Germany), but faster acceleration of newer trains and the maintenance costs of the tilting mechanism has made them redundant. Various countries have deactivated tilt on their trains (Bombardier Twindexx in Switzerland), the XC Voyagers over here, ordered Pendolinos without it (Poland) or not bothered getting it to work properly (Finland).

Pendolino is a bit of a marketing name and the tannoys used to announce trains as 'Virgin Pendolino' so I think the name is in the public memory, but people I know tend not to even notice the tilt on the Pendolino (which sounds ludicrous, it's obvious in a few places) so I don't think their advantages will be remembered. For rail enthusiasts, it will be a dying novelty, I say novelty because that's what it's become, with fewer actively tilting Pendolinos in service today than ten years ago.

 

[yorksrob]

, but people I know tend not to even notice the tilt on the Pendolino (which sounds ludicrous

To be fair, if people had noticed the tilt, it would have gone wrong !

It needed the publicity (which Virgin were very good at).

 

[tfw756rider]

I do sometimes notice the tilt while riding on 390s (which I don't do often), but in a good way.

 

[MatthewHutton]

They reduced journey times in countries with a lot of twisted track (the UK, Switzerland, parts of Germany), but faster acceleration of newer trains and the maintenance costs of the tilting mechanism has made them redundant. Various countries have deactivated tilt on their trains (Bombardier Twindexx in Switzerland), the XC Voyagers over here, ordered Pendolinos without it (Poland) or not bothered getting it to work properly (Finland).

Pendolino is a bit of a marketing name and the tannoys used to announce trains as 'Virgin Pendolino' so I think the name is in the public memory, but people I know tend not to even notice the tilt on the Pendolino (which sounds ludicrous, it's obvious in a few places) so I don't think their advantages will be remembered. For rail enthusiasts, it will be a dying novelty, I say novelty because that's what it's become, with fewer actively tilting Pendolinos in service today than ten years ago.

Surely tilting trains would be a good way of speeding up the trans-pennine express services, and speeding up West coast mainline services north of Crewe as it is unlikely HS2 will be extended any further than that.

The Japanese Shinkansen now mostly tilt as well both north and south of Tokyo. North will continue to be necessary to get decent speeds to Sapporo, south is necessary because the Tokaido Shinkansen has relatively tight curves.

EDIT: Looks like the Japanese also use tilting trains extensively on their classic network and the newer Taiwanese classic expresses also tilt.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Nov 2025 ==

We're a relatively cramped island. Are we ever going to go for a network of dedicated high speed lines (the existing and under construction ones aside) ?

Do not forget our classic lines are the fastest in the world.

 

[Bevan Price]

I think they will be remembered as a fine technical achievement, but let down by insufficient (standard class) seating space for many services on which they are used, and a claustrophobic internal layout.

 

[MarkyT]

They reduced journey times in countries with a lot of twisted track (the UK, Switzerland, parts of Germany), but faster acceleration of newer trains and the maintenance costs of the tilting mechanism has made them redundant. Various countries have deactivated tilt on their trains (Bombardier Twindexx in Switzerland)

The mild tilt of the Twindexx, a feature of high-tech mechatronic bogies with active suspension elements, did not work properly from new. The bogies were designed primarily to actively control yaw and roll which would allow the large bilevel carbodies to achieve higher speeds safely in tight alpine tunnels by reducing the dynamic envelope, the addition speed dependant clearance added to the vehicle swept profile for expected side-to-side movements in motion. The plans for enhanced speeds for these trains were abandoned.

, the XC Voyagers over here, ordered Pendolinos without it (Poland) or not bothered getting it to work properly (Finland).

XC Voyagers demonstrate the cost in weight of Tilting. Each tilting class 221 car is around 10 tonnes heavier than a non-tilting class 220 car. This is mainly due to the heavier outside frame bogies used in the tilting variant, as the design is otherwise almost identical. The ~20% weight penalty affects performance, making the 220s with lighter inside-frame bogies more sprightly with the same engine and transmission. Most of the extra weight is retained in the 221s even after their tilting mechanisms have been deactivated and removed, as the heavier bogies remain.

 

[brad465]

The inferior seating capacity they cause(d) is certainly not something to look back on with delight. Voyagers today on XC are cramped and not overly pleasant inside, while IET equivalents are being introduced with something like 20-33% more seats (depending on configuration) for the same number of carriages as a Class 221, the Voyager built with tilt capability. A 10-car 805 is carrying approx. 100 more seats than a 10-car 221 did. Then the Class 807 has similar seat total to a 9-car Pendolino, despite being two carriages shorter.

 

[xotGD]

I can't work or read on a Pendo as the tilting makes me feel queasy. Never happens on any other train.

 

[MatthewHutton]

The inferior seating capacity they cause(d) is certainly not something to look back on with delight. Voyagers today on XC are cramped and not overly pleasant inside, while IET equivalents are being introduced with something like 20-33% more seats (depending on configuration) for the same number of carriages as a Class 221, the Voyager built with tilt capability. A 10-car 805 is carrying approx. 100 more seats than a 10-car 221 did. Then the Class 807 has similar seat total to a 9-car Pendolino, despite being two carriages shorter.

Some of this is improved design in general and a shrinking in general of various components.

Given the IET is Shinkansen derived and the Japanese have a narrow gauge train network with presumably a smaller loading gauge than Britain perhaps there has been more thought about how to position the components to give more internal space when it is limited?

I suspect if you could get a tilting IET it would be good too if you could get the Japanese to give us a sensible price.

 

[JamesT]

The inferior seating capacity they cause(d) is certainly not something to look back on with delight. Voyagers today on XC are cramped and not overly pleasant inside, while IET equivalents are being introduced with something like 20-33% more seats (depending on configuration) for the same number of carriages as a Class 221, the Voyager built with tilt capability. A 10-car 805 is carrying approx. 100 more seats than a 10-car 221 did. Then the Class 807 has similar seat total to a 9-car Pendolino, despite being two carriages shorter.

Bear in mind that the Class 80X carriages are about 10% longer than their 22X counterparts. So it’s not just a matter of comparing number of carriages and declaring it’s all down to layout.

 

[MarkyT]

Some of this is improved design in general and a shrinking in general of various components.

Given the IET is Shinkansen derived and the Japanese have a narrow gauge train network with presumably a smaller loading gauge than Britain perhaps there has been more thought about how to position the components to give more internal space when it is limited?

I suspect if you could get a tilting IET it would be good too if you could get the Japanese to give us a sensible price.

IETs are derived more from narrow gauge trains in Japan, not the standard gauge shinkansen units which are taller and wider. Narrow gauge rolling stock there is very similar in dimensions to UK standard gauge trains, sometimes a bit larger, which reinforces the old adage that we run narrow gauge sized trains here on standard gauge track.

 

[FGWHST43009]

Something that's been on my mind recently is the question of how railway history will look back on tilting trains. Railway technology has evolved over the centuries it has been a form of transport, be that steam engines being replaced with diesels because they simply could not match their convenience and performance, or diesel now looking to eventually be replaced with electric and bi-mode for the same reasons and also because they can't match the fuel efficiency and environmental impact. Maybe even to some extent many of the loco-hauled sets being replaced with multiple units, though loco-hauled sets still retain an advantage of flexibility that makes it suitable for charter or sleeper trains.

For tilting trains specifically, they were advantageous at a point in time when railways were looking to squeeze what they could out of 19th century infrastructure. For Britain specifically it was a choice to try and increase speeds and journey times on twisting routes like the West Coast Main Line while post-war France and Japan were instead investing in dedicated high-speed rail routes dedicated exclusively to passenger trains. While the APT was somewhat ill-fated, the Pendolino that came later turned out to be quite a success which enabled a very high frequency timetable for intercity services including the first hourly London-Glasgow trains.

The Pendolino by most metrics was worth it, and it is easily my favourite train of all time. But for quite some time now it seems that the advantages of tilting trains haven't exactly been big enough to justify them on a mass scale. For the UK the Pendolino order was huge, but in countries like the Czech Republic they were merely premium flagship trains not operating as intercity workhorses like our ones. Additionally we're now seeing non-tilting trains being cleared to run at similar line speeds with greater acceleration, afforded in part due to the lighter weight not carrying the tilting equipment and electronics.

The WCML is now also at full line capacity hence the idea behind HS2 that would've seen much straighter tracks. It seems that throughout most of the world where speed became a priority for railways, the focus was largely on building new dedicated routes.So with that in mind, how will history look back on tilting trains? Will they be seen as something of a fad by national railways trying to squeeze what they could out of their existing infrastructure, or will they be seen in a more positive light as something that has it's own niche as either a stop gap or a train that can bridge the gap between conventional intercity and high-speed travel?

All things considered, I definitely wouldn't see them on the level of Gadgetbahns like monorails, Maglevs or Hyperloops because they actually have had some benefits and success beyond the initial hype, but when speed is actually important to railways it just seems more practical long-term to go for dedicated lines instead. But what does everybody else think? I'd be very open to changing my mind on this one!

The mild tilt of the Twindexx, a feature of high-tech mechatronic bogies with active suspension elements, did not work properly from new. The bogies were designed primarily to actively control yaw and roll which would allow the large bilevel carbodies to achieve higher speeds safely in tight alpine tunnels by reducing the dynamic envelope, the addition speed dependant clearance added to the vehicle swept profile for expected side-to-side movements in motion. The plans for enhanced speeds for these trains were abandoned.

XC Voyagers demonstrate the cost in weight of Tilting. Each tilting class 221 car is around 10 tonnes heavier than a non-tilting class 220 car. This is mainly due to the heavier outside frame bogies used in the tilting variant, as the design is otherwise almost identical. The ~20% weight penalty affects performance, making the 220s with lighter inside-frame bogies more sprightly with the same engine and transmission. Most of the extra weight is retained in the 221s even after their tilting mechanisms have been deactivated and removed, as the heavier bogies remain.

Things do seem to be heading in the direction of non-tilt and a focus on acceleration. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know I don't think any countries in Europe are ordering new tilting trains. Many were built in the 1990s when, as mentioned earlier by others, countries were trying to get everything they could out of the existing network. It is interesting though, that many countries, even Switzerland with its curvy railways, are ordering/have ordered non-tilting trains to be their main fleet. Tilt will probably exist for as long as the lifespan of current fleets in Europe. It therefore remains to be seen what happens over the next 10-20 years, when most European tilting trains will be life-expired. What could happen on the WCML is if or when the TASS equipment and/or the Pendolinos need replacing. I think that will be the decider at least for the UK.

On the subject of Voyagers, it seems a bit baffling that XC didn't just swap out the tilting bogies on the 221s for the non-tilt design on the 220s. The timetable could then be optimised for a fleet with the same performance characteristics, however the extra weight of the tilting bogies on the 221s probably doesn't make a lot of difference, but happy to be corrected otherwise.

 

[JamesT]

Things do seem to be heading in the direction of non-tilt and a focus on acceleration. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know I don't think any countries in Europe are ordering new tilting trains. Many were built in the 1990s when, as mentioned earlier by others, countries were trying to get everything they could out of the existing network. It is interesting though, that many countries, even Switzerland with its curvy railways, are ordering/have ordered non-tilting trains to be their main fleet. Tilt will probably exist for as long as the lifespan of current fleets in Europe. It therefore remains to be seen what happens over the next 10-20 years, when most European tilting trains will be life-expired. What could happen on the WCML is if or when the TASS equipment and/or the Pendolinos need replacing. I think that will be the decider at least for the UK.

On the subject of Voyagers, it seems a bit baffling that XC didn't just swap out the tilting bogies on the 221s for the non-tilt design on the 220s. The timetable could then be optimised for a fleet with the same performance characteristics, however the extra weight of the tilting bogies on the 221s probably doesn't make a lot of difference, but happy to be corrected otherwise.

How much would a whole new set of bogies for the fleet cost? And how long to take out of service to do that work? Given how much the DfT has squeezed costs on XC, I can’t see that they would have approved that kind of spend.
Now that Avanti are getting rid of their Voyagers it’s no longer an issue, but I could see that previously the Rosco wouldn’t have wanted XC to make permanent changes that would inhibit swapping 221s between the two franchises.

 

[superalbs]

Surely tilting trains would be a good way of speeding up the trans-pennine express services, and speeding up West coast mainline services north of Crewe as it is unlikely HS2 will be extended any further than that.

The Japanese Shinkansen now mostly tilt as well both north and south of Tokyo. North will continue to be necessary to get decent speeds to Sapporo, south is necessary because the Tokaido Shinkansen has relatively tight curves.

EDIT: Looks like the Japanese also use tilting trains extensively on their classic network and the newer Taiwanese classic expresses also tilt.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Nov 2025 ==


Do not forget our classic lines are the fastest in the world.

Which ones? The latest generation, the (horrible) EMU 3000 does not not tilt because of "improvements to track conditions in the past few years", and funnily enough are very rough riding.

 

[MarkyT]

How much would a whole new set of bogies for the fleet cost? And how long to take out of service to do that work? Given how much the DfT has squeezed costs on XC, I can’t see that they would have approved that kind of spend.
Now that Avanti are getting rid of their Voyagers it’s no longer an issue, but I could see that previously the Rosco wouldn’t have wanted XC to make permanent changes that would inhibit swapping 221s between the two franchises.

I agree the cost and disruption would likely be prohibitive now for a fleet that perhaps has only a decade or so in service remaining. Ideally the bogies should have been swapped on the XC 221s when tilt was originally disabled 17 years ago. The payback from every vehicle not pushing a pointless extra 10 tonnes of weight around over their remaining life from then may have been worth it, but, as you say, the ROSCO probably wanted to preserve flexibility for redeployment back to the WCML if required. As to performance, I think all XC services are timed for the more sluggish 221s, so a late-running 220 often has a little oomph in reserve for recovery, assuming it's in good condition with all diesels running.

 

[FGWHST43009]

How much would a whole new set of bogies for the fleet cost? And how long to take out of service to do that work? Given how much the DfT has squeezed costs on XC, I can’t see that they would have approved that kind of spend.
Now that Avanti are getting rid of their Voyagers it’s no longer an issue, but I could see that previously the Rosco wouldn’t have wanted XC to make permanent changes that would inhibit swapping 221s between the two franchises.

That is true. It would've been possible back in 2007 as I believe the bogies were still capable of being manufactured. There would be savings from having a standardised fleet with the same components until AWC withdrew their 221s, then there is the issue of what would've happened when XC took on the 221s with a different bogie setup, but then the depot is already configured to maintain both types anyway so no real costs there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2025 ==

I agree the cost and disruption would likely be prohibitive now for a fleet that perhaps has only a decade or so in service remaining. Ideally the bogies should have been swapped on the XC 221s when tilt was originally disabled 17 years ago. The payback from every vehicle not pushing a pointless extra 10 tonnes of weight around over their remaining life from then may have been worth it, but, as you say, the ROSCO probably wanted to preserve flexibility for redeployment back to the WCML if required. As to performance, I think all XC services are timed for the more sluggish 221s, so a late-running 220 often has a little oomph in reserve for recovery, assuming it's in good condition with all diesels running.

Sorry I should've said that XC should've done the bogie swap in 2007, which would've been more worthwhile than now.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Which ones? The latest generation, the (horrible) EMU 3000 does not not tilt because of "improvements to track conditions in the past few years", and funnily enough are very rough riding.

There’s a whole bunch linked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_train

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2025 ==

Things do seem to be heading in the direction of non-tilt and a focus on acceleration

Depends what problem you are trying to solve. If there are the occasional curve then yes acceleration alone is good as it also works for stopping services. If there are lots of curves tilting is still better.

And also you can do both like the Shinkansen.

 

[Narrowgauge725]

On a cant

 

[Sorcerer]

We're a relatively cramped island. Are we ever going to go for a network of dedicated high speed lines (the existing and under construction ones aside) ?

Being a cramped island can be a prime opportunity for a high-speed rail network. Japan is a cramped volcanic island arc with dense populations and the Shinkansen works beautifully. For the UK specifically though it'd probably have to work out less linear and more like an X-shaped network with the Y-shaped HS2 and a South West-West Midlands link centred on Birmingham along with Northern Powerhouse between Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds.

Depends what problem you are trying to solve. If there are the occasional curve then yes acceleration alone is good as it also works for stopping services. If there are lots of curves tilting is still better.

And also you can do both like the Shinkansen.

Shinkansen tilting is kind of an exception to the rule because of the tight capacity requiring relatively consistent high-speed stretches on the network along with 1960s track alignment against formidable geography. Other high-speed rail networks don't really opt for tilting because it's not really needed. The tilting train niche is more for conventional rail rather than dedicated high-speed traffic.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Shinkansen tilting is kind of an exception to the rule because of the tight capacity requiring relatively consistent high-speed stretches on the network along with 1960s track alignment against formidable geography. Other high-speed rail networks don't really opt for tilting because it's not really needed. The tilting train niche is more for conventional rail rather than dedicated high-speed traffic.

A lot of that applies to Britain as well to be fair. Older high speed lines (ECML, WCML and GWML technically meet the definition) and tight capacity are very familiar.

 

[Energy]

I think they will be remembered as a fine technical achievement, but let down by insufficient (standard class) seating space for many services on which they are used, and a claustrophobic internal layout.

Agreed. WCML 140mph (with correct signalling...) would be an impressive achievement, but the railways have changed, and seating capacity is a much higher priority now than in the early 2000s.

It's worth remembering that the Pendolinos were originally ordered as 8-car units, so max capacity really wasn't top priority; Virgin wanted to grow the network by improving speed. Nowadays, we're constrained by platform lengths, so a space-efficient layout is far more important.

 

[Sorcerer]

A lot of that applies to Britain as well to be fair. Older high speed lines (ECML, WCML and GWML technically meet the definition) and tight capacity are very familiar.

True, they do meet the definition of high speed lines, but in the sense of being a legacy main line upgraded to higher speeds, which is where the tilting train niche comes into play. The West Coast Main Line is the perfect place for them, but today's railway priorities are about capacity, hence stock with higher acceleration and seating capacity but without tilt.

Japan's high speed lines meanwhile are all purpose-built and are the only ones in the world where trains tilt. The rest simply opt for relatively straight track and smooth long curves which seems to be the preference for when speed actually matters. Otherwise the best railways like the Swiss focus on convenience, reliability and capacity over speed, and while they also had successful tilting trains like the ICN, they didn't follow up with new ones later on.

Agreed. WCML 140mph (with correct signalling...) would be an impressive achievement, but the railways have changed, and seating capacity is a much higher priority now than in the early 2000s.

It's worth remembering that the Pendolinos were originally ordered as 8-car units, so max capacity really wasn't top priority; Virgin wanted to grow the network by improving speed. Nowadays, we're constrained by platform lengths, so a space-efficient layout is far more important.

This is a good point. Both times when tilting trains were ordered in the UK is when the railways wanted to attract people from the roads and air travel without investing in new dedicated high-speed rail routes. But today the issue isn't with attracting passengers, so priorities changed and non-tilting trains have become sufficient enough that journey times don't really take a huge hit. The 807s aren't much slower than the 390s on much of the same routes.

I think this all just comes back to what I said originally in that tilting trains wherever they were used were mostly rail operators trying to squeeze what they could out of existing infrastructure and getting the fastest speeds possible. In most cases though it seems when speed matters, high-speed lines will be looked back on as the more appropriate solution. High-speed rail is still expanding, but new tilting train orders not so much.

It's not to say the Pendolino wasn't worth it, it most certainly was, and it has done it's job extraordinarily well. But across the world I think history will look back on tilting trains as an early alternative to dedicated high-speed rail that ultimately only ended up being suitable in very specific niches where new lines aren't possible or even as stop gaps. But they have at least seen some success unlike hype-driven Gadgetbahns such as Hyperloop.

 

[jfollows]

I’ve never noticed the tilt on Pendolinos.
Clearly some people do, and some of these find it disconcerting.
Even when going through Berkhamsted, for example, I can’t tell even though I know we must be tilting in some way.

 

[FGWHST43009]

True, they do meet the definition of high speed lines, but in the sense of being a legacy main line upgraded to higher speeds, which is where the tilting train niche comes into play. The West Coast Main Line is the perfect place for them, but today's railway priorities are about capacity, hence stock with higher acceleration and seating capacity but without tilt.

Japan's high speed lines meanwhile are all purpose-built and are the only ones in the world where trains tilt. The rest simply opt for relatively straight track and smooth long curves which seems to be the preference for when speed actually matters. Otherwise the best railways like the Swiss focus on convenience, reliability and capacity over speed, and while they also had successful tilting trains like the ICN, they didn't follow up with new ones later on.


This is a good point. Both times when tilting trains were ordered in the UK is when the railways wanted to attract people from the roads and air travel without investing in new dedicated high-speed rail routes. But today the issue isn't with attracting passengers, so priorities changed and non-tilting trains have become sufficient enough that journey times don't really take a huge hit. The 807s aren't much slower than the 390s on much of the same routes.

I think this all just comes back to what I said originally in that tilting trains wherever they were used were mostly rail operators trying to squeeze what they could out of existing infrastructure and getting the fastest speeds possible. In most cases though it seems when speed matters, high-speed lines will be looked back on as the more appropriate solution. High-speed rail is still expanding, but new tilting train orders not so much.

It's not to say the Pendolino wasn't worth it, it most certainly was, and it has done it's job extraordinarily well. But across the world I think history will look back on tilting trains as an early alternative to dedicated high-speed rail that ultimately only ended up being suitable in very specific niches where new lines aren't possible or even as stop gaps. But they have at least seen some success unlike hype-driven Gadgetbahns such as Hyperloop.

I agree, journey times don't seem to matter too much, especially considering the current poor performance and punctuality of current train services. Acceleration is also important for delay recovery. Interestingly South Korea built and tested a tilting train (called TTX = Tilting Train Express) but concluded that straighter alignments would be better, so the TTX didn't go beyond the prototype stage.

 

[Grumpy]

A couple of things I don't understand.
Firstly, when has it been agreed that journey times don't matter? For me and I suspect many others, journey times can be a decider between using rail or car or plane.
Secondly, what is the logic behind saying that new trains are more powerful, can accelerate faster, so we don't need tilt? Surely tilting trains go round curves quicker giving journey time (and comfort) advantages over non tilting trains? Is there any reason that new tilting trains cant be as powerful as modern non tilting trains, retaining the advantages of tilt with greater acceleration potential?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Tilting trains are a product which serve a particular purpose, on fast intercity services where it isn’t going to be practical to straighten out curvy railway lines. The WCML is the perfect example of this. It’s never ever going to be cost effective to straighten out the line north of Preston because the earthworks required would be insane, same with the ECML north of Darlington tbh.

The reason why XC disabled the tilt is because it wasn’t used once the WCML had been carved out of the franchise, and it wasn’t used because the infrastructure wasn’t upgraded other than a couple of EPS sections.

If tilting trains have been a “failure” it’s because the infrastructure wasn’t put into place.

 

[MatthewHutton]

same with the ECML north of Darlington tbh.

That is a much shorter section to straighten to be fair and you could follow the A1 corridor minimising the disruption.