Avanti 805's under the wires on WCML (Euston - LIverpool)

[QueensCurve]

It is so depressing that we still have diesel trains running under the wires.

 

[6Gman]

It is so depressing that we still have diesel trains running under the wires.

At all?

One train a day over part of the journey hardly seems a matter to depress one.

 

[tutacre]

At all?

One train a day over part of the journey hardly seems a matter to depress one.

Lumo are using diesel trains (or will be) purely because of this. I believe it is London to Watford Junction and Crewe to Warrington/Liverpool (and bits north of Preston) which are problematic at certain times of the day, mainly where powerful electric freight trains are scheduled through the area around the same time. Even if the freight almost always actually runs with a diesel, the rules seem to be that they are planned as electrics for most flexibility.

It is not in Network Rail's interest to resolve this - as it is also one of the reasons which makes it much harder for open access to get a foot in the door on that very busy route, but this then affects extra Avanti services by consequence.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

At all?

One train a day over part of the journey hardly seems a matter to depress one.

It is, in a way, negative progress. Especially when bimodes were sold as solutions to achieve more decarbonisation without having to deal with putting up more wires (I'm reminded of the first cancellation of MML wires by Chris Grayling), all about making better use of the wires we already have. But it seems in practice, the amount of infrastructure investment needed is so high and the amount of interest in doing it so low that bimodes are just turning into DMUs. The twice a day timetabled moves by Avanti using 805s is not the end of the picture anyway. On ECML, the upgrade of Marshall Meadows FS was seemingly mothballed meaning TPE trains are required to run under wires north of Newcastle. But in both cases of ECML and WCML there is a limit to how many electric trains can run even though there is clear demand for more from both freight and passenger. But they can't happen because of

 

[QueensCurve]

Lumo are using diesel trains (or will be) purely because of this. I believe it is London to Watford Junction and Crewe to Warrington/Liverpool (and bits north of Preston) which are problematic at certain times of the day, mainly where powerful electric freight trains are scheduled through the area around the same time. Even if the freight almost always actually runs with a diesel, the rules seem to be that they are planned as electrics for most flexibility.

It is not in Network Rail's interest to resolve this - as it is also one of the reasons which makes it much harder for open access to get a foot in the door on that very busy route, but this then affects extra Avanti services by consequence.

Diesel powered all the way from Euston to Stirling. Embarassing. Up until about 1985 The Clansman was electrically hauled as far as Mossend.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 May 2026 ==

It is, in a way, negative progress. Especially when bimodes were sold as solutions to achieve more decarbonisation without having to deal with putting up more wires (I'm reminded of the first cancellation of MML wires by Chris Grayling), all about making better use of the wires we already have. But it seems in practice, the amount of infrastructure investment needed is so high and the amount of interest in doing it so low that bimodes are just turning into DMUs. The twice a day timetabled moves by Avanti using 805s is not the end of the picture anyway. On ECML, the upgrade of Marshall Meadows FS was seemingly mothballed meaning TPE trains are required to run under wires north of Newcastle. But in both cases of ECML and WCML there is a limit to how many electric trains can run even though there is clear demand for more from both freight and passenger. But they can't happen because of

BR put in the power supply needed for the limited number of trains they ran. Since the number of trains has increased there hasn't been the joined up thinking needed to enhance the power supply to cope. Thus we are failing to derive the whole return on the massive investment made. Perhaps the DafT will be reinforced in their views that electrification is poor value?

 

[norbitonflyer]

It is so depressing that we still have diesel trains running under the wires.

Even more depressing is bimodes having to run on diesel under the wires

 

[GraphitProjekt]

BR put in the power supply needed for the limited number of trains they ran. Since the number of trains has increased there hasn't been the joined up thinking needed to enhance the power supply to cope. Thus we are failing to derive the whole return on the massive investment made. Perhaps the DafT will be reinforced in their views that electrification is poor value?

it's just strange to me that we actually start PSU projects and get quite far into them and then mothball them at the end, with wasted equipment procured and constructed.

Diesel powered all the way from Euston to Stirling. Embarassing. Up until about 1985 The Clansman was electrically hauled as far as Mossend.

Even more depressing is bimodes having to run on diesel under the wires

BR was actually a lot more willing to swap out diesel and electric locos as required. Especially on freight which at least still happens to a limited degree. Many bemoan the class 220-1s for replacing HSTs, but they also replaced services which ran partly with class 86s and then 47s - I think on the Manchester - Bournemouth corridor. The privatised era, especially in the early days, just destroyed any ability to make the financial case for electrification due to the fragmentation - and so large fleets of DMUs were purchased instead, looking in that practice for several decades, and by the 2010s when things got a little less disintegrated for the rail sector, all the industrial knowledge on electrification had been lost by the wanton distruction of railtrack.

 

[zwk500]

it's just strange to me that we actually start PSU projects and get quite far into them and then mothball them at the end, with wasted equipment procured and constructed.

Not just PSU projects, entire electrification schemes as well (having spent quite a long time staring at a very shiny substation at Bristol East Junction over the years).

BR was actually a lot more willing to swap out diesel and electric locos as required. Especially on freight which at least still happens to a limited degree. Many bemoan the class 220-1s for replacing HSTs, but they also replaced services which ran partly with class 86s and then 47s - I think on the Manchester - Bournemouth corridor. The privatised era, especially in the early days, just destroyed any ability to make the financial case for electrification due to the fragmentation - and so large fleets of DMUs were purchased instead, looking in that practice for several decades, and by the 2010s when things got a little less disintegrated for the rail sector, all the industrial knowledge on electrification had been lost by the wanton distruction of railtrack.

BR were moving away from Loco swaps as normal operation as well. Fixed formation HSTs replaced loco hauled on many main lines in the 60s, let alone the later introduction of DBSO/DVT operated push-pull stock.

Inevitably, because the replacement loco must be standing ready, the swap will require a lower utilisation of both locos, more staff (the shunter, 2 drivers), and more infrastructure capacity (to be able to shunt the loco between or around other trains). Providing these was going to eat into costs regardless of if BR stayed in one piece or not.

 

[The Planner]

Diesel powered all the way from Euston to Stirling. Embarassing. Up until about 1985 The Clansman was electrically hauled as far as Mossend.

What do you expect LUMO to do if there is no electric traction spare?

 

[tutacre]

What do you expect LUMO to do if there is no electric traction spare?

The 350/2 fleet (more than suitable for Lumo/Ryanair type model) - with a quick refurb / 2+2 high density seating, 110mph capable, wide mid body doors for quick dwells would have been more than suitable - and probably quite cost effective given they're laid up in sidings. Probably would have made driver recruitment easier too - as you could poach Euston/Crewe drivers etc.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

The 350/2 fleet (more than suitable for Lumo/Ryanair type model) - with a quick refurb / 2+2 high density seating, 110mph capable, wide mid body doors for quick dwells would have been more than suitable - and probably quite cost effective given they're laid up in sidings. Probably would have made driver recruitment easier too - as you could poach Euston/Crewe drivers etc.

The 350/2s, as you say, are 110mph, not 125mph.
There are now a few sections on the route that have been upgraded to 125mph for Everos (805/807) and this is an advantage Lumo gain too.

 

[tutacre]

The 350/2s, as you say, are 110mph, not 125mph.
There are now a few sections on the route that have been upgraded to 125mph for Everos (805/807) and this is an advantage Lumo gain too.

The 222s are not authorised for running at 125mph for most of the route from what I understand, typically running at 110mph max -but happy to be corrected on that.

In any event, the acceleration etc from electric 110mph units would balance out the lower top speed.

 

[800001]

The 350/2 fleet (more than suitable for Lumo/Ryanair type model) - with a quick refurb / 2+2 high density seating, 110mph capable, wide mid body doors for quick dwells would have been more than suitable - and probably quite cost effective given they're laid up in sidings. Probably would have made driver recruitment easier too - as you could poach Euston/Crewe drivers etc.

There is not enough power on the OHL system in the Weaver Junction area for any more additional electric services. Hence why Avanti are now running one class 805 service in diesel to/from Liverpool.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

The 222s are not authorised for running at 125mph for most of the route from what I understand, typically running at 110mph max -but happy to be corrected on that.

Yes, the speed limit for non-Pendolinos is 110mph for a long distance, but there are many exceptions.

List I started to collect through before giving up after 70 miles from London, but there are still several more faster sections:

The sections a 222 can go above 110mph are (location names are aproximate, all data taken from sectional appendix):
Down is away from London, Up is towards London

Harlesden Junction - Harrow and Wealdstone = 120mph - Up and Down Fast
Harrow and Wealdstone - Bushey = 120mph Up Fast, 125mph Down Fast
Through Bushey = 115mph Up Fast
Through Watford Tunnels = 115mph Down Fast
North of Watford Tunnels - Apsley = 115mph Up Fast, 120mph Down Fast
Apsley - Hemel Hempstead = 115mph Up and Down Fast
Hemel Hempstead - Berkhampstead = 115mph Down Fast
Northchurch Tunnels - Tring = 115mph Up and Down Fast
Tring - Leighton Buzzard = 120mph Up Fast, 125mph Down Fast
A4146 Road Overbridge - Bletchley = 120mph Up and Down Fast
Bletchley - alongside Carriage sidings washing plant = 120mph Up Fast, 115mph Down Fast
alongside Carriage sidings washing plant - Denbigh Hall North Jn = 125mph Up Fast, 115mph Down Fast
Denbigh Hall North Jn - Milton Keynes = 125mph Up Fast
Milton Keynes - Wolverton Sidings = 125mph Up Fast, 115mph Down Fast
Wolverton Sidings - near former Castlethorpe Station = 115mph Up and Down Fast
near former Castlethorpe Station - Hanslope North Jn = 120mph Up and Down fast
Hanslope North Jn - 2 miles south of Stowe Hill Tunnel = 115mph Up and Down Fast*





* = and 120mph from 62m 11ch to 66m 04ch on the up fast

 

[dk1]

There is not enough power on the OHL system in the Weaver Junction area for any more additional electric services. Hence why Avanti are now running one class 805 service in diesel to/from Liverpool.

Totally this. Why do some think they know better If there was a better option it would‘ve been chosen.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Totally this. Why do some think they know better If there was a better option it would‘ve been chosen.

And i'd say, it's pretty disappointing that this situation has been allowed to go on for so long, especially when there has been a plan to fix it around for decades that is halfway complete. If WCRM had actually been concluded, perhaps Lumo could have done something with class 350s, or perhaps mark 4s + class 90s as was Grand Central's idea.

 

[dk1]

And i'd say, it's pretty disappointing that this situation has been allowed to go on for so long, especially when there has been a plan to fix it around for decades that is halfway complete. If WCRM had actually been concluded, perhaps Lumo could have done something with class 350s, or perhaps mark 4s + class 90s as was Grand Central's idea.

Yes but its that great ‘if’ again. Unfortunately it is what it is and 222s are a decent stop gap. It’s only for a few years.

 

[DJH1971]

There is not enough power on the OHL system in the Weaver Junction area for any more additional electric services. Hence why Avanti are now running one class 805 service in diesel to/from Liverpool.

And no doubt will be standing room only for many or most of its passengers being only 5 car. Since when did Avanti start using 805's for LIV-EUS services when they are mainly for the North Wales services.

 

[hexagon789]

And no doubt will be standing room only for many or most of its passengers being only 5 car. Since when did Avanti start using 805's for LIV-EUS services when they are mainly for the North Wales services.

It has happened before ad hoc, particularly during the early days of 807 operations.

 

[800001]

And no doubt will be standing room only for many or most of its passengers being only 5 car. Since when did Avanti start using 805's for LIV-EUS services when they are mainly for the North Wales services.

It is one service per day which now requires diesel operation over a section of line where there is not enough OHL power.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Inevitably, because the replacement loco must be standing ready, the swap will require a lower utilisation of both locos, more staff (the shunter, 2 drivers), and more infrastructure capacity (to be able to shunt the loco between or around other trains). Providing these was going to eat into costs regardless of if BR stayed in one piece or not.

Not too difficult with autocouplers and push/pull operation. See the REP/TC/33 atrragmenents at Bournemouth in the 1967 scheme. Although that did involve the REP and 33 moving from one platform to the other, it could be done at a single dedicated platform with no shunting, as long as up and down services are not at the station at the same time.

 

[DJH1971]

It is one service per day which now requires diesel operation over a section of line where there is not enough OHL power.

Any particular diagram?

 

[800001]

Any particular diagram?

Post one at the start of what this thread is all about tells you the service. As for diagram bonuses.

 

[hexagon789]

Any particular diagram?

0905 Euston to Liverpool, 1208 back. Unit also does a Blackpool working.

 

[urbophile]

It is so depressing that we still have diesel trains running under the wires.

Not only depressing but scandalous. Short-sighted thinking seems endemic under this and the preceding governments. Only one of the two likely alternatives is going to bring any sanity and hope.

 

[zwk500]

Not too difficult with autocouplers and push/pull operation. See the REP/TC/33 atrragmenents at Bournemouth in the 1967 scheme. Although that did involve the REP and 33 moving from one platform to the other, it could be done at a single dedicated platform with no shunting, as long as up and down services are not at the station at the same time.

That comes under the 'extra infrastructure capacity' bit I mentioned.

The optimum configuration until very recently was to have an EMU that could be push-pulled by a diesel loco. The Pendos were nearly there, although AIUI the loco couldn't be driven from the pendo cab. Nowadays, B-Modes or BEMUS have replaced the actual need for it.

 

[dk1]

Not only depressing but scandalous. Short-sighted thinking seems endemic under this and the preceding governments. Only one of the two likely alternatives is going to bring any sanity and hope.

Does it really make much difference and is it really that depressing? So many other far more polluting transportation modes out there. At least something is being done to rectify the issue.

 

[Harpo]

The optimum configuration until very recently was to have an EMU that could be push-pulled by a diesel loco. The Pendos were nearly there, although AIUI the loco couldn't be driven from the pendo cab.

57+Pendo was a terrible coupling arrangement that needed two ETS cables to be collected and carried down to the loco and a coupling pantomime that took fully 15 minutes. (It has been suggested that this was what convinced Baker & co at DaFT that coupling locos always took 15 minutes and there should be no loco involvement in IET.)

BR(SR) got it so brilliantly right with the 33/73/TC/EMU system.

 

[saismee]

Does it really make much difference and is it really that depressing? So many other far more polluting transportation modes out there. At least something is being done to rectify the issue.

I agree. I think a diesel train running under the wires is still a  lot better than the hundreds of cars it will be taking off the roads.

 

[Tilting007]

The 222s are not authorised for running at 125mph for most of the route from what I understand, typically running at 110mph max -but happy to be corrected on that.

In any event, the acceleration etc from electric 110mph units would balance out the lower top speed.

They can run at MU (125mph) between Euston and Weaver, and PS (110mph) between Weaver and Stirling.