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

[tutacre]

I wonder if using a Class 805 also provides some sort of competency benefits - i.e. keeps other depots who work them less frequently competent to work, and with a different driving style with diesel?

 

[urbophile]

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.

Yes, but just about everywhere else in the world (certainly, the rest of Europe) unelectrified main lines are rare or non-existent. Why must we always settle for second-best in this country?

 

[mmh]

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.

HSTs were from 1975. BR may have been moving away from loco swapping, but they didn't eradicate it completely - loco swaps were happening at Crewe well into the privatisation era.

 

[QueensCurve]

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

We understand that, we don't understand why the power supply wasn't upgraded.

HSTs were from 1975. BR may have been moving away from loco swapping, but they didn't eradicate it completely - loco swaps were happening at Crewe well into the privatisation era.

Euston to Holyhead seems to have been the one that survived. Euston to Sranraer, Euston to Inverness and for a time Euston to Blackpool services were lost.

 

[thecrofter]

We understand that, we don't understand why the power supply wasn't upgraded.

Simples: Cost - and powers that be not willing to stump up the extra cash. Example for you. The first couple of 400/25 kV Grid sites built under WCRM cost in the region of £8-10million. The last one (Frodsham / Weaver completed 2009) cost £32m. Many factors played their part, not least inflation (the price of copper soared), planning permission issues (not in my back yard), track access issues too many to mention. All the above left the West Coast well short of what was envisaged at the outset that being services only limited by the physical capacity of the track and not the power supply!

 

[Merle Haggard]

Does this mean that when Lumo replace the 222s on the Stirling service the new trains will have to be bi-mode?

 

[The Planner]

Does this mean that when Lumo replace the 222s on the Stirling service the new trains will have to be bi-mode?

I expect they would go for bi-modes, but they don't have to.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

There's a decent chance Lumo would go for bimodes, it does also widen their reach for expanded routes, however they might enjoy the ability to swap units with the ECML operation. It will take a while for them to make proper plans for procuring new units. However, because they're an OAO would they really be able to coordinate rolling stock proposals with DfT releasing new funds to accelerate old PSU plans? They're certainly not going to help with funding those PSUs. The areas in question are North Wembley - Bourne End (which seems to be moving ahead), Crewe area (Whitmore - Weaver Jnc), and Euxton Jnc to Carnforth/Blackpool - maybe also some parts in Scotland I'm not sure

 

[frodshamfella]

Isn't it the Weaver Junction area that is the issue?

Yes it is, one of the things that needs attention , seems ridiculous to me.

 

[Paul AC]

It amazes me that there are so many people on this forum that blithely accept the stupid situation we find ourselves in: of being unable to run electric trains due to inadequate infrastructure. It's not just the WCML: the ECML is in the same boat. We should be shouting this from the rooftops. Government departments are directly responsible for this fiasco.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

But people are actually defending it.

Same with GBR: it cannot make anything better, and can only make things worse.

I actually think the worse fact is the amount of infrastructure planned, designed and constructed to support the upgraded system which is either not being used to its full potential or entirely mothballed

 

[3RDGEN]

Does this mean that when Lumo replace the 222s on the Stirling service the new trains will have to be bi-mode?

When Lumo applied to extend the Stirling access rights beyond 2030 they said they would get battery electric units if approved.

"https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2025/10/lumo-submits-applications-for-expansions-across-network.html" - "Lumo owner, FirstGroup plc, plans to boost connectivity through plans to expand its open-access rail operations.... Applications cover the following plans: Stirling to London Euston track access extension – allowing operation beyond 2030. FirstGroup plans to commit further investment into new Hitachi trains, should the applications be successful. The investment would include 5 battery electric trains to be used on the Stirling route.....

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 May 2026 ==


Yeah it'll probably be the sections Whinmore - Crewe, and Crewe - Weaver Junction that I'd guess are the issue.
The former section is fed from Crewe FS which is the original equipment from (checks notes) 1959. Decent portion of the main route (WCML South, Trent Valley, Weaver - Euxton, Carnforth - Gt Strickland) has been modernised with 2x 25kV AT feeding. But the Crewe area fell off the agenda for some reason. I think there was supposed to be a new grid connection in the Crewe area to replace it and feed the surrounding lines with AT.

Crewe FS was equipped in 1959 with 2 x 15MVA transformers which is somewhat mediocre compared to todays supply points but part of its feeding area was transferred across to Weaver ATFS i believe. Its lost a lot of standing load it once had but will certainly be under pressure under N-1 feeding.

 

[childwallblues]

The power supply upgrade and ATF working was part of the megabuck WCRM project, but was descoped over the years and not reinstated.
The ATF project is also incomplete.
You can probably blame WCRM overruns in cost and time.

The 805 set appears to come from the 0835 Holyhead/Blackpool arrival at Euston, of which the set at the country end goes back to Holyhead at 0900 and the one at the buffers forms the 0905 to Liverpool, 805 008 doing the honours today..

The service returns from Liverpool on full electric.

 

[ABB125]

I'm told that one of the reasons for running diesel under the wires in this area is because the Network Rail modelling assumes all the freight trains are electrically-hauled (which obviously does not reflect reality). Is anyone able to shed some light on this?

 

[The Planner]

I'm told that one of the reasons for running diesel under the wires in this area is because the Network Rail modelling assumes all the freight trains are electrically-hauled (which obviously does not reflect reality). Is anyone able to shed some light on this?

No, it assumes a level of electrically hauled freight. Not all.

 

[voyagerdude220]

Last Monday's 1F15 09:05 London Euston to Liverpool Lime Street (805010) got diverted via Warrington and Earlestown due to it having Generator Unit faults, preventing it running on diesel as booked.

It's return working ran as booked via Runcorn.

 

[LYuen]

Modern EMU should be more energy efficient than older ones, from chopper to GTO-VVVF to IGBT for example, have halved the energy consumption.
I know Avanti, LNWR and London Overground trains are already using IGBT traction. What is stopping UK from requiring new trains to have SiC-VVVF traction, which can save an additional 5-10% over IGBT?
And when Avanti and LNWR were introducing Class 805/807/730 in Euston services, given they already know power supply was at the limit, were they required to introduce more energy efficient rolling stock over the previous generation?
If not, why not?

 

[hwl]

Modern EMU should be more energy efficient than older ones, from chopper to GTO-VVVF to IGBT for example, have halved the energy consumption.

Presumably you mean the just the drive losses? The overall consumption won't have been halved!

I know Avanti, LNWR and London Overground trains are already using IGBT traction. What is stopping UK from requiring new trains to have SiC-VVVF traction, which can save an additional 5-10% over IGBT?

There isn't 5-10% left to to improve in overall efficicncy by swapping to SiC, poresumably you mean just further reduced reduced losses in the drive elecronics?

And when Avanti and LNWR were introducing Class 805/807/730 in Euston services, given they already know power supply was at the limit, were they required to introduce more energy efficient rolling stock over the previous generation?
If not, why not?

Both did introduce new roll stock that was more efficient than the previous generations but the power supply and protection systems at Crewe are very old, under sized and not fit for the future what ever happens with improved efficiency.

 

[LYuen]

Presumably you mean the just the drive losses? The overall consumption won't have been halved!

GTO is about 1/3 more efficient than chopper motor, IGBT is also about same over GTO. And there are more efficient HVAC and lighting in newer trains.
I think it is reasonable to expect 25% lower energy consumption in a 20 years newer train. JR East claimed the E235 consumes 20% less energy than E233, which is just 10 years in between.

There isn't 5-10% left to to improve in overall efficicncy by swapping to SiC, poresumably you mean just further reduced reduced losses in the drive elecronics?

Both did introduce new roll stock that was more efficient than the previous generations but the power supply and protection systems at Crewe are very old, under sized and not fit for the future what ever happens with improved efficiency.

By improving efficiency by 10%, replacing 10 trains will enable energy capacity for the 11th train. Though I see WMT replaced the mostly 8-car Crewe Class 350 services with 10-car Class 730, that would break even on its own

 

[DelW]

Modern EMU should be more energy efficient than older ones, from chopper to GTO-VVVF to IGBT for example, have halved the energy consumption.
I know Avanti, LNWR and London Overground trains are already using IGBT traction. What is stopping UK from requiring new trains to have SiC-VVVF traction, which can save an additional 5-10% over IGBT?
And when Avanti and LNWR were introducing Class 805/807/730 in Euston services, given they already know power supply was at the limit, were they required to introduce more energy efficient rolling stock over the previous generation?
If not, why not?

Please could these acronyms be explained when they are first introduced? (I am aware of EMU and LN[W]R).

 

[DaveyJones]

Please could these acronyms be explained when they are first introduced? (I am aware of EMU and LN[W]R).

GTO: Gate Turn Off (Thyristor) -
VVVF: Variable Voltage Variable Frequency
IGBT: Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor
All 3 above are types of electrical traction control

 

[100andthirty]

To answer the acronym question:
Chopper used Thyristors of Gate Turn off (GTO) Thyristors to control current to DC traction motors
Early AC drives used GTOs to control Variable Voltage, Variable Frequency (VVVF) inverters.
GTOs were superceded by Insultated Gate Bipolar Transistors (IGBT). which were more efficient. Designs are starting to use Silicon carbide (SiC) transistors which are more efficient still.

Also, improved efficiency is a term used to describe the amount of energy lost in the conversion (DC to AC or AC to AC) and not the total amount of energy used. Thus a SiC converter might be 10% more efficient than an IGBT model. Based on the IGBT system being at least 90% efficient, if the SiC system is 10% more efficient than the IGBT, this means that it'll be 92% efficient in converting the energcy from one form to the other.

So this statement:

By improving efficiency by 10%, replacing 10 trains will enable energy capacity for the 11th train. Though I see WMT replaced the mostly 8-car Crewe Class 350 services with 10-car Class 730, that would break even on its own

Is incorrect in the assertion about enabling capacity for an 11th train. Equally an energy consumption comparison between the 8-car class 350 and the 10 car class 730 depends on many more factors than the traction converter technology. The biggest difference will be in train mass and performance specified.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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).

That's because NR burnt the budget on prior aspects of those projects.
The cancelled WCML north power upgrade was the result of many wasted millions on WCRM further south (eg Ledburn, Stockport etc).
Similarly on the over-engineered GW electrification.
The music finally stopped when NR's "credit card" was cancelled under public ownership.

 

[DelW]

To answer the acronym question:
Chopper used Thyristors of Gate Turn off (GTO) Thyristors to control current to DC traction motors
Early AC drives used GTOs to control Variable Voltage, Variable Frequency (VVVF) inverters.
GTOs were superceded by Insultated Gate Bipolar Transistors (IGBT). which were more efficient. Designs are starting to use Silicon carbide (SiC) transistors which are more efficient still.

Also, improved efficiency is a term used to describe the amount of energy lost in the conversion (DC to AC or AC to AC) and not the total amount of energy used. Thus a SiC converter might be 10% more efficient than an IGBT model. Based on the IGBT system being at least 90% efficient, if the SiC system is 10% more efficient than the IGBT, this means that it'll be 92% efficient in converting the energcy from one form to the other.

So this statement:



Is incorrect in the assetion about enabling capacity for an 11th train. Equally an energy consumption comparison between the 8-car class 350 and the 10 car class 730 depends on many more factors than the traction converter technology. The biggest difference will be in train mass and performance specified.

Thank you, that's most helpful in clarifying the recent posts.

 

[hwl]

To answer the acronym question:
Chopper used Thyristors of Gate Turn off (GTO) Thyristors to control current to DC traction motors
Early AC drives used GTOs to control Variable Voltage, Variable Frequency (VVVF) inverters.
GTOs were superceded by Insultated Gate Bipolar Transistors (IGBT). which were more efficient. Designs are starting to use Silicon carbide (SiC) transistors which are more efficient still.

Also, improved efficiency is a term used to describe the amount of energy lost in the conversion (DC to AC or AC to AC) and not the total amount of energy used. Thus a SiC converter might be 10% more efficient than an IGBT model. Based on the IGBT system being at least 90% efficient, if the SiC system is 10% more efficient than the IGBT, this means that it'll be 92% efficient in converting the energcy from one form to the other.

So this statement:



Is incorrect in the assertion about enabling capacity for an 11th train. Equally an energy consumption comparison between the 8-car class 350 and the 10 car class 730 depends on many more factors than the traction converter technology. The biggest difference will be in train mass and performance specified.

Exactly, some of us in this thread have very good (professional) understanding of traction electric system performance and efficiency and some others just don't!!! The person you are reply to has a massive misunderstanding of some or all of data, maths and/or engineering English.

In many recent traction systems there has been a trend to high voltages for IGBT which has also reduced the apparent SiC advantage has that often had a higher motor voltage assumption included hence they often weren't often apple vs apples comparisons.

350s have 20.Xm vehicles and 730s have 24.Xm vehicles hence a 10car 730 is equivalent to a 12car 350; however the 350s are known for being heavy so a 12 car Cl350 tare is 538 tonnes, 8car 359 tonnes and a 10car 730 is 396 tonnes. The main differences in 12car 350 vs 10 730 has come from mass reduction (142 tonnes) : lighter body shells despite being 4m longer, 4 fewer bogies, 2 fewer cabs, 20 inside frame bogies compared to outside frame and better electrical system design and integration also saving some weight, totalling 142 tonnes. Yes the electrical system is better but saving 26.3% on weight is a huge factor. Better HVAC and auxiliary efficiency has also helped

 

[QueensCurve]

Crewe FS was equipped in 1959 with 2 x 15MVA transformers which is somewhat mediocre compared to todays supply points but part of its feeding area was transferred across to Weaver ATFS i believe. Its lost a lot of standing load it once had but will certainly be under pressure under N-1 feeding.

For my own edification, Does Crewe FS feed at the Neutral section just North of Crewe? If so, where are the transformers located?

 

[frodshamfella]

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

Totally agree. Just seems crazy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jun 2026 ==

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.

From someone who uses the service from Runcorn to London quite often . The 805s always seem pretty full, I don't dislike them, they have better luggage provision than the Pendolinos. But they do seem short of passenger capacity.

 

[Sorcerer]

From someone who uses the service from Runcorn to London quite often . The 805s always seem pretty full, I don't dislike them, they have better luggage provision than the Pendolinos. But they do seem short of passenger capacity.

Probably because the 805s were intended to replace the 221s, of which 299 seats is better than the previous 246. But against the 807s and 390s that normally operate on the route they fall short, and I wouldn't be surprised if Avanti would've preferred it to be a Pendolino since that is what the Liverpool via Trent Valley service would usually be pathed for, not to mention running diesel under wires isn't really economical even if it can't really be avoided in this case.

 

[Elecman]

For my own edification, Does Crewe FS feed at the Neutral section just North of Crewe? If so, where are the transformers located?

The 132/25kV transformers are located at Scottish Powers 132kV substation on Middlewich Road by the Bentley car factory