Could ETCS see 140mph running on the East Coast Mainline?

Tobberz · 14 Apr 2026

Moderator note: Split from

First ETCS train operates on the East Coast Mainline

Apologies if this has already been discussed, I did look but didn't see a thread. On Sunday, 2 June, Great Northern operated a Class 717 electric multiple unit using European Train Control System (ETCS). This digital train protection system sends signalling information straight to the...

www.railforums.co.uk

Apologies - I don't know too much about this. From the previous discussion I am aware that 140mph is slightly less pie-in-the-sky once ETCS is implemented (OLE, track notwithstanding).

But, considering the straightness of a lot of the ECML, could higher speeds (140mph+) be achieved with enough investment? And if so, would that even be desirable?

RailUK Forums

Bald Rick · 14 Apr 2026

Tobberz said:
But, considering the straightness of a lot of the ECML, could higher speeds (140mph+) be achieved with enough investment? And if so, would that even be desirable?

Yes, and possibly.

The main question, though, is would it be value for money, to which the answer is a definite no.

najaB · 14 Apr 2026

Bald Rick said:
The main question, though, is would it be value for money, to which the answer is a definite no.

Though, one would imagine that a lot of the investment necessary to safely implement 140mph running (renewed OHLE, improving track quality, closing level crossings, etc.) would increase reliability for all services.

zwk500 · 14 Apr 2026

Tobberz said:
And if so, would that even be desirable?

Worth looking at this thread:

Which section of track would most benefit from a 140mph line speed?

Excluding HS1, there are currently no sections of track in the UK with a line speed greater than 125mph. Therefore, if issues of cost were ignored, which stretch of track would most benefit from having its line speed raised to 140mph. By section of track I mean a stretch of track of between 20...

www.railforums.co.uk

Bald Rick · 15 Apr 2026

najaB said:
Though, one would imagine that a lot of the investment necessary to safely implement 140mph running (renewed OHLE, improving track quality, closing level crossings, etc.) would increase reliability for all services.

No doubt, but at huge cost.

LNW-GW Joint · 15 Apr 2026

In one of the lurches of HS2 policy, the cancellation of HS2 East was supposed to be mitigated by upgrades of the ECML and MML to improve journey times.
I suspect none of that is on the drawing board at the moment.
ETCS is likely to reach parts of the northern WCML and TP North in the next decade, but almost none of that is suitable for 140mph running.
There's still an industry mountain to climb to achieve general 125mph running on the southern ECML under ETCS.

Snow1964 · 15 Apr 2026

Technically ETCS level 2 can be used upto 350km/h (217mph)

Of course if it is economic to upgrade track, overhead wires and eliminating local features for operating at increased speeds is a different question.

In UK rail tend to have speed limits in 5mph increments, and with trains designed to operate at 140mph there is no logical reason why a few miles could not be 130, 135 or 140mph.

ECTS is in 10km/h increments, but this does mean that some speeds work better when converted, eg if set for 200km/h then it's 124 (not 125) mph. But if 130mph was thought better commercially then 210km/h is 130.5mph, so in practice the extra 5mph limit gives 6mph faster.

My own hunch is changing from a historic (50 years ago) 125mph to a more metric friendly 130mph will make commercial sense, but going higher to 140mph will cost too much.

zwk500 · 15 Apr 2026

Snow1964 said:
My own hunch is changing from a historic (50 years ago) 125mph to a more metric friendly 130mph will make commercial sense, but going higher to 140mph will cost too much.

Given that the additional requirements all kick in at 201kph or 126mph (depending on which units the regulatory body works in), I don't see any of the UK classic network being economic to upgrade beyond 125mph unless the regulations are changed. Particularly the regulations for closed off platforms, and no level crossings.

Snow1964 · 15 Apr 2026

zwk500 said:
Given that the additional requirements all kick in at 201kph or 126mph (depending on which units the regulatory body works in), I don't see any of the UK classic network being economic to upgrade beyond 125mph unless the regulations are changed. Particularly the regulations for closed off platforms, and no level crossings.

I was thinking slightly differently, 130mph (where practical) with shorter local restrictions to 125mph. My reasoning was the 10km/h speed limiter increase gives extra 6mph (in practice) which might allow odd half minutes to be gained allowing more flexibility in setting slick timetables at junctions etc.

I have never seen any real scientific reason why some of the rules and regulations have a 125mph threshold (as opposed to say 120mph or 130mph), seems some were just set arbitarily to match 125mph, which was a speed decided on in 1970s

Western Lord · 15 Apr 2026

Snow1964 said:
Technically ETCS level 2 can be used upto 350km/h (217mph)

Of course if it is economic to upgrade track, overhead wires and eliminating local features for operating at increased speeds is a different question.

In UK rail tend to have speed limits in 5mph increments, and with trains designed to operate at 140mph there is no logical reason why a few miles could not be 130, 135 or 140mph.

ECTS is in 10km/h increments, but this does mean that some speeds work better when converted, eg if set for 200km/h then it's 124 (not 125) mph. But if 130mph was thought better commercially then 210km/h is 130.5mph, so in practice the extra 5mph limit gives 6mph faster.

My own hunch is changing from a historic (50 years ago) 125mph to a more metric friendly 130mph will make commercial sense, but going higher to 140mph will cost too much.

130 mph is 209.2 km/h. How is that more "metric friendly"? 125 mph is regarded as the metric equivalent of 200 km/h (although 200 km/h is only 124.2 mph). The problem is that unless everything is doing 140 mph it reduces track capacity.

zwk500 · 15 Apr 2026

Snow1964 said:
I was thinking slightly differently, 130mph (where practical) with shorter local restrictions to 125mph. My reasoning was the 10km/h speed limiter increase gives extra 6mph (in practice) which might allow odd half minutes to be gained allowing more flexibility in setting slick timetables at junctions etc.

The problem though is that 6mph is not giving you anything meaningful above 5mph increase once your base speed is 125mph. (it's a 0.048% increase against a 0.04% increase). It's still giving you no better than 1 second per mile advantage.
Also, ETCS can handle 5km/h increments:

ETCS speed profiles are transmitted in multiples of 5km/h and GE/RT8402, Issue 3 details the conversion to mph. For any imperial speed displayed at the lineside, the ETCS metric speed which results in the correct imperial speed on the ETCS DMI is transmitted.

From Topic F on this page: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/indus...nd-integration-gb-generic-requirements-suite/
(direct link, if it works: https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blo...ics/Topic F - Applying Speed Restrictions.pdf)

Snow1964 said:
I have never seen any real scientific reason why some of the rules and regulations have a 125mph threshold (as opposed to say 120mph or 130mph), seems some were just set arbitarily to match 125mph, which was a speed decided on in 1970s

Unfortunately, a limit must be chosen at some point and 125mph or 200kph is the threshold that has been chosen. That's not just EU, but the UIC as well. I'd also be interested to see the evidence base for 125mph/200kph, but as it stands that's the limit and it'd need evidence to persuade regulators to lift it.

FGWHST43009 · 15 Apr 2026

Tobberz said:
But, considering the straightness of a lot of the ECML, could higher speeds (140mph+) be achieved with enough investment? And if so, would that even be desirable?

Not for a lot of gain. 20 miles at 140mph is a minute faster compared to 125mph, so doesn't make a lot of sense.

If curvy and busy sections such as Welwyn, Morpeth and near Durham were hypothetically bypassed then that would be the opportunity for speeds above 125mph on the ECML. Short bypasses tend to move the bottlenecks to somewhere else, so a full high-speed line becomes more viable

edwin_m · 15 Apr 2026

Snow1964 said:
I have never seen any real scientific reason why some of the rules and regulations have a 125mph threshold (as opposed to say 120mph or 130mph), seems some were just set arbitarily to match 125mph, which was a speed decided on in 1970s

For the UK at least, 125mph was established as the operating speed in the 1970s before safety regulation was so stringent. It is generally accepted because service history demonstrates that the risk level is tolerable.

Going above that involves an increase in risk, and modern safety regulation requires that risk to be assessed and justified, which probably means extra measures to reduce the risk that compensate for the extra risk of higher speed.

The most favourable sections for higher speeds would probably be the Selby diversion (Templehirst to Colton) and York to Darlington. Both are relatively straight and the Diversion was built in the 1980s to more modern standards than older parts of the route. They have no level crossings and the only platforms affected would be Northallerton, which would ideally be rebuilt to extend the Slow lines into new platforms.

Peter Mugridge · 15 Apr 2026

FGWHST43009 said:
Not for a lot of gain. 20 miles at 140mph is a minute faster compared to 125mph, so doesn't make a lot of sense.

If curvy and busy sections such as Welwyn, Morpeth and near Durham were hypothetically bypassed then that would be the opportunity for speeds above 125mph on the ECML. Short bypasses tend to move the bottlenecks to somewhere else, so a full high-speed line becomes more viable

If only, then, there was a connection straight across to Yorkshire or somewhere from a new high speed line being built only a moderate distance away to the west...

edwin_m · 16 Apr 2026

Peter Mugridge said:
If only, then, there was a connection straight across to Yorkshire or somewhere from a new high speed line being built only a moderate distance away to the west...

Comparing the HS2 projected journey times with the timetable in force at the time, HS2 London to York and beyond would only have been 30min or so less via HS2 than via the ECML, and that was before any ECML improvements in the meantime.

zwk500 · 16 Apr 2026

edwin_m said:
Comparing the HS2 projected journey times with the timetable in force at the time, HS2 London to York and beyond would only have been 30min or so less via HS2 than via the ECML, and that was before any ECML improvements in the meantime.

An early HS2 document (with outdated watermarks) claimed the following journey time reductions after Phase 2b (all figures in minutes):
MML:
Derby: 85 to 72 (-13)
Nottingham: 100 to 69 (-31)
Sheffield: 121 to 85 (-36)
ECML:
Leeds: 131 to 81 (-50)
York: 110 to 84 (-25)
Newcastle: 169 to 137 (-32)

Existing times appear to be fastest single possible journeys ("based on assumptions and analysis as at Summer 2016), new journey times appear to be including planned intermediate stops.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82b56740f0b6230269c497/journey_times.pdf

Taking York-London below 1.5hrs is quite a meaningful improvement, tbf. To achieve similar improvement from the Classic ECML would presumably require spending a lot more than would be required for the eastern leg of HS2.
However, these journey times were predicated on HS2 getting all the way to York, so whether the gains from connecting into whatever's left of HS2 that ends up being delivered are more or less than would be achievable from ECML upgrades is another question entirely.

JamesT · 16 Apr 2026

zwk500 said:
An early HS2 document (with outdated watermarks) claimed the following journey time reductions after Phase 2b (all figures in minutes):
MML:
Derby: 85 to 72 (-13)
Nottingham: 100 to 69 (-31)
Sheffield: 121 to 85 (-36)
ECML:
Leeds: 131 to 81 (-50)
York: 110 to 84 (-25)
Newcastle: 169 to 137 (-32)

Existing times appear to be fastest single possible journeys ("based on assumptions and analysis as at Summer 2016), new journey times appear to be including planned intermediate stops.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82b56740f0b6230269c497/journey_times.pdf

Taking York-London below 1.5hrs is quite a meaningful improvement, tbf. To achieve similar improvement from the Classic ECML would presumably require spending a lot more than would be required for the eastern leg of HS2.
However, these journey times were predicated on HS2 getting all the way to York, so whether the gains from connecting into whatever's left of HS2 that ends up being delivered are more or less than would be achievable from ECML upgrades is another question entirely.

The other thing that comes to mind, if you have HS2 providing fast end to end times for the major stations, do you use the opportunity to provide more frequency at intermediate stations on the ECML now you're no longer chasing the fastest times?

zwk500 · 16 Apr 2026

JamesT said:
The other thing that comes to mind, if you have HS2 providing fast end to end times for the major stations, do you use the opportunity to provide more frequency at intermediate stations on the ECML now you're no longer chasing the fastest times?

In a sane world, you absolutely would.

NCT · 16 Apr 2026

JamesT said:
The other thing that comes to mind, if you have HS2 providing fast end to end times for the major stations, do you use the opportunity to provide more frequency at intermediate stations on the ECML now you're no longer chasing the fastest times?

Absolutely. You'd improve the frequency and regularity of calls at Peterborough, Newark, Grantham, Retford and Doncaster, and spend more industry effort at promoting rail for journeys like Grantham - Newark which the current railway can complacently do without.

cambsy · 2026-09-03T00:35:43+0100

If the whole of the ECML could be up graded to 140 mph, where it’s feasible, then a journey time of approx 3 hrs 35 mins Kings Cross-Edinburgh, could be achieved so its not a small gain. I know this sounds un feasible, but in the mid 90’s, 1T01 which was a shortened 225 set, with 5 Mk4’s, did Kings Cross-Edinburgh non stop in 3hrs 29 mins, running at 140 mph where it was feasible to. The 140mph sections were:

Hitchin-Huntingdon, then towards Connington etc,
Peterborough-Grantham-Newark, then in places to Doncaster,
Doncaster-York,
York-Darlington,

these were the major 140mph stretches, with other shorter stretches where 135mp-140mph was possible, though on some of these parts, the top speed wasnt done for various reasons, and there were couple short stretches between Newcastle-Edinburgh, where on at least one part, only approx 125 mph was reached. The run just barely did it in 3hrs 29 mins, it was a close run thing. Taking this run with 2 stops gives possible timing of about 3hrs 35 mins, so if this could be done it would be worthwhile and of economic benefit.

zwk500 · 2026-09-03T08:53:01+0100

cambsy said:
Taking this run with 2 stops gives possible timing of about 3hrs 35 mins, so if this could be done it would be worthwhile and of economic benefit.

The other side of 'if it could be done' is the timetable, which is now very very busy. There is no point running faster if the stopping train is stuck in front.

HamworthyGoods · 2026-09-03T09:55:22+0100

cambsy said:
If the whole of the ECML could be up graded to 140 mph, where it’s feasible, then a journey time of approx 3 hrs 35 mins Kings Cross-Edinburgh, could be achieved so its not a small gain. I know this sounds un feasible, but in the mid 90’s, 1T01 which was a shortened 225 set, with 5 Mk4’s, did Kings Cross-Edinburgh non stop in 3hrs 29 mins, running at 140 mph where it was feasible to. The 140mph sections were:

Hitchin-Huntingdon, then towards Connington etc,
Peterborough-Grantham-Newark, then in places to Doncaster,
Doncaster-York,
York-Darlington,

these were the major 140mph stretches, with other shorter stretches where 135mp-140mph was possible, though on some of these parts, the top speed wasnt done for various reasons, and there were couple short stretches between Newcastle-Edinburgh, where on at least one part, only approx 125 mph was reached. The run just barely did it in 3hrs 29 mins, it was a close run thing. Taking this run with 2 stops gives possible timing of about 3hrs 35 mins, so if this could be done it would be worthwhile and of economic benefit.

Two stops would take it above 3h 35m. Assuming you desire the stops to be York and Newcastle, the minimum dwell time for those stations is 3 minutes each, so there’s your 6 minutes gone before even allowing for acceleration/deceleration.

That would take you up to around 3h 40m to 3h 45m.

Then you look at the engineering allowances needed to allow for temporary speed restrictions etc which are mandated in the timetable (and also to give some robustness), currently mandated northbound is 7 minutes engineering allowances and 3 minutes performance allowances.

That would take you to at least 3h 50m if not 3h 55m which is at least 15 minutes more than your 3h 35m estimate. What is achievable for a focussed special run is very different to what can be achieved day in day out.

cambsy · 2026-09-03T10:36:24+0100

HamworthyGoods, I did just quick calculation in my head, and appreciate that engineering and performance allowances add on time, but if these were tightened, similar to the Scottish Pullmans in the 90’s, with their 3hr 59 mins Kings Cross-Edinburgh runs, and with 140mph running and the Azuma performance, then something like 3hrs 45 mins would be possible. This of course is hypothetical and with amount of rail traffic would be hard to timetable, but if there was will to do it, it could be done and with the time savings would be worthwhile in my opinion.

This is just fun and bit of fantasy, but say with some major infrastructure up grades, and using Tilting Train to help iron out the speed profile, especially on the curvy sections north of Darlington, to help get some decent 140 mph stretches, then something like 3hrs 15 mins Kings Cross-Edinburgh, could be possible, and this would start to bite into the air travel market share. Know it would be very expensive, but it would give a decent long distance high speed line, for a lot less than the expensive HS2 London-Birmingham line.

Stossgebet · 2026-09-03T13:34:01+0100

Why just 140mph?
Why not 150/155mph?
Yes, i know the Azumas are 140mph trains, but the 350's could be increased by 10mph, i am sure Hita hi could do what siemens did.

positron · 2026-09-03T13:44:13+0100

Increasing above 125 really doesn't make sense on a railway with constrained capacity. You're far better off spending the money on junctions and crossings to bring up the lower speed sections. Bypassing Morpeth to avoid a steep curve etc. Also just building HS2's eastern leg but that's another discussion.

zwk500 · 2026-09-03T13:45:12+0100

Stossgebet said:
Why just 140mph?
Why not 150/155mph?
Yes, i know the Azumas are 140mph trains, but the 350's could be increased by 10mph, i am sure Hita hi could do what siemens did.

Leaving aside everything else, how much of the Vertical & Horizontal alignment between King's Cross and Edinburgh Waverley is even capable of 150 or 155mph?

positron said:
Increasing above 125 really doesn't make sense on a railway with constrained capacity. You're far better off spending the money on junctions and crossings to bring up the lower speed sections.

Very much agree. Floors not ceilings!

Stossgebet · 2026-09-03T14:10:02+0100

zwk500 said:
Leaving aside everything else, how much of the Vertical & Horizontal alignment between King's Cross and Edinburgh Waverley is even capable of 150 or 155mph?

Very much agree. Floors not ceilings!

Like i said. Why? Of course there's reasons.
But are they
a) insurmountable
b) ruinously expensive (when compared to the alternatives)

Personally, as comments above say, i'd rather have HS2 in full, and a Morpeth bypass.

But reality tells me i rarely ever get what i want

zwk500 · 2026-09-03T14:22:45+0100

Stossgebet said:
Like i said. Why? Of course there's reasons.
But are they
a) insurmountable
b) ruinously expensive (when compared to the alternatives)

Personally, as comments above say, i'd rather have HS2 in full, and a Morpeth bypass.

But reality tells me i rarely ever get what i want

An off-line replacement for the ECML is going to be more likely than an on-line upgrade to 155mph.

AlastairFraser · 2026-09-03T14:33:20+0100

140-150mph makes sense for the proposed bypasses if the Azumas are capable, but the rest of the line probably can't accommodate 140mph without a further reduction in capacity.

Palmerston · 2026-09-03T19:00:46+0100

zwk500 said:
An early HS2 document (with outdated watermarks) claimed the following journey time reductions after Phase 2b (all figures in minutes):
MML:
Derby: 85 to 72 (-13)
Nottingham: 100 to 69 (-31)
Sheffield: 121 to 85 (-36)
ECML:
Leeds: 131 to 81 (-50)
York: 110 to 84 (-25)
Newcastle: 169 to 137 (-32)

Off topic but the time savings to eg Leeds and Nottingham would have been huge.

Could ETCS see 140mph running on the East Coast Mainline?

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member