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

Bald Rick · 3 Sep 2026

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.

Sorry this is not right.

1T01 went rather faster than 140mph in places. It also ‘parted the Red Sea’ in that anythign in the way was mived out of the way.

At 140 vs 125:

Hitchin to Connington saves approx 90 seconds
Peterborough - Stoke and Peascliff to Newark together save approx 90 seconds
”in places to Doncaster” saves around 1 minute
Doncaster to York saves 2 minutes
York to Darlington saves 2 minutes.

Total 8 minutes over today’s timings. At best.

All of which assumes that on the sections abive 125mph:
every Level Crossing is closed
every set of pointwork is replaced with swing nose crossings or remived entirely
all contact and catenary wire is replaced, and retensioend along with any supports that are not structurally independent or of sufficient strenght for the higher tension
all signalling is replaced
most track on curves is recanted
all strcutures above and below the railway are reassessed
many structures rebuilt for higher dynamic loading / higher aerodynamic forces / gauging
power supplies upgraded
and more.

RailUK Forums

class26 · 3 Sep 2026

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.

What is stopping the Selby diversion being increased to 140 mph as wans`t it built for 140 mph in the first place. I don`t think there are any road crossings so once ETCS reaches that area couldn`t it be increased to 140 ?

Bald Rick · 3 Sep 2026

class26 said:
What is topping the Selby diversion being increased to 140 mph as wans`t it built for 140 mph in the first place. I don`t think there are any road crossings so once ETCS reaches that area couldn`t it be increased to 140?

The alignment was built for 140mph. (actually 155mph AIUI).

Nothing else on that section was built for that speed, though.

AlastairFraser · 3 Sep 2026

Bald Rick said:
Sorry this is not right.

1T01 went rather faster than 140mph in places. It also ‘parted the Red Sea’ in that anythign in the way was mived out of the way.

At 140 vs 125:

Hitchin to Connington saves approx 90 seconds
Peterborough - Stoke and Peascliff to Newark together save approx 90 seconds
”in places to Doncaster” saves around 1 minute
Doncaster to York saves 2 minutes
York to Darlington saves 2 minutes.

Total 8 minutes over today’s timings. At best.

All of which assumes that on the sections abive 125mph:
every Level Crossing is closed
every set of pointwork is replaced with swing nose crossings or remived entirely
all contact and catenary wire is replaced, and retensioend along with any supports that are not structurally independent or of sufficient strenght for the higher tension
all signalling is replaced
most track on curves is recanted
all strcutures above and below the railway are reassessed
many structures rebuilt for higher dynamic loading / higher aerodynamic forces / gauging
power supplies upgraded
and more.

Here's a question. Is the Selby diversion ready for 140-150mph in terms of infrastructure, or would it need further significant upgrades?

Bald Rick · 3 Sep 2026

AlastairFraser said:
Here's a question. Is the Selby diversion ready for 140-150mph in terms of infrastructure, or would it need further significant upgrades?

As I implied, but evidently didn’t make explicity clear, the alignment is fit for higher speed, but nothing else is. So all the items I listed above in post #30 would need to be done. Except Level Crossings, as there aren’t any between Temple Hirst and York. There are, however, around 20 between Doncaster and Temple Hirst.

AlastairFraser · 3 Sep 2026

Bald Rick said:
As I implied, but evidently didn’t make explicity clear, the alignment is fit for higher speed, but nothing else is. So all the items I listed above in post #30 would need to be done. Except Level Crossings, as there aren’t any between Temple Hirst and York. There are, however, around 20 between Doncaster and Temple Hirst.

Sorry, I didn't see your previous post.
It seems some significant work is still left to be done, but I still consider the Selby Diversion itself and hypothetical future bypasses at Morpeth and other locations the best chance of seeing 140mph+ on the ECML.

cambsy · 4 Sep 2026

Some sections of the ECML have seen trains reach speeds above 150 mph, with a 225 test train, just before introduction reaching 161.7 mph between Grantham-Peterborough, down stoke bank, and a series of special trains with invited guests and transport secretary Mawhinney, reaching 154 mph between Darlington-York and Grantham-Peterborough becoming the fastest ever passenger carrying trains, before Eurostars started carrying passengers at 186mph on HS1.

So some sections of ECML potentially could see speeds above 140 mph, if the necessary infrastructure work was done, and it would be interesting to see what an Azuma allowed to do 140 mph plus, could do King’s Cross-Edinburgh non stop in, and if it could beat 1T01 record of 3hrs 29 mins. Of course it would rely on being able to have same conditions and dispensations that 1T01 had back in the 90’s, with everything cleared out of the way. I think with Azuma better performance it could be brought down to 3hrs 20 mins to 3hrs 25 mins mark. Obviously this is very unlikely to ever happen but it would be interesting to see what could be done if there was ever the will to try this sort of record again.

Transilien · 4 Sep 2026

If anything, it would be interesting to see how 140mph operations will affect the ECML, a proposal that has consistently been rejected on mainlines in the UK.

zwk500 · 4 Sep 2026

AlastairFraser said:
Sorry, I didn't see your previous post.
It seems some significant work is still left to be done, but I still consider the Selby Diversion itself and hypothetical future bypasses at Morpeth and other locations the best chance of seeing 140mph+ on the ECML.

140mph requires swingnose crossings (which require a point motor for the frog as well as the blades), tighter OLE, tighter track tolerances, higher cant, wider structure clearances for dynamic profile, etc....

Selby is a very long way from being 140mph, and the costs involved in getting it there *and keeping it there* are going to be significantly higher than the value derived from a relatively short section between the restrictions at York and stops at Doncaster.

CdBrux · 4 Sep 2026

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.

"go fast by avoiding going slow"

AlastairFraser · 5 Sep 2026

zwk500 said:
140mph requires swingnose crossings (which require a point motor for the frog as well as the blades), tighter OLE, tighter track tolerances, higher cant, wider structure clearances for dynamic profile, etc....

Selby is a very long way from being 140mph, and the costs involved in getting it there *and keeping it there* are going to be significantly higher than the value derived from a relatively short section between the restrictions at York and stops at Doncaster.

But if you get that to 140mph +, then build the Morpeth bypasses and other bypasses to alleviate significant speed restrictions, then the journey time reduction is more sizeable, correct?

zwk500 · 5 Sep 2026

AlastairFraser said:
But if you get that to 140mph +, then build the Morpeth bypasses and other bypasses to alleviate significant speed restrictions, then the journey time reduction is more sizeable, correct?

'Other bypasses' is doing some very heavy lifting.

To take advantage of 140mph you'd be looking at completely new lines from Stevenage to Peterborough, Grantham to Doncaster, Northallerton to Newcastle and Newcastle to Edinburgh.

Bald Rick · 5 Sep 2026

AlastairFraser said:
But if you get that to 140mph +, then build the Morpeth bypasses and other bypasses to alleviate significant speed restrictions, then the journey time reduction is more sizeable, correct?

Other than Morpeth, the only significant speed restrictions on the ECML are at Newcastle and York; no point building bypasses for them. I forget what a Morpeth bypass would save (and there was a long thread on it years ago), but I think it’s about 90 seconds - at a cost of around half a billion.

AlastairFraser · 5 Sep 2026

zwk500 said:
'Other bypasses' is doing some very heavy lifting.

To take advantage of 140mph you'd be looking at completely new lines from Stevenage to Peterborough, Grantham to Doncaster, Northallerton to Newcastle and Newcastle to Edinburgh.

Would you have to have bypasses for those entire section, or would online upgrades be possible in some places? I agree that you would need that sort of length to reduce journey times below 3hr45, but I'm not convinced you'd need completely new lines for all of those sections.

Bald Rick said:
Other than Morpeth, the only significant speed restrictions on the ECML are at Newcastle and York; no point building bypasses for them. I forget what a Morpeth bypass would save (and there was a long thread on it years ago), but I think it’s about 90 seconds - at a cost of around half a billion.

Given that HS2 2b is likely a long way off, if it ever gets built at all, are York and Newcastle bypasses so unlikely? Non-stop London to Edinburgh/Glasgow services using the ECML could well become a viable proposition with our drive to eliminate domestic flights where possible.
There's also the likely continued expansion of local services around Newcastle and Morpeth, with the success of the Northumberland Line reopening and further devolution of transport powers and funding.

mrgreen · 5 Sep 2026

Bald Rick said:
Other than Morpeth, the only significant speed restrictions on the ECML are at Newcastle and York; no point building bypasses for them. I forget what a Morpeth bypass would save (and there was a long thread on it years ago), but I think it’s about 90 seconds - at a cost of around half a billion.

The thread was 7 years ago (12/3/19) and you gave an estimate of 2m50s for the time saved by a Morpeth bypass. 2m20s saved by not slowing down, and 30s for the distance reduction. That assumed 110mph running, so would be smidge more at 125mph.

zwk500 · 6 Sep 2026

AlastairFraser said:
Would you have to have bypasses for those entire section, or would online upgrades be possible in some places? I agree that you would need that sort of length to reduce journey times below 3hr45, but I'm not convinced you'd need completely new lines for all of those sections.

Have a look in the sectional Appendix at how much track is actually 125mph.
140mph also means no level crossings, of which there are a lot around Peterborough and between Grantham and Newark in particular. Closure of every single one and replacement by bridges is going to be very expensive and disruptive.
Bypassing those sections would also have the benefit of increasing capacity through 2-track pinchpints.

AlastairFraser said:
Given that HS2 2b is likely a long way off, if it ever gets built at all, are York and Newcastle bypasses so unlikely? Non-stop London to Edinburgh/Glasgow services using the ECML could well become a viable proposition with our drive to eliminate domestic flights where possible.

These would be better running via the WCML and HS2 once it opens.

AlastairFraser said:
There's also the likely continued expansion of local services around Newcastle and Morpeth, with the success of the Northumberland Line reopening and further devolution of transport powers and funding.

Local services would make speed upgrades on the existing lines harder to justify.

Zomboid · 6 Sep 2026

zwk500 said:
Local services would make speed upgrades on the existing lines harder to justify

Might help justify a bypass of Morpeth though, effectively dynamic loops on a different alignment. It might also make a adding service between Morpeth and Bedlington easier.

Bald Rick · 6 Sep 2026

AlastairFraser said:
Given that HS2 2b is likely a long way off, if it ever gets built at all, are York and Newcastle bypasses so unlikely?

I think that you are suggesting that in the absence of building a new high speed railway linking most of the main generators of long distsnce rail demand in the country, we build two new high speed railways that avoid some.

There is no chance. zero.

mrgreen said:
The thread was 7 years ago (12/3/19) and you gave an estimate of 2m50s for the time saved by a Morpeth bypass. 2m20s saved by not slowing down, and 30s for the distance reduction. That assumed 110mph running, so would be smidge more at 125mph.

Thank you !

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

Bald Rick

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

class26

Member

Bald Rick

Veteran Member

AlastairFraser

Established Member

Bald Rick

Veteran Member

AlastairFraser

Established Member

cambsy

On Moderation

Transilien

Member

zwk500

Veteran Member

CdBrux

Member

AlastairFraser

Established Member

zwk500

Veteran Member

Bald Rick

Veteran Member

AlastairFraser

Established Member

mrgreen

Member

zwk500

Veteran Member

Zomboid

Established Member

Bald Rick

Veteran Member