140mph trains

[Trainbike46]

Precisely my point! Increasing the speed envelope (i.e. the highest speed traffic and the lowest speed traffic) eats into capacity. How much time are you going to save between York and Darlington, and at what cost?

I picked york-darlington because:
- no stopping service, so no capacity impacts as it is possible to speed up all services
- Identified earlier in this thread to have an alignment capable (or almost capable) of 140 mph
- long stretch, so more benefits

So, as far as I can tell it would need signalling upgrades and probably OHLE upgrades. If those are done when the existing system need upgrading premiums may be limited, definitely for signalling, though probably not for OHLE.

Distance is just over 44 miles, so would take 22 minutes at 125 mph, currently timetabled for 25 minutes. At 140 mph it would take 19 minutes, so a saving of about 3 minutes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2023 ==

In any case, the premise of this thread was: "where would it be realistic to increase rail speeds to 140 mph?"

And there is of course loads of factors, including capacity impacts, but I think york-darlington is one of the more realistic options

 

[The Planner]

Distance is just over 44 miles, so would take 22 minutes at 125 mph, currently timetabled for 25 minutes. At 140 mph it would take 19 minutes, so a saving of about 3 minutes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2023 ==

In any case, the premise of this thread was: "where would it be realistic to increase rail speeds to 140 mph?"

And there is of course loads of factors, including capacity impacts, but I think york-darlington is one of the more realistic options

You are ignoring acceleration and braking. 44 miles at 125mph is 21 minutes 7 seconds, that extra 3-4 minutes is for acceleration and slowing back down. 44 miles at 140mph is 18 minutes 51, so 2 minutes 16 saving. You wouldn't get close to 2 minutes as you need to factor in the time to get to 140 and back down. There is probably 60 seconds at best.

 

[RailWonderer]

I think if York - Darlington and somewhere else could be found to save a couple of minutes here and there, plus another stop missed out of an additional fast London Edinburgh service, then a headline 4 hour crack express service could make a return. Great for marketing. It could call at York, Newcastle and Edinburgh only.

 

[baz962]

which ones namely, i think from Pewsey to Castle Cary should be good for 140mph

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Mar 2023 ==

correct me if i am wrong but the midland mainline between Bedford and Leicester can run 140

Very wrong. Only 110 after Wellingborough going north and a very short 120 coming south between Leicester and Wellingborough.

 

[D365]

It's obviously not the only thing which is needed, if the track alignment can't do 140mph then you can't do it no matter the signaling.

Tracks, platform edges, level crossings closures, proper OHLE... updating the safe systems of work for on-track workers...

 

[Snow1964]

what about the B&H, it’s relatively straight

Not the original section from Reading to Marlborough/Savernake,

But much straighter (including the 1930s cutoffs) beyond that to Taunton (although more likely 110-120mph than 140mph.

The cross country route Derby-Gloucester (excluding Birmingham area) might also be suitable (physically based on alignment, if not economically)

 

[Trackman]

If ETCS is put on the WCML 390s can go 140.

Think it would need a big power supply upgrade as well.

 

[YourMum666]

Doncaster - York (Selby Diversion) is also a good one, Peterborough- Grantham as well is suited for 140, and the trent valley lines

 

[Darandio]

I picked york-darlington because:
- no stopping service, so no capacity impacts as it is possible to speed up all services

Northallerton disagrees.

 

[RailWonderer]

Northallerton disagrees.

And Thirsk. I think what he means is nothing on the fasts.

 

[Darandio]

And Thirsk. I think what he means is nothing on the fasts.

Northallerton is slap bang on the fasts.

 

[RailWonderer]

Northallerton is slap bang on the fasts.

As in every service that calls at Northallerton stops on the fasts? I thought TPE used the slows, LNER the fasts.

 

[hexagon789]

As in every service that calls at Northallerton stops on the fasts? I thought TPE used the slows, LNER the fasts.

There are only two lines through the station itself, the slows end about 1.25mi to the south of Northallerton Station.

 

[RailWonderer]

There are only two lines through the station itself, the slows end about 1.25mi to the south of Northallerton Station.

There would still be paths to use 140mph surely, if they wanted to make it happen. I don't think capacity is an issue.

 

[hexagon789]

There would still be paths to use 140mph surely, if they wanted to make it happen. I don't think capacity is an issue.

It's more about catching up slower trains and pathing around them with excusing infrastructure.

Bear in mind that the absolute most one could save London-Edinburgh with 140mph is about 30 mins non-stop, that assumes running at 140 wherever 125 is permitted and with no recovery allowances (based on the 3h29m29s record). Add in recovery time for resilience, a more comfortable braking profile and intermediate stops and that saving falls and falls.

Bypassing the Morpeth curve might actually save more time!

 

[zwk500]

There would still be paths to use 140mph surely, if they wanted to make it happen. I don't think capacity is an issue.

If capacity isn't the issue then why did NR suggest demolishing Northallerton station and rebuilding it for 4-tracks?

 

[class26]

Precisely my point! Increasing the speed envelope (i.e. the highest speed traffic and the lowest speed traffic) eats into capacity. How much time are you going to save between York and Darlington, and at what cost?

deleted

 

[zwk500]

But surely where they are 4 tracks it is much less of an issue ?

It depend which tracks the passenger trains are running on. Trains stopping at Thirsk tend to still run Fast Line from Skelton Junction to Thirsk to allow freight to be held on the slows.

 

[Meerkat]

There would still be paths to use 140mph surely, if they wanted to make it happen. I don't think capacity is an issue.

Are you allowed to do 140mph through a platform without closing it between stoppers?

 

[Shimbleshanks]

1. Would a 140mph section on suitable section(s) of route have any merit as (a) A publicity stunt ('Take our 140mph express to Edinburgh...') (b) Recovery from late running (c) Gaining performance data for trains operating at higher speeds?

2. Are there many railways around the world that have operation above 125mph on 'classic' mixed traffic railways? Offhand I can only think of Finland.

 

[stuu]

1. Would a 140mph section on suitable section(s) of route have any merit as (a) A publicity stunt ('Take our 140mph express to Edinburgh...') (b) Recovery from late running (c) Gaining performance data for trains operating at higher speeds?

2. Are there many railways around the world that have operation above 125mph on 'classic' mixed traffic railways? Offhand I can only think of Finland.

France, Germany and the US all do.

 

[zwk500]

Are you allowed to do 140mph through a platform without closing it between stoppers?

You need some physical Barrier, IIRC, although it could be a fence at the back of the platform with gaps between it (Germany does this)

 

[Energy]

(a) A publicity stunt ('Take our 140mph express to Edinburgh...')

Rather pointless when HS2 will be open.

 

[YourMum666]

It's more about catching up slower trains and pathing around them with excusing infrastructure.

Bear in mind that the absolute most one could save London-Edinburgh with 140mph is about 30 mins non-stop, that assumes running at 140 wherever 125 is permitted and with no recovery allowances (based on the 3h29m29s record). Add in recovery time for resilience, a more comfortable braking profile and intermediate stops and that saving falls and falls.

Bypassing the Morpeth curve might actually save more time!

morpeth diversion, would shave off some time, just like the selby diversion

Rather pointless when HS2 will be open.

We might never get a HS2 on the east coast, so there is more of a justification for 140 on that mainline

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Bypassing the Morpeth curve might actually save more time!

What's that old saying? The secret to going quickly is to avoid going slowly.

Getting rid of bottlenecks and slow sections makes more of a difference than adding an extra 15mph to the existing fast bits.

 

[Ken H]

What's that old saying? The secret to going quickly is to avoid going slowly.

Getting rid of bottlenecks and slow sections makes more of a difference than adding an extra 15mph to the existing fast bits.

Uses less energy too. There must be a calculation where fixing the slow bits is more economic than going faster elsewhere.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Uses less energy too. There must be a calculation where fixing the slow bits is more economic than going faster elsewhere.

I suppose it depends on why the slow bit is there in the first place. Some will be easier/cheaper to fix (easing a curve over low-value land or adjusting the superelevation of said curve). Others less-so (Morpeth wouldn't be cheap or easy- if it was it would have been done already).

 

[Brubulus]

I suppose it depends on why the slow bit is there in the first place. Some will be easier/cheaper to fix (easing a curve over low-value land or adjusting the superelevation of said curve). Others less-so (Morpeth wouldn't be cheap or easy- if it was it would have been done already).

Morpeth could possibly be done by having a tighter than usual curve but with an exceptional amount of cant. Given that no train using said curve would be going slower than say 75mph, except in an emergency, the amount of cant could go above regular limits and allow for a tighter curve than usual for that speed, possibly allowing for no new bridge over the Wansbeck.

 

[zwk500]

Morpeth could possibly be done by having a tighter than usual curve but with an exceptional amount of cant. Given that no train using said curve would be going slower than say 75mph, except in an emergency, the amount of cant could go above regular limits and allow for a tighter curve than usual for that speed, possibly allowing for no new bridge over the Wansbeck.

Are we presuming that the branch will close at Morpeth and the platforms demolished then?

 

[SynthD]

Morpeth could possibly be done by having a tighter than usual curve but with an exceptional amount of cant. Given that no train using said curve would be going slower than say 75mph, except in an emergency, the amount of cant could go above regular limits and allow for a tighter curve than usual for that speed, possibly allowing for no new bridge over the Wansbeck.

Has that been done before?