140mph trains

[Brubulus]

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

No, I'm thinking an new line should be built, solely for nonstop passenger services, with the current morpeth section remaining as a loop.

 

[zwk500]

No, I'm thinking an new line should be built, solely for nonstop passenger services, with the current morpeth section remaining as a loop.

You'd be very unlikely to get a derogation for excessive can't when you have the option to design it from scratch. Although quite where you'd put the line given the geography is another question. IIRC there's a corridor if you branch off west, south kof Cramlington then skirt the town, bridging the ECML and head due north to rejoin the ECML around Widdrington. Requires a viaduct over the river though I think. Not an easy task for what, 3 minutes improvement when the safety side of Morpeth can be satisfied by TPWS until ETCS comes in.

 

[JKF]

France, Germany and the US all do.

Also Portugal (220kph on the Alphas) on double or single lines.

 

[D365]

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)

This is why I keep reiterating that lineside signals are not the only hurdle to 140mph on the East Coast Main Line. There certainly is not a lot of space at St Neots and Biggleswade stations to add fences down the middle.

 

[snowball]

This is why I keep reiterating that lineside signals are not the only hurdle to 140mph on the East Coast Main Line.

What about all the level crossings? Would they be allowed to remain?

 

[zwk500]

What about all the level crossings? Would they be allowed to remain?

If they could be made safe enough (I.e. call buttons to permit crossing rather than open uness train coming). However I'd expect almost all of them to close as 140mph would lead to longer potential downtimes and higher consequences if a collision were to occur.

 

[CW2]

We looked quite closely at 140 mph running for the West Coast Route Modernisation, and concluded that the extra expenditure in platform edge doors, signalling, enhanced maintenance regimes, increased power consumption, etc. etc. could not be justified when compared to the comparatively negligible benefits. Hence the Pendolinos were tested at 140 mph (to meet contractual requirements) then everything else was designed with a top speed of 125 mph (edit) as the design ceiling.

 

[zwk500]

We looked quite closely at 140 mph running for the West Coast Route Modernisation, and concluded that the extra expenditure in platform edge doors, signalling, enhanced maintenance regimes, increased power consumption, etc. etc. could not be justified when compared to the comparatively negligible benefits. Hence the Pendolinos were tested at 140 mph (to meet contractual requirements) then everything else was designed with a top speed of 25 mph as the design ceiling.

That's quite a drop

 

[MarkyT]

If they could be made safe enough (I.e. call buttons to permit crossing rather than open uness train coming). However I'd expect almost all of them to close as 140mph would lead to longer potential downtimes and higher consequences if a collision were to occur.

ISTR @Bald Rick stating 125mph is the effective upper limit for level crossings and you'd get no support from either ORR or railway infrastructure management for anything higher. As there's no infrastructure away from HS1 that has speeds above this, any proposal for a higher speed over a crossing would have to be supported by a safety case which would run straight into the issues you state, for starters. Realistically, any line on which 140mph might be proposed should be busy enough to justify the investment in eliminating any remaining crossings.

 

[CW2]

That's quite a drop

Oops, fat fingers! (125 mph, obviously!).

 

[zwk500]

ISTR @Bald Rick stating 125mph is the effective upper limit for level crossings and you'd get no support from either ORR or railway infrastructure management for anything higher. As there's no infrastructure away from HS1 that has speeds above this, any proposal for a higher speed over a crossing would have to be supported by a safety case which would run straight into the issues you state, for starters. Realistically, any line on which 140mph might be proposed should be busy enough to justify the investment in eliminating any remaining crossings.

I agree with you, however I think if 140mph does ever get seriously looked at then certain crossings would cost such a vast amount to bridge/close that there will be 1 or 2 grandfathered crossings that do escape. Particularly between Newcastle and Edinburgh.
The ECML has a history of starting to look at taking out LXs and then quickly changing minds when the bill is estimated.

 

[mike57]

I would have thought York to Northallerton would be staightforwards, No level crossings, Thirsk station has no platforms facing the fast lines, 4 track throughout, and almost straight. I am not sure the time saved would be worth it however. Maybe just a publicity win to say 'look we are now 140mph' but may be an expensive one. Getting rid of the slow bits makes far more difference to journey times, and addressing pinch points like Welwyn. After York and Newcastle stations, where most trains stop anyway, is Morpeth the next slowest bit of London - Edinburgh?

 

[zwk500]

I would have thought York to Northallerton would be staightforwards, No level crossings, Thirsk station has no platforms facing the fast lines, 4 track throughout, and almost straight. I am not sure the time saved would be worth it however. Maybe just a publicity win to say 'look we are now 140mph' but may be an expensive one. Getting rid of the slow bits makes far more difference to journey times, and addressing pinch points like Welwyn. After York and Newcastle stations, where most trains stop anyway, is Morpeth the next slowest bit of London - Edinburgh?

York to Northallerton would need all the points at Skelton Jn, Tollerton and Thirsk replacing or removing. Not 100% sure on the tickover point for swingnose but think it's >200kph. Skelton Bridge Jn to Northallerton is 28 miles, so the saving would be 90 seconds. A 100mph bypass of York would probably be better value for money.

 

[mike57]

York to Northallerton would need all the points at Skelton Jn, Tollerton and Thirsk replacing or removing. Not 100% sure on the tickover point for swingnose but think it's >200kph. Skelton Bridge Jn to Northallerton is 28 miles, so the saving would be 90 seconds. A 100mph bypass of York would probably be better value for money.

Confirms my thought that while doable, probably isnt worth it. If it was being considered then you probably wouldn't start 140mph until north of Skelton Jn. so save one set of points to change. The slow bits on the ECML are Darlington - Durham - Newcastle, Morpeth, and the section around Grantshouse. Sorting out these sections would need diversions and would be major projects, way beyond fettleing existing infrastructure within the railway boundary.

 

[zwk500]

Confirms my thought that while doable, probably isnt worth it. If it was being considered then you probably wouldn't start 140mph until north of Skelton Jn. so save one set of points to change. The slow bits on the ECML are Darlington - Durham - Newcastle, Morpeth, and the section around Grantshouse. Sorting out these sections would need diversions and would be major projects, way beyond fettleing existing infrastructure within the railway boundary.

It depends what improvements it came along with at Northallerton (because you'd be rebuilding the high level junction anyway) and Darlington (is the new platform on the Up Goods Loop still going ahead?) as to whether it was worth it or not, as even 2 minutes could be quite handy to play with on the northern ECML. However the big reason I fear it wouldn't be worth it is that you'd have real problems tying in 140mph non-stoppers with slow trains calling at Thirsk then diving out onto the fasts to get round a freight holding at Skelton jn for the path to the avoiders.
Agreed that the Aycliffe curves and Morpeth would need new alignments outside the existing boundaries to solve properly.

The abolition of approach control with ETCS probably gives you more capacity overall than any high-speed running north of York.

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree with you, however I think if 140mph does ever get seriously looked at then certain crossings would cost such a vast amount to bridge/close that there will be 1 or 2 grandfathered crossings that do escape. Particularly between Newcastle and Edinburgh.
The ECML has a history of starting to look at taking out LXs and then quickly changing minds when the bill is estimated.

Level Crossings of any type are not permitted above 125mph. If the LX doesn’t close, then the linespeed will not go above 125mph.

I would have thought York to Northallerton would be staightforwards, No level crossings

There are 10 Level Crossings on the main line between York and Northallerton.


I‘d say the chance of 140mph on the conventional network is essentially nil. As @CW2 says it was looked at in some detail for the WCRM upgrade, and if it wasn’t going to be justified there it won’t be anywhere else.

 

[Meerkat]

I‘d say the chance of 140mph on the conventional network is essentially nil. As @CW2 says it was looked at in some detail for the WCRM upgrade, and if it wasn’t going to be justified there it won’t be anywhere else.

I assume they would still spec bypasses for 140mph at least, ie if they did a bypass from Newcastle past Morpeth to Alnwick, or would it be cheaper enough to spec it for 125mph to allow a less disruptive alignment?

 

[class26]

Level Crossings of any type are not permitted above 125mph. If the LX doesn’t close, then the linespeed will not go above 125mph.



There are 10 Level Crossings on the main line between York and Northallerton.


I‘d say the chance of 140mph on the conventional network is essentially nil. As @CW2 says it was looked at in some detail for the WCRM upgrade, and if it wasn’t going to be justified there it won’t be anywhere else.

There`s a decent stretch between Tallington and Stoke tunnel without LX

 

[The Planner]

There`s a decent stretch between Tallington and Stoke tunnel without LX

There is a LC at Greatford. The distance between there and Stoke is 13 miles, 40 seconds if you ignore acceleration and braking. Probably 20 seconds to be had.

 

[Bald Rick]

There`s a decent stretch between Tallington and Stoke tunnel without LX

It’s not all about level crossings. OLE, signalling, structures, track specification, maintenance arrangements, power supply, etc etc etc etc

 

[YourMum666]

It’s not all about level crossings. OLE, signalling, structures, track specification, maintenance arrangements, power supply, etc etc etc etc

can the current ohle handle IETs and 91s zooming past at 140

 

[Bald Rick]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Mar 2023 ==

or would it be cheaper enough to spec it for 125mph to allow a less disruptive alignment?

Unlikely

can the current ohle handle IETs and 91s zooming past at 140

in a word, no…

 

[Mikey C]

It's pretty dubious to have level crossings on a 125mph railway, never mind 140mph!

 

[Bald Rick]

It's pretty dubious to have level crossings on a 125mph railway, never mind 140mph!

Agreed

 

[MarkyT]

It's pretty dubious to have level crossings on a 125mph railway, never mind 140mph!

Agreed

Me too!

 

[zwk500]

It's pretty dubious to have level crossings on a 125mph railway, never mind 140mph!

Is there a good upper limit? If you were building even a 60mph railway from scratch would you willingly design a level crossing into it?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there a good upper limit? If you were building even a 60mph railway from scratch would you willingly design a level crossing into it?

No. If building a railway from scratch, it’s pretty difficult to have a risk profile As Low As Reasonably Practical with Level Crossings present. Also, ad quite separately, the business case for an LX compared to alternatives on a new build line will almost always favour the alternative.

 

[Jozhua]

It's not high speeds that eat capacity, it is differences in speed that do that.

York-Darlington doesn't have stopping services, so speeding up everything is actually realistic, though depending on whether the 22x and 180s can do 140 mph, they might have to get different rolling stock. LNER and TPE already uses 80x capable of 140, so no problem there

Only a 15mph difference, which isn't so horrendous. Plus, not every diagram has to be pathed at 140. Indeed, it could just be an option available essentially to make up time. 90 seconds would be quite a bit when it comes to that!

I assume they would still spec bypasses for 140mph at least, ie if they did a bypass from Newcastle past Morpeth to Alnwick, or would it be cheaper enough to spec it for 125mph to allow a less disruptive alignment?

Very little difference at that speed. Likely the alignment would be good for 186mph, even if track/ole didn't have it right away.

Morpeth bypass makes a lot of sense given that HSR is unlikely to grace that part of the world for some time.

 

[YourMum666]

What about the Trent valley lines ?

 

[zwk500]

What about the Trent valley lines ?

125mph max