Could Pendos be used on LM services?

[TheWalrus]

Just an idea could short 390s be used on LM services out of London Euston to Birmingham and Crewe? They would be able to fit in better with the current VT 390s, taking advantage of the tilt mechanism and higher speed capability. However would the door arrangement increase dwell times therefore losing the speed and tilt advantage?

The idea of this is to also cascade 350s to other routes where more capacity is needed or lines that are newly electrified.

An order could be placed at the same time for some 5/6 car versions for VWC to replace some of the Voyagers, maybe going to EMT in 2020 to replace their HSTs rather than converting them to DDA requirements?

What are your thoughts?

 

[superalbs]

Will they be able to keep to timings? I doubt it.

 

[Alistair G.]

When you say short pendolino do you mean the 9 car version that Virgin use now or an even shorter version especially designed for LM

I know that some of the Euston - New street services that LM use terminate in the bay at Northampton and I know platform 5 would an instant no go for a 9 car pendo (at least for passenger services) I'm sure there would be other restrictions too, such as the riverside sidings at Northampton. That can currently hold 4 units each road (16 cars) where as if you use the 9 car stock you would be able to hold anothe pendo on top, so 8 units stored overnight turn into 2

If your referring to just doing 4 car pendo sets then I don't really see why LM would want to do that, they have a specific Siemens depot at Northampton, a lot of 350's already in their fleet, so anything new they order would surely be 350's over a new unit type?.

Having said that I see they are being "forced into" taking 319 units, but this recycling rather brand new orders.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Just an idea could short 390s be used on LM services out of London Euston to Birmingham and Crewe? They would be able to fit in better with the current VT 390s, taking advantage of the tilt mechanism and higher speed capability. However would the door arrangement increase dwell times therefore losing the speed and tilt advantage?

If you mean the LM fast line services, Pendolinos wouldn't fit the LM stations in the Trent Valley (Atherstone, Rugeley) or round the Stoke loop, nor those between Coventry and Birmingham.
That is one reason why even 8-car 350s are not used on those services.
There isn't exactly a surplus of Pendolinos either, and any new ones are intended for more long-distance services.

There was a proposal at one time for IEPs to operate Euston-Northampton fasts, but that has been dropped (since 350s can now do 110mph).
Once HS2 is open and taking most long-distance traffic, you might well find Pendolinos operating some "LM" services via Rugby.
But they would still have to sort the short platforms out.

 

[DarloRich]

Just an idea could short 390s be used on LM services out of London Euston to Birmingham and Crewe?...

...What are your thoughts?

My thoughts: A solution looking for a problem!

 

[Ianno87]

Will they be able to keep to timings? I doubt it.

Agree, door positions/size mean that Pendolinos have longer station dwell times (90-120 seconds) compared to 350s (45-60 seconds). In addition, 350s have considerably better low-end acceleration, giving better performance on services with more frequent stops (a good test is a 'drag race' between the two from Milton Keynes Central towards Wolverton, often seen at xx:50ish each hour).

 

[sprinterguy]

Originally, the IEP order included a prospective batch of 5-car units for London to Birmingham/Crewe services, so not as far fetched as you might at first think.

The 125mph capability of Pendolinos on the WCML would be useful for those services that use the fasts, although I think that the majority of LM services will always be relegated to the slows.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

390's cost way more than 350's to lease and operate.

However - post HS2 train services will be hugely different - and some of the options might be appropriate. In the bad days of PUG2 and the mismatch of services - Silverlink looked hard at a small fleet for fast Northampton - Euston services.

 

[TheWalrus]

My thoughts: A solution looking for a problem!

Not at all tilt and 125mph capability could potentially speed up journey times. Not a solution more like an improvement. Then the 350s could be moved elsewhere. Also may help with pathing.

From the responses to this thread looks like it makes sense to retain at least Siemens stock, maybe a derivative of a 350 with 125mph capability and tilt if possible? Could also be good for TPE Manchester-Scotland.

 

[DarloRich]

Not at all tilt and 125mph capability could potentially speed up journey times. Not a solution more like an improvement. Then the 350s could be moved elsewhere. Also may help with pathing.

From the responses to this thread looks like it makes sense to retain at least Siemens stock, maybe a derivative of a 350 with 125mph capability and tilt if possible? Could also be good for TPE Manchester-Scotland.

You need to look beyond the top speed and the tilt and consider the wider requirements for LM trains.

 

[class26]

Originally, the IEP order included a prospective batch of 5-car units for London to Birmingham/Crewe services, so not as far fetched as you might at first think.

The 125mph capability of Pendolinos on the WCML would be useful for those services that use the fasts, although I think that the majority of LM services will always be relegated to the slows.

Without tilt an IEP on the WCML is restricted to 110 mph and there is no way title could be added to any of the 800 series trains so there is no gain over 350`s

 

[The Planner]

No benefit between Rugby and Hanslope via Northampton via the slows, nothing between Coventry and New St either (platforms are all sub 180-190m as noted). Not a lot to be had if you put them on TV services as apart from the new bits of the TV, the slow lines are still low speed and nothing ground breaking via the Potts.

As already mentioned, the dwells will start to eat at any benefits you gain depending on how many stops you make. If you were doing Watford, MK, Northampton only, then yes there are bits to be had and the HS2 work is taking account of that.

 

[sprinterguy]

Without tilt an IEP on the WCML is restricted to 110 mph and there is no way title could be added to any of the 800 series trains so there is no gain over 350`s

I wasn't suggesting that they could be tilt fitted or could run faster than 110mph on the WCML, just that long distance Intercity style stock had been considered for the LM long distance services.

 

[TheWalrus]

You need to look beyond the top speed and the tilt and consider the wider requirements for LM trains.

Yeah the commuter requirements as well such as the 1/3 2/3 door arrangement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No benefit between Rugby and Hanslope via Northampton via the slows, nothing between Coventry and New St either (platforms are all sub 180-190m as noted). Not a lot to be had if you put them on TV services as apart from the new bits of the TV, the slow lines are still low speed and nothing ground breaking via the Potts.

As already mentioned, the dwells will start to eat at any benefits you gain depending on how many stops you make. If you were doing Watford, MK, Northampton only, then yes there are bits to be had and the HS2 work is taking account of that.

Would there be any benefit to upgrading the slow lines at all say north of Rugby?

 

[Bertie the bus]

It would be utterly pointless for a variety of reasons, some being:

Crewe services are restricted to 4 car length north of Stafford due to platform lengths at Kidsgrove, Alsager and the bay they use at Crewe.

125 mph trains require a much larger crumple zone than 110 mph trains therefore a 4-car 125 mph train would probably have fewer seats than a 4-car 110 mph one.

The Crewe services stop at every station north of Rugby and therefore 125 mph capability would not knock much off the journey time.

The minimal amount of time saved on the journey would be of little interest to many passengers anyway as if they were in that much of a hurry from stations like Crewe, Stoke and Stafford they’d catch a Virgin service.

 

[100andthirty]

There is much to be said for all the trains using a route to have identical performance/top speed. Indeed, very long range plans for the WCML envisage all trains using the fast lines having to be 125 mph capable. For the current service pattern, the LM trains using the fast lines would only serve Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, MK, Wolverton and Northampton with MK having by far the biggest service. Currently, during peak shoulders, Virgin trains get suffed between MK and Euston and vice versa. In particular, in the evening peal a 10 car Voyager, on the 1643 from Euston is usually full and standing to MK. The train immediately following at 1646 is a LM 110mph 8-car. Clearly the latter loses time on the way to MK compared with the Voyager because of the lower top speed. However it is frequently stopped outside MK waiting for the Voyager to depart.

What do we conclude from all this?

The end doors do impeded unloading compared with 1/3, 2/3 doors.
Signallers are not very good at making use of the reversible platform 5 at MK to avoid such impeding
This is only an issue for a very few trains each day

Further north, there is now enough demand in the peaks for an 8 car cl350 on the Crewe/Rugby intermediate stations, which implies the need for a 7-car Pendolino.

Finally, two points:

Even if a decision were to be made tomorrow, new trains would be delivered to the successor franchise to fhe current London Midland one.

There are other 125mph capable EMUs being built or have been launched. Given the comparatively small length of the WCML over which outer suburban trains inter work with the inter city trains, it might be that a 125 mph non tilting train might be good enough. Work would be needed to optimise the performance of the train and the infrastructure would need work on the differential speed limits through curves.

 

[The Planner]

There is much to be said for all the trains using a route to have identical performance/top speed. Indeed, very long range plans for the WCML envisage all trains using the fast lines having to be 125 mph capable.

From what I have heard they don't.

For the current service pattern, the LM trains using the fast lines would only serve Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley, MK, Wolverton and Northampton with MK having by far the biggest service. Currently, during peak shoulders, Virgin trains get suffed between MK and Euston and vice versa. In particular, in the evening peal a 10 car Voyager, on the 1643 from Euston is usually full and standing to MK. The train immediately following at 1646 is a LM 110mph 8-car. Clearly the latter loses time on the way to MK compared with the Voyager because of the lower top speed. However it is frequently stopped outside MK waiting for the Voyager to depart.

What do we conclude from all this?

The end doors do impeded unloading compared with 1/3, 2/3 doors.
Signallers are not very good at making use of the reversible platform 5 at MK to avoid such impeding
This is only an issue for a very few trains each day

Going into 5 makes little difference as it is only going to hit a red aspect at the end of the platform anyway. 9S43 really needs a 2 minute dwell instead of the 1½ it gets and you fudge 1U46 by putting the minute engineering time approaching MK instead of Hanslope.

Further north, there is now enough demand in the peaks for an 8 car cl350 on the Crewe/Rugby intermediate stations, which implies the need for a 7-car Pendolino.

or 8 car 350s?

 

[nuneatonmark]

The best solution for the trent valley services would be to provide the principle tv stations with a proper 125mph service supplemented by an all stations lm 350 via northampton, fast watford to mk. Maybe even 2tph splitting off the brum trains.

 

[RobShipway]

Could LM not use 5 car Pendolino's or similar tilt train instead of the 350's on the WCML?

 

[The Planner]

The best solution for the trent valley services would be to provide the principle tv stations with a proper 125mph service supplemented by an all stations lm 350 via northampton, fast watford to mk. Maybe even 2tph splitting off the brum trains.

You won't get that pre 2026.

 

[D365]

Could LM not use 5 car Pendolino's or similar tilt train instead of the 350's on the WCML?

Of course they could be used, but the only tilting trains at present which can be coupled in multiple are the diesel Class 221. The real question is, would the use of Pendolino-type trains be more effective than their existing 110mph Desiros, which doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Bevan Price]

125 mph stock would be little use for many of the shorter sections operated by LM - often the trains have only just reached 110 mph before they have to slow for the next stop. Any time gained by using 125 mph mini-Pendo type trains between Euston & Milton Keynes would be more than cancelled out by increased station dwell times north of Rugby - and don't forget that 125 mph trains use more (expensive) energy than 110 mph trains.

The Northampton loop is mostly restricted to 90 mph south of Northampton (a few short sections are 100 mph), and to only 75 mph between Northampton & Rugby. A better option would be to upgrade to 100 mph the entire Northampton loop, and those lengthy sections of slow lines still limited to 75 mph.

Another good option would be to upgrade Class 350/2 to 110 mph capability, and maybe to extend some short platforms to permit 8 coach formations.
.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Crewe services are restricted to 4 car length north of Stafford due to platform lengths at Kidsgrove, Alsager and the bay they use at Crewe.

There are apparently now a few 8-car Crewe services, they don't use the bay, and I assume use UDS at the short platforms.

 

[notadriver]

I've been told Pendolinos regularly hold up TPE's 100 mph 350/4s north of Lancaster so as others have said, their speed advantage is completely nullified when extra stops are added. It's a shame they weren't designed with acceleration in mind like the IEPs will be.

 

[DarloRich]

There are apparently now a few 8-car Crewe services, they don't use the bay, and I assume use UDS at the short platforms.

do they run all the way through or split at Northampton or elsewhere?

 

[Bletchleyite]

do they run all the way through or split at Northampton or elsewhere?

I believe they run through, as they don't run via Northampton to take a unit off and there's nowhere else to do it where it wouldn't get in the way.

I can't find the thread that discussed which platform, but I did find a quick video of one!

[youtube]opjGCZMGpwg[/youtube]

 

[Tetchytyke]

There are apparently now a few 8-car Crewe services, they don't use the bay, and I assume use UDS at the short platforms.

The booked (e.g 1746 Euston-Crewe) 8-cars skip the smaller stations between Stafford and Crewe.

 

[DarloRich]

The booked 8-cars skip the smaller stations between Stafford and Crewe.

thanks - should have added Stafford after Northampton. My Crewe train on a Monday - Saturday goes via Northampton

 

[Bletchleyite]

The booked (e.g 1746 Euston-Crewe) 8-cars skip the smaller stations between Stafford and Crewe.

What, out of interest, is the reason UDS cannot be used at these stations when it is used at all short platforms on the south WCML proper? (Fewer than there used to be, but for example Bushey on the down fast, and Bletchley platform 6 last time an EMU ended up in there due to a points failure, though I don't know if the new layout allows that to occur any more)

One assumes grandfather rights not to apply because the Bushey platform is basically a new build?

 

[Bertie the bus]

The booked (e.g 1746 Euston-Crewe) 8-cars skip the smaller stations between Stafford and Crewe.

It also doesn’t block a platform at Crewe for nearly 40 minutes as it doesn’t return to London but runs ECS to the C.S.

What happens at 20:30 isn’t an indication of what could happen at 16:00.

Personally, as far as the Crewe services are concerned, I’d like to see them run direct from Crewe – Stafford. That would speed up the journey significantly more than replacing the units with 125 mph stock.

Divert the xx:49 departure from Crewe – Birmingham via Stoke, calling at all stations, and retime the Euston service from Crewe so it picks up its existing path from Stafford.

That way you would still have 2 tph direct from Crewe – Birmingham, the Crewe – Euston is speeded up, the Crewe – Stoke line would have better spacing between its services (a 2 tph service where one follows immediately behind the other is just bizarre), and any passengers between Alsager & Stone would still have a convenient connection onto the Euston service at Stafford.