Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
There was a description in Modern Railways a couple of months ago of how very low speed turn outs cause problems on the WCML, with the length of the freight train adding to the issue, as the back of the train has to clear the points before it can accelerate again. (And again at the end of the loop in those cases - not relevant here of course).
So I do wonder whether adding just a mile or so of track and having a high enough speed turn out might make enough difference.
There was a description in Modern Railways a couple of months ago of how very low speed turn outs cause problems on the WCML, with the length of the freight train adding to the issue, as the back of the train has to clear the points before it can accelerate again. (And again at the end of the loop in those cases - not relevant here of course).
So I do wonder whether adding just a mile or so of track and having a high enough speed turn out might make enough difference.
I read that. Wasn’t it saying that during renewals in Scotland it’s common practice to extend/upgrade loops for higher speed entry/exit whereas in England it’s just replacement like for like?
I read that. Wasn’t it saying that during renewals in Scotland it’s common practice to extend/upgrade loops for higher speed entry/exit whereas in England it’s just replacement like for like?
Yes, because any improvement counts as investment (even if cost is very similar to a like for like renewal) and needs to come from a separate pot and go through a much more painful approval process from DfT. Bonkers!
Yes, because any improvement counts as investment (even if cost is very similar to a like for like renewal) and needs to come from a separate pot and go through a much more painful approval process from DfT. Bonkers!
Yes, because any improvement counts as investment (even if cost is very similar to a like for like renewal) and needs to come from a separate pot and go through a much more painful approval process from DfT. Bonkers!
If theres no major earthworks required incremental cost for going from a 40 to 70mph turnout would be less than a million but the bigger cost is that you will then have to comply with latest standards on signalling and electrification and that then has potential to ratchet up costs by several more million which is what makes it potentially difficult to justify to DfT.
any improvement counts as investment (even if cost is very similar to a like for like renewal) and needs to come from a separate pot and go through a much more painful approval process from DfT. Bonkers!
It's important that signalling is adjusted, which has the potential to add zeros to the cost. If the loop entry signal retains 'approach release from red' controls then the speed profile of the train (especially freight) sees no benefit from any track/ pointwork increase in speed. There have been instances where deliberate omission thwarted the improvement sought... also bonkers.
Loop exit speed has been noted already above so that a long train can accelerate before its back end clears the points.
It's important that signalling is adjusted, which has the potential to add zeros to the cost. If the loop entry signal retains 'approach release from red' controls then the speed profile of the train (especially freight) sees no benefit from any track/ pointwork increase in speed. There have been instances where deliberate omission thwarted the improvement sought... also bonkers.
Loop exit speed has been noted already above so that a long train can accelerate before its back end clears the points.
Agree re the approach release point. Ideally the speed difference would be low enough that it wouldn’t be required, though this would probably mean a higher speed than is required for freight trains. But surely it would assist local passenger trains too, especially if the divergence was moved slightly further north?
Yes, every extra signal section provided by the divergence being moved back benefits line capacity on a mixed traffic type/ mixed service pattern route. The 'rate of rundown' time margin reduces to good effect.
Agree re the approach release point. Ideally the speed difference would be low enough that it wouldn’t be required, though this would probably mean a higher speed than is required for freight trains. But surely it would assist local passenger trains too, especially if the divergence was moved slightly further north?
Its 125mph on the Up at Huntingdon so would need flashing aspects to gain maximum advantage but for heavy freight moving from 40 to 70 and getting away from approach control must be worth a couple minutes so sufficient to create an extra path. Given the line is being resignalled (trackside and interlockings) under the ETCS programme this would be an ideal time to include these changes and even at 5-10m is a lot more cost effective than four tracking.
Its 125mph on the Up at Huntingdon so would need flashing aspects to gain maximum advantage but for heavy freight moving from 40 to 70 and getting away from approach control must be worth a couple minutes so sufficient to create an extra path. Given the line is being resignalled (trackside and interlockings) under the ETCS programme this would be an ideal time to include these changes and even at 5-10m is a lot more cost effective than four tracking.
Under ETCS there isnt spproach control in the conventional sense, it just sets the speed profile accordingly.
Separately (and not aimed at you Nick) I don’t know where this thought that Huntingdon - Woodwalton is the problem that unlocks everything. Fixing it helps, sure, but there are issues all the way up the line to Edinburgh, and also off the ECML proper where the specification works on the ECML but not off it.
Separately (and not aimed at you Nick) I don’t know where this thought that Huntingdon - Woodwalton is the problem that unlocks everything. Fixing it helps, sure, but there are issues all the way up the line to Edinburgh, and also off the ECML proper where the specification works on the ECML but not off it.
It is quite difficult to read unless you understand performance modelling talk, but the key conclusions are that the revised timetable may well worsen timeliness of long distance trains particularly if freight is included in the analysis.
My guess is that this is one of the reasons that December 2024 change was not implemented?
It is crucial to understand from the outset that there is a different level of maturity regarding timetable development between the December 2023 (Base) and December 2024 (Option) timetables as assessed for this analysis. The Base is a D26 standard whilst the Option is at an earlier stage of development with still many decisions unmade and therefore not factored into the modelling exercise. An example of this is freight, where there are still some issues to be resolved in the timetable and get paths agreed. The performance implications of solving those will not be captured in this Executive Summary and the subsequent results as the industry is still working to find agreed slots. It is likely, that a D26 December 2024 Offer, that factors in secured Access Rights, the bidding process at D40, followed by a full Production cycle will deliver an On Time and Time-to-3 performance that is lower than the modelled ESG Development Timetable, for the simple starting fact that every train will be included.
East Coast Route’s overall improvement is driven by the high proportion of GTR services that perform better in the model; whilst Long-Distance High-Speed (LDHS) operators see a worsening
of performance on a good day. The net result sees East Coast Route performance 2.6 percentage points better; however, LNER performance drops by 2.7 percentage points in the Option in relation to the Base. Once timetabling decisions in relation to freight have reached a conclusion, it is highly probable that the performance of LNER will only degrade further as LDHS operators
will meet more freight services in reality compared to the modelled environment. The consequential effect of LDHS services being perturbed further as they approach the south end of the Route as a result of non-modelled services running in reality, results in the high probability that they will cause congestion delay to GTR services at key pinch points such as Woolmer Green Junction and Digswell Junction, as already observed in the LNER analysis. The net effect will be a worsening of East Coast Route performance because the GTR services are the ones that currently contribute to performance improvements in the modelled environment.
That performance report was panned by operators because it only looked at 1400 to 2000 and several trains in that time period were missing from the analysis. The freight boys and girls were particularly unhappy.
The excuse given by NR as to why a full day wasn’t done was generally regarded as pathetic. To ignore the London morning peak in a ECML performance analysis was inexcusable. Jaws dropped at the ORR when they realised what NR had done.
There were some in NR that regarded meeting project timescales more important than the quality of the output.
That performance report was panned by operators because it only looked at 1400 to 2000 and several trains in that time period were missing from the analysis. The freight boys and girls were particularly unhappy.
The excuse given by NR as to why a full day wasn’t done was generally regarded as pathetic. To ignore the London morning peak in a ECML performance analysis was inexcusable. Jaws dropped at the ORR when they realised what NR had done.
There were some in NR that regarded meeting project timescales more important than the quality of the output.
Many of the freight paths which ‘didn’t work’ were just removed from the development database, this was perpetuated by NR in its publication of the initial Prior Working Timetable which still had these paths missing.
57306 approaches Huntingdon with former Greater Anglia "Electrostar" EMUs 379020 and 379029 in tow. The working is 5Q77 08.40 Worksop Down Yard - Hornsey EMU Depot, and the train is passing under the A141 road bridge over Great Stukeley Railway Cutting. This was the first of these moves I'd...
www.flickr.com
57306 approaches Huntingdon with former Greater Anglia "Electrostar" EMUs 379020 and 379029 in tow. The working is 5Q77 08.40 Worksop Down Yard - Hornsey EMU Depot, and the train is passing under the A141 road bridge over Great Stukeley Railway Cutting.
A 70 mph turnout somewhere near here, and an additional track into Huntingdon, would allow Thameslink and freight trains to exit the up fast line more quickly. I don't know if the gain would be enough to make a significant difference to the timetable.
The trackbed is mostly intact here, but moving the overhead lines is essential. I guess that adds significantly to the cost.
Me too! I thought it was a valid suggestion and compromise. I'd rather the full four-tracking of course, but surely a 70mph turnout would require no/minimal changes to the existing OLE and signalling and wouldn't preclude full four-tracking at a later date still.
Me too! I thought it was a valid suggestion and compromise. I'd rather the full four-tracking of course, but surely a 70mph turnout would require no/minimal changes to the existing OLE and signalling and wouldn't preclude full four-tracking at a later date still.
It would need the addition of flashing aspects on the signalling but the turnout is far enough in advance of P352 that signal spacing could be retained but i doubt they would want to use headspans for the OLE so some new masts and gantries would no doubt re required. @Bald Rick has indicated this isn't that big enabler to deliver the aborted Dec24 timetable though sensible though it is.
This fiasco of a timetable needs to be put out of its misery, as well as industry personnel and processes which prevent a usable train plan from coming to fruition.
It's at least 5 attempts now to implement this version of the East Coast timetable, some of which have got closer than others:
May 2022 (deferred in late 2021)
May 2023 (deferred in late 2022)
December 2024 (deferred in April)
May 2025 (deferred in July)
December 2025
It would have taken 3 years to start with a clean slate after it was widely criticised in the public consultation in 2021. It's still the same timetable that was consulted on at the time as well, pretty much.
Now that Modern Railways has published the details of the report DfT commissioned from Andrew Haines (CEO of Network Rail) in 2021 to design an alternative timetable, which appears to look quite good from the write up it gets in the September issue of the magazine, I wonder if there will be pressure to implement a version of that instead.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Politically I think the industry will have to eventually, thinking of Cambridge South in particular but it's also not a fantastic look to have 80x units on LNER running to timings which could be achieved by HSTs 5 years after they were introduced. By contrast it took 2 years from the first Pendolino being introduced to passenger service to running a 125mph tilting timetable on the West Coast in 2004.
My opinion is that this effort to rewrite the timetable needs to be put to bed. I understand there are some advantages to the new timetable, but there are also lots of drawbacks such as loss of connectivity for certain north-eastern locations. With GBR on the horizon, I think it would be better to wait until the new setup is bedded in. There will no doubt be a change to how timetable production is delivered and it might be less messy to wait until the industry has been reformed?
That is a good point - LNER is likely to be one of the first TOCs to be merged into whatever new rail operator is created, so waiting could be a good idea. The ECML is also very popular with open-access operastors, so whatever decision is taken regarding their future will also have a big impact.
My opinion is that this effort to rewrite the timetable needs to be put to bed. I understand there are some advantages to the new timetable, but there are also lots of drawbacks such as loss of connectivity for certain north-eastern locations. With GBR on the horizon, I think it would be better to wait until the new setup is bedded in. There will no doubt be a change to how timetable production is delivered and it might be less messy to wait until the industry has been reformed?
My thoughts too, for what it's worth. It will be frustrating for all involved, but it does give 'the new regime' an opportunity to assess opportunities and priorities. My own hope is for a reduction in the narrow TOC-focused approach and better integration overall under GBR.
Agree the timetable has to work but why would the govt want spend billions again on any rail infrastructure enhancement if it doesn't deliver the outcome promised. The industry has a poor track record of late compared to BR who wired, resignalled and procured brand new trains for ECML and delivered the enhanced timetable when they said they would and within budget.
This is for the industry to collectively resolve and demonstrate to govt it can deliver.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
talk about not knowing when to cut your losses...
