ECML Tilt

[leshuttle]

GNER had a proposal early on to purchase Pendolinos which never happened whilst many of the Virgin Super Voyagers are diagrammed for the busy East Coast services rather than the West Coast (where they can tilt!).

With much of the East Coast line permitting speeds of between 100-125mph, how much improvement to signalling & general infrastructure would be needed for EPS (tilt) and what time savings/higher speeds could be made as a result?

 

[gordonthemoron]

Isn't the ECML largely straight south of Darlington?

 

[yorkie]

Isn't the ECML largely straight south of Darlington?

Pretty much, yes.

The plan was to run non-stop through York, using the tightly curved avoiding lines (but this would involve some slow running through points north and south of York to get onto the slow lines), I don't think it was very well thought-through, and it was rightly ditched.

Very minimal savings could have been achieved, I doubt you could go faster through places like Doncaster (100mph) due to all the points, and useless at Newark (100mph) due to the flat crossing.

If you get green signals, you can average around 112mph on a York-London journey, there's not that many areas of sub-125 line speeds. You also have the extra weight of the tilting equipment, which reduces efficiency and increases costs.

Fortunately common sense prevailed and we got HSTs (and, for 6 years, Eurostars) instead.

 

[Guinness]

ECML is relatively Straight so no point in Tilting Trains as there would be no real benefit compared to a very bendy line like the WCML. When InterCity 225 (91 + Mk4) were first built they could of had an easy modification to tilt, because the 225 was mostly based on APT technology. I remember reading since the Mallard Refurbishment that the Tilting Equipment space had been filled up by Wi-Fi equipment or something like that?

Also if the line speed was increased to 140mph the 225 sets could achieve this so no real need for Pendolinos again.

91s are relatively new trains, built in 1990 - 91 (IIRC) so there was no dire need to replace this due to life and so on..

The idea was quickly dismissed by GNER and "Mallard" refurbishment was made instead.

 

[adambro]

Fortunately common sense prevailed and we got HSTs (and, for 6 years, Eurostars) instead.

Very annoyed that I missed out on a ride on a GNER Eurostar. Just wasn't in to riding round as trains as much when we had them up to Leeds.

 

[paul1609]

Theres unlikley to be any speed increase on the ECML in the forseable future.
I understand that 1 of the more likely bidders proposes;
New build 100 mph EMU for London to Leeds/Skipton/ Bradford Services increasing seating capacity.
Class 91 + mk4 with restaurants mostly removed for London- Glasgow
Aberdeen- Inverness trains class 67 haulage of part of a mark 4 set.
HSTs off lease within 4 years.
Hull transferred to Hull Trains.
Through working to Harrogate replaced with improved frequency to Skipton.
Apparently makes 40% cost savings on existing franchise.

 

[adambro]

Seems that the Harrogate morning service to London hardly ever runs anyway. Its always on the local travel news saying it'll be starting from Leeds.

 

[Max]

Theres unlikley to be any speed increase on the ECML in the forseable future.
I understand that 1 of the more likely bidders proposes;
New build 100 mph EMU for London to Leeds/Skipton/ Bradford Services increasing seating capacity.
Class 91 + mk4 with restaurants mostly removed for London- Glasgow
Aberdeen- Inverness trains class 67 haulage of part of a mark 4 set.
HSTs off lease within 4 years.
Hull transferred to Hull Trains.
Through working to Harrogate replaced with improved frequency to Skipton.
Apparently makes 40% cost savings on existing franchise.

God that plan would be a disaster for the ECML! 100mph trains would considerably reduce the number of paths and increase journey times and I can't see this being viable. How would this increase seating when we already have 8/9 car trains running to Leeds?

The removal of Aberdeen/Inverness trains would be extremely unpopular I'll bet, and the idea of taking HSTs off hire in 4 years when many of them will have been refurbished by the end of the year seems crazy! As far as I know Hull can't go over to Hull Trains as its written in the franchise that the ECML operator must provide a service, and if Hull Trains were to go bust, Hull would be left with no direct services to London.

Cost savings? Is this Farce Group's bid by any chance

 

[Tom]

Said First Group to me!

 

[Donny Dave]

Max, it all depends on the EMU specs if they are ordered. After all, a class 90+mk 3s can keep to time as far as Leeds/York, and so can 317s and 321s hock:

 

[devon_metro]

100mph or 140mph services would currently cause more capacity problems. 100mph EMU service for Leeds is the most stupid idea since the Bulleid Leader. That's just the way to decimate your timetable should things go out of course.

It's my experience that TOCs have a very limited understanding of capacity. Most of Great Western's problems are down to 90mph turbos mixing with 125mph HSTs, and single lines in places.

Although there is a limited space that these trains share the same tracks. Turbos generally use the slow lines and the Berks and Hants has a maximum of 110mph running near Newbury. The outdated infrasturcture that lets the side down.

 

[yorkie]

Max, it all depends on the EMU specs if they are ordered. After all, a class 90+mk 3s can keep to time as far as Leeds/York, and so can 317s and 321s hock:

Yes 90s can, at a push, but they're 110, and that's only on frequent stopping diagrams.

The capacity problems are more on the Scottish services than the Leeds route, so it's a daft idea all round.

 

[Andrew]

Back to the original topic, I believe the idea of tilt was to improve the London - Edinburgh journey times, rather than on the southern ECML, where speed increases with tilt would be negligible.

Then the ECML upgrade (which was basically increasing capacity rather than speed enhancement) fell down Railtrack's priority list - especially as much of the more substantial investment was, even then, being scheduled for 2006-8.
And then came Railtrack's downfall, and we've heard no more about it. If tilting was going to come to GNER, it would have come pre-Network Rail.

The nominal figure was 10 tilting trains, I believe, for a more frequent (sub-)4hr EDB-KGX service.

 

[yorkie]

Andrew - yep that's right.

No suggestion of them being instead of 225s, and if it had happened we'd have awfully cramped Pendo-like trains instead of the extremely comfortable Eurostars we had, and HSTs we have now. Plus, of course, higher fares. I am very glad common sense prevailed!

I think someone just thought "That's happening on the WCML, so why not ECML?" without really considering how different the railways are.

 

[ChrisCooper]

90s can manage to keep to 91 timings on Leeds services since they are faster from a stand than 91s. Whilst 91s have a high continuous rating, the maximum power is quite a bit less than a 90 (or 87 or 89), plus they are higher geared. With Leeds services having quite a lot of stops, 90s are well suited (they would loose out if used on limited stop services, although once north of Newcastle they would likely gain time back due to the lower speed limits). I'm suprised GNER didn't go for 90s (or 87s, which can pretty much match a 90, having almost identical output, although having a slight handicap from the tap changer), since they should be much better than HSTs on that sort of run, having much better performance (especially with 9 coaches). I suppose they didn't want to take on another fleet though, especially since 90s don't have that much in common with 91s, and 87s even less. I do wonder if there are power supply issues aswell.
Regarding the tilt on the Mk4s, I don't think this was ever intended for use on the ECML. The 225s were originally planned for use on the WCML, with tilt, as a simplified production APT (the 91 is infact heavily based on an APT powercar), with the ECML having 89s and Mk3s (probably with power operated doors like the 442s). As it happened, the 91s went to the East Coast, and the WCML got 90s to replace the 1st generation electrics, DVTs, and with 110mph running for 90s and 87s. I don't even know if the Mk4s had tilt equipment fitted. As has been said, the space on the Mk4s for tilt equipment was taken up at refurbishment anyway. Also, the 91/1s are restricted to 125mph, so even 140mph seems unlikely.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Well, ETCS will remove the 125mph barrier imposed by the lack of ATP, so that would be a good time to uprade the trains and the rest of the infrastructure and see what can be done in terms of top speed. 140mph should be achievable for large parts south of Newcastle, in particular with a well designed train (particularly in terms of weight and airodynamic efficiency), plus better segregation of slow services. The APT was supposed to run at 150mph I think, and that was on the WCML, and particular attention was paid to keeping track forces low, reducing energy consumption, and reducing the air disturbance to allow higher speeds past station, through tunnels, reduce the forces when passing other trains (the air distubrance from the APT at 140mph was lower than a HST at 125mph, which was itself lower than a conventional train at 100mph, and AFAIK is better than most modern trains aswell). Oviously, to achieve this would require an engineer to design the train, not an artist or a 3 year old child.

 

[class 313]

Why would Super Voyagers be used on the ECML instead of the WCML? When WCML can already tilt...

 

[Tom]

Ask Virgin, because it happens now!

 

[yorkie]

Why would Super Voyagers be used on the ECML instead of the WCML? When WCML can already tilt...

The ECML services to Edinburgh via Leeds are almost always formed of 5-car 221s, this is because the 4-car Voyagers do not have enough capacity for the number of passengers that use this route. The longer-distance trains were meant to be HSTs ('Challengers') but the SRA stopped that.

Because of the severe capacity restraints of the 4-car Voyagers, and the need to try as best as possible to match loadings with capacity, the main priority has been to put 5-cars on busy trains, irrespective of the route taken.

There are no tilting diagrams on CrossCountry partly as a result of the above, and partly for flexibility reasons.

I think that, in retrospect, anyone with half a brain can see that ordering tilting trains for CrossCountry was a waste of money, and ordering diesels that run under the wires for their entire route was also an unwise move, but we're stuck with it now.

 

[devon_metro]

The ECML services to Edinburgh via Leeds are almost always formed of 5-car 221s, this is because the 4-car Voyagers do not have enough capacity for the number of passengers that use this route. The longer-distance trains were meant to be HSTs ('Challengers') but the SRA stopped that.

Because of the severe capacity restraints of the 4-car Voyagers, and the need to try as best as possible to match loadings with capacity, the main priority has been to put 5-cars on busy trains, irrespective of the route taken.

There are no tilting diagrams on CrossCountry partly as a result of the above, and partly for flexibility reasons.

I think that, in retrospect, anyone with half a brain can see that ordering tilting trains for CrossCountry was a waste of money, and ordering diesels that run under the wires for their entire route was also an unwise move, but we're stuck with it now.

Dual voltage 6/7 car voyagers with proper catering facilities would have been far better.

 

[Guinness]

Dual voltage 6/7 car voyagers with proper catering facilities would have been far better.

Yep, but XC is a victim of it's own success. That's for another time however...