Leaked VTEC document reports weak Edinburgh <> London rail market share

[All Line Rover]

If that is the case then why can the regulated fare be time restricted elsewhere?

They can't be so restricted. 'LNR (LM) Only' fares are not regulated fares, so LNR can apply whatever restrictions they want. On long distance journeys, only the 'Any Permitted' Off-Peak Return (or, on East Coast, the 'Super Off-Peak Return', taking over from the former regulated 'Off-Peak Return' which was replaced with a higher-priced unregulated 'Off-Peak Return') is regulated.

 

[BigCj34]

Has no-one heard of video conferencing? I sometimes think that some people insist on face to face meetings just so that they can top up their Points towards their next holiday.

A lot of environmentalists believe that we can tackle our carbon footprint by travelling less. People are always going to travel, it is a matter of doing so in a far more eco-friendly way, which fast electric trains come the closest to providing. We are as a society spoiled by the availability of cheap flights, I could quite easily book a weekend in Rome for a low cost in two months, though I do question how sustainable that is.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

3) the Volcano ash cloud

That reminds me, VTWC last ran non-stop Edinburgh to Euston for a few days during the ash cloud period (presumably stopping for a crew change at Preston).
It was also the last time Holyhead-Euston boat trains were full and standing.

 

[InOban]

I'm not decrying the need for some face to face meetings. When ever I joined a group, I always attended in person for the first few, until I knew the other participants. And the example above where a team got more done in a few days than if they had not been in the same room is a good example. And in a large organisation the bosses have to get around to check on the b*llsh*t they're been told by their divisional managers. But all the independent studies say that most meetings merely give an illusion of activity, distract people from their proper job, and make those in the inner circle feel important.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why are the classic compatible trains not tilting? Are they too expensive to build for minimal time gains?

HS2 Ltd (ie DfT) are besotted by the 400km/h design speed of HS2, and have written that into the train spec.
This was when there were supposed to be separate captive and classic-compatible fleets.
Now there are only going to be CC trains, at least before HS2b, they are even more insistent on having the high speed capability.
I'm fairly sure the fastest current tilting trains are rated at 250km/h (155mph) - Talgo's trains do that in Spain and elsewhere.
There is a speed penalty to pay (weight, suspension) for the tilt capability, and restrictions on gauge too, like the Pendolino.
However, Alstom has said they can design a faster tilting train, but it is not in production.
But of course it will not be tilting at that speed, only at 125mph (or possibly 140mph) on the WCML, non-tilt on HS2.
All this says non-tilt HS2 trains will pay the penalty for running on the WCML north of Lichfield/Crewe/Golborne (10-15 minutes slower to Glasgow).
The West Coast Partnership is supposed to integrate WCML and HS2 planning and operation, so we'll have to see what happens when HS2 Ltd meets Joseph Locke.
Somehow, like IEP, I suspect the DfT consultants' vision will prevail over what a mere TOC might think.
NR is in the middle of this; they are looking at possible WCML upgrades to avoid some of the tilt penalty.

 

[InOban]

I have never read any coherent argument for 400km/ hr. over the short UK distances. BTW, I think the pendolino technology is rated up to 300km/hr.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I have never read any coherent argument for 400km/ hr. over the short UK distances. BTW, I think the pendolino technology is rated up to 300km/hr.

I think one major reason is that, in order to get both the improved journey times and also the 18tph each direction capacity they want to squeeze onto the south part of the route (London to Birmingham), it's necessary to run at those speeds. I see nothing wrong with futureproofing the track and trains to run at those speeds - other conventional-rail high speed systems are running at 320kph already, so there's no reason why we can't build everything to 400kph from scratch rather than incurring the costs and time wasted with upgrades in the future.

 

[gallafent]

I'm fairly sure the fastest current tilting trains are rated at 250km/h (155mph) - Talgo's trains do that in Spain and elsewhere.

I think that the Talgo Avril (380km/h) can be built with their Pendular passive tilting system.

https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/talgo-avril-very-high-speed-train/ states “It can also be customised for use on a tilting system.” and https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/talgo-train-very-high-speed-spain/ states (about the previous generation train, capable of 350km/h) “The cars are equipped with Talgo Pendular type suspension. The train is provided with natural tilting system.”.

That suggests that an Avril-like train could hit the 400km/h requirement and also be able to tilt. Not sure /how much/ tilt one gets from pendular in comparison to pendolino, nor whether it's capable of being locked out (maybe necessary on some bits of UK classic network) ……… interesting though.

Very interesting to see the Talgo XXI too, a 220km/h modular diesel train. Wonder if they've been thinking about bi-mode versions … it seems to have hydraulic transmission, which would clearly be a bit of a fiddle, ……… hey ho. But that's even more off-topic for this thread than discussions of HS2 CC stock

 

[swaldman]

I believe the N700 shinkansen trains tilt at 300kph. But they don't have to fit in the UK "classic" loading gauge.

 

[pt_mad]

I think one major reason is that, in order to get both the improved journey times and also the 18tph each direction capacity they want to squeeze onto the south part of the route (London to Birmingham), it's necessary to run at those speeds. I see nothing wrong with futureproofing the track and trains to run at those speeds - other conventional-rail high speed systems are running at 320kph already, so there's no reason why we can't build everything to 400kph from scratch rather than incurring the costs and time wasted with upgrades in the future.

18tph in each direction is planned on HS2?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

18tph in each direction is planned on HS2?

It was originally planned to deliver this eventually, yes - 3tph to each of Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds, 2tph to each of Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh, plus 1 spare path for future services to link up with HS1/the Chunnel. However, this seems to have been reduced slightly to ~15tph. In either case, even that's a train every 4 minutes, which is very tight at those high speeds (as they need to cope with a train stopping instantly for whatever reason, e.g. derailment, and the train behind being able to stop in less than the 4 minute gap).

 

[pt_mad]

However, this seems to have been reduced slightly to ~15tph. In either case, even that's a train every 4 minutes, which is very tight at those high speeds (as they need to cope with a train stopping instantly for whatever reason, e.g. derailment, and the train behind being able to stop in less than the 4 minute gap).

Mind you they're already every 4 minutes on the WCML fast and that's with conventional signalling.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Mind you they're already every 4 minutes on the WCML fast and that's with conventional signalling.

4 minutes to stop at 125mph is a lot more generous than 4 minutes to stop at 400kph (which is twice that speed and thus 4 times the kinetic energy to dissipate).

 

[pt_mad]

4 minutes to stop at 125mph is a lot more generous than 4 minutes to stop at 400kph (which is twice that speed and thus 4 times the kinetic energy to dissipate).

Well yeah but in theory they'll all be traveling at that speed so distances between them remain the same?

 

[MichaelAMW]

4 minutes to stop at 125mph is a lot more generous than 4 minutes to stop at 400kph (which is twice that speed and thus 4 times the kinetic energy to dissipate).

At that speed the trains are 16 miles apart, which sounds like a pretty generous stopping distance.

 

[Starmill]

I believe the intended commercial operating speed of HS2 is 350 kilometres / hour. The alignment is to be suitable for future operation at up to 400 kilometers / hour.

I'm not aware of any commercial European railways running at more than 320 kilometres / hour, and it is worthy of note than SNCF have the means to run at more than this but have decided not to, even on the new LGV SEA which only opened last year, because the extra revenues from the time savings would not justify the significant increase in cost.

 

[gallafent]

I'm not aware of any commercial European railways running at more than 320 kilometres / hour, and it is worthy of note than SNCF have the means to run at more than this but have decided not to, even on the new LGV SEA which only opened last year, because the extra revenues from the time savings would not justify the significant increase in cost.

Some lines in Spain and Italy are intended for 350km/h+ I think … though some deep wikipedia research indicates none are yet above 300km/h for various reasons ……… could well be that the cost question is relevant there too. As for China, it's not clear what current operations are running at … I was there when there was a 300km/h cap, but the infrastructure is built for 350km/h, and some of the trains for 380km/h … and the distances involved are substantial so the reduction in journey times might be worthwhile when competing with airlines …

 

[InOban]

Because of rapidly rising air resistance, the energy cost of the higher speed is unsustainable, never mind track wear. And since substantial parts of the route will have a lower limit anyway (all the tunnels, I think, and some sections in the North Midlands), there is really no point.

 

[Northhighland]

it isn't the speed that is the problem it is the standard of the service. Ticketing is more difficult than it needs to be, still cant get tickets on your phone, when you get on the train the service is poor, trains frequently dirty, lack of power points on some, food offering very average, staff helpfulness average at best, station buildings pretty average. the overall customer experience hasn't really improved over the last 10 or more years.

It could and should be more convenient than air, in that you should be able to just turn up and get on. It isn't though. Far from it. the customer is not put at the centre of the rail network. Lets be honest companies like Ryanair are dreadful customer experiences, if rail cannot compete with and beat that experience it is not good.