What would be needed to upgrade the WCML from 125mph to 140mph

[FrozenPoints]

I am curious to know what would be needed to upgrade the WCML to be ready to take 140mph on the route.

Also, how much would this cost, in reality and in Network Rail terms.

Plus are there any sections of the line that are still not 4-track with the exception of north of Preston?

 

[The Planner]

In Cab Signalling as discussed many times before, and there are 3 tracks between Brinklow and Attleborough between Rugby and Nuneaton.

 

[rail-britain]

There are also not many 4-track sections between Crewe and Preston

Equally, to upgrade the route between Lancaster and Glasgow to 140mph would pretty much need a complete reconstruction
It was difficult enough just to get some sections from 60mph to 80mph

 

[The Barlow Boy]

A whole lot of straightening out for a start.

 

[CosherB]

Colwich to Stafford is also not 4-track, and Shugborough Tunnel being only 2-track makes it difficult to do much about that. Unless the Colwich-to-Norton Bridge Stafford bypass gets built.

 

[TomJ93]

Is it not 4 tracks at Cathiron? (Between Rugby and Nuneaton)

 

[Failed Unit]

In Cab Signalling as discussed many times before, and there are 3 tracks between Brinklow and Attleborough between Rugby and Nuneaton.

The same problem as on the ECML as well, could the 91s and mk4 still run at 140mph, I know GNER changed some bogie configs to make them more stable at 125mph but I don't know if the mods have meant an end to 140mph for these trains.

Saying that by the time in cab signalling hits the ECML I think the 91s will probably be hitting total retirement!

 

[The Planner]

If Cathiron is south of Brinklow then yes it is 4 tracks.

 

[FrozenPoints]

So if the WCML was 4-track mimimum South of Preston, if economically viable:
How much capacity would it give?
Is it enough to make line speeds potentially higher than 140mph?
Would it be a better alternative to HS2?

 

[rail-britain]

So if the WCML was 4-track mimimum South of Preston, if economically viable:
How much capacity would it give?
Is it enough to make line speeds potentially higher than 140mph?

Very little more than there is at the moment
It would probably provide an extra six to eight trains per day
The issue isn't increasing the numbers of tracks, but preventing trains crossing each others paths (such as Colwich Junction and Norton Bridge)
I am really surprised a flyover was not included at Colwich Junction
The line speeds could be higher than 140mph on some sections, but that would pretty much mean a complete rebuild, thus HS2 is the preferred option now

On the plus side
Once HS2 is completed this may reduce the demand on Euston - Birmingham such that the entire route is rebalanced (I've not seen any details outlining what the expected changes would be)
This would in turn allow increases in frequency to the longer-distance services
However, there would be little or no increase in slow speed services, including London Midland and freight, although London Midland could expand to include 125mph rolling stock (which would be more suited to the route) with limited stop services

 

[tbtc]

It would probably provide an extra six to eight trains per day

Only if *everything* on the (fast) lines was moving at that speed, otherwise you just catch up the train in front and waste paths

IMHO the only way to do higher speeds properly is to have a segregated line for it, which is why I eventually came round to HS2, because I don't think you can do it on existing lines (without great cost)

 

[rail-britain]

Only if *everything* on the (fast) lines was moving at that speed, otherwise you just catch up the train in front and waste paths

Yes, assuming rolling stock for 140mph is introduced and used exclusively
Six to eight additional paths per day seems incredibly low, however the issue once you are above 125mph are variance in acceleration and braking distances, and with some major engineering to remove some of the conflicting junctions could dramatically increase this (as has been done at Rugby and is proposed for Norton Bridge)

I suspect the improvements at Norton Bridge are for a proposed half hourly service between Preston and Euston, to implemented once HS2 is operating

 

[Failed Unit]

Only if *everything* on the (fast) lines was moving at that speed, otherwise you just catch up the train in front and waste paths

IMHO the only way to do higher speeds properly is to have a segregated line for it, which is why I eventually came round to HS2, because I don't think you can do it on existing lines (without great cost)

Again the ECML has exactly the same problem, Passengers wanting to get to York and Leeds as quickly as possible conflicting with frieghts and trains wanting to stop at Grantham.

Even if the freight all went via Lincoln, between Peterborough and Doncaster there are very few places for stopping trains to be overtaken by fasts.

Grantham (Northbound), Newark (Southbound), Reford (Both)

 

[matt]

Is it not 4 tracks at Cathiron? (Between Rugby and Nuneaton)

It is four tracks but north-west a few miles down the line at Brinklow it goes to three tracks and returns to four near Nuneaton.

 

[Sapphire Blue]

Money.

That is all.

 

[RichW1]

ERTMS is what's required and that isn't happening until 2030 which will take it as far as Crewe under present plans as far as I know. The East Coast will get it as far as Doncaster by 2027 so nothing will happen quick on this subject.

140mph is perfectly possible as long as all trains under the wires are capable of the same speed. You could then path slower trains accordingly and yes there'll be sections where you can't reach those speeds just as there is with 137mph pendolinos on the continent. But it can be done but we're dragging out heals with ERTMS which is still only at test stage in the UK.

I don't think we'll see 140mph running even with ERTMS to my disgust. It's humanly possible and trains can be pathed using it and this will be common practice on the continent so we'll have no excuse from 2030. However, I do realise this is while to wait and by then I think you'll see a whole new generation of trains on the East Coast which is where it will happen first I think if at all.

 

[junglejames]

ERTMS is what's required and that isn't happening until 2030 which will take it as far as Crewe under present plans as far as I know. The East Coast will get it as far as Doncaster by 2027 so nothing will happen quick on this subject.

140mph is perfectly possible as long as all trains under the wires are capable of the same speed. You could then path slower trains accordingly and yes there'll be sections where you can't reach those speeds just as there is with 137mph pendolinos on the continent. But it can be done but we're dragging out heals with ERTMS which is still only at test stage in the UK.

I don't think we'll see 140mph running even with ERTMS to my disgust. It's humanly possible and trains can be pathed using it and this will be common practice on the continent so we'll have no excuse from 2030. However, I do realise this is while to wait and by then I think you'll see a whole new generation of trains on the East Coast which is where it will happen first I think if at all.

Do we need in cab signalling to go 140? We certainly didnt used to require it. Just needed an extra aspect on the signalling, and as far as I knew, thats all that was required still.
Unless rules have changed, in which case i stand corrected. I thought it was over 140 where they decided in cab signalling was required.
Not too sure about the WCML, but on the ECML there are extra hurdles on top of the signalling. Mainly the gateless foot crossings. These would need to be replaced by foot bridges.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Do we need in cab signalling to go 140? We certainly didnt used to require it. Just needed an extra aspect on the signalling, and as far as I knew, thats all that was required still.
Unless rules have changed, in which case i stand corrected. I thought it was over 140 where they decided in cab signalling was required.
Not too sure about the WCML, but on the ECML there are extra hurdles on top of the signalling. Mainly the gateless foot crossings. These would need to be replaced by foot bridges.

Yes, in-cab signalling is required for 140 running. They trialled the fifth aspect on the ECML ('flashing green') but it was decided after that for a variety of reasons that in-cab signalling would be required. I have a feeling it was linked to the unions but I'm not sure.

 

[rail-britain]

The issue with the additional aspect of flashing green was the uncertainty of it, which was highlighted during the trials

The weather had to be "perfect" in order to use flashing green
Some of the early trials had to be abandoned due to poor weather, as these all required clear views of the flashing green
Later trials were conducted in poor weather and it was clear this was an issue

Let's take fog, with visibilty less than 5 metres
Most drivers know exactly where they are, even in fog
However, at 125mph the signal is only briefly seen
At 140mph the time the signal is seen is even less, so it almost impossible to determine if it is flashing
Therefore reduced speed is required

The same issue also affects snow (see below)

The final issue is rain
Normally visibilty is very good, as rain often runs up the windscreen
However at higher speed there is more contact with the rain, such that light rain can appear as heavy rain
As a result the windscreen wiper has to be used
This too then may affect viewing and confirmation that the green signal is flashing, as the wiper blade may cross the drivers view during the flashing phase!
This occured several times during testing and the driver would verbally confirm at the time they had seen a solid green (rather than the flashing green that was actually being displayed)
The same issue was expected to affect driving in snow, but testing was actually abandoned before such a run could take place

For the high speed record runs on the WCML a lot of preparation, in effect cheating was done
In the hour before the run it was made sure that any freight trains had already been looped
Equally, some freight trains had been completely retimed, either running earlier or later than normal
The staff in the cab would then discuss their location with the relevant signal boxes to ensure that the route ahead was clear for that section before they had even reached it, resulting in green signals all the way!

 

[junglejames]

The issue with the additional aspect of flashing green was the uncertainty of it, which was highlighted during the trials

The weather had to be "perfect" in order to use flashing green
Some of the early trials had to be abandoned due to poor weather, as these all required clear views of the flashing green
Later trials were conducted in poor weather and it was clear this was an issue

Let's take fog, with visibilty less than 5 metres
Most drivers know exactly where they are, even in fog
However, at 125mph the signal is only briefly seen
At 140mph the time the signal is seen is even less, so it almost impossible to determine if it is flashing
Therefore reduced speed is required

The same issue also affects snow (see below)

The final issue is rain
Normally visibilty is very good, as rain often runs up the windscreen
However at higher speed there is more contact with the rain, such that light rain can appear as heavy rain
As a result the windscreen wiper has to be used
This too then may affect viewing and confirmation that the green signal is flashing, as the wiper blade may cross the drivers view during the flashing phase!
This occured several times during testing and the driver would verbally confirm at the time they had seen a solid green (rather than the flashing green that was actually being displayed)
The same issue was expected to affect driving in snow, but testing was actually abandoned before such a run could take place

For the high speed record runs on the WCML a lot of preparation, in effect cheating was done
In the hour before the run it was made sure that any freight trains had already been looped
Equally, some freight trains had been completely retimed, either running earlier or later than normal
The staff in the cab would then discuss their location with the relevant signal boxes to ensure that the route ahead was clear for that section before they had even reached it, resulting in green signals all the way!

Thanks.
Never realised they had so many problems with the flashing green aspect trials. Makes sense though.

 

[At_traction]

Yes, in-cab signalling is required for 140 running. They trialled the fifth aspect on the ECML ('flashing green') but it was decided after that for a variety of reasons that in-cab signalling would be required. I have a feeling it was linked to the unions but I'm not sure.

Or perhaps due to the perceived lack of driver's/s' ability to see any upcoming signal reliably - especially at curves or with other obstruction - even in the best of conditions at 125 mph, not to mention in rain, snowfall or fog at 140. Then, trying to distinguish a flashing green from a fixed one in dense fog and with the sun shining to your eyes is a bit trickier. Such extreme visibility conditions of, say, 200 meters (not at all uncommon), with the train travelling that distance to the signal in three seconds makes it a true "blink, and you'll miss it" situation. Was it flashing anymore or not?

Moreover, a change to fifth-aspect signalling would have still required a large amount of work, including changes to all signals along the route as well as to the (programming of) track circuits and the boxes' signalling panels.

-------
Well, someone already gave a reply along the same lines (it takes so long to reply while watching the TV at the same time, interesting art programming ), with the interesting addition about the wipers. So true...

 

[Bald Rick]

Not forgetting the track (replacing every set of points to have a swing nose crossing and further upgrading the track quality for ride comfort), strengthening some structures and embankments for the additional dynamic load, retensioning the OLE, provision of additional maintenance equipment (trackside staff not allowed at >125mph), fencing off the fast line platforms, closing the few level crossings that remain and a complete rewrite of the timetable. The good news is that the power supply is ok!

The gain is 3 seconds a mile where 140mph can be done.

 

[Failed Unit]

Not forgetting the track (replacing every set of points to have a swing nose crossing and further upgrading the track quality for ride comfort), strengthening some structures and embankments for the additional dynamic load, retensioning the OLE, provision of additional maintenance equipment (trackside staff not allowed at >125mph), fencing off the fast line platforms, closing the few level crossings that remain and a complete rewrite of the timetable. The good news is that the power supply is ok!

The gain is 3 seconds a mile where 140mph can be done.

On the east coast route, it was only proposed to have 140mph on boring parts.

Peterborough - Grantham, Doncaster - York and York - Darlington. The station bit would not be a problem as none of these stretches has it. Not sure about cross over points or level crossing on either of the planned sections on ECML.

I think you are right even if it had taken place it would not have made much difference on a non-stop Peterborough - York run.

 

[RichW1]

140mph would make a massive difference in times; although the faster you go there is diminishing returns because of acceleration time to full speed etc you would still save 20mins to half an hour from London to Edinburgh and certainly 8 mins or so to Leeds if it was 140mph upgraded to Doncaster.

The leap from 110mph timetables to 125mph timetables over the same distances is large enough to make a difference. The argument it would only save a few seconds to 2 mins over 180miles or so just doesn't stack up in my book

 

[Geezertronic]

According to http://www.csgnetwork.com/csgtsd.html, the difference between 125mph and 140mph over 180 miles is around 9 minutes.

That obviously excludes the external factors on a railway line such as signal checks and assumes a constant speed with no acceleration/deceleration factored in

 

[DaveNewcastle]

140mph would make a massive difference in times; although the faster you go there is diminishing returns because of acceleration time to full speed etc you would still save 20mins to half an hour from London to Edinburgh and certainly 8 mins or so to Leeds if it was 140mph upgraded to Doncaster.

The leap from 110mph timetables to 125mph timetables over the same distances is large enough to make a difference. The argument it would only save a few seconds to 2 mins over 180miles or so just doesn't stack up in my book

But that's not how the sums work!
Firstly, it is unlikely in the extreme that any significant stretch of the ECML north of Darlington could accomodate 140mph travel (there's only tiny lengths safe enough for 125!). So the calculations should be confined to thos stretches where the physical infrastructre could accomodate such speeds.

Secondly, remove all those approaches to restrictive structures (the bridges, tunnels, crossovers, junctions and curves) including stations. Most of those (actually its the majority of stations on the ECML) already have max. linespeeds under 125mph.

Thirdly, look at the timetabling of freight and stopping services. What is the one thing a planner can do to increase capacity? It is to reduce the speed differential between consecutive services, and where there are few passing points then any speed differential is effectively lengthening every trains's path. (Geez, you'd think I was writing in support of an independent HighSpeedRail network!).

What we end up with is the potential for speeds over 125 (if ever the H&SE / ORR ever approved it) being limited to Knebworth - St Neots (18 miles), Eastfield (P'bro) - Stoke summit (23 miles), Peascliffe tunnel - Askham tunnel (33 miles), Arksey - Copmanthorpe (York south) (25 miles) and Skelton (York north) - Cowton (Darlington) (35 miles).
Make allowances for acceleration and breaking and the management of traffic at other speeds, re-calculate, and then let's see what 'benefits' 140 mph running on the ECML would bring us.

 

[swt_passenger]

There's a detailed analysis of where the DfT believe ECML linespeed can be raised, at the end of this stuff on IEP:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/ittappendixc.pdf

It's roughly 50% of the total distance London to Newcastle, as DaveNewcastle rightly suggests; and they also confirm there can be no improvements north of Darlington.

 

[tbtc]

140mph would make a massive difference in times

...but only if you run non-stop on 140mph capable lines and there are no slower trains in the way. In other words, higher speeds only make sense on a dedicated line like HS2. Trying to integrate 140mph services alongside the Pacer/ Sprinters/ long slow freight which use/cross the ECML is going to be a nightmare and a waste of paths.

 

[RichW1]

It seems on a busy network in Italy they have upgraded conventional linespeeds of 137mph (in large sections but by no means all) on a couple of routes using pendolinos, and I would however not claim to know how busy their lines are compared to ours. I could cite Portugal too but I know their network isn't as complex as ours so I'm using Italy as nearest like for like.

Germany has sections of 137 to 140/143mph on specific sections and they have railways busier than our own albeit their population is 25% larger. It seems to me paths that are used by freight and local services is cited much as a reason not to implement higher speeds. If ALL Intercity's under the wires could achieve the same speeds then surely faster services frees up paths when using ERTMS. ERTMS allows maximum efficiency in this respect and so where faster speeds are available then surely in the 21st century they should be used?

I can forsee freight obtaining alternative routes in some areas in the future and on areas suggested by Dave Newcastle there's no reason why these areas can't be utilised for saving minutes on services. Even if the saving to Leeds is 5 mins then that's a saving I'd personally love to see. Every minute used to count and it can again even if 140mph can only be deployed in certain sections. By 2030 or just after I can envisage freight loops built as part of a control period investment. I cannot belive it's beyond the wit of man where there are 4 track sections which are largely segregated traffic areas between IC and other traffic (or 2 track sections where other traffic can be diverted) for 140mph to be possible.

I certainly have many journeys on ECML where it is long and flat with gentle curvature where I'm begging for the accelerator to be allowed because 125mph just seems too slow for that open country!

 

[ainsworth74]

Even if the saving to Leeds is 5 mins then that's a saving I'd personally love to see.

A five minute time saving would be nice however it's not worth the millions probably more like billions it would cost to upgrade the ECML (or any other route) to 140mph running. Far better to spend that money on a dedicated high speed line that will operate at 200mph and provide savings on the order of 30mins+.