BMIFlyer
Member
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2017
- Messages
- 723
I hope the opposite. It guarantees the train only carries the bikes that it should carry.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
WCML New Rolling Stock Discussion
- Thread starter superalbs
- Start date
- Status
I hope the opposite. It guarantees the train only carries the bikes that it should carry.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Yes. Double sets can’t terminate at Bangor unless Double Manned. You can’t change ends in the Tunnel because you can’t walk through.
I do want to ask the question as to why people think double sets West of Chester are a waste though. Holyhead itself might be quiet if there’s no ferry about, but not always. I’ve regularly seen the Bangor platform hammered with people, particularly if there’s an event or students travelling, but the line can be crazily busy for no obvious reason. Llandudno usually always has a good number getting on, Rhyl less so, but Chester can be extremely busy.
krus_aragon
Established Member
As stated by others, running longer trains along the NW coast isn't much of an issue: in the pre-Voyager days the route was operated by HSTs.
The main need for coupling and splitting services in the current timetable comes from the service to Wrexham (and, in the future, Gobowen).
Current morning departures from Holyhead are (roughly) 5am, 6am, 7am, and 9am. The 6am service joins with a Wrexham portion at Chester, arriving into Euston at 09:39. If the replacement stock is too long to couple together, then (without finding an extra path into Euston) one of the portions will have to be dropped or moved to another hour instead.
Similarly, in the evening, there are Euston departures for Bangor/Holyhead at roughly 4pm, 5pm, 6pm, and 7pm. The 6pm service currently splits to serve Wrexham; if it has to run as a separate service, when does it run?
krus_aragon
Established Member
The DfT's blurb for Llandudno reads:
And Llandudno Jn reads:
That implies to me that Llandudno's just getting a summer Saturday service. Either that, or there'll be portion working or the diversion of an existing Bangor/Holyhead service during the week.
EE Andy b1
Established Member
Anyone thought about Stadler Flirt for the West Coast?
Non-tilting i suppose, unless they build a tilting flirt.
I presume a Bi-mode Stadler Flirt unit can work in multiple with an electric only Stadler Flirt unit, as the diesel power unit can be removed to make the Bi-Mode electric only for future requirements.
So perhaps a Bi-mode coming from Chester/Wrexham/Gabowen/North Wales could then join an ex Liverpool Lime Street/Liverpool South Parkway or Blackpool electric unit at Crewe and run through to Euston and vice versa.
The same could happen with an ex Shrewsbury and Walsall units at either Wolverhampton or Brum New Street.
Non-tilting i suppose, unless they build a tilting flirt.
I presume a Bi-mode Stadler Flirt unit can work in multiple with an electric only Stadler Flirt unit, as the diesel power unit can be removed to make the Bi-Mode electric only for future requirements.
So perhaps a Bi-mode coming from Chester/Wrexham/Gabowen/North Wales could then join an ex Liverpool Lime Street/Liverpool South Parkway or Blackpool electric unit at Crewe and run through to Euston and vice versa.
The same could happen with an ex Shrewsbury and Walsall units at either Wolverhampton or Brum New Street.
The trouble with the existing 5 car arrangement is that a lot of the Chesters are 5 car from Euston. That doesn't seem a very sensible use of valuable paths. Now if the 13 bi-modes meant that workings would be double sets at least to Chester then fair dues. To continue with an hourly 5 car off Euston in some hours though when it's going to get busier and busier until 2026 I'm not sure makes sense.
Ah, thanks, I thought I'd heard something like that. Good to get in confirmed by someone who actually knows
You beat me to it. I'm a bit bemused by people thinking that. Presumably they've little experience of the line. Similar to Liverpool, it's not the sleepy backwater some seem to suggest on here.
It's not uncommon to have to stand between Llandudno Junction and Chester on occasion, particularly on summer Sundays, and if there's been disruption on the ferries it can be chaos.
I don't understand the "long trains don't work in North Wales" comment. I think some people have a tendency to look at Wikipedia for its stat on how many people live somewhere then decide it's too small to have a good service, without taking the area into account at all.
Ah, thanks, I thought I'd heard something like that. Good to get in confirmed by someone who actually knows
You beat me to it. I'm a bit bemused by people thinking that. Presumably they've little experience of the line. Similar to Liverpool, it's not the sleepy backwater some seem to suggest on here.
It's not uncommon to have to stand between Llandudno Junction and Chester on occasion, particularly on summer Sundays, and if there's been disruption on the ferries it can be chaos.
I don't understand the "long trains don't work in North Wales" comment. I think some people have a tendency to look at Wikipedia for its stat on how many people live somewhere then decide it's too small to have a good service, without taking the area into account at all.
Good point. Logic tells us that surely the population of North Wales is enough to justify a more regular London service. Maybe the demand is surpressed somewhat, very much like the Trent Valley used to be before the Trent Valley service was available. And once it became established it was soon standing room. Plus NWales is s tourist route and route to Ireland.
Could an overtaking move be possible though like Grand Central are planning with the Blackpool? I.e. the following tilting set overtakes at Milton Keynes and the non tilt then has a free run at 110mph with nothing behind until Crewe.?
I suggest this might be the case with the second Liverpool per hour.
Could do, but that will put 8 minutes into the ‘looped’ train, on top of the 5-6 minutes it would lose south of Rugby alone. Add in another 8 mins or so lost to Weaver and you are looking at much longer journey times.
Aye but if it had a stop at Milton Keynes anyways, and maybe one other before Crewe, and 397 acceleration as an example, would it be all that drastic? If the difference were only 10 minutes Vs a 390 stopping at Milton Keynes (examples), Nuneaton, Crewe, Runcorn then would it really justify needing to procure a tilting train Vs current off the shelf? Their headline journey service might well remain the existing 390 Liverpool service.
Just to add afaik the looped platform at Milton Keynes is a high-speed platform. I.e. it can get in and out of there pretty quick as I understand it.
There are already ‘off the shelf’ tilt products. The extra cost of tilt will be peanuts in the scheme of things.
The difference wouldn’t be 10 minutes. If the train was looped at MK, it will be a minimum of 6 minutes (2x headways) at MK, likely more. The loss in running from Queens Park to Weaver through non tilt would be around 15 minutes+. The Pendolinos do have good acceleration, there is no way that a better acceleration train can regain that 15 minutes.
As an example the xx46 LNWR service from Euston calls at MK and Rugby, and is caught by the xx00 service to Manchester by Nuneaton. As the new franchise is putting more paths in, it is even more important that everything runs at the same speed.
LeylandLen
Member
Im not too bothered about any new rolling stock ... all I ask for is bigger ID numbers on the Pendelinos and easier ones to read on whatever replaces the Voyagers !! .
krus_aragon
Established Member
I believe (though I haven't gone and checked) that a loco-hauled service that terminates at Bangor would run-around using the Down Main line, and then propel its coaching stock into Belmont tunnel. I presume that propelling a double-Voyager isn't practical?
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,583
I cannot see any more tilt trains being ordered. Tilt was much more important when 140 mph was in the offing and strongly suspect that the actual speed gain for given passenger comfort (and it is only comfort - restrcting lateral forces) is modest, much less than the route is currently assessed for. The difference in lateral forces for 110 going to 125mph is modest, I think a 30% increase, 110 to 140 is a 60% increase, 80 to 90 is less. A modest relaxation in maximum lateral forces allowed would wipe out the advantage of tilt.
Not just impractical but almost certainly not allowed, unless something is in the Sectional Appendix that I’m not aware of. I don’t see why you would do that at Bangor anyway when run round facilities and Shunters are available at Holyhead further up.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I guess there might not be time to get to Holyhead and back before the set is needed somewhere else. Could it reverse at Menai Bridge?
krus_aragon
Established Member
There used to be a number of loco-hauled trains that terminated at Bangor, e.g. in the 90s. Having dug around a bit, I found the following from nwrail.org.uk in 2015:
This is the manouver I was thinking of, but it seems that the practice is long gone (and therefore my question about propelling a double Voyager in this way was rather pointless). I presume loco-hauled/push-pull engineering trains that shunt into Bangor sidings must have a second driver these days to bring the train back out of Belmont, unless they run all the way to Holyhead.
I can assure you that
a) the journey time saving due to tilt was very much worth ‘buying’ at 125mph - tilt was proposed a long time before Virgin came up with 140mph
b) there is no chance of increasing lateral forces felt by the passenger beyond those already permitted
The cost of tilt is relatively insignificant in the cost of the new trains.
But, if as one poster further up seemed to claim, the tilt has to be the Alstom version only, due to track configuration and restrictions, then which off the shelf train would they go with?
They will have to deal with at least 2 110mph workings in the timetable as far as Rugby either way with the semi fast Crewe and the Grand Central Blackpool.
I'm a layman here, so quite possibly completely wrong, but my take on EPS speeds on the WCML was they don't just change a 110 max to 125, but also lower speeds to be higher in places, e.g. 80 might be 100 with tilt.
It seems very unlikely that a non-tilt WCML would be as fast as it was before tilt. Hopefully @driver_m won't mind me quoting him to ask someone who knows. (sorry!)
Is anyone able to do the maths to work out how many bi-mode units would be needed for:
Would 13 do it if Blackpool were covered by new EMUs and were out of the equation?
- All existing Holyhead (& Wrexham services to be double sets between Euston/Chester in each direction.
- All existing Chester services to be double set.
- Any extra committed service to or from north Wales to also be a double set between Chester/Euston and added onto the total.
Would 13 do it if Blackpool were covered by new EMUs and were out of the equation?
EE Andy b1
Established Member
You were right though. When i was based at Newton Heath and we had trains to Bangor from Manchester Victoria/Scarborough, that was how the move had to be done by running round with the loco, propelling into the tunnel then drawing forward into to Up platform. A move long gone now as you say.
The only other ways to do it is to use the crossover at Gaerwen Junction to reverse. Not sure when it was last used though, or through to Holyhead.
Your correct. There can be upto a 35 mph difference between permissible speeds and enhanced permissible speeds.
Last edited:
If you pay enough for something, someone will build it for you. 221s and 390s were built by different companies.
See also: BREL/ABB/Bombardier
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
What I said was that the WCML system uses Alstom's TASS in terms of track and on-board equipment.
The tilting actuation mechanism itself on the train doesn't have to be Alstom - it isn't on the Voyagers for instance, but they do have TASS installed despite being a Bombardier tilting product.
EE Andy b1
Established Member
Which is a UK requirement for any tilting trains due to the loading gauge restrictions. There are a few routes 221s & 390s run where tilt is not permissible and a couple where tilt is not permissible but EPS speed is.
I missed the post about requiring an Alstom tilt system, but can’t believe this is the case, because a) the tilt equipment on the infrastructure uses ETCS standard eurobalises and standard messaging, and b) the tilt equipment on the 221s was built and maintained by Bombardier (and its predecessors).
As far as the infrastructure is concerned, any train that can read the balises and tilt at up to 9 degrees is compatible.
You’ve hit the nail on the head about the 2x 110mph paths. No room for any more of them!
There are plenty of stretches where EPS speed differentials are lower than 110/125EPS.
However, the WCML non-EPS speed is higher in a few places that it was ‘pre-tilt’, notably Euston, Rugby, Proof House Junction, Norton Bridge, and a few other places. This gives around 2-3 minutes improvement on a like for like basis for a non-tilt service (comparing 1999-2019).
You would need the timetable and an idea as to which services were formed of the same units, but the maths isn't overly difficult.
Basically take the journey time from A to B, allow turn around time and then run back to A.
With the ~3:45 journey from Euston to Holyhead and the same in return, allowing for 2*30 minutes for turn around (3:45+30+3:45+30=8.5 hours) you'd need 9 units to run an hourly service with a single unit. 5 to run a service every 2 hours and 3 to run a service every 3 hours.
It gets more complex of a unit runs one service and then a different one.
If maths isn't your strong point, create a spreadsheet and fill in the times of the services (to make it easier have Euston at the top and then run down to the end point station and then list again in reverse back to Euston) at each end and then colour code the services which pair up. You then count the colours used which gives you the number of paths, if you want them as a pair of units double that number and that's the number of units required.
I think the existing weekday Chester and North Wales service requires 9 units rostered. The rest are used under the wires, primarily on London-Birmingham-Scotland services. I think there are usually 19 out of 20 Voyagers in service Monday to Friday. Assuming bi modes won't be running on all wired routes then 13 units would be enough for double sets between London and Chester but single west of Chester. Not all services go as far as Holyhead.
Replacing the Voyagers used on all wired routes and running an extra hourly Liverpool-London service would require approximately 5 full length units each. My guess is therefore 10 x 9 coach EMUs and 13 x 5 coach bi modes. It's not a small order and would be the same number of coaches as the EMR intercity order (165).
Another option that might work could be passive tilt. Talgo might have bid with a passive tilt design. They wouldn't be adequate on Scottish services but maybe on London-Birmingham/North West services fast acceleration would be enough to outweigh less tilt?
- Status