Excellent. So hopefully these 13 bi-modes will indeed run double set to Chester as a minimum. Makes sense having only full length workings out of Euston in the week especially with a stop at Milton Keynes.
Last edited:
-
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
Excellent. So hopefully these 13 bi-modes will indeed run double set to Chester as a minimum. Makes sense having only full length workings out of Euston in the week especially with a stop at Milton Keynes.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Yep, it’s not complicated, and effectively a subset of ETCS architecture.
Someone else has suggested that Alstom's Cordia family could be a potential EMU replacement.
Although I thought they were only after bi-modes for now?
I have possibly mis-read.
Although I thought they were only after bi-modes for now?
I have possibly mis-read.
krus_aragon
Established Member
13 bi-modes and 10 EMUs to replace the Voyagers. (They may well be two variants of the same design.)
Given the small numbers of each unit type I would guess that two variants of the same design would be quite likely.
Yeah there is the full range, as Andy said, 35mph difference at Linslade Tunnel bear Leighton Buzzard, down to none at places like Queensville curve, Stafford or Watford Curves. There are some differences also between 221s and 390s due to the angle of tilt being less on a 221.
If you want to go to Scotland from a part of the country not served by HS2 then you definitely want the "intermediate and regional trains" to maintain their current speeds.
Why is it that people assume that just because the last southbound leg to London is a bit faster we can let the service on the outer bit degrade? You can't even claim that the Birmingham-Scotland trains are lightly loaded, so don't "deserve" it!
edwin_m
Veteran Member
However it does require a new bodyshell to UK tilt profile. In recent history this means the Pendolino or the Voyager and for various reasons it would be difficult to produce more of either. I don't think Siemens, CAF or Stadler has a tilt system with recent successful track record, and they certainly don't have a bodyshell to a UK tilt profile.
All of which makes a new tilting fleet not impossible but quite a bit more difficult and expensive than the same number of non-tilting vehicles, which could be an existing design or lightly modified.
Not sure if a passive tilt system would be acceptable in the UK - you'd need some way of restoring it to centre and locking it in case of failure or on a section where tilting isn't allowed. Once you've got that you have most of what you need for an active tilt system. Also passive tilt relies on the centre of gravity moving, so it tends to throw outwards further than an active system where the coach effectively rotates around an axis somewhere near the middle.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The 110mph TPE services aren't much slower than the Pendolinos on that section despite making more stops. A 125mph unit and upgrading of the straighter sections above 110mph for non-tilting stock where possible would reduce this difference.
They only run from Wigan northwards... what about the passengers from Wolverhampton to there (and all the ones connecting in at Crewe)?
Bald Rick certainly doesn't agree with you either:
Yes the methodology is now an RSSB standard and it uses standard ETCS parts /settings and is being adopted as the preferred methodology for tilt control across Europe (written into ETCS standards). The bigger issue is that only Alstom and Bombardier have "working" tilt system of their own, Siemens system by their own admission doesn't actually work...
StaffsWCML
Member
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 221
You have to think that if we don't get tilting trains we will be very much going backwards.
Sleeperwaking
Member
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 166
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Well, the SJ X2000s seem to work OK.
DB has its ICE-T which it uses on routes with significant non-upgraded sections (eg Vienna-Frankfurt).
I was on one recently and its parentage was Siemens, Bombardier and Fiat/Alstom for the tilt (ie similar to the Pendolino).
CAF and Talgo have tilting trains of the passive variety.
I am happy to be correct by one of the VT guys but don’t the pendo’s run at a reduced power anyway - something like 68% and even when using boost mode it is still not full power. It is reduced to a point where the train can still accelerate quickly enough to keep to the timetable.
Anyway I would hope a train only a couple of years old would get away quicker than one over 15 years old in some cases.
route:oxford
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 4,949
Would it be politically acceptable to introduce stock that had a deleterious impact on the speed of Anglo-Scottish services?
I can imagine Holyrood would be less than impresseed.
I can imagine Holyrood would be less than impresseed.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
There are both tilting and non-tilting versions of the Pendolino.
The original design was from Fiat (with some help from BR's ATP), but Fiat Ferroviaria was bought by Alstom in 2000.
Alstom and Fiat were then collaborating on the design of the UK Pendolino, so it became a wholly Alstom product after the merger.
One design difference is that I believe most of the "foreign" Pendolinos use hydraulic tilt actuation, while the UK version uses electric.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendolino
There are 2 tilting HS train families /technologies in Italy
a) the older Alstom /Fiat Pendolino Technology (as outlined by LNW-GW Joint)
b) the newer Bombardier technology on the Bombardier /Ansaldo (now Hitachi) Zefiro V300 (the basis for the B-H HS2 stock bid). More V300s were ordered just 2 months ago.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
While I rarely disagree with Bald Rick I feel we might be looking at slightly different scenarios here.
Yes the TPE 350s are only north of Wigan (usually Preston these days), but a comparison shows what might happen if 110mph non-tilting paths were introduced further south.
Between Preston and Glasgow TPE is around 15min slower than VT but typically does 6 stops instead of 3. If the Pendolinos did 6 stops they wouldn't be much ahead of the 350s at all, partly because a Pendolino has 2min dwell times. And that's before looking at 125mph running for non-tilt trains on straight sections such as most of Wigan to Preston and around Lockerbie. I believe this is being assessed to trim the journey times for HS2 units.
On the southern WCML it is critical that the fastest passenger trains all have the same timings, so they can run at minimum headways on the fast line. Even a 2min difference between Euston and Crewe will probably lose a path. But where it's mainly double track the capacity is mostly down to the difference in journey time between the fastest trains (the Pendolinos) and the slowest (the freight). Trains in between those extremes can often be fitted in somehow even if their actual journey times vary a bit.
So there is a capacity issue if non-tilt units are to run fasts on the main line south of Crewe, but much less so for a journey such as West Midlands to Scotland.
Is it actually a given that HS2 will see off all the Pendolinos? I'd have thought they would continue to operate but at reduced frequency and with more stops.
So, for example (and without me knowing much about the current calling patterns), you could end up with a WCML classic intercity service of 5tph to/from Euston:
- 1tph Manchester, Macclesfield, Stoke-On-Trent, Stafford, Tamworth, Rugby, Milton Keynes, Euston
- 1tph Liverpool, Runcorn, Crewe, Stafford, Lichfield, Nuneaton, Milton Keynes, Watford Junction, Euston
- 1tph Blackpool/Preston/Glasgow, Wigan, Warrington, Crewe, Stafford, Rugeley, Nuneaton, Rugby, Milton Keynes, Euston
- 1tph Holyhead/Llandudno/Wrexham/Chester, Crewe, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Coventry, Rugby, Milton Keynes, Euston
- 1tph Wrexham/Shrewsbury/Wolverhampton, Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Coventry, Rugby, Milton Keynes, Watford Junction, Euston
- 3tph Euston - Manchester
- 1tph Euston - Liverpool
- 1tph Euston - Glasgow
- 1tph Euston - Chester/Wrexham/Holyhead
- 2tph Euston - Birmingham *
- 1tph Euston - Wolverhampton
- 1tph Birmingham - Edinburgh/Glasgow *
Given that EMR is getting an all 5-car fleet it wouldn't surprise me if West Coast was getting 5-car bi-modes. But I really hope that's not what it'll be, full-length trains please. Once HS2 reaches Crewe, the possibility of having north Wales to London services run via Birmingham (since passengers for London could change at Crewe for a faster journey on HS2) and thus conveying passengers for both London and Birmingham on the same train between Crewe and Holyhead would help ensure the trains aren't too empty west of Chester.
What about the Shrewsbury services? They'll need the bi-modes for those as well. Is 13 sets enough to double-up between Euston and Birmingham/Chester on both the Holyhead and Shrewsbury routes?
Despite the I in FLIRT standing for 'Intercity' they don't seem to be particularly 'intercity' to me. In fact they don't fit in my black-and-white world of category 'boxes' at all. They can be a step up from Outer Suburban (the GA FLIRTs, with only one set of doors per carriage, seem to have less floor space given over to standing room than a suburban unit with two sets of double-width doors) but presumably the FLIRTs all have toilets in the saloon and no vestibules (maybe I'm wrong on that, having never been on a FLIRT), meaning they don't meet my 'regional' quality critera either.
Rather than comfort, I thought it was that going round WCML curves at speed without tilt would cause rather alot of tea/coffee to be spilt.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,933
Also what are the layovers like could these be tightened at London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool to increase capacity through utilisation? Thereby requiring what appears to be only a small overall increase in the number of trains
There is very little scope for increasing utilisation. VT as franchise holder proposed applied for extra off peak services to Liverpool prior to making a separate open access bid. If full length 10 EMUs would be the right number to replace the 10 Voyagers used on fully wired routes and allow 5 units to be used for the additional Liverpool service. I very much doubt the new EMUs will run Liverpool services because the capacity of longer units will be needed on routes without a service increase. Once the service goes half hourly it would be a good route to put 9 coach Pendolinos on. It would require rostering at least 10 out of the 22 shorter sets.
rdlover777
Member
i wouldn't mind seeing a tilting version of some variant on the GreaterAnglia FLIRTs as the Voyager replacements
Chris125
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2009
- Messages
- 3,076
More stops and far less intercity traffic is what all but guarantees it - their age, extra weight, long fixed length and high running costs will make retaining them (or any tilt stock) alongside HS2 very hard to justify for the traffic they'll be carrying.
Age, weight, long fixed length (aka capacity] and high running costs might count against them, but please don't forget that the WCML carries a lot of people northbound who connect in from the east and west midlands (and originating in Crewe and Warrington) who won't benefit from HS2. It's not just about London - or Birmingham - passengers you know!
Indeed, given that there's been quite a bit of growth (current growth seen sets it higher than expected for the opening of Phase 2a) I wouldn't be surprised if there was still a need for full length trains.
You just need to look at the passenger growth at places like Coventry, where it's currently comparable to somewhere like Woking in terms of passenger numbers, which are likely to justify significant service provision.
Especially given that on of its London services could well be heading north along the Trent Valley (i.e. via Nuneaton), so would open up easier journey options and therefore increase rail usage.
Under HS2 there was a concern that Coventry could have lost out, but given its seen 26.8% growth in 4 years (that's the equivalent of just over 6% growth per year) I would suggest that there's not going to be a need for more than 1 or 2 extra stops compared to the current casing pattern whilst still probably needing at least 2 (per hour) full length or near full length trains to run those services.
Personally I'm starting to think that by the time of opening of the full HS2 network that there's likely to already be talk of what's next as there's going to be pressure to not provide the currently assumed London to Eastern Arm services due to capacity issues on the Western Arm.
Nor that the Eastern Arm would then become under used as there would likely be significant growth in the services which use of which start at Birmingham.
krus_aragon
Established Member
As an initial, simplistic analysis, in the December 2018 diagrams (found on Yahoo) of the 20 Voyager diagrams, 6 never operate off the wires to Chester/Shrewsbury, and 2 are on maintenance. That indicates that 12 diagrams (plus maintenance spares) are sufficient to operate the current North Wales / Shrewsbury service.
Among those 12, some spend very little time off the wires: diagram 511 operates the morning service from Wrexham, then spends the rest of the day between Euston and Birmingham/Wolves.
Chester-Euston is a 5-hour round trip, so that alone would require 10 x 5-car diagrams to keep everything doubled-up east of Chester. Most North Wales services operate That wouldn't leave enough spare for the Holyhead and Shrewsbury services.
When I get the time, I'll see what the minimum number of diesel diagrams for the current service is, and then we can see how much doubling up could be done with a fleet of 13 x 5-car bi-modes.
Last edited:
- Status