Railperf
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,941
Is there any concrete news on any changes to EPS/nonEPS speed limit changes in advance of the Class 397's entering service?
-
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 EPS speeds
- Thread starter Railperf
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,924
None, it would require a network change to be consulted for a start and there isnt one out there.
Joseph_Locke
Established Member
Though change for the better is possible, but it ain't cheap.
td97
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 1,298
Not before 397s enter service (it would require infrastructure changes/civils work), but:
NR & HS2 are looking at upgrading WCML north of Rugeley to enable 125mph non-EPS. Also speed improvements along other sections (to go fast, avoid going slow strikes again), such as Carlisle station, with its 20mph PSR upgraded to 40mph.
NR & HS2 are looking at upgrading WCML north of Rugeley to enable 125mph non-EPS. Also speed improvements along other sections (to go fast, avoid going slow strikes again), such as Carlisle station, with its 20mph PSR upgraded to 40mph.
There are parts of the WCML and branches that can support greater than 110mph without TASS already. An example is the almost dead straight Wolverhampton to Stafford section which has EPS and MU differential speeds of 125mph. This means a non TASS fitted Voyager can travel at this speed through the area. There must be other areas where this is possible and others where improved non-tilt speed can be introduced.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
This thread overlaps (and conflicts with) that on WCML New Rolling Stock Discussion:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/wcml-new-rolling-stock-discussion.188847/
There seem to be two completely divergent views (easy/hard).
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/wcml-new-rolling-stock-discussion.188847/
There seem to be two completely divergent views (easy/hard).
The mods have requested the specific discussion of EPS speeds take place in this thread
CheshireCrusty
Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 88
Shortly after the 221 Voyagers first ran in tilt mode (Beardy did a lot of advertising around this), I was on one with the passenger information system showing the speed - the PIS showed a speed of 130 mph on this stretch! It was definitely fast - but maybe not quite that fast!
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
I had a journey like that once, but the tilt on the 221 was non-operational so the PIS showed close to 110mph throughout from Euston to Crewe (non-stop).
Journey time, unchecked as far as I can remember, was close to 1h50m, which was the schedule at the time (pre-VHF).
The current 221 schedule is 1h39m (1 stop at Milton Keynes).
So I am expecting a 110mph AT300 schedule to be up to 7-8 minutes slower than today, depending on the path and stops.
125mph from Rugeley (after HS2 traffic joins) won't make much difference.
I wonder if these new trains will use HS2.
If they are fitted with ETCS, as they are designed to do, there's nothing to stop them running at 140mph or whatever their max speed is.
That would make a difference to the journey time to bi-mode destinations.
Last edited:
edwin_m
Veteran Member
In theory they could, but on the busiest section south of Birmingham the plan is to have a train every 3min, so each slower one will eat up a large number of paths. The other problem is that platforms on HS2 won't be compatible with existing British gauge stock. Even if they are the right height they will be further from the track to accommodate wider Euro-standard stock (which won't be used initially but probably starts running in Phase 2). Northern Powerhouse Rail and Midlands Connect plan to run regional trains on parts of HS2, which can probably get by with a lower top speed as there will be fewer other trains and they only share for a relatively short distance.
They never did introduce TASS anywhere specifically for XC, but did intially use it in areas shared with Pendolinos that had already been equipped for the WCML route modernisation. The original plan I worked on would have seen TASS balises along the route between Birmngham and Reading via Oxford. There were plans for limited stop services on this axis using 221s that would have used TASS for very marginal speed improvements in a very limited number of places. The limited stop idea was abandoned before introduction however, and it turned out that the 220s on the standard stopping patterns could easily equal the heavier 221s performance so the lineside TASS equipment was never installed. Once the WCML Glasgow routes were removed from the XC portfolio, there was no longer any need for tilt at all on the XC network, so it was disabled on the 221s they retained.
TASS was fitted on the Oxford - Banbury line from Wolvercote Jn to Aynho Jn (both exclusive) and allowed a small but useful uplift in speed (on one section from 90 without tilt to 110 with tilt). Was it de-commissioned when Virgin lost the XC franchise?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Then or soon after. Arriva's 221s have had the tilt equipment isolated, as they use very little of the WCML and it was a source of unreliability.
I was involved in the study, but wasn't around during the actual implementation. I clearly remember the simulated performance graphs for the two classes though, produced by the Railway Technical Centre (whoever owned that at the time I can't recall!) for the proposed new speed profile. The 221s could only actually gain overall on the 220s if they didn't stop at Banbury, which alternate trains were originally intended to miss. Once that pattern was abandoned there was no benefit at all on the route.
I suppose once that tiny section on the Oxford - Birmingham was the only useful fitted mileage on the whole franchise, it just wasn't cost effective to maintain the equipment on track and train.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
That would have been sometime during the AEA Technology years.
Roger Ford commented in Modern Railways that the reliability figures on the XC 221s improved significantly on the VT ones, despite doing similar duties and being maintained by the same depot, after the former had their tilt equipment isolated.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Are you saying there was/is no point in the Stone-Cheadle Hulme TASS?
There are some significant EPS sections on that route.
Well the XC units clearly cannot take any advantage of those today! My strongest recollection from the study generally was that without very long non-stop segments (as VXC originaly had on the Glasgow runs) there was very little, if any, journey time improvement to be gained from tilt, as the extra weight of the 221 compared to the 220 led to slower acceleration that was not compensated for by the small sections of marginally higher speed possible. The study I worked on was sponsored by VXC and we had no influence over what was done on sections being modernised under the west coast programme such as Stone - Cheadle Hulme.
CheshireCrusty
Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 88
It was a 221 on the Reading to Banbury section in April 2004 that first introduced tilting trains to regular service in the UK. I think it may well have been the same unit that showed the misleading speed on the PID when in non tilt mode commented on by LNW-GW Jojnt and myself. See:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/apr/29/transport.world
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/apr/29/transport.world
WoW ! that’ll enable a huge time saving on a tiny number of services it may ultimately be deemed beneficial not to stop there
Last edited:
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,372
I think another issue with the Cherwell Valley TASS area was that they never successfully guaranteed that any particular services would be operated by 221s, so timetables allowed for a 220 turning up anyway.
There's irony in the end result of this, that the standard timings were based eventually on heavier 221s operating without tilt, rather than more sprightly 220s. Those 221s have all been lugging around an additional eight tonnes per car needlessly for the last decade.
Nick Ashwell
Member
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 391
Will they not? I thought that due to classic compatible stock they'd have to be
edwin_m
Veteran Member
HS2 is expected to have platforms far enough from the track so they don't foul European-gauge stock, although I think there is still a debate about how high they will be. The classic compatible will need to safely serve these platforms and also UK-standard platforms on the classic network. The 373s had a similar requirement, hence the rather complicated extending steps, though they no longer serve UK-standard platforms since completion of HS1. 395s only serve UK standard platforms, which are provided on separate tracks at the HS1 stations.
No the HS2s 'classic compatible' units will have to be compatible with both platforms on the new line which will be either 915mm or around 1100mm above rail, but set back to UIC clearance, and traditional 915mm platforms on the conventional network that are closer to the rail. Modern trains usually cope with such variability by means of a moving gap filler step that extends as required below the external doors.
td97
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 1,298
Apart from (especially) 11-carriage trains being able to clear the speed restrictions at a faster rateWoW ! that’ll enable a huge time saving on a tiny number of services it may ultimately be deemed beneficial not to stop there
And the often-overlooked freight services benefit
EE Andy b1
Established Member
Not too many years back Virgin Trains wanted to be able (or were discussing) to run Class 390 at a top speed of 135 mph EPS without in-cab signalling on the West Coast Mainline in parts. Nothing came of that. Was that down to Dft or Newtwork Rail on costs grounds. So it amazes me that they are looking into introducing 125 mph running on certain parts of the mainline, as there will be big infrastructure costs involved.
There will need to be a lot of work done in certain areas to make it worthwhile.
The main issue is transition lengths and the rate of change when curving that allow the higher speeds (EPS).
I remember a lot of talk of the Trent Valley section being upped to 135mph a few years back, but the same as you it all went quiet..
with the 100mph speed through Atherstone the extra 10mph would have made little difference.
It was a touch short sighted to remove the TASS from the XC voyagers primarily because of this route. When I was at Picc there was always a conflict with a late running XC over there at Stone, if it was late, you both ended up late as the signallers virtually never let you go in front, of it had been allowed to run at EPS it could have partially mitigated this problem. For its own short term gain, Areiva didn’t look at the bigger picture and WC tilt became reasonably reliable based on my own admittedly anecdotal evidence. The two TOCs working together could have pushed further reliability out of the TASS system instead of just the one. I know someone will no doubt throw the fact that 220s worked the route but diagramming could have worked to ensure almost total 221 working.
- Status