D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,455
It’s been mentioned that the higher acceleration rate of the AT300 will compensate for the loss of tilt.
-
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!
Ex-LNER Mk4 sets for Grand Central (Blackpool - Euston)
- Thread starter nuneatonmark
- Start date
- Status
It’s been mentioned that the higher acceleration rate of the AT300 will compensate for the loss of tilt.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,285
You might also say that after investing billions in the route we’re left with a less flexible railway than we had before.
krus_aragon
Established Member
Plus the slow re-evaluation of tilt for the post-HS2 life of the WCML. (And Virgin's open-access application, before they swapped their plans to eye-up the off-leased Voyagers.) It seems the upper echelons aren't as averse to 110mph running as once they were.
hexagon789
Veteran Member
But they aren't permitted to do more than 110 non-tilt presently, though I appreciate that could be changed potentially
Railperf
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,942
Well that is simply untrue. The Class 390's are only slightly slower accelerating to 125mph than an AT300. Whereas between Glasgow and Carlisle alone, at least 3 minutes are saved due to a combination of 125mph and tilt! The only way that AT300's would save that sort of time in comparison to a 390 would be to start introducing loads of station stops.
Railperf
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,942
With suitable stock they would be. And we have been told that later this year the WCML will have some sections of track upgraded from 110 to 125mph without tilt. Probably the more severely curved sections will remain EPS 125mph and a lower non tilt speed.
Isn't that exactly why the AT300s won't be used on Scottish services but instead focused on the (comparatively!) frequent stopping West Midlands services and the North Wales route
Railperf
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,942
Do we know what the stops and stoppping pattern will be?
krus_aragon
Established Member
Not exactly, given that there'll be a recast of the WCML when the new 80x units arrive in 2022. But the routes they'll be operated has been announced, as mentioned above.
Railperf
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,942
Stops at Milton Keynes Nuneaton and Preston? That is hardly a frequent stopping service. AT300s would be significantly slower than a Class 390 because there are significant sections of 125mph EPS running. And the Class 90s will be a fair bit slower still.
If the whole WCML timetable is being recast - you either have to maximise available paths by making the slower services faster or the faster services slower. If the fast lines are having significant stretches of 110mph non tilt track upgraded to 125mph - then surely the long term view would be to ensure 125mph capable stock with better acceleration than the 390s. A slightly faster accelerating variant of AT300 would be ideal capable of 100mph in 1.5 mins and 125mph in 2.5 min.
I do not get the logic behind adding yet more slower services. And where are these slower services going to be looped / overtaken?
samuelmorris
Established Member
I suspect post-HS2 unless the line is upgraded then the southern half of the WCML will revert to a 110mph railway for the most part due to the proportion of non-tilt stock in use, the idea being that fast services would run via HS2.
krus_aragon
Established Member
I think we've got some very crossed wires here. I was talking about not knowing what stops Avanti's 80x/AT300 units will make post-2022. @Domh245 was the person describing West Midland services as having relatively more frequent stops than Scottish services. The three stops you named are for Grand Central's services.
Are you describing the Grand Central services here, or other ones as well? For GC, Milton Keynes and Nuneaton are the obvious places; any other shuffling between the fasts and slows is beyond my limited timetable planning expertise. On that note, I'll have to take your word that there aren't any 110mph paths available between Nuneaton and Preston.
Railperf
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,942
So people joining or alighting at Watford, Milton Keynes and Rugby to and from the North will have to endure slower services post HS2? That is hardly progress! If anything more 'regional' 125mph tilt services will be needed to connect in to HS2.
Everything will effectively get 2 or 3 stops added so the frequencies and some stations will see increases in service level compared to today. This will enable the tph on key sections to be increased (typically +2tph compared to today).
For example the plan appears to be that everything will stop at MK.
110 or 115mph means much smaller crumple zones and far more passenger space per unit...
Post a service rejig and HS2 phase 2 in some form expect a few current Avanti paths going to more local operators as the residual fast WCML services are consolidated slightly (with more stops) won't have major city-to-city loads which have transferred to HS2. The WCML will become much more arround town-to-town or town-to-city than major city-to-city flows
Last edited:
samuelmorris
Established Member
Right now the WCML and ECML fast lines see two categories of traffic, those travelling relatively long distance to the likes of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Scotland, and then those that use the lines in preference to stopping services to places like Milton Keynes and Peterborough, possibly to then connect with other services of course. Remove one and there is much more space for the others. I imagine there will probably still be through services to further afield but they may be reduced in frequency, e.g. perhaps only 1tph to Glasgow on the WCML and 1tph to Edinburgh on the ECML. With a bit of thought put into it, locations further north should still be able to get the same service level they do now (e.g. north of York/Preston) but some of those services would start halfway up the country rather than have to occupy valuable paths from London. This then allows more capacity for local/commuter services in the South, as well as providing more redundancy for those making long-distance journeys. More relevant to this thread, it potentially allows more room for open access operators to provide direct services to places not conveniently served via HS2, e.g. the Grand Central service.
Unfortunately though, yes, those travelling from quite near London but not London itself, are likely to gain from short-distance services but lose out with longer-distance services in the form of direct trains.
Railperf
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,942
The fastest timings between Euston and Milton Keynes , and Milton Keynes and Nuneaton are 3 mins per section slower for 110mph loco hauled stock than Pendolinos. Between Nuneaton and Preston it looks closer to 5 min slower.
If the prices are competitive and the coach ambience and service match what LNER offered with the Mk4's I can see a lot of takers. A loss of 11 mins in actual running times isn't huge in the grand scheme of things (no pun intended). I'd probably take it over the slightly claustrophobic interiors of the Pendolini - also depends on what times these trains are running. But I still maintain that performance and technology wise -it feels like a step backwards. I only hope that due to the slower actual timings - these don't suffer ridiculous amounts of padding in the way of pathing and performance allowances as do GC Kings Cross to York services.
If the prices are competitive and the coach ambience and service match what LNER offered with the Mk4's I can see a lot of takers. A loss of 11 mins in actual running times isn't huge in the grand scheme of things (no pun intended). I'd probably take it over the slightly claustrophobic interiors of the Pendolini - also depends on what times these trains are running. But I still maintain that performance and technology wise -it feels like a step backwards. I only hope that due to the slower actual timings - these don't suffer ridiculous amounts of padding in the way of pathing and performance allowances as do GC Kings Cross to York services.
samuelmorris
Established Member
11 minutes is still a fair amount of time to be eaten away by a faster service behind. Presumably there's somewhere at one of those calling points where a faster service can pass by them? As long as that's the case then it should be largely fine. I always quite liked the Mk IVs so if I ever had to travel that way this is certainly a service I'd be tempted to use. The GC 180s were a fun novelty from Kings Cross for a time to make use of the cheap fares but having ridden them a few times I can't say they meet the standard of electrified stock in terms of passenger experience.
Not sure how much business travel the GC service will get but in many cases the lower fares of open access operators absolutely justify longer journey times by travelling different routes - unless you're a top paid executive, a £50 lower fare is absolutely worth an hour extra on the journey, for example.
Railperf
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 2,942
Eleven minutes slower over 200-300 miles isn't really an issue. It is worse if your train is 11 min late and you are going to miss a connection somewhere.
Overtaking appears to be possible at Both Nuneaton and Milton Keynes. A Pendolino would probably need to be timed to leave 5 to 6 mins behind a GC service in order to overtake it at Milton Keynes during its stop. A GC could be timed to follow a Pendolino 1-2 later out of Euston but likely to be plodding along under caution signals until the Pendolino starts pulling away from Wembley onwards.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,285
It’s BN19-22 transferring and they are currently numbered HT04-07.
59CosG95
Established Member
So if BN19-22 are numbered HT04-HT07, does that leave BN27, BN29 & BN30 to become HT01-HT03 at a later date?
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,285
They were HT01-03 but are now disbanded (and have gone back to Worksop this week).
Royston Vasey
Established Member
Are they really being allocated to Heaton, as this would suggest?
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,285
Don’t believe so - maybe just something historic based on Grand Central using Heaton for their existing services. As I understand it the GC Mark 4 sets are maintained by Alstom and allocated to Wembley.
Photos have been posted on Twitter of the first Mk4 sets in Grand Central livery. Unsure of the source.
twitter.com
Off topic slightly but photos of 90001 in InterCity Swallow have also been posted.
Euan Steuart @EDs Trains #TMRGUK on Twitter
“**NOT MY PHOTOS** But look at that @GC_Rail @BlackpoolSimon @nodrogvlogs coming to A WCML near you soon!!”
twitter.com
Off topic slightly but photos of 90001 in InterCity Swallow have also been posted.
Speed43125
Member
Given that is the case, is commiting to a 110 mph loco and letting the 125 mph equivalents go to scrap wise?
No, because the 110mph loco is faster accelerating, which is far more useful than the potential to run 15mph faster for some amount of track (which isn't continuous either, meaning that the time saved by the 125mph running is not particularly big as you have to first accelerate to it and then decelerate again to meet the next PSR)
samuelmorris
Established Member
Isn't most of this route 110 for non-tilt stock anyway?
- Status