• 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!

‘Digital Signalling’ to be introduced on the ECML

Status
Not open for further replies.

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
So be it.
The taxpayer can always use some of the huge piles of money it saves from a more modern and cheaper to operate railway to start new freight operators if necessary.
So effectively what you are suggesting is that the taxpayer should pay to buy brand new locos and freight wagons with ECP/whatever... rather than paying freight operators to upgrade existing stock? Surely you can see that that would cost orders of magnitude more.

The answer is not declaring all-out war on the FOCs. It's to work with them, working on the carrot and stick principle.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
So effectively what you are suggesting is that the taxpayer should pay to buy brand new locos and freight wagons with ECP/whatever... rather than paying freight operators to upgrade existing stock? Surely you can see that that would cost orders of magnitude more.
At worst, no.
It would buying second hand rolling stock from a bankruptcy auction and fitting them with ECP and ETCS equipment.

The answer is not declaring all-out war on the FOCs. It's to work with them, working on the carrot and stick principle.
But unless we require this equipment be installed as a requirement for being permitted to continue to operate, we have no stick to use at all.
They will just refuse or demand absolutely extortionate sums of money.
 

4F89

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
860
So effectively what you are suggesting is that the taxpayer should pay to buy brand new locos and freight wagons with ECP/whatever... rather than paying freight operators to upgrade existing stock? Surely you can see that that would cost orders of magnitude more.

The answer is not declaring all-out war on the FOCs. It's to work with them, working on the carrot and stick principle.
I don't think HSTed has any interest in compromise. Its their, somewhat ridiculous way, or the highway.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
I don't think HSTed has any interest in compromise. Its their, somewhat ridiculous way, or the highway.
Well ultimately the Government is the one paying for this entire party......

I am entirely open to the concept of paying freight operators the cost of ECP installations, if they agree to take part in a timely fashion.
But I very much doubt they would be in any way interested.
 

gsnedders

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2015
Messages
1,472
So be it.
The taxpayer can always use some of the huge piles of money it saves from a more modern and cheaper to operate railway to start new freight operators if necessary.
And what about when that increase in road freight increases wear on the roads and therefore requires taxpayer money to repair the roads? What's the cost of the "let the FOCs go bankrupt" option?
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
Well ultimately the Government is the one paying for this entire party......

I am entirely open to the concept of paying freight operators the cost of ECP installations, if they agree to take part in a timely fashion.
But I very much doubt they would be in any way interested.

I think you will find that ultimately it is US that are paying for this entire party !!!
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
In theory they won't make it much beyond the next year or two. The full Azuma timetable reduces the non-stop London - York services to one every two hours with the other hour having a stop at Peterborough.
Aren't the First Group open access services with no stops south of Morpeth (?) are still on the cards though?
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,539
Location
Redcar
The discussion about ECP brakes was interesting but getting very very off-topic. It has therefore been moved to its own thread which can be found here. Members are more than welcome to continue the debate there. Otherwise this thread should be used for any updates or further discussion on the roll out of 'digital signalling' to the ECML.
 

Wapps

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2020
Messages
107
Location
London
Reading this thread, it seems that 140mph running on the ECML is not going to happen because, even when ETCS is fitted, the tracks, OHLE, power, stations etc would all need upgrading too and, on top of that, the railway is too congested to make it feasible.

That being the case, why did the government order class 80X with 140mph capability? Why not go with 125mph only like with EMR’s sets?
 

JonasB

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2016
Messages
921
Location
Sweden
That being the case, why did the government order class 80X with 140mph capability? Why not go with 125mph only like with EMR’s sets?

The first HSTs were delivered in the 1970s and are still in use. That is getting close to 50 years of service. Who knows what the british rail network will look like in 2060? There might be plenty of opportunities for the 80Xs to use their full top speed then.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Reading this thread, it seems that 140mph running on the ECML is not going to happen because, even when ETCS is fitted, the tracks, OHLE, power, stations etc would all need upgrading too and, on top of that, the railway is too congested to make it feasible.

That being the case, why did the government order class 80X with 140mph capability? Why not go with 125mph only like with EMR’s sets?

Because the extra cost difference for 140mph capability is probably pretty minimal, and who is to say in the next 40 years that the other issues won't be addressed via planned renewals? Even if it's only for some sections and not all.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Reading this thread, it seems that 140mph running on the ECML is not going to happen because, even when ETCS is fitted, the tracks, OHLE, power, stations etc would all need upgrading too and, on top of that, the railway is too congested to make it feasible.

That being the case, why did the government order class 80X with 140mph capability? Why not go with 125mph only like with EMR’s sets?

For the same reason we all buy cars that can do well over 70mph.
 

gsnedders

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2015
Messages
1,472
If anywhere will see 140mph running on classic lines, it's the GWML (where the modernisation programme was meant to achieve much of the work needed for 140mph running). I expect some of the ECML getting them was just ordering a single train type.
 

Wapps

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2020
Messages
107
Location
London
For the same reason we all buy cars that can do well over 70mph.
When we buy cars, we don’t tend to have the option to specify the max speed. The cars are built for the mass market, including markets with higher speed limits than ours.

Because the extra cost difference for 140mph capability is probably pretty minimal, and who is to say in the next 40 years that the other issues won't be addressed via planned renewals? Even if it's only for some sections and not all.
Understood, but then why did EMR limit theirs 125mph?

The first HSTs were delivered in the 1970s and are still in use. That is getting close to 50 years of service. Who knows what the british rail network will look like in 2060? There might be plenty of opportunities for the 80Xs to use their full top speed then.
The first HSTs were delivered in the 1970s and are still in use. That is getting close to 50 years of service. Who knows what the british rail network will look like in 2060? There might be plenty of opportunities for the 80Xs to use their full top speed then.
Understood. See response above.

If anywhere will see 140mph running on classic lines, it's the GWML (where the modernisation programme was meant to achieve much of the work needed for 140mph running). I expect some of the ECML getting them was just ordering a single train type.
Thanks. I suppose with the eastern section of GWML getting ETCS with Crossrail, this could be possible sooner rather than later?
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,421
Understood, but then why did EMR limit theirs 125mph?
They don't have a need for above 125mph, I believe the MML is a bit bendy so 140mph may not be easily possible. I would imagine modifying the units for 140mph on electric would be fairly cheap if they chose to in the future.
 

gsnedders

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2015
Messages
1,472
Understood, but then why did EMR limit theirs 125mph?

Also remember that the EMR order is a follow-on order on a commercial basis; the DfT IEP order is expensive in part because all of the R&D costs are amoritized across it, and adding further differences to the units would only add to the complexity and cost. The IEP trains had to follow a specified acceleration curve, so as long as that could be met with the gearing (and realistically that's only the final drive) for 140mph, there was no motivation for the extra cost.

Thanks. I suppose with the eastern section of GWML getting ETCS with Crossrail, this could be possible sooner rather than later?
Unlikely. There's still plenty of level crossing that would need to be addressed. But certainly, the expectation was/is very much that both signalling and OHLE would be good for 140mph running, so it's much closer than the ECML (and unlike the ECML isn't effectively replaced by any high-speed line for long distance journeys).
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,539
Location
Redcar
Perhaps it's just me but I'd be surprised if the EMR sets were actually mechanically incapable of doing 140mph. They might end up with stickers in the cab saying "125mph Max" but I bet they're just as capable of 140mph as the other members of the IET family of units.
 

FOH

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2013
Messages
712
Perhaps it's just me but I'd be surprised if the EMR sets were actually mechanically incapable of doing 140mph. They might end up with stickers in the cab saying "125mph Max" but I bet they're just as capable of 140mph as the other members of the IET family of units.
Haven't they got stubbier ends? In which case perhaps the crash structure isn't up to 140mph
 

Mollman

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2016
Messages
1,211
Reading this thread, it seems that 140mph running on the ECML is not going to happen because, even when ETCS is fitted, the tracks, OHLE, power, stations etc would all need upgrading too and, on top of that, the railway is too congested to make it feasible.

That being the case, why did the government order class 80X with 140mph capability? Why not go with 125mph only like with EMR’s sets?
I would have thought the section north of York, especially with a rebuilt Northallerton station, would be upgraded for 140 mph running as part of HS2 works.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,476
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
I would have thought the section north of York, especially with a rebuilt Northallerton station, would be upgraded for 140 mph running as part of HS2 works.
Of course, that's neither here nor there at this stage of the ECML Digital Programme, as the digitisation only covers as far north as Stoke Tunnel...
 

Noddy

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,009
Location
UK
I would have thought the section north of York, especially with a rebuilt Northallerton station, would be upgraded for 140 mph running as part of HS2 works.
Wasn’t the Shelby avoiding line built for 160? Surely when renewals occur this section could be upgraded fairly easily and as it is quieter section this would have less of a capacity issue?
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,476
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
Wasn’t the Shelby avoiding line built for 160? Surely when renewals occur this section could be upgraded fairly easily and as it is quieter section this would have less of a capacity issue?
Research by BR in the 90's suggested that, with appropriate OLE and signalling upgrades, that 160mph could be achieved on the Selby Avoiding Line.

However, to make good use of that speed, a 'York Avoiding Line' (distinct from the one in the city itself) would be required; the A1237 gives a good parallel IMO for where such an avoider could run. (Copmanthorpe, Askham Richard, Knapton, the Poppletons, Shipton-by-Beningbrough)

Yet this is wildly off-topic when you consider that every passenger train (bar 1E01) that runs via York calls there. I'm not sure how that metric would change when HS2's eastern leg makes landfall on the ECML.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
More recent thinking from one of the people Network Rail pay to think about such things is that anything above 140mph would need a wider track spacing because of aerodynamic issues. As far as I'm aware the spacing on the Diversion isn't significantly different from anywhere else.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
A train running at 140mph on the entire Selby diversion would save, approximately, 30 seconds.
 

jyte

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2016
Messages
670
Location
in me shed
Research by BR in the 90's suggested that, with appropriate OLE and signalling upgrades, that 160mph could be achieved on the Selby Avoiding Line.

However, to make good use of that speed, a 'York Avoiding Line' (distinct from the one in the city itself) would be required; the A1237 gives a good parallel IMO for where such an avoider could run. (Copmanthorpe, Askham Richard, Knapton, the Poppletons, Shipton-by-Beningbrough)

Yet this is wildly off-topic when you consider that every passenger train (bar 1E01) that runs via York calls there. I'm not sure how that metric would change when HS2's eastern leg makes landfall on the ECML.
I remember a 'York Parkway' to the West of the city being discussed, which as I understand was mostly crayons on a map, but such a station would not offer any real advantage to stopping trains, only non-stoppers. Not sure the good citizens of York (where I was once resident) would appreciate such a move. However, if HS2 wanted to run a regular low/none stop EUS-EDI service via the ECML maybe a 'york avoiding line' would be a good idea, but it would be very expensive, and likely only benefit a few trains a day.

I am aware this post is beyond the scope of this thread, so returning to ETCS, I actually believe ETCS enabled 140mph running north of York to be more likely than south of it, if the eastern arm of HS2 is built as currently specified.
 

Mollman

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2016
Messages
1,211
DfT have announced they are looking at more routes to fastrack ETCS on including Peterborough to King's Lynn (which I presume is Peterborough - Ely and King's Lynn - Ely)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...o-bring-more-reliable-journeys-and-boost-jobs

New rail tech roll-out set to bring more reliable journeys and boost jobs​

Funding of £1.2 million for digital rail signalling announced.
Published 18 November 2020
From:Department for Transport

Artistic impressionist image of the merging of digital information and rail.

  • government invests £1.2 million to accelerate development work to roll-out digital signalling on 3 key rail routes
  • digital signalling programme will support supply chain by creating high-skilled jobs, boosting the economy
  • follows £350 million investment into ambitious digital signalling programme on East Coast Main Line
The roll-out of digital signalling – set to improve safety and slash delays – has been accelerated through £1.2 million of new government funding announced by Rail Minister Chris Heaton-Harris today (18 November 2020).
Feasibility work for digital signalling will be accelerated on vital sections of the West Coast Main Line, Midland Main Line and East Anglia route, including Peterborough to Kings Lynn on the Anglia route, and in the Warrington and Wigan area on the West Coast Mainline North.
This work will identify the most effective way to apply this type of technology to the railway and new way of working, capitalising on early engagement with the supply chain, and creating further opportunities to encourage innovation and drive efficiencies across regions.
Learning from the recent experience of the East Coast Digital Programme, where a partnership with route-based operators has been a success, this early scoping work will lay the foundation for future digital signalling renewals, as part of a wider national plan to introduce digital signalling across the rail network in Great Britain.
Rail Minister Chris Heaton-Harris said:
We’ve come a long way since the era of metal levers, used by Victorian signallers to provide safe passage for trains rolling into and out of stations. Now it’s our turn to be modern transport pioneers as we build the railway of tomorrow.
Today’s investment brings forward early investigation work with Network Rail engineers and suppliers on how best to roll out digital signalling across the rail network, reducing delays and improving safety in the long term.
Our ambitious programme to modernise Britain’s rail network will support the supply chain by creating high-skilled jobs and boosting the economy, as we level up the country and build back better after COVID-19.
Conventional signalling means the network can struggle to recover quickly following disruption with a small delay on one part of the railway still causing knock-on delays hundreds of miles away on other parts of the network, many hours later.
This new technology gives signallers much better real-time information about train movements, enabling them to communicate with train drivers continuously to reduce the impact of delays. This ‘in-cab’ system will mean an end to conventional signalling at the side of tracks – first used in the Victorian era.
As part of this work, the department is engaging with suppliers of digital signalling and industry experts across the country to learn from similar schemes and drive efficiency in the government’s nationwide programme to roll-out this technology on the railway, part of the commitment with industry in the rail sector deal.
Today’s news follows the announcement of £350 million of new investment toward the East Coast Digital Programme , which will introduce digital signalling on the East Coast Main Line, between London King’s Cross and Stoke Tunnel in Lincolnshire, ensuring that more passengers reach their destinations on time.
Andy Jones, director of Operational Programme Delivery at Network Rail, said:
We’re delighted with this development funding, which reconfirms the DfT’s commitment to pursuing the long-term deployment plan for digital signalling on Britain’s railway.
The first 3 schemes – on the East Anglia route, the West Coast Main Line and the Midland Main Line – will help drive forward the modern railway we all need.
David Clarke, Technical Director at the Railway Industry Association, said:
With around 60% of signalling equipment units on the UK rail network needing to be replaced over the next 15 years, rail suppliers will need to gear up to ensure they are ‘match fit’ for a significant amount of work, ensuring its rollout is delivered efficiently, to time and to budget, and in order to ensure value for money for taxpayers and passengers.
New digital technology will improve the reliability and resilience of the network, providing better services for passengers and freight, and will create highly skilled jobs across the UK, at a time when they are vitally needed.
“Today’s investment is a positive step towards rolling out digital signalling and builds on the great work undertaken through the Rail Supply Group (RSG) deal, a joint collaboration between industry and government. The Railway Industry Association and our members very much look forward to working with government in delivering digital technology across the network”.
This comes ahead of a virtual panel event taking place tomorrow (Thursday 19 November 2020) with the Rail Minister and leading voices from across the rail and technology sectors who will be taking part in an interactive discussion on how digital technology can transform our rail network.
The panel will discuss the impact and progress of vital digital signalling projects, and the wider innovations that digital technology can bring to rail.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
DfT have announced they are looking at more routes to fastrack ETCS on including Peterborough to King's Lynn (which I presume is Peterborough - Ely and King's Lynn - Ely)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...o-bring-more-reliable-journeys-and-boost-jobs
1.2 million is an amazingly small amount of money in digital signalling terms. Less even than might lead you to assume that a minister's mate fancied a go at setting up a signalling company. It really doesn't merit a ministerial press release.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
1.2 million is an amazingly small amount of money in digital signalling terms. Less even than might lead you to assume that a minister's mate fancied a go at setting up a signalling company. It really doesn't merit a ministerial press release.
This funding feasibility study for the main feasibility study!

No mention of which bit of the MML they are looking at, presumably the South end to start of with (West Hampstead replacement) as the stock will all be ETCS capable in the near future.

Peterboro - Ely - King Lynn is a sensible add on to the ECML south (presumably Ely - Cambridge too).

WCML Warrington - Wigan, again age related, and is a capacity pinch point now and even more so in the HS2 era but lots of stock need fitting with ETCS equipment there.

There is a high probability that TRU will also see ETCS on significant parts of the route.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top