Could GTR order 140mph trains for the Great Northern route one day?

[Mgameing123]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/great-northern-fleet-tender.247756/

Maybe perhaps in the future when the East Coast Mainline signalling upgrades are complete Great Northern might order trains that can go 140 mph on the nonstop section?

 

[Class 800]

Maybe perhaps in the future when the East Coast Mainline signalling upgrades are complete Great Northern might order trains that can go 140 mph on the nonstop section?

The 387s can’t even do 110 right now like they can on the GWML.

It’s only really the InterCity trains that are 140 capable… the 800s, 390s and 91s mainly. That’s unlikely to change.

I’m hoping that post-ETCS there will be at least test trains run at 140 - but these would most likely be an 800 series LNER Azuma/Lumo/Hull Trains Paragon

 

[43074]

Maybe perhaps in the future when the East Coast Mainline signalling upgrades are complete Great Northern might order trains that can go 140 mph on the nonstop section?

Highly unlikely - the ECML is 115mph max south of Woolmer Green and even if GN services were to exceed 100mph it would save a minute at best.

Between Woolmer Green and Hitchin/Peterborough the distance GN services run on the fast lines is insufficient to save any meaningful amount of time and you'd never run at 140mph through the platforms at Stevenage so it is very much moot point.

 

[Meerkat]

Highly unlikely - the ECML is 115mph max south of Woolmer Green and even if GN services were to exceed 100mph it would save a minute at best.

Between Woolmer Green and Hitchin/Peterborough the distance GN services run on the fast lines is insufficient to save any meaningful amount of time and you'd never run at 140mph through the platforms at Stevenage so it is very much moot point.

Don’t the crash regs change at 110 - hence that being the EMU limit on speed up?

 

[Magdalia]

the ECML is 115mph max south of Woolmer Green

There is nothing above 100mph south of Hadley Wood.

Between Woolmer Green and Hitchin/Peterborough the distance GN services run on the fast lines is insufficient to save any meaningful amount of time

The 2 track section across Holme Fen is also 100mph.

if GN services were to exceed 100mph it would save a minute at best.

That's about right: 3 seconds per mile for 20 miles between Hadley Wood and Hitchin.

Another factor is performance on rising gradients. The GN has a lot of 1 in 200, and class 365s balanced out at about 97mph on rising 1 in 200 gradients. Would class 387s have enough power to exceed 100mph on a rising 1 in 200 gradient?

 

[hwl]

Don’t the crash regs change at 110 - hence that being the EMU limit on speed up?

From memory the threshold is 190kmh --> 118mph so 115mph is do able if designing traction systems from scratch.

Existing 100mph designs can be fairly easily upgraded to 110mph but 115mph would require a lot more work (regearing, control logic) and there is incrementally much less benefit with each additional 5mph added.

 

[Electrostar387]

Maybe perhaps in the future when the East Coast Mainline signalling upgrades are complete Great Northern might order trains that can go 140 mph on the nonstop section?

Others have already made many valid points that I would with regard to this, but perhaps the only thing I would like to see once the ECML is upgraded to ETCS is faster running for TLGN on the slow lines! The current 3 aspect signalling and lower speed limits is torturous at times especially when following late running trains.

If the slower lines could be upgraded to 90mph throughout or even 85 or 80mph the would make a big difference!

 

[St. Paddy]

There is nothing above 100mph south of Hadley Wood

The down fast changes to 115 just north of Barnet tunnel I think you’ll find

 

[Class 800]

The down fast changes to 115 just north of Barnet tunnel I think you’ll find

i.e. just south of Oakleigh Park - was a pleasure to watch an InterCity 225 zoom through New Barnet last time I was there!

Why is the line speed 115 for so long and takes so long to finally reach 125? Further out from London than the GWML, WCML (for EPS) and even MML.

Once ERTMS is live, can the speed on the fasts not just become 125/140 in most places where infrastructure (rather than pathing) allows, and pathing can affect the maximum speed shown on the Movement Authority? Will the fixed speed limit signs be removed once ERTMS is live, or replaced with km/h?

Others have already made many valid points that I would with regard to this, but perhaps the only thing I would like to see once the ECML is upgraded to ETCS is faster running for TLGN on the slow lines! The current 3 aspect signalling and lower speed limits is torturous at times especially when following late running trains.

If the slower lines could be upgraded to 90mph throughout or even 85 or 80mph the would make a big difference!

I relate to this in a painful way. Often stuck on a 2C service (Cambridge stopper) which is stuck on the slows behind a 2K Moorgate service.
I remember this one rare occasion when we were pathed onto the fast lines to overtake the 2K service - I wish good fortune upon whichever signaller did that.
Usually, however, we are just forced to follow - they are both a class 2, and the priority nowadays seems to be keeping other trains on time - even if it is a Moorgate service.

90mph or even 100mph on the slows, like on the MML, would be amazing, especially if they are actually upgrading the top speed on the 717s.

 

[zwk500]

Once ERTMS is live, can the speed on the fasts not just become 125/140 in most places where infrastructure (rather than pathing) allows, and pathing can affect the maximum speed shown on the Movement Authority? Will the fixed speed limit signs be removed once ERTMS is live, or replaced with km/h?

I believe above 125mph you need swingnose points, no/secured platforms, stricter OLE tolerances, etc. So it'd be rather a lot of work (and a less flexible railway after) to achieve 140mph running.

 

[St. Paddy]

Why is the line speed 115 for so long and takes so long to finally reach 125

As an educated guess, I’d say probably due to pressure in tunnels.

 

[Class 800]

I believe above 125mph you need swingnose points, no/secured platforms, stricter OLE tolerances, etc. So it'd be rather a lot of work (and a less flexible railway after) to achieve 140mph running.

What are swingnose points and how do they differ from normal points?
Does HS1 have them?

AFAIK most stations on the ECML South have secured fast platforms, and adjustments could be made where this is not the case - where is the furthest south station where trains regularly call at stations on the fasts?

 

[JonathanH]

AFAIK most stations on the ECML South have secured fast platforms, and adjustments could be made where this is not the case - where is the furthest south station where trains regularly call at stations on the fasts?

Stevenage. Welwyn North as well in effect.

 

[bramling]

What are swingnose points and how do they differ from normal points?
Does HS1 have them?

AFAIK most stations on the ECML South have secured fast platforms, and adjustments could be made where this is not the case - where is the furthest south station where trains regularly call at stations on the fasts?

There’s quite a few:

Welwyn North, Stevenage, Biggleswade, St Neots all have regular calls on the fasts.

Potters Bar, Hatfield, Knebworth at times as well.

I agree with the general view that 140 mph isn’t necessary for GN, indeed 100 mph is sufficient. 110 mph might be nice but doesn’t seem to be worth any special effort.

I also agree with the poster who suggested that a far more useful piece of work would be increasing the speed on the slow lines. 100 mph Woolmer Green to Huntingdon would be useful, and perhaps faster turnouts at Woolmer Green as well.

 

[Class 800]

I agree with the general view that 140 mph isn’t necessary for GN, indeed 100 mph is sufficient. 110 mph might be nice but doesn’t seem to be worth any special effort.

I’m thinking more in terms of the InterCity trains (LNER, Lumo, HT) as opposed to Great Northern.

 

[zwk500]

What are swingnose points and how do they differ from normal points?

The frog moves with the switch blades as well, so there is no gap in the rail.

Does HS1 have them?

Yes.

AFAIK most stations on the ECML South have secured fast platforms, and adjustments could be made where this is not the case - where is the furthest south station where trains regularly call at stations on the fasts?

I'm not sure the passenger operating fencing would be safe, normally on HS Lines platforms are on loops or removed completely.

 

[greatkingrat]

I relate to this in a painful way. Often stuck on a 2C service (Cambridge stopper) which is stuck on the slows behind a 2K Moorgate service.
I remember this one rare occasion when we were pathed onto the fast lines to overtake the 2K service - I wish good fortune upon whichever signaller did that.
Usually, however, we are just forced to follow - they are both a class 2, and the priority nowadays seems to be keeping other trains on time - even if it is a Moorgate service.

90mph or even 100mph on the slows, like on the MML, would be amazing, especially if they are actually upgrading the top speed on the 717s.

If you are stuck behind a stopper, it doesn't matter what the line speed is.

 

[Class 800]

If you are stuck behind a stopper, it doesn't matter what the line speed is.

I'm talking more about that rare moment that we were pathed onto the fasts after Potters Bar so we could overtake the slow which is usually immediately in front.

Will ERTMS make this more possible / common?

 

[Magdalia]

I also agree with the poster who suggested that a far more useful piece of work would be increasing the speed on the slow lines. 100 mph Woolmer Green to Huntingdon would be useful, and perhaps faster turnouts at Woolmer Green as well.

Most of the heavily used fast/slow crossovers on the GN are already 70mph, including Woolmer Green. Given that line speed through the back platforms at Knebworth and Stevenage is 75mph, increasing speeds at Woolmer Green on its own would make virtually no difference.

The crossover that is completely missing is a down fast to slow at 70mph at Marshmoor, matching the slow to fast crossover at 70 mph on the up lines. However, it would be much less useful now than it would have been in the pre Thameslink timetable.

The down fast changes to 115 just north of Barnet tunnel I think you’ll find

You are right, though all of Alexandra Palace to Potters Bar is 1 in 200 rising on the down road. I remain unconvinced that class 387s could exceed 100 mph by a significant amount on a rising 1 in 200 gradient, so they aren't going to hit 110 mph until after Potters Bar, even if it was theoretically allowed.

 

[The Planner]

I'm talking more about that rare moment that we were pathed onto the fasts after Potters Bar so we could overtake the slow which is usually immediately in front.

Will ERTMS make this more possible / common?

No, it doesnt automatically create opportunities to do anything different.

 

[St. Paddy]

You are right, though all of Alexandra Palace to Potters Bar is 1 in 200 rising on the down road. I remain unconvinced that class 387s could exceed 100 mph by a significant amount on a rising 1 in 200 gradient, so they aren't going to hit 110 mph until after Potters Bar, even if it was theoretically allowed.

As someone that drives them, I can assure you they would romp up to Potters Bar at 110 or more if allowed

 

[Magdalia]

As someone that drives them, I can assure you they would romp up to Potters Bar at 110 or more if allowed

Thanks. Are class 387s that much more powerful than class 365s?

 

[bramling]

Thanks. Are class 387s that much more powerful than class 365s?

For sure they keep going a bit better in the 90 to 100 mph range.

From what I remember 365s would take until Oakleigh Park or New Barnet to reach 100 mph, largely depending on whether it was a good train and how the driver handled the neutral section at Wood Green FS.

387s (and 700s) reach 100 mph sooner, and more consistently, however with a caveat that they seem to take considerably longer to recover from the neutral section.

Working from GPS readings and seeing how the acceleration curve after the neutral section is relatively consistent, I have a suspicion that 387s could probably just about manage 110 mph by the New Barnet area.

Naturally the difference is nothing like as stark as between 365s and 317s.

 

[jon0844]

I would hope that once the new signalling is implemented, we could see more paths becoming available than simply running existing services faster.

 

[St. Paddy]

Thanks. Are class 387s that much more powerful than class 365s?

Acceleration is definitely quicker and they maintain higher speed better

 

[Magdalia]

From what I remember 365s would take until Oakleigh Park or New Barnet to reach 100 mph

I have extensive experience of that era, and class 365s rarely got to 100mph before Potters Bar, 97-98 mph was much more usual. Most of my experience was in the peak, so it is possible that higher speeds were achieved off peak when there were fewer other trains.

largely depending on whether it was a good train and how the driver handled the neutral section at Wood Green FS.

In my experience the biggest factor was whether the train was following a class 91 or an HST.

387s (and 700s) reach 100 mph sooner, and more consistently

Acceleration is definitely quicker and they maintain higher speed better

I don't dispute that, but it is a question of how much?

Naturally the difference is nothing like as stark as between 365s and 317s.

That difference between classes 365 and 317, on a rising 1 in 200 gradient, was 8-10 mph. I have been through Potters Bar on class 317s at 88-90 mph no end of times.

Given that the difference between classes 387 and 365 is "not as stark" as between classes 365 and 317, my interpretation is that I'd be confident of class 387 making 105 mph on a rising 1 in 200, but 110 mph I'm less sure. Maybe one day we will find out.

 

[bramling]

I have extensive experience of that era, and class 365s rarely got to 100mph before Potters Bar, 97-98 mph was much more usual. Most of my experience was in the peak, so it is possible that higher speeds were achieved off peak when there were fewer other trains.

You may well be on to something with the peak observation there, as pretty much all my runs will have been on pretty lightly loaded trains, and generally at times of day with fewer trains around. Pretty much all 8-car as well. However it was quite typical to see a (recorded) 100 mph at New Barnet, though many drivers chose to hover just below that, and on a rising gradient that style of driving means you wouldn’t see the speed creep up.

Given that the difference between classes 387 and 365 is "not as stark" as between classes 365 and 317, my interpretation is that I'd be confident of class 387 making 105 mph on a rising 1 in 200, but 110 mph I'm less sure. Maybe one day we will find out.

I’d certainly be curious to see whether it could happen. I’d lay a small bet that a 387 could do 110 mph by Hadley Wood.

 

[D365]

I would hope that once the new signalling is implemented, we could see more paths becoming available than simply running existing services faster.

ETCS Level 2 is not an enabler for more paths. From a signalling perspective, that will requires something radical like "moving block".

 

[Bald Rick]

I would hope that once the new signalling is implemented, we could see more paths becoming available than simply running existing services faster.

ETCS Level 2 is not an enabler for more paths. From a signalling perspective, that will requires something radical like "moving block".

Well, you‘re both right.

The ETCS that has been commissioned from Hatfield - Biggleswadeish has many more (and shorter) block sections on the two track section. You can see the trains stepping through them on the Open Train Times map. This means that when traisn are running with ETCS, the theoretical planning margin for trains following each other will reduce, albeit by seconds rather than minutes. I would expect this extra margin will be used to improve performance.

However, ETCS L2 also opens up the prospect of Automatic train Operation (ATO). Given that all the 700s are already ATO fitted, fitting the 379s (and any other fleets that have a Welwyn North call) would then enable ATO to be deployed on all services with such a call, and that might free up a path.

It will be interesting to see if this gets considered.