East Coast Main Line - List of planned upgrades?

[Blurb]

Ticks a few boxes:
-Gives Oakham etc 2tph
-Gives connections to HS2 services in the East Midlands
-Takes a conflicting service off the ECML through Stoke Tunnel.



But could easily be back-filled by a Grantham- Nottingham shuttle service to keep 2tph.

There’s also a need (demand for) local travel between Peterborough and Grantham (plus connections). With fewer LNER services calling at both Pboro and Grantham the Norwich-Liverpool service covers this connectivity gap. Not easy to meet all demands, but obsession with faster long distance speeds shouldn’t be allowed to crowd out all local connectivity (which ultimately feeds longer distance services and makes rail useful to people).

 

[norbitonflyer]

There’s also a need (demand for) local travel between Peterborough and Grantham (plus connections). With fewer LNER services calling at both Pboro and Grantham the Norwich-Liverpool service covers this connectivity gap. Not easy to meet all demands, but obsession with faster long distance speeds shouldn’t be allowed to crowd out all local connectivity (which ultimately feeds longer distance services and makes rail useful to people).

This is also a problem for the two towns on the ECML in Nottinghamshire. Direct trains take 14 minutes, but only run every two hours. At other times the Journey Planner suggests going via Doncaster or Grantham, or even Peterborough, taking between four and six times longer, and costing up to six times as much.

 

[quantinghome]

There’s also a need (demand for) local travel between Peterborough and Grantham (plus connections). With fewer LNER services calling at both Pboro and Grantham the Norwich-Liverpool service covers this connectivity gap. Not easy to meet all demands, but obsession with faster long distance speeds shouldn’t be allowed to crowd out all local connectivity (which ultimately feeds longer distance services and makes rail useful to people).

Unfortunately that's what the IRP is going to give us. More fast trains, fewer local connections.

 

[High Dyke]

They did. Services were rerouted that way for a good few years in the mid 1990s. Most services were non stop Loughborough to Peterborough, but a few variations over the years saw a morning Cambridge-Liverpool stop at Stamford, and an evening Liverpool-Norwich stop at Melton Mowbray and Oakham. The services had reverted to the route via Grantham by the early 2000s.

Journey times via Loughborough were very slightly longer, around 70 minutes, give or a take a few minutes either way, compared to the current 65-70 via Grantham, with most services booked on the slow lines south of Stoke Tunnel.

You "could" do via Grantham in about 55 minutes if they were routed on the fast lines, but there's no way you'd path them.

There are still services routed from Nottingham - Peterborough (via Loughborough, Melton and Stamford). The first two Norwich services are booked that way, with the rest going via Grantham through the day.

NOTTINGHM       06:07
EASTMIDPW 06:19 06:20
LOUGHBORO 06:27 06:28
MELTONMOW 06:51 06:55
OAKHAM    07:06 07:07
STAMFORD  07:20 07:21
PETERBORO 07:36 07:39

If you removed most of the stops it would obviously speed the service up, but would it achieve much else? That route is fairly intensive as it is. Alternatively the corresponding service from Nottingham - Peterborough (via Grantham) is the quicker of the two, even with intermediate stops.

NOTTINGHM       05:13
BINGHAM   05:27 05:28
ASLOCKTON 05:31 05:32
BOTTESFRD 05:38 05:39
GRANTHAM  05:52 05:57
PETERBORO 06:25

 

[NotATrainspott]

Digswell: if quadrupling alongside the existing viaduct is not acceptable, is it worth looking at a new alignment for the extra two tracks? I note that the ECML is quite close to the A1(M) just north of Hatfield and again at Woolmer Green. Would building a two-track railway alongside be feasible? (About 5 miles) Or, as I have suggested before, a tunnel diving under the valley - length would depend on what gradients an IEP can cope with,

As for Newark - an opportunity was missed when the A46 bypass was built. This runs alongside the Nottingham line and crosses the ECML on an overpass. With more co-operation a railway overpass could have been built alongside.
Highways England is now proposing to dual the A46 and improve its junction with the A1 - again without reference to the ECML.

A good few years ago, NR came up with a high level package meant as an HS2 alternative for comparison purposes. In it they suggested bypassing all of the southern ECML between Alexandra Palace and Biggleswade on a new alignment. I presume the cost-benefit for sorting out the Welwyn Viaduct on its own isn't very good as the bottleneck will then shift somewhere else, leaving the expensive viaduct upgrade relatively underused.

In principle there's nothing wrong with building sections of new build track for express services without it then becoming a system unto itself like HS1 or HS2. There are a few places where you could build something like this to resolve real problems. For instance, to bypass the Edinburgh ECML commuter stations between Musselburgh and East Linton, or of the two track section between Darlington and Tyne Yard. These might not radically change journey times but they could allow big expansions of local commuter services. NR and Transport Scotland have already talked about quadrupling the ECML to enable major commuter growth east of Edinburgh; building a new line for express trains following the A1 dual carriageway here may well be cheaper and better.

 

[Bald Rick]

A good few years ago, NR came up with a high level package meant as an HS2 alternative for comparison purposes. In it they suggested bypassing all of the southern ECML between Alexandra Palace and Biggleswade on a new alignment.

The alternative to building a new line through the Home Counties is ... build a new line through the home counties!

 

[flypie]

There are still services routed from Nottingham - Peterborough (via Loughborough, Melton and Stamford). The first two Norwich services are booked that way, with the rest going via Grantham through the day.

NOTTINGHM       06:07
EASTMIDPW 06:19 06:20
LOUGHBORO 06:27 06:28
MELTONMOW 06:51 06:55
OAKHAM    07:06 07:07
STAMFORD  07:20 07:21
PETERBORO 07:36 07:39

If you removed most of the stops it would obviously speed the service up, but would it achieve much else? That route is fairly intensive as it is. Alternatively the corresponding service from Nottingham - Peterborough (via Grantham) is the quicker of the two, even with intermediate stops.

NOTTINGHM       05:13
BINGHAM   05:27 05:28
ASLOCKTON 05:31 05:32
BOTTESFRD 05:38 05:39
GRANTHAM  05:52 05:57
PETERBORO 06:25

The 1st Services to Norwich don't originate in Liverpool. If they did they would have to reverse at Nottingham.

 

[Class 170101]

Journey times via Loughborough were very slightly longer, around 70 minutes, give or a take a few minutes either way, compared to the current 65-70 via Grantham, with most services booked on the slow lines south of Stoke Tunnel.

You "could" do via Grantham in about 55 minutes if they were routed on the fast lines, but there's no way you'd path them.

Would 100 / 110mph Bi-mode units help this and also pathing on this route?

 

[High Dyke]

The 1st Services to Norwich don't originate in Liverpool. If they did they would have to reverse at Nottingham.

I know that. I doubt there would be much need for a train from Liverpool towards Norwich at about 02:30 in the morning! (approximate time of departure).

The point was more for the section between Nottingham and Peterborough.

 

[flypie]

I know that. I doubt there would be much need for a train from Liverpool towards Norwich at about 02:30 in the morning! (approximate time of departure).

The point was more for the section between Nottingham and Peterborough.

I wasn't suggesting there was a need but suggesting why that route isn't used for later journey's.

 

[ricoblade]

I certainly remember read that yes.

Yes, they consulted on options for alternatives ranging from bridges to closures and the LCs range from busy roads to rural footpath/bridleway crossings.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I presume the cost-benefit for sorting out the Welwyn Viaduct on its own isn't very good as the bottleneck will then shift somewhere else, leaving the expensive viaduct upgrade relatively underused.

It is the only section south of Hitchin (where the service starts to thin out as the Cambridge line branches off) which is not quadruple track

Ticks a few boxes:
-Gives Oakham etc 2tph
-Gives connections to HS2 services in the East Midlands
-Takes a conflicting service off the ECML through Stoke Tunnel.


But could easily be back-filled by a Grantham- Nottingham shuttle service to keep 2tph.

Can tick a few more:

- Divert the Norwich trains via Melton
- Run a service using 125mph trains from Peterborough (or extend a service from further east thereof) to Sheffield via Retford. This will improve connections in Nottinghamshire from Newark to Retford (currently 0.5 tph) and Worksop (currently no direct service).
- Maybe run these services beyond Sheffield to Manchester/Liverpool as well (or instead) of the Norwich ones -
- As far as Newark they can use the path currently used by the London/Lincoln services, because I am suggesting these should run via Spalding, giving that town (and possibly Sleaford, although that would incur a time penalty unless a Park&Ride was built on the bypass line) direct services to London.
- As the Lincoln services could use the new Wennington diveunder this would further improve capacity on the ECML because trains from the south taking the Lincoln route at Newark have to cross the up line on the flat, south of the station. (Indeed, if the spur connecting the ECML and the Lincoln line can be dispensed with altogether, eliminating the flat crossing between the ECML and the Lincoln-Nottingham line would be less challenging)

 

[Crun]

It is the only section south of Hitchin (where the service starts to thin out as the Cambridge line branches off) which is not quadruple track


Can tick a few more:

- Divert the Norwich trains via Melton
- Run a service using 125mph trains from Peterborough (or extend a service from further east thereof) to Sheffield via Retford. This will improve connections in Nottinghamshire from Newark to Retford (currently 0.5 tph) and Worksop (currently no direct service).
- Maybe run these services beyond Sheffield to Manchester/Liverpool as well (or instead) of the Norwich ones -
- As far as Newark they can use the path currently used by the London/Lincoln services, because I am suggesting these should run via Spalding, giving that town (and possibly Sleaford, although that would incur a time penalty unless a Park&Ride was built on the bypass line) direct services to London.
- As the Lincoln services could use the new *Wennington diveunder* this would further improve capacity on the ECML because trains from the south taking the Lincoln route at Newark have to cross the up line on the flat, south of the station. (Indeed, if the spur connecting the ECML and the Lincoln line can be dispensed with altogether, eliminating the flat crossing between the ECML and the Lincoln-Nottingham line would be less challenging)

*Werrington Junction dive-under*

 

[class26]

It is the only section south of Hitchin (where the service starts to thin out as the Cambridge line branches off) which is not quadruple track


Can tick a few more:

- Divert the Norwich trains via Melton
- Run a service using 125mph trains from Peterborough (or extend a service from further east thereof) to Sheffield via Retford. This will improve connections in Nottinghamshire from Newark to Retford (currently 0.5 tph) and Worksop (currently no direct service).
- Maybe run these services beyond Sheffield to Manchester/Liverpool as well (or instead) of the Norwich ones -
- As far as Newark they can use the path currently used by the London/Lincoln services, because I am suggesting these should run via Spalding, giving that town (and possibly Sleaford, although that would incur a time penalty unless a Park&Ride was built on the bypass line) direct services to London.
- As the Lincoln services could use the new Wennington diveunder this would further improve capacity on the ECML because trains from the south taking the Lincoln route at Newark have to cross the up line on the flat, south of the station. (Indeed, if the spur connecting the ECML and the Lincoln line can be dispensed with altogether, eliminating the flat crossing between the ECML and the Lincoln-Nottingham line would be less challenging)

There is a time penalty for going via Sleaford station but the advantages are a connection from Boston and Skegness (presently lamentable via Grantham for much of the day). Many of the Lincoln services via Newark wait time at Newark for a path south so the time difference via Sleaford isn`t massive. The present service from Lincoln to Peterborough (with stops at Metheringham and Ruskington which presumably would not happen) takes 73 minutes. Omitting those 2 stops must save at least 5 minutes so I think the via Sleaford timing could get fairly close to the via Newark time. Not sure if an 800 on diesel can out accelerate faster a 156 / 158 , they are fairly nippy off the mark up to maybe 40 or 50 mph, maybe a little time saved there also ?.

 

[norbitonflyer]

There is a time penalty for going via Sleaford station but the advantages are a connection from Boston and Skegness (presently lamentable via Grantham for much of the day). Many of the Lincoln services via Newark wait time at Newark for a path south so the time difference via Sleaford isn`t massive. The present service from Lincoln to Peterborough (with stops at Metherinham and Ruskington which presumably would not happen) takes 73 minutes. Omitting those 2 stops must save at least 5 minutes so I think the via Sleaford timing could get fairly close to the via Newark time.

Rename Ruskington as Sleaford Parkway - job done.

*Werrington Junction dive-under*

Indeed - Wennington would be a bit of a detour. More interesting scenery though

 

[High Dyke]

Rename Ruskington as Sleaford Parkway - job done.

Maybe you've not seen the car park at Rusko.

 

[cambsy]

In 1995, there was the specially shortened 225 set, 5 coaches, DVT and 91, which achieved the blistering time of 3hrs 29 mins, from Kings Cross to Edinburgh, so I think with say 2 stops, and as many 140mph sections as possible, 3hrs 40 mins should be possible, with the following sections being 135-140mph possible:

Hitchin to Connington area, except Oxford Curves,
Werrington to Stoke tunnel,
Grantham to Newark North Gate,
Newark flat Crossing to Doncaster, in several small parts, Tuxford etc,
Shaftholme Jct to York.
Skelton Bridge-Darlington,
North of Newcastle, Chathill,Beal, Belford,littlemill.

I have mentioned these sections from memory, of where the 225’s, have been timed and logged, doing 135-140mph approx, Some of the sections were short, and probably be deemed too short to be worth upgrading to 135-140mph, but if the effort was put in, there are quite few decent sections of 135-140mph running possible.

I would love to see 140mph running on the ECMl happening, as its been though about before, and even planned for, especially when the 225’s came out, but due to costs and in cab signalling required, it never came to fruiton, though if people remember, there was a 5fth aspect, flashing green signal, on Stoke Bank, trialled for 140mph running on test trains, but due to safety and sighting etc, it was scrapped as an idea, it would be good if the Azuma’s etc, can be allowed to stretch their legs, and do their design speed of 140mph.

 

[Bald Rick]

In 1995, there was the specially shortened 225 set, 5 coaches, DVT and 91, which achieved the blistering time of 3hrs 29 mins, from Kings Cross to Edinburgh, so I think with say 2 stops, and as many 140mph sections as possible, 3hrs 40 mins should be possible, with the following sections being 135-140mph possible:

Hitchin to Connington area, except Oxford Curves,
Werrington to Stoke tunnel,
Grantham to Newark North Gate,
Newark flat Crossing to Doncaster, in several small parts, Tuxford etc,
Shaftholme Jct to York.
Skelton Bridge-Darlington,
North of Newcastle, Chathill,Beal, Belford,littlemill.

I have mentioned these sections from memory, of where the 225’s, have been timed and logged, doing 135-140mph approx, Some of the sections were short, and probably be deemed too short to be worth upgrading to 135-140mph, but if the effort was put in, there are quite few decent sections of 135-140mph running possible.

I would love to see 140mph running on the ECMl happening, as its been though about before, and even planned for, especially when the 225’s came out, but due to costs and in cab signalling required, it never came to fruiton, though if people remember, there was a 5fth aspect, flashing green signal, on Stoke Bank, trialled for 140mph running on test trains, but due to safety and sighting etc, it was scrapped as an idea, it would be good if the Azuma’s etc, can be allowed to stretch their legs, and do their design speed of 140mph.

the world‘s moved on, and the engineering requirements for 140mph are rather expensive.

Just to do Hitchin to Connington would require complete replacement of 26 sets of points with new units that include swing nose crossings, upgrading all the OLE, closure of 11 level crossings (assuming you leave the Offord ones), resolution of the fast line platforms at Biggleswade and St Neots, a plain line track upgrade as yet to be determined - but as a minimum likely to involve changing every curve transition and recanting, assessment and possible strengthening or replacement of every under track structure (bridge, culvert, drain) an upgraded power supply, changed maintenance arrangements, and changes to the ETCS signalling (assuming the signalling is upgraded to ETCS, which it will be).

This would buy you, at most, 75 seconds of journey time.

 

[swt_passenger]

There is a time penalty for going via Sleaford station but the advantages are a connection from Boston and Skegness (presently lamentable via Grantham for much of the day). Many of the Lincoln services via Newark wait time at Newark for a path south so the time difference via Sleaford isn`t massive. The present service from Lincoln to Peterborough (with stops at Metheringham and Ruskington which presumably would not happen) takes 73 minutes. Omitting those 2 stops must save at least 5 minutes so I think the via Sleaford timing could get fairly close to the via Newark time. Not sure if an 800 on diesel can out accelerate faster a 156 / 158 , they are fairly nippy off the mark up to maybe 40 or 50 mph, maybe a little time saved there also ?.

What happens to the Newark to Kings Cross service if the Lincolns are diverted, presumably an extra call in something else?

 

[TheBigD]

There is a time penalty for going via Sleaford station but the advantages are a connection from Boston and Skegness (presently lamentable via Grantham for much of the day). Many of the Lincoln services via Newark wait time at Newark for a path south so the time difference via Sleaford isn`t massive. The present service from Lincoln to Peterborough (with stops at Metheringham and Ruskington which presumably would not happen) takes 73 minutes. Omitting those 2 stops must save at least 5 minutes so I think the via Sleaford timing could get fairly close to the via Newark time. Not sure if an 800 on diesel can out accelerate faster a 156 / 158 , they are fairly nippy off the mark up to maybe 40 or 50 mph, maybe a little time saved there also ?.

The recent Joint Line diversions saw most services tumed around 60* minutes for Peterborough to Lincoln (pass). Add a stop at Spalding and stoping in Lincoln would see a journey time of around 65 minutes. You would be nearer to 70 minutes going via Sleaford. Add to that the freight that goes that way during the week you'd struggle to get the same journey time as via Newark.
Current journey time via Newark for most LNER services with 3 stops is around 60 minutes.
I'd also doubt that the revenue gained from Spalding and Sleaford would be greater then that from Grantham and Newark.

* The first passenger train via the Werrington dive under, Hull Trains 1H03 1418 Peterborough to Hull is timed at 57.5 minutes for Peterborough to Lincoln, including 3 minutes patching allowance. It did it in 59.5 minutes.

 

[HSTEd]

the world‘s moved on, and the engineering requirements for 140mph are rather expensive.

Just to do Hitchin to Connington would require complete replacement of 26 sets of points with new units that include swing nose crossings, upgrading all the OLE, closure of 11 level crossings (assuming you leave the Offord ones), resolution of the fast line platforms at Biggleswade and St Neots, a plain line track upgrade as yet to be determined - but as a minimum likely to involve changing every curve transition and recanting, assessment and possible strengthening or replacement of every under track structure (bridge, culvert, drain) an upgraded power supply, changed maintenance arrangements, and changes to the ETCS signalling (assuming the signalling is upgraded to ETCS, which it will be).

This would buy you, at most, 75 seconds of journey time.

Can you ballpark how much all this would cost and how many km of high speed line you could buy instead?

 

[Bald Rick]

Can you ballpark how much all this would cost and how many km of high speed line you could buy instead?

Not easily, as I’d just be guessing. Certainly hundreds of millions, and lots of disruption to the service.

 

[norbitonflyer]

*Werrington Junction dive-under*

Indeed - Wennington would be a bit of a detour. More interesting scenery though

Maybe you've not seen the car park at Rusko.

View attachment 106645

Plenty of room to expand to the south...........

I would love to see 140mph running on the ECMl happening, as its been though about before,

As pointed out in RAIL, you could get one sub- 2 hour service per hour to Leeds, calling only at Wakefield. But the stopping services would take over half an hour longer, meaning a regular half hourly fast service would be impossible to fit in between.

And such an acceleration would only be possible if as well as upgrading all the 125mph sections to 140, you would also upgrade most of the existing sub-125 mph sections (roughly 40 % of the total). And the reason they are still sub-125 is because they are the most difficult.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

Indeed - Wennington would be a bit of a detour. More interesting scenery though

Plenty of room to expand to the south...........

As pointed out in RAIL, you could get one sub- 2 hour service per hour to Leeds, calling only at Wakefield. But the stopping services would take over half an hour longer, meaning a regular half hourly fast service would be impossible to fit in between.

And such an acceleration would only be possible if as well as upgrading all the 125mph sections to 140, you would also upgrade most of the existing sub-125 mph sections (roughly 40 % of the total). And the reason they are still sub-125 is because they are the most difficult.

So from that I take it that greater time benefits can be achieved by bringing those sections up to the current 200 line speed than by raising the maximum line speed to 225 ?

 

[InOban]

As another poster says in his footnote, the secret to going fast is not going slowly.

 

[WiredUp]

In 1995, there was the specially shortened 225 set, 5 coaches, DVT and 91, which achieved the blistering time of 3hrs 29 mins, from Kings Cross to Edinburgh, so I think with say 2 stops, and as many 140mph sections as possible, 3hrs 40 mins should be possible, with the following sections being 135-140mph possible:

Hitchin to Connington area, except Oxford Curves,
Werrington to Stoke tunnel,
Grantham to Newark North Gate,
Newark flat Crossing to Doncaster, in several small parts, Tuxford etc,
Shaftholme Jct to York.
Skelton Bridge-Darlington,
North of Newcastle, Chathill,Beal, Belford,littlemill.

I have mentioned these sections from memory, of where the 225’s, have been timed and logged, doing 135-140mph approx, Some of the sections were short, and probably be deemed too short to be worth upgrading to 135-140mph, but if the effort was put in, there are quite few decent sections of 135-140mph running possible.

I would love to see 140mph running on the ECML happening, as its been though about before, and even planned for, especially when the 225’s came out, but due to costs and in cab signalling required, it never came to fruition, though if people remember, there was a 5fth aspect, flashing green signal, on Stoke Bank, trialled for 140mph running on test trains, but due to safety and sighting etc, it was scrapped as an idea, it would be good if the Azuma’s etc, can be allowed to stretch their legs, and do their design speed of 140mph.

Mostly correct - except these: Woolmer Green to Connington area, except the Offord Curves (raised to 125mph).

Upgrading to 140mph is well understood from a technical perspective, and reasonably well costed. All of the rail systems technology is now available (unlike WCRM days).

£3.5bn would quite easily do it providing it is project managed well and it is scoped to the bare minimum in terms of what is needed for 140mph - based on real attainable speeds.

But the question on a mixed traffic railway is it worth doing? It probably is (politically wise), especially with the IRP having been published.

 

[Nogoohwell]

I get the 140mph idea and limitations back in the 80's. but 40 years on? The power consumption, weight, aerodynamics of modern trains must mean a gain of 5-10mph based on 80's ideas.

In cab signaling is a known and most stock on the route has provisions for it. New OLE equipment? Why, because the supplier did not specify it? Anyone tested it? Dont get me started on the aerodynamic effects requiring greater separation of tracks as its frankly hard to believe. Accurate modelling will show you where this needs to be done to achieve higher line speeds, not across the whole route. Bridges can be tested and monitored. We have rolling stock that with a tweak can push up to 150mph (bigger wheels was the French solution to test higher speeds) so an accurate assessment of what is needed and what can be left as it is.

140mph seems a pointless headline, typical of this government. 150mph would at least make this more sensible, but then the travel times start to compete with HS2.....

It seems we have not moved forwards at all since the 80's, we used to lead the way in innovation, aiming for 140 seems like a major disappointment.

 

[Bald Rick]

New OLE equipment? Why, because the supplier did not specify it?

It wasn’t specified for 125mph.

Anyone tested it?

Yes.

Dont get me started on the aerodynamic effects requiring greater separation of tracks as its frankly hard to believe.

Yep the laws of physics are, sometimes, difficult to believe.

 

[WiredUp]

I get the 140mph idea and limitations back in the 80's. but 40 years on? The power consumption, weight, aerodynamics of modern trains must mean a gain of 5-10mph based on 80's ideas.

In cab signaling is a known and most stock on the route has provisions for it. New OLE equipment? Why, because the supplier did not specify it? Anyone tested it? Dont get me started on the aerodynamic effects requiring greater separation of tracks as its frankly hard to believe. Accurate modelling will show you where this needs to be done to achieve higher line speeds, not across the whole route. Bridges can be tested and monitored. We have rolling stock that with a tweak can push up to 150mph (bigger wheels was the French solution to test higher speeds) so an accurate assessment of what is needed and what can be left as it is.

140mph seems a pointless headline, typical of this government. 150mph would at least make this more sensible, but then the travel times start to compete with HS2.....

It seems we have not moved forwards at all since the 80's, we used to lead the way in innovation, aiming for 140 seems like a major disappointment.

I'm not sure, the IEP aside, a lot of new stock is heavier and more power hungry in terms of PIS and A/C than legacy BR stock - recall the Southern Area PSU of the 00's, so from this perspective there isn't much - if any - gain.

The bulk of the ECML is Mk3B from Hitchin outwards to Leeds/Edinburgh (with some updates to Mk3D in places), this supports 125mph but was reportedly designed so that it could be modified to allow 140mph. I think an allowance of something like 300mm was added to the top of the headspan masts so that stitch wires could be added providing the step up from 125mph to 140mph. The single track cantilevers (masts with a cantilever hanging off of them) were generally designed to allow 140mph from the word go. The attached is a drawing showing what these are like (note the drawing title - 'For Speeds Over 200km/h' - i.e. above 125mph. Contrast with the OLE in the picture (Credit to Wikipedia) - you get the idea. BR did plan ahead.



Aerodynamics are an area where we do have an advantage these days. The aerodynamics of the nose of an IEP are undoubtedly better than an IC225 set. Sealed A/C stock means that the overpressures which can be a passenger discomfort problem are reduced - think of tunnels like Linslade on the WCML or Alderton Tunnel on the GWML which with modern stock can be traversed at higher speeds. After the HST's were effectively displaced of the GWML Alderton was raised from 110mph to 125mph. Much of the ECML has track centres which will allow 140mph, so it is generally specific tunnels (Stoke, Peascliffe) which require solutions like additional pressure relief shafts. There are some great new tools out there for modelling the dynamic behaviour of equipment which does allow deviation from previous setup rules.

140mph isn't pointless, nor is it symptomatic of the particular government of the day - it's the limit in terms of what is currently achievable within Railway Industry / Network Rail Standards, and most NR Product Approved equipment. If you want to go faster (say 155mph or 186mph) then you have to pay for it in terms of the CAPEX and OPEX costs as well as introduce a whole new set of equipment to support this - think heaver rail sections, higher OLE tensions and level contact wires etc, which HS1 uses, and HS2 will also use.

Finally larger diameter wheels were an engineering solution to increase the wheel speed at the railhead within the limits of the maximum angular velocity of the drive motors. Not an everyday practice....

 

[Bald Rick]

Minor point, but aerodynamics in tunnels with pressure sealed stock are less about passenger comfort, and more about passing a curtain sided freight, or heritage charter train in the tunnel.