finlaywilson2
Member
Will trains ever reach 140mph on the ecml?
Yes! I know the 800’s are capable but am not sure if they will regularly between London and EdinburghTrains already have reached 140mph on the ECML! Well over in fact, there's a 91 that made it to 162.8mph.
But I presume you mean in regular timetabled service?
How would this go about happening?It depends if you believe that the IPR will ever be implemented. The IPR specifies signalling upgrades on the ECML to allow for 140mph operation, and lengthening of the Azumas - this is the “compensation” for the cancelling of the eastern leg of HS2. Whether it’ll happen of course, is another issue.
Nope, same thing, just lack of coffee and my inability to proof read lol.Is the IPR something different from the IRP?
Seems like just keeping HS2 and reinstating Golborne and some form of an eastern arm is a better option!I would expect that following the apparently inevitable axing of the rest of HS2, the government will make some face saving announcement about an "upgrade" programme that will deliver 140mph trains and such on the ECML.
This programme will fail miserably, just like all previous attempts at 140mph trains on existing UK railway lines.
This debacle will cost billlions and take years.
Just like the last two attempts.
It's almost like someone looked into the issue of improving connectivity, journey times and maximising capacity and concluded that it made more sense to build a new dedicated railway to achieve these goals rather than attempting to upgrade the existing one. But that certainly couldn't be the case...Seems like just keeping HS2 and reinstating Golborne and some form of an eastern arm is a better option!
what ws the other attempt other thn the wcml?I would expect that following the apparently inevitable axing of the rest of HS2, the government will make some face saving announcement about an "upgrade" programme that will deliver 140mph trains and such on the ECML.
This programme will fail miserably, just like all previous attempts at 140mph trains on existing UK railway lines.
This debacle will cost billlions and take years.
Just like the last two attempts.
I think the GWML was meant to be 140-mph capable ready for ETCS Level 2. But being 140-mph ready or capable does not mean it was ever seriously planned, because you need a lot of things to align.what ws the other attempt other thn the wcml?
Think you meant to write 'between Darlington and Newcastle'.between York and Newcastle the line is fairly twisty and from
Good point!Think you meant to write 'between Darlington and Newcastle'.
Maybe both if the any deviations are fairly short and in less built up areas and if ETCS is rolled out along with new cantilevers to replace the MK3Bs to improve reliability (As I understand it most models of cantilevers that support 125mph running are designed for 140mph running).140mph to save 10 mins v spending the same money on a Morpeth curve bypass (and other bottlenecks/slow sections)? Discuss...
If you can bypass Morpeth, you create an overtaking section north of Newcastle. Does that unlock any useful capacity for a most/all stations service in combintion with other loops?
This is probably a different thread (and probably one I started before and have forgotten about!).
Obviously there are many hidden benefits, but people who have had to endure many blockades for the work to be done will want to see something!
How much of the ECML between London and Edinburgh is actually suitable for 140mph running assuming its just fettling the track with in the existing railway boundary?
If you want to improve the ECML what would be saved if the Welwyn viaduct was 4 tracked,
Morpeth curve straightened,
I think the reality is that the proposal back when for example the Class 91s were introduced was that conventional signaling would be used, once that avenue closed providing in cab signalling increased costs by an order of magnitude. If conventional signalling had been allowed it would have meant speed increases could be much more incremental over shorter sections of the route when a section was getting upgraded anywayI have to ask, why have we seemingly given up on improving speeds on Britain's railways? It seems like 20-30 years ago the railways were doing everything they could to make 140mph the new norm for mainline expresses, and designed trains like the 91 and 390 to do just that.
It wasn't, in-service 140mph running was always going to require in cab signalling with the InterCity 225 project.I think the reality is that the proposal back when for example the Class 91s were introduced was that conventional signaling would be used, once that avenue closed providing in cab signalling increased costs by an order of magnitude. If conventional signalling had been allowed it would have meant speed increases could be much more incremental over shorter sections of the route when a section was getting upgraded anyway
So how did the flashing green aspect that was introduced at I think one or two locations on the ECML come about. Was this the test which resulted in 'This isnt going to work, we need in cab signalling' rather than the start of a roll out of 140mph on suitable sectionsIt wasn't, in-service 140mph running was always going to require in cab signalling with the InterCity 225 project.
The flashing green was purely for testing, it proved that an additional signal block was clear thus giving sufficient distance for authorised test trains only to exceed 125mph.So how did the flashing green aspect that was introduced at I think one or two locations on the ECML come about. Was this the test which resulted in 'This isnt going to work, we need in cab signalling' rather than the start of a roll out of 140mph on suitable sections
The problem with this sequence is a Y failure results in a less restrictive signal than G-Y. I think the only vaugely possible would be a double green as '140mph', one failure results in a more restrictive signal. I dont know if anyone can shed more light on how things were tested and when the 'you must have in cab for 125mph+' decision was taken.say, G, G-Y, Y-Y, Y, R?