ECML Speed - Will trains ever reach 140mph?

[finlaywilson2]

Will trains ever reach 140mph on the ecml?

 

[ainsworth74]

Trains 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?

 

[350401]

It depends if you believe that the IRP will ever be implemented. The IRP 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.

 

[finlaywilson2]

Trains 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?

Yes! I know the 800’s are capable but am not sure if they will regularly between London and Edinburgh

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.

How would this go about happening?

 

[hexagon789]

Probably only if it is deemed a viable alternative to certain aspects of the HS2 project.

It saves comparatively little time against the expenditure required on fettling up the track and the enhanced maintenance the track would require to maintain 140mph running.

 

[snowball]

Is the IPR something different from the IRP?

 

[350401]

Is the IPR something different from the IRP?

Nope, same thing, just lack of coffee and my inability to proof read lol.

 

[jon0844]

I would certainly hope that with the new signalling coming into operation, we will be able to see some benefits like 140mph back in the areas that once trialled it with the flashing greens. Obviously it needs to fit around other services, but that would be quite a good upgrade - besides trains being able to run a little closer together to help during disruption (trains being held far away due to the size of the signalling sections).

If we didn't get that, a lot of people would be wondering what's the point. 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!

 

[mike57]

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? I suspect well less than 50%., so 3 sec a mile for 200 miles being optimistic, 10 minutes saved on journey time. The reality would probably be 6-8 minutes, you could probably acheive the same savings at 125mph, with some limited stop services. Didn't the WCML modernisation prove that 140mph running on legacy tracks isn't going to work.

If you want to improve the ECML what would be saved if the Welwyn viaduct was 4 tracked, Morpeth curve straightened, and maybe some work betwen Darlington and Durham, but keeping it as 125mph railway.

 

[jon0844]

If you could save 6-8 minutes without needing to do much work, it's better than nothing. If it also allows trains to keep to time and recover quicker, all the better.

Of course rebuilding the Welwyn viaduct and the like are going to have bigger impacts, but in this current climate an already unlikely project is now virtually impossible.

 

[HSTEd]

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.

 

[Trainbike46]

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.

Seems like just keeping HS2 and reinstating Golborne and some form of an eastern arm is a better option!

 

[ainsworth74]

Seems like just keeping HS2 and reinstating Golborne and some form of an eastern arm is a better option!

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...

 

[Halish Railway]

If ETCS is rolled out on the sections geometrically capable of linespeeds in excess of 125mph and if it is decided to replace the problematic MK3B electrification then it would make sense to install cantilevers and wires that are capable of 140mph running.

 

[adamedwards]

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!).

 

[finlaywilson2]

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.

what ws the other attempt other thn the wcml?

 

[zwk500]

what ws the other attempt other thn the wcml?

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.

In answer to your original question, it is rather unlikely as the most obvious places to run at 140mph would be north of York and between York Darlington and Newcastle the line is fairly twisty and from north of Morpeth the line already has problems with the mixed traffic so it would need significant intervention of some kind.
To run at 140mph from the existing 125mph sections on the ECML would require ETCS L2 without lineside signals (although a hybrid mode is possible where <125mph trains can use signals but 140mph trains can use the in-cab), OLE upgrades, ballast work, track upgrades, swingnose points, structure and stock clearance reassessment, a timetable rewrite, and somebody to fund all of this. The benefit of 140mph over 125mph is c.3 seconds a mile.

 

[D6130]

between York and Newcastle the line is fairly twisty and from

Think you meant to write 'between Darlington and Newcastle'.

 

[zwk500]

Think you meant to write 'between Darlington and Newcastle'.

Good point!

 

[Halish Railway]

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!).

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).

 

[Bald Rick]

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!

You’ll be able to ”see” no signals. And be safe in the knowledge that the resignalling is being done for rather less cash than if the signals were staying.

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?

Well that’s the issue - as none is suitable by just ‘fettling’ the track. There’s a whole load of other work, not least closing every level crossing, strengthening the OLE and power supply, bridge works, gauge clearance, replacing all the point work, closing all platforms adjacent to the line, etc. etc.

If you want to improve the ECML what would be saved if the Welwyn viaduct was 4 tracked,

No journey time for most of the long distance services.

Morpeth curve straightened,

There was a thread on this a while back. That means a new line. It would save one minute, assuming around 5-6 km of new line from Pegswood to Stannington Station (Costing in the region of £2-300m).

 

[Trestrol]

We will all be long gone before ETCS reaches Edinburgh, by which time it will be obsolete. The government will never stump up the money for it and NR will never have enough money to fund it itself.

 

[coradiafan2000]

I 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.

I know there are other probably better ways to improve journey times, but back then there seemed to be so much more enthusiasm for it. Have we simply lost all pride in our railways?

 

[mike57]

I 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.

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

Add to that all the other works you need to do as pointed out by @Bald Rick in post #21 and this of course assumes alignment is OK. it means that the benefit of 3 secs a mile over 125mph just isnt worth the cost. To be honest I think there is a lot that could be done to improve journey time on existing routes before you get to moving from 125 to 140. To me logically you you would work on the slowest bits of the route first.

 

[hexagon789]

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

It wasn't, in-service 140mph running was always going to require in cab signalling with the InterCity 225 project.

The need had already been made apparent during high speed testing of the APT-Ps.

 

[mike57]

It wasn't, in-service 140mph running was always going to require in cab signalling with the InterCity 225 project.

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

 

[owidoe]

I've often wondered why they tested just one aspect and went "right, it's impossible can't be done" seemingly immediately. To expect a driver at 140 mph to distinguish flashing seems an odd decision. Were there no calls for introducing, say, G, G-Y, Y-Y, Y, R?

 

[hexagon789]

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 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.

 

[mike57]

say, G, G-Y, Y-Y, Y, R?

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.

Of course there are plenty of reports of HSTs acheiving well over 125mph in normal service in the early days, but that is a little different, I assume although exceeding the 'maximum' speed drivers would apply some measure of common sense wrt conditions and visibility back in the day

 

[Trestrol]

ETCS will only reach Grantham in 2029 and as far as I am aware nothing further north is pencilled in.