HS2 Rolling Stock Procurement

[edwin_m]

If I were preparing a manufacturer's bid (and I most certainly am not) I would include tilt as part of the bid. Alstom have publicly said that a tilting AGV will probably be their submission, and I think it would be majorly remiss to gain all that time on HS2 up to north of Crewe, only to drop another half an hour between there and Glasgow. We know for a fact that it is not impossible, and the benefits are immediately apparent.

In the tendering documents, HS2 will have to tell bidders what they want, but also how they will "score" different suppliers' offerings to choose the winner. A bidder gets no extra credit for offering something that wasn't asked for and will most likely be undercut on cost by other bidders who have stuck to the specification.

So unless tilt is explicitly specified, or there is extra credit in the procurement for beating predicted schedules on classic routes, no supplier is going to include tilt in their core offering. It's possible that some might offer it as an option.

 

[Roose]

Thereilly is no point in a tilt fitted train for HS2. It makes no sense for the long term. Short term perhaps, but these trains are required for the long term.

Bear in mind that for the long term the classic-compatibles are likely to be running up the WCML from Golborne to Glasgow and Edinburgh at least on services from London, and London via Birmingham.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They will not be bi mode and they wont tilt. Timetable work is being done on that assumption.

I can understand that being the current HS2 position.
But the whole point of merging ICWC and HS2 is to produce a seamless transition under one operator.
The HS2 and CP6 plans are going to have to merge on the WCML to produce a coherent route spec for 2026/7, in terms of classic upgrades for services north of Lichfield/Crewe.
It's quite dangerous to presume that HS2b will inevitably happen, because the government is fickle.
There has to be an answer to the paradox of longer journey times Lichfield/Crewe-Glasgow for non-tilt stock.
Either there needs to be route upgrades to produce stretches of 125mph PSR, or tilting stock needs to be reconsidered.

There also needs to be some answer for Voyager routes.
"Change at Crewe" is not acceptable.
Spain manages to run bi-mode, tilting (and gauge-changing) trains on its classic/AVE network (manufactured by Talgo/Bombardier).

 

[Class 170101]

If the Classic Compatible trains don't tilt on the northern part of the WCML then isn't the journey time to Glasgow virtually unchanged from today?

 

[najaB]

If the Classic Compatible trains don't tilt on the northern part of the WCML then isn't the journey time to Glasgow virtually unchanged from today?

It will be quicker than today, but yes you lose a lot of the benefit.

 

[absolutelymilk]

The question is it worth the extra cost to make the trains tilt. What are the estimates for the extra cost of tilting high-speed trains?

 

[The Planner]

Either there needs to be route upgrades to produce stretches of 125mph PSR,

The more likely of the two, benefits more than HS2 doing that.

There also needs to be some answer for Voyager routes."Change at Crewe" is not acceptable.

Again, I bet that is what will happen.

 

[WatcherZero]

Correct, they lose about half the gained time saving North of Wigan that they picked up south. That's why they've been looking at improvements to the existing northern section of the WCML to improve journey times. They've been looking at options to create 38m in journey time savings to produce a sub 3 hour journey time from London to Scotland. The solution they have come up with is to gradually build a new high speed line from the North West to Scotland by replacing the existing WCML bottlenecks in sections so that eventually about 80% of the line is new with 20% of the original remaining (about 220km of bypasses, new tunnels and grade seperations).

 

[The Planner]

Thats a long long long way off, if at all, it will be upgrades of whats there now in the meantime.

 

[edwin_m]

In the shorter term there are bits of the northern WCML where the line speed for non-tilting stock could be increased closer to 125mph without too much difficulty, maybe saving a few minutes. As non-tilting 125mph stock has never routinely used the northern WCML* nobody has ever needed to do these upgrades.

*except Carstairs to Glasgow where there is virtually no speed increase possible.

 

[tsangpogorge]

Correct, they lose about half the gained time saving North of Wigan that they picked up south. That's why they've been looking at improvements to the existing northern section of the WCML to improve journey times. They've been looking at options to create 38m in journey time savings to produce a sub 3 hour journey time from London to Scotland. The solution they have come up with is to gradually build a new high speed line from the North West to Scotland by replacing the existing WCML bottlenecks in sections so that eventually about 80% of the line is new with 20% of the original remaining (about 220km of bypasses, new tunnels and grade seperations).

Has there been any plans put forward on what alignment the new line will take through the southern Lake District? The section that passes through the Lune Gorge between Shap and Oxenholme station is what I'm most interested in since there's that very prominent 'backwards L' shaped kink in the line that will surely need to be eliminated for non tilt high speed running. The Victorian engineers of the Lancaster to Carlisle railway originally envisaged the line heading directly north through Kendal to Longsleddale, past what is today Haweswater and through to Bampton totally avoiding Shap but this roue is impossible today since the construction of the aforementioned reservoir has completely flooded the valley. Be interested to hear the opinion of posters here on potential solutions. Also just as a reminder the Grayrigg derailment took place along this very section of track just beyond the first of the very sharp curves north of Oxnholme.

 

[WatcherZero]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/506022/NES_Report.pdf

Page 29 Lancaster to Carlisle

To summarise their thinking;

Static freight loop not worthwhile as freight would have come come to a stop in the loop and have to restart against the gradient.

Crawler lane and bypass could offer some speed improvement but would only offer a 15 second time saving. Would cause high disruption during construction.

North of Shap to Carlisle several bypasses are possible offering up to 9 minute time saving.

South of Shap is the Lune Gorge a steep sided valley, any bypass would require extensive tunnelling and only be worthwhile if the aim was to reduce journey times significantly below 3 hours.

Between Lancaster and south of the Lune Gorge a 30 mile bypass of Lancaster and Oxenholme stations could offer time savings of 10 minutes 45 seconds.


Possible options

Bypass to the south of Carlisle 03:09 16.0km
Bypass from north of Shap to Penrith 06:07 31.4 km
Bypass of Shap Summit 00:15 6.4 km
Bypass of Lancaster to the south of the Lune Gorge 10:44 48.0 km
Preston to South of Lancaster 03:12 18.4km

Then their preferred option

The route would continue to follow the existing transport corridor, reaching more challenging terrain as it passes between the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks. Deep cuttings, viaducts and tunnelling would be required to negotiate the topography, and the design speed has been reduced in sections to 125mph (200kph) or 140 mph (230 kph) to follow the contours more closely. Crossings over the M6 and West Coast Main Line would be required as the route follows the transport corridor north in the flatter section approaching Carlisle, where the route would pass to the east of the city.

Which along with text elsewhere sounds like high speed straightening using deep cuttings and bridges and only tunnelling when necessary.

(There are no diagrams of alignments on the west side but there are a few for east coast options, they ultimately selected West Coast over East Coast in the report though)

 

[HSTEd]

Is it really worth building significant stretches of new railway if all tehy can manage is 125mph?

 

[edwin_m]

Is it really worth building significant stretches of new railway if all tehy can manage is 125mph?

A 125mph section to replace a much slower section might be better value in terms of time saved per money spent than replacing a 125mph section with something faster.

 

[tsangpogorge]

What sort of alignment would the long Lancaster and Oxenholme bypass take? Is there any chance it could use part of the old Ingleton branch's track bed between say Kirkby Lonsdale and Lowgill at the southern end of the Lune Gorge or is it mostly going to run roughly parallel to the existing line?

 

[The Planner]

Its drawings on a map to show DfT that HS2 have considered it, I very much doubt it has got/going to get to a detailed stage.

 

[Class 170101]

In terms of the physical work are the DfT / NR better off just building a new railway and linking to the existing railway on as few a number of occasions as possible even if that means tunnelling / extensive structures?

 

[squizzler]

If I were preparing a manufacturer's bid (and I most certainly am not) I would include tilt as part of the bid. Alstom have publicly said that a tilting AGV will probably be their submission, and I think it would be majorly remiss to gain all that time on HS2 up to north of Crewe, only to drop another half an hour between there and Glasgow. We know for a fact that it is not impossible, and the benefits are immediately apparent.

I think both those who are expecting tilt and those who don't are both right and wrong in equal measure.

Modern active suspension systems allow the centripetal force pulling the coach bodies outwards on the bends to be actively resisted, without the expense of a separate tilting mechanism between the bogies and the coach proper. Bombardier calls this its "Flexxtronic WACO". It is already fitted to double decker Swiss stock and they claim it allows the speed in curves to be increased by 15%. It is not a full-blown tilting system and as such does not require the train bodies to be built to funny profiles to stay in gauge.

I imagine that in the timeframe we are looking at all manufacturers will have their own implementation of this technology. For PR purposes it will probably be branded "Tilt lite" or some-such.

 

[Mikey C]

Isn't there also the question of whether to reach Scotland via an upgraded WCML or via an upgraded ECML...

 

[edwin_m]

Isn't there also the question of whether to reach Scotland via an upgraded WCML or via an upgraded ECML...

As posted in the last couple of days, possibly further back in this thread, WCML is favoured. As with the existing lines both could give a similar journey time to Edinburgh but to get a 3hr journey time to Glasgow via ECML most of it would have to be bypassed with new high speed infrastructure.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What sort of alignment would the long Lancaster and Oxenholme bypass take? Is there any chance it could use part of the old Ingleton branch's track bed between say Kirkby Lonsdale and Lowgill at the southern end of the Lune Gorge or is it mostly going to run roughly parallel to the existing line?

I think any bypasses would be close to Joseph Locke's existing rail route, or the nearby M6.
Any other route takes you into National Park or AONB territory.

 

[daikilo]

I think both those who are expecting tilt and those who don't are both right and wrong in equal measure.

Modern active suspension systems allow the centripetal force pulling the coach bodies outwards on the bends to be actively resisted, without the expense of a separate tilting mechanism between the bogies and the coach proper. Bombardier calls this its "Flexxtronic WACO". It is already fitted to double decker Swiss stock and they claim it allows the speed in curves to be increased by 15%. It is not a full-blown tilting system and as such does not require the train bodies to be built to funny profiles to stay in gauge.

I imagine that in the timeframe we are looking at all manufacturers will have their own implementation of this technology. For PR purposes it will probably be branded "Tilt lite" or some-such.

Yes, but it cannot give the same comfort benefit as active tilt for a given high speed on say WCML but may do on HS2. However, the steering element may be beneficial for maintenance on all curved track.

 

[WatcherZero]

Hitachi unveiling their contender the AT400 at Railtex, 360 kph 10-12 carriages of 25m length.

Meanwhile Alstom showing off their regional design available in speeds of 90 to 125mph, however they have ruled out producing a diesel or bi mode version saying they are only interested in producing EMU or Hydrogen powered versions.

 

[HSTEd]

10 25m carriages.... in otherwords totally useless as a HS2 set?

Too long to run double and far too short to do the job alone, especially considering its a single deck.

 

[MCR247]

Seems everyone is loving not needing a yellow panel!

 

[The Planner]

10 25m carriages.... in otherwords totally useless as a HS2 set?

Too long to run double and far too short to do the job alone, especially considering its a single deck.

Why? 8x25m is 200m doubled up is 400m, they won't go for longer.

 

[edwin_m]

Why? 8x25m is 200m doubled up is 400m, they won't go for longer.

If the minimum set length is 10 cars as implied by WatcherZero then it's too long (though it might be useful during phase 1, running singly to maximise the capacity at existing stations by being similar to an 11-car Pendolino). If they can do an 8-car variant then they need to say so!

 

[33Hz]

Here's a video on Talgo's offer for HS2: https://youtu.be/gFp-eGtgBN8

 

[Bornin1980s]

I wouldn't want tilt. That's only for places with a big loading gauge. I know thew British tilt profile looks stylish, but this comes at the expense of space, especially for overhead hand luggage. Comfort before speed, I say. This might be why the HST beat the APT, an HST trailer is so much bigger than a Voyager.

As for captive stock, I'd say it must be double deck, otherwise the line won't deliver the promised capacity.

 

[edwin_m]

I wouldn't want tilt. That's only for places with a big loading gauge. I know thew British tilt profile looks stylish, but this comes at the expense of space, especially for overhead hand luggage. Comfort before speed, I say. This might be why the HST beat the APT, an HST trailer is so much bigger than a Voyager.

As for captive stock, I'd say it must be double deck, otherwise the line won't deliver the promised capacity.

HST vs APT was won on engineering not comfort. APT tried to do too many new things without the funding to make them all work, so didn't work well enough to run a reliable service. Also neither the Pendolino nor the Voyager are particularly good examples of how to get a spacious layout in a UK tilt profile bodyshell - 222s are much better although they do retain the too-small luggage shelf.

Certain people, particularly in Scotland, are pushing for a the HS2 stock to be tilting as it would save quite a few minutes between Golborne and Glasgow/Edinburgh. However it would add to the cost and weight as well as reducing cross-section, and make little or no time difference on any other route, so HS2 is resisting it.

All the initial build for HS2 is now planned to be classic compatible so it can't be double-deck unless one of the fairly off-the-wall ideas is adopted to fit one into the classic UK gauge. A split fleet was originally proposed but with changes such as serving Sheffield via the classic network it's not really worth buying captive sets (that can't go off HS2) for Phase 1 (if it ever was). Phase 2 will probably order some captive sets and transfer the classic compatibles from Birmingham and Manchester routes to the off-route services that start at that time (London and Birmingham to Newcastle via ECML, London to Edinburgh via WCML, Birmingham to Glasgow and Edinburgh via WCML, maybe others not yet thought of).