Is any part of the WCML 125mph for non-tilt stock?

[MK Tom]

I was just looking at maps and there are some decent chunks of the WCML without tight curves. Is any of it cleared for 125mph for non-tilt stock? I've often had people suggest through services from MK, Coventry, Birmingham and beyond through onto HS1 to Ashford, Kent and the Continent. The problem that always comes up (besides pathing) is the 110mph speeds on the WCML. Likewise this is an issue when suggesting 395s or similar for London Midland fast services to Northampton or Crewe, or running classic-compatible HS2 units on the WCML.

So is there anywhere where you can safely run, for example, a class 395 at 125mph on the WCML? Looking at Euston-Rugby, it strikes me that the main bad curves are at Watford, Berkhamsted, Linslade Tunnel and Wolverton. Surely there are decent straight stretches between those?

 

[eMeS]

What about the Weedon area? I think I remember that there were/are curves in that area of the WCML.

Had my first experience of travelling from Euston to MKC last Saturday on a Super Voyager, and when it got to the curves (eg at Linslade) the tilt came in abruptly. Earlier on a Pendolino gong to Euston, the entry to a curve seemed to be dealt with smoothly.

 

[Murph]

So is there anywhere where you can safely run, for example, a class 395 at 125mph on the WCML? Looking at Euston-Rugby, it strikes me that the main bad curves are at Watford, Berkhamsted, Linslade Tunnel and Wolverton. Surely there are decent straight stretches between those?

Looking further into the future, are there stretches where you could run non-tilt 140mph, once ERTMS is around?

 

[Eagle]

The line through Penkridge (not strictly WCML but part of the WCML system) is 125 mph for all MUs.

EDIT: As is Rugby to Coventry.

 

[notadriver]

I was just looking at maps and there are some decent chunks of the WCML without tight curves. Is any of it cleared for 125mph for non-tilt stock? I've often had people suggest through services from MK, Coventry, Birmingham and beyond through onto HS1 to Ashford, Kent and the Continent. The problem that always comes up (besides pathing) is the 110mph speeds on the WCML. Likewise this is an issue when suggesting 395s or similar for London Midland fast services to Northampton or Crewe, or running classic-compatible HS2 units on the WCML.

So is there anywhere where you can safely run, for example, a class 395 at 125mph on the WCML? Looking at Euston-Rugby, it strikes me that the main bad curves are at Watford, Berkhamsted, Linslade Tunnel and Wolverton. Surely there are decent straight stretches between those?

WCML is 110 mph max for non EPS trains. 395s are only permitted 100 mph when not on HS1 at the moment.

 

[rebmcr]

Looking further into the future, are there stretches where you could run non-tilt 140mph, once ERTMS is around?

Virgin wanted to run at 140 through the Trent Valley, revised down to 135 but still got the "No, lack of cab signalling" answer.

 

[BananaRepublic]

......395s are only permitted 100 mph when not on HS1 at the moment.

That's primarily a third rail DC restriction IIRC.

 

[Flying Snail]

I get from this thread that a number of you have not actually used the line much, although there are some straight stretches it really is a very twisty line with few sections where you could accelerate from 110-125 and brake down to 110 again for the next curve to make any dent in journey times.

I suggest you find one of the WCML cab view films and try count all the curves from London to Crewe.

Looking further into the future, are there stretches where you could run non-tilt 140mph, once ERTMS is around?

If it were possible to run at 125, never mind 140 then why would tilt stock have been used in the first place?

The APT project was founded because the alternative of making curvy mainlines, the WCML in particular, straighter was impractical.

To use the same basic alignment but with the curves removed or reduced would be a massive undertaking, cost billions, disrupt countless other properties and require the line to be closed for years.

This is why we are at HS2 now. Building a new HS line, although very costly and complex is a far easier task and the result would be far less compromised.

 

[stanley T]

The bits on either side of Crewe look pretty straight on Google Earth - are those in the know saying that this is not the case in practice?

 

[Darren R]

The bits on either side of Crewe look pretty straight on Google Earth - are those in the know saying that this is not the case in practice?

It depends on which bits you mean. It's fairly straight south of Crewe, but only for a couple of miles. Northwards it's straight(ish) for maybe a dozen miles or so. A few miles of 'pretty straight' is about the best you are going to get on much of the WCML!

 

[rdeez]

There are signs on the platforms at Stafford station advising caution as "Trains pass at up to 125mph", though I don't think they actually achieve that speed through the station - 90/100mph seems more likely to me. Anyone know for sure?

 

[Eagle]

The middle lines are 110 mph at Stafford (for tilt and non-tilt) but the fastest platform lines are 4 and 5 at 60.

 

[MK Tom]

The thing is, why is the WCML so curvy if other classic main lines aren't? The GWML and ECML manage 125mph running a lot without tilt, and the Midland is apparently joining them now.

 

[Eagle]

It passes through more difficult terrain. The routes of the GWML and ECML are a lot flatter than that of the WCML.

 

[HSTEd]

The ECML was built precisely because it could run at high speed over easy terrain.
Traditionally trains were unable to ascend steep climbs, passenger dedicated railways using modern stock can do this far more easily.

Which is why there is a High Speed Line in Germany that permits 4% gradients.

 

[krus_aragon]

The ECML was built precisely because it could run at high speed over easy terrain.
Traditionally trains were unable to ascend steep climbs, passenger dedicated railways using modern stock can do this far more easily.

Or to paraphrase:

The first locomotives weren't good at climbing hills. (Remember the London and Birmingham Railway opened back in 1838.) Surveyors had to go around the hills (like the canals did), or spend a lot of time and money on tunnels, cuttings and embankments to go straight through them. Brunel chose the latter option to build a dead-straight Great Western Railway. Robert Stephenson, and many of his contemporaries, followed the lay of the land.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Or to paraphrase:

The first locomotives weren't good at climbing hills. (Remember the London and Birmingham Railway opened back in 1838.) Surveyors had to go around the hills (like the canals did), or spend a lot of time and money on tunnels, cuttings and embankments to go straight through them. Brunel chose the latter option to build a dead-straight Great Western Railway. Robert Stephenson, and many of his contemporaries, followed the lay of the land.

Just look at the route the line takes and you will see what an incorrect statement you are making. It is well documented that Brunel wanted to make a 'high speed' line by making it as flat as possible. Luckily he managed to keep the curves (and there are plenty of them) quite shallow on the original GWR. He didn't do the same in the southwest though!

Similarly HS2 is not at all straight - there is less straight mileage than on most 'classic' lines but the curves are shallow.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The thing is, why is the WCML so curvy if other classic main lines aren't? The GWML and ECML manage 125mph running a lot without tilt, and the Midland is apparently joining them now.

Speed wasn't the main consideration when most of the WCML was being built in its various portions.
The main aim was low gradients for the early steam locos rather than straightness. Irate landowners demanding diversions didn't help either.
Joseph Locke (who's on this forum!) designed the Lancaster and Carlisle to avoid expensive tunnels and viaducts, so it curves around a lot over the fells.
There are sharp reverse curves through Staffs (Whitmore, Stafford, Rugeley), and Northants (Weedon) in particular, and at places like Atherstone, Wolverton, Linslade, north and south of Rugby station, Watford etc.
In Scotland there are long, steep reverse curves in the Clyde valley south of Carstairs and elsewhere.
The twist at Wolverton is entirely self-inflicted - the original Stephenson line was straight, but when it came to 4-tracking the route the LNWR diverted it sharply eastwards to avoid the complication of rebuilding the access to Wolverton works.

I used to think that Nuneaton-Rugby was fairly straight at 110mph, but when you traverse it at 125 you realise there is significant tilting going on around mid-way.

Also it's not right to think that the GW and EC routes are not curved and would not benefit from tilt.
The GW west of Exeter, the EC north of Darlington, most of the Midland and all the trans-Pennine routes would benefit from tilting trains.
But received wisdom is that tilt is mandatory on the WCML and irrelevant elsewhere.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm still yet to understand why it's better to have the TASS tilting system that requires extensive lineside equipment, rather than systems that scan the track ahead (or even have it pre-programmed), rendering it able to be used on lines that don't have TASS installed (such as most of the XC route!).

I'm sure there's a very good reason for this, but I can't work out what it is.

 

[rebmcr]

I'm still yet to understand why it's better to have the TASS tilting system that requires extensive lineside equipment, rather than systems that scan the track ahead (or even have it pre-programmed), rendering it able to be used on lines that don't have TASS installed (such as most of the XC route!).

I'm sure there's a very good reason for this, but I can't work out what it is.

Moving scanners are not good enough to provide a safety-critical role. I think they're being removed form level crossings soon after they've been installed because they can't even cope whilst stationary.

The same is true for a pre-programmed route because it's practically impossible to guarantee an accurate self-position.

That's why balises, beacons, magnet ramps, loops etc. are the industry standard for AWS, TPWS, ATP, TASS, ERMTS, TVM, the Tube's ATO (also tripcocks are 'physical balises'), Metrolink's TMS (and the previous system), etc etc. Not to mention track circuits controlling the signals themselves!

 

[TheKnightWho]

The same is true for a pre-programmed route because it's practically impossible to guarantee an accurate self-position.

Am I wrong in thinking that they're used on the majority of continental and Japanese routes, though?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But it is odd that the SS (speed supervision) side of TASS is needed above 110mph on the WCML.
It's a form of ATP, but ATP is not used on the ECML at that speed.
Maybe it is a combination of the safety culture at the time (late 1990s) and things like signal sighting (but many WCML signals were moved as well).
And on Bushbury-Stafford it seems the VT trains have to obey TASS at 125mph but the XC ones don't!
It would be interesting to know if the new 125mph stretches of the MML require any extra safety (ATP) features.

 

[rebmcr]

But it is odd that the SS (speed supervision) side of TASS is needed above 110mph on the WCML.
It's a form of ATP, but ATP is not used on the ECML at that speed.
Maybe it is a combination of the safety culture at the time (late 1990s) and things like signal sighting (but many WCML signals were moved as well).
And on Bushbury-Stafford it seems the VT trains have to obey TASS at 125mph but the XC ones don't!
It would be interesting to know if the new 125mph stretches of the MML require any extra safety (ATP) features.

I don't think it's needed, but since the reason we don't have nationwide ATP is the cost of balise installation, but you're putting in balises for TA anyway, then at that point the SS is a freebie.

XC have the tilt gear locked out so they can diagram 220s and 221s freely.

 

[HSTEd]

And as to "Extensive lineside equipment" the balises are basically passive plastic boxes containing electronics placed in the four foot.

They require no power supply and are sealed units with effectively no maintenance over the planned lifetime of the installation.
They don't really cost very much. Indeed ERTMS Regional wants to make use of them as a low cost method of accurately determining block boundaries.

 

[AndyLandy]

I was just looking at maps and there are some decent chunks of the WCML without tight curves. Is any of it cleared for 125mph for non-tilt stock?

As far as I've been able to ascertain from looking at the RUS, all 125mph running on the WCML is EPS only. In other words, non-tilt stock is limited to 110mph. I think there are even places where linespeeds are lower, and you'll get something like 80mph PS or 100mph EPS.

I daresay there are sections on the WCML where it would be possible to run 125mph PS, but it's unlikely that any has been rated for that.

Of course, I could be totally wrong, but that's my reading of the situation.

 

[krus_aragon]

Just look at the route the line takes and you will see what an incorrect statement you are making. It is well documented that Brunel wanted to make a 'high speed' line by making it as flat as possible. Luckily he managed to keep the curves (and there are plenty of them) quite shallow on the original GWR. He didn't do the same in the southwest though!

Similarly HS2 is not at all straight - there is less straight mileage than on most 'classic' lines but the curves are shallow.

Beg your pardon. I did overstate my case a bit there, but part of the reason that the GWML has a 125mph limit (vs the WCML's 110 for non-tilt stock) is that Brunel spent the extra money to engineer out more of the gradients and curves in the first place for a high-speed service.

I wonder whether the expense of Brunel's work led his later employers to reign his plans in, or whether he felt that railways in the south-west didn't need such engineering... (He designed the Taff Vale, twisty-turny as it is, because it was a "mineral railway", and at the same time as the GWR.)

 

[HSTEd]

Have to remember that curves being too tight for the desired speeds was not really important in the early days when lines like those that now make up the WCML were built.

Since the competition (for the crucial goods market) was a canal which moves at about walking pace AND is incredibly bendy.

 

[Boodiggy]

AndyLandy, on the WCML the 125 sections are EPS running although, as mentioned at the start of this thread there are a few sections with 125 MU sections meaning voyages running non tilt can still run at line speed where as a pendolino running non tilt cannot as it is classed as an HST. These sections are between Rugby - Coventry and Wolverhampton - Stafford. They may also be others. There are also sections with no EPS such as Watford / Kilsby / Crewe etc and there are also sections with differential EPS speeds due to the different tilting capabilities of the pendolinos and voyages at Berko / Linslade / Weedon etc. EPS is only fitted on the fast lines apart from the Trent Valley where all four lines have EPS. You are correct in saying there are places lower than 110 for PS speeds, for example Linslade which is 90(taking away the EPS on the fasts Linslade is 90 on all four lines), Berko which is 100, and Rugby - Coventry is also 100. There are in fact many sections lower than 110.

 

[The Planner]

Module SP doesn't say 390 are classified as HST, they can't run at EMU or MU speeds but nothing is stated that they drop into HST.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm still yet to understand why it's better to have the TASS tilting system that requires extensive lineside equipment, rather than systems that scan the track ahead (or even have it pre-programmed), rendering it able to be used on lines that don't have TASS installed (such as most of the XC route!).

I'm sure there's a very good reason for this, but I can't work out what it is.

As HSTEd says, extensive linside equipment it is not. A TASS beacon is a eurobalise, which is little more than an RFID tag - like you find on some parcel tracking systems - clipped to a sleeper. The most expensive part of the whole infrastructure side of the system is the bloke with the laptop who has to reprogramme the beacon if it has to move.