L2E4 project: increasing ECML linespeed

[Stats]

The transcript for the recent industry hearing on the ECML track applications mentions a current project Network Rail are doing called L2E4. Other than saying that this is a project to enable SETs to run at a higher speed, including 140mph in some places, on the ECML there is no other information.

I would be interested in any further information anybody can provide on this project? The scope? Timescales? Areas they are looking at?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The transcript for the recent industry hearing on the ECML track applications mentions a current project Network Rail are doing called L2E4. Other than saying that this is a project to enable SETs to run at a higher speed, including 140mph in some places, on the ECML there is no other information.

I would be interested in any further information anybody can provide on this project? The scope? Timescales? Areas they are looking at?

It's ETCS Level 2 dependent, so is absolutely in-cab signalling dependent, and in turn means it'll be between Kings Cross and Doncaster by 2020, assuming the ETCS Level 2 roll-out isn't delayed in the cost reviews. The existing signalling is life expired and lacks bi-di in a lot of areas restricting any ability to deal with problems though, so it's a reasonable bet that it will go ahead almost at all costs.

Location wise, it'll be mainly the same places that British Rail planned 140mph running, so around Peterborough and Grantham, south of Doncaster etc.

It will also require replacement of the headspans for the wire runs on 140mph sections of route because the existing ECML wiring isn't capable of 140mph running with multiple pantographs (but can support 140mph running with a single pantograph - i.e the IC225 sets).

The current catenary (primarily contact wire) can't be sufficiently tensioned to deal with the oscillations two pans at 140mph cause, as it's at the limit for tension in relation to diameter, so the contact wire needs to move up to a larger diameter, but a larger diameter contact wire is too heavy for the rest of the headspan components, they too would need upgraded, and that provides Network Rail with a good opportunity to replace headspans.

Network Rail like mechanically independent registration - i.e not headspans, so will be moving the 140mph sections of the ECML to mechanically independent registration, by using a modified variant of the Furrer+Frey Series 1 components.

The lightweight portal boom structure they've developed, chiefly for the twin track cantilever on the GWML, can be fabricated into a full boom, and mounted on the existing headspan masts without problem. The small part steelwork is planned for Series 1 equipment also.

There's a trial boom at Potters Bar with older OLE components which looks good, and there should be a roll out this year of portal booms to replace headspans at key 'high risk' locations - mainly switches and crossovers, where there's a higher risk of dewirements.

 

[D365]

The transcript for the recent industry hearing on the ECML track applications mentions a current project Network Rail are doing called L2E4. Other than saying that this is a project to enable SETs to run at a higher speed, including 140mph in some places, on the ECML there is no other information.

I would be interested in any further information anybody can provide on this project? The scope? Timescales? Areas they are looking at?

Off the top of my head, there's a programme for ETCS in-cab signalling implementation on the London-Doncaster route. Which is to take place alongside level crossing closures and other infrastructure/OHL improvements, and the rollout of the IEP, Thameslink and Moorgate replacement fleets.

A single SET unit I believe will be equipped with two pantographs but for the purpose of redundancy? The problem would seem to be where two 5-car units are coupled; at the moment the only electric trains exceeding 100mph are the IC225s, which only ever use one pantograph.

 

[snowball]

It's also proposed, is it not, to eventually close all level crossings on the ECML, with replacement bridges for a proportion of them.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Off the top of my head, there's a programme for ETCS in-cab signalling implementation on the London-Doncaster route. Which is to take place alongside level crossing closures and other infrastructure/OHL improvements, and the rollout of the IEP, Thameslink and Moorgate replacement fleets.

A single SET unit I believe will be equipped with two pantographs but for the purpose of redundancy? The problem would seem to be where two 5-car units are coupled; at the moment the only electric trains exceeding 100mph are the IC225s, which only ever use one pantograph.

Tests have previously been conducted through the use of top and tail Class 91 locomotives with 5 Mk.4 coaches, which gives the same spacing between pantographs that will be experienced with two coupled IEP sets.

The tolerances/oscillation are acceptable for two pantographs at 125mph, but not for two pantographs at 140mph.

 

[Chris125]

A single SET unit I believe will be equipped with two pantographs but for the purpose of redundancy? The problem would seem to be where two 5-car units are coupled; at the moment the only electric trains exceeding 100mph are the IC225s, which only ever use one pantograph.

I was under the impression they'd all have two pantographs, like the 395s? When in multiple those at the outer ends are used, which would put those on a pair of 5-car IEPs even further apart than those on a pair of Javelins.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's also proposed, is it not, to eventually close all level crossings on the ECML, with replacement bridges for a proportion of them.

I think it's more than that.
The constant wire height required in the new contact wire would require the elimination of high spots (over level crossings) and low spots (under bridges),
especially where these alternate over a short distance.
One other conclusion was that the headspan masts could stay on 3/4-track sections, but with fixed booms fitted between them.
To go back to the original question, it is a report commissioned by DfT, but does not reflect an actual plan, not in CP5 anyway.
It also will take longer than a few months to implement as well.

 

[HSTEd]

So this replacement of headspans work is yet another cost that should be chalked up to the decision to operate five car sets in multiple instead of nine car ones.

I wonder how that supposed cost saving is looking now.

 

[Chris125]

So this replacement of headspans work is yet another cost that should be chalked up to the decision to operate five car sets in multiple instead of nine car ones.

I'm sure a one-off cost of upgrading the catenary would make very little difference to the decades of benefits from multiple-unit operation - if they make the wiring more reliable that would also help justify the cost.

 

[Jonny]

I'm sure a one-off cost of upgrading the catenary would make very little difference to the decades of benefits from multiple-unit operation - if they make the wiring more reliable that would also help justify the cost.

There is a lot that could be upgraded on the ECML - especially the OLE and also its supply arrangements

I mean, why put neutral sections almost adjacent to stations (e.g. Chester-le-Street), even if no electric train calls are planned?

 

[59CosG95]

Some of the portals have been set up already, such as this one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/thenorthernheights/15959289912

 

[petersi]

There also putting portal structure near the WGC neutral section
Not sure if the same looks to have new uprights as well
Being done very slowly work started before Christmas still not done

 

[mrmartin]

What journey time savings will this offer?

 

[Class 170101]

Some of the portals have been set up already, such as this one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/thenorthernheights/15959289912

Looks like they are using the existing OLE stanchions rather than new ones.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Looks like they are using the existing OLE stanchions rather than new ones.

Yes - that's the idea of the project. The GWML HOPS farce has rather focused a number of minds on what can be done without piling or drilling in the immediate vicinity of signalling cables. The idea of being able to reuse the existing masts/stanchions was appealing and has been made to work.

The Potters Bar example is a proof of concept test rather than the start of the project roll-out proper.

There was, understandably, some concern about whether the existing masts would support a lightweight portal structure. There's not a massive difference in weight and wind loading between the light weight boom and a headspan, so it should have been OK.

The engineers did the calculations and confirmed it should be OK, but BR-era engineering has a habit of throwing up some surprises at times, so it was thought best to do a trial installation and that's the Potters Bar installation.

Maintenance and inspection dictates no changes to the actual small part steelwork until roll-out, so it remains fitted with the SPS found on the ECML, but as I say, the intention is to move to Series 1 equipment, spring tensioning etc, to support the higher tension, heavier weight, larger diameter contact wire.

The headspan replacement works in lower speed critical locations may see similar small part steelwork as that fitted to the Potters Bar example if it's deemed to be the best option for the location though.