Pendolino testing - ECML

[DaveNewcastle]

Re ECML, let us assume that in-cab signalling isn't going to happen anytime soon (apparently a pre-requisite for 140mph operation). How can we make services quicker (at 125mph)?

Oh! I've got a suggestion!

Its got nothing to do with shiny new trains, juggling the formation of existing stock nor any other exciting new developement.

How about fixing the track and getting rid of some of those (cough) 'Temporary' Speed Restrictions?

 

[GNER 91128]

IF pendos did come to the ECML would they be cleared to tilt on the bends or would the track have to be changed? If they could and combined with good acceleration what improvements of any could we expect to journey times?

Also liking the idea of top and tailing 91, would be great to see!

Of course it would be nice to see both trains running at 140mph on the ECML, but that ain't ever gonna happen!

 

[AlanFry1]

IF pendos did come to the ECML would they be cleared to tilt on the bends or would the track have to be changed? If they could and combined with good acceleration what improvements of any could we expect to journey times?

Also liking the idea of top and tailing 91, would be great to see!

I think there will be some inprovement, espcially if they can travel at 140 mph

 

[OxtedL]

Monday 12 February
...

Tuesday 13 February

March?

 

[The Planner]

Nothing will happen if they start running on the ECML, they will run at 125mph and that is your lot. Id bet they just get timed as 91s so they can slot into any path and if they can save time they'll sit at stations.

 

[box_time]

IF pendos did come to the ECML would they be cleared to tilt on the bends or would the track have to be changed? If they could and combined with good acceleration what improvements of any could we expect to journey times?

Also liking the idea of top and tailing 91, would be great to see!

Of course it would be nice to see both trains running at 140mph on the ECML, but that ain't ever gonna happen!

There won't be any 140 mph running until ERTMS is introduced on the ECML (circa 2018).

Does anyone know who has commissioned next week's Pendolino test runs? I have heard that it's East Coast. If that's the case, are DafT behind it? Does this blow IEP out of the water? Hitachi must be spitting blood.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The ECML Pendolino testing schedule says 125mph.
Does this mean the 390 will be able to operate above 110mph without TASS (as the ECML is not fitted with TASS)? I'm assuming tilt will be isolated.
If so, it must be the first time this mode has been used.

I imagine this is an Alstom/Angel Trains/NR test to evaluate any clearance problems on the ECML for future operation, and nothing to do with VT or EC.
It would be important for Alstom to put any problems to bed before the next EC franchise round, to aid the new bids next year.

 

[ainsworth74]

IF pendos did come to the ECML would they be cleared to tilt on the bends or would the track have to be changed? If they could and combined with good acceleration what improvements of any could we expect to journey times?

You would need to fit TASS on any areas of the ECML where you wanted them to tilt so that's an extra infrastructure expense for probably not all that much benefit other than north of Newcastle.

I think there will be some inprovement, espcially if they can travel at 140 mph

You would need to re-signal the entire ECML with in-cab signalling in order for that to happen which would be a very complex and expensive project. Now admittedly it's in the pipeline but not for 10-20 years yet. You also have issues of pathing if some trains are running at 140mph you then struggle to fit in all the freight and local/commuter traffic around those paths.

 

[ryan125hst]

Do you mean Intercity 225 tran without Mark 4 DVT's and insted 2 x Class 91 and up to 16 x Mark 4?

If 225's didn't have DVT's, they would have to modify one Mark 4 coach per set to include a luggage van and Train Manager's accommodation- A bit like the HST's. I like the idea of 16 Mark 4's though.

Speaking about lengthening them, would it be possible to increase the length of the 225's to 11 coaches (loosing about 3 sets in the process), and replacing these sets (and maybe adding additional sets) with pendolino's? Could the 91's cope with 11 coaches and how many platforms are long enough?

Maybe the pendolino's could be used for services to Edinburgh to Glasgow with few stops. I suppose if they had the money to invest, they could then install TASS to enable them to run up to 125mph when the regular line speed is lower (I know it will probably never happen, it's just a thought).

Would there be a way around the in cab signalling problem for running at over 125mph? I was reading a document about current and possible future speeds on the ECML that I found a link to on here a few days ago, and it suggested 155mph running was possible between Doncaster and York, and just north of York. The only problem is, ERTMS isn't going to be here for a long time! It would get the 225's (and pendolino's) to run at 140mph though.

 

[IanXC]

Maybe the pendolino's could be used for services to Edinburgh to Glasgow with few stops. I suppose if they had the money to invest, they could then install TASS to enable them to run up to 125mph when the regular line speed is lower (I know it will probably never happen, it's just a thought).

I would have thought Pendolinos would be better used on the stopping services due to their distributed traction advantages.

 

[Eagle]

I always use East Coast or sleeper to Scotland to avoid the cramped, claustrophic, naueseating planes on rails that Branson introduced to our railways.

I take it you're being ironic as I don't think anyone could seriously be gulled by that urban myth :P

Pendolinos have always been that narrow, and have always had windows like that, since they were first designed in the early 1980s.

Also what would Beardo be doing anywhere near train design he's far too high up/unskilled in that matter...

 

[LE Greys]

If 225's didn't have DVT's, they would have to modify one Mark 4 coach per set to include a luggage van and Train Manager's accommodation- A bit like the HST's. I like the idea of 16 Mark 4's though.

Speaking about lengthening them, would it be possible to increase the length of the 225's to 11 coaches (loosing about 3 sets in the process), and replacing these sets (and maybe adding additional sets) with pendolino's? Could the 91's cope with 11 coaches and how many platforms are long enough?

Maybe the pendolino's could be used for services to Edinburgh to Glasgow with few stops. I suppose if they had the money to invest, they could then install TASS to enable them to run up to 125mph when the regular line speed is lower (I know it will probably never happen, it's just a thought).

Would there be a way around the in cab signalling problem for running at over 125mph? I was reading a document about current and possible future speeds on the ECML that I found a link to on here a few days ago, and it suggested 155mph running was possible between Doncaster and York, and just north of York. The only problem is, ERTMS isn't going to be here for a long time! It would get the 225's (and pendolino's) to run at 140mph though.

11+DVT would probably be impossible, owing to platform space at King's Cross. 10+DVT is possible (indeed, InterCity planned for it, that's why there are gaps in the coach numbering) and 91s were designed for 12+DVT, in case they ever needed to move that much. I've sometimes wondered about breaking up two sets and replacing them with MkIIIs (if there are any available - probably not). When the NOL Eurostars were on the White Rose, they had the rear door isolated at most stations, but still just fitted into most platforms including King's Cross and Leeds.

As for TASS, I think the clearances on the ECML are better, so I've sometimes wondered why they Voyagers simply switch tilt on at York and leave it (like the APT-E). It would be most useful between Darlington and Dunbar, although Hatfield and Offord might be fun as well.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . . It would be most useful between Darlington and Dunbar, although Hatfield and Offord might be fun as well.

Ha Ha!
Rolling from side to side through the Offord curves would just be plain silly!
But I agree that it could add a little to comfort round Hatfield, the bends at Askam/Retford and both curves round Ayton. But not really worth the bother, though, in my opinion

 

[LE Greys]

Ha Ha!
Rolling from side to side through the Offord curves would just be plain silly!
But I agree that it could add a little to comfort round Hatfield, the bends at Askam/Retford and both curves round Ayton. But not really worth the bother, though, in my opinion

You're probably right. The main point at Hatfield would be to get speeds up to 125 between WGC and the Barnet tunnels, although I'm not sure if that would save more than 30 seconds.

Also, is "reverse tilt" a possibility for going round curves slowly/stopping, since it would level the floor off by dialling out cant?

 

[ainsworth74]

Would there be a way around the in cab signalling problem for running at over 125mph? I was reading a document about current and possible future speeds on the ECML that I found a link to on here a few days ago, and it suggested 155mph running was possible between Doncaster and York, and just north of York. The only problem is, ERTMS isn't going to be here for a long time! It would get the 225's (and pendolino's) to run at 140mph though.

BR had a go at it in the 1980s when the IC225s first arrived by using a fifth aspect that was flashing green to indicate that they were allowed to exceed 125mph but the test wasn't considered successful (drivers struggled in all but the best conditions to sight the signals in a safe manner). I don't think it's likely that we'll get more than 125mph without in-cab signalling. Also remember that we already have probably some of longest stretches of 100mph+ running in Europe without any form of in-cab signalling beyond AWS, most places that go faster than 100mph will have in-cab signalling.

Also as mentioned above 140mph running will eat paths for local, commuter and freight services on the ECML, which in many ways is probably the main stumbling block to this idea after the infrastructure costs.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

You're probably right. The main point at Hatfield would be to get speeds up to 125 between WGC and the Barnet tunnels,

possibly, but there's no 125 running south of Knebworth anyway, so for 5 or 7 miles between Potters Bar tunnel & WGC the gain is indeed questionable.

Also, is "reverse tilt" a possibility for going round curves slowly/stopping, since it would level the floor off by dialling out cant?

That's a quastion for one of the technical people. It could be appropriate at, say, Retford which is still on a curve with many non-stoppers plus few stopping trains.
But at the risk of repeating a recurring winge, all this is fantasy until such time as NR get out there and do some serious remedial work. Then we might see the removal of some of these Speed Restrictions.

 

[Eagle]

That's a quastion for one of the technical people. It could be appropriate at, say, Retford which is still on a curve with many non-stoppers plus few stopping trains.

It would also be useful at Oxenholme. Most times I've been there on a tilting train the train has stopped at full tilt. With the sudden lack of centripetal force making everything slide off the table.

 

[western Champion]

TASS / TILT will be isolated.

The ECML has a lot of 125 PS speeds, the WCML only has 125 at EPS speeds.

 

[AlanFry1]

If 225's didn't have DVT's, they would have to modify one Mark 4 coach per set to include a luggage van and Train Manager's accommodation- A bit like the HST's. I like the idea of 16 Mark 4's though.

Speaking about lengthening them, would it be possible to increase the length of the 225's to 11 coaches (loosing about 3 sets in the process), and replacing these sets (and maybe adding additional sets) with pendolino's? Could the 91's cope with 11 coaches and how many platforms are long enough?

Maybe the pendolino's could be used for services to Edinburgh to Glasgow with few stops. I suppose if they had the money to invest, they could then install TASS to enable them to run up to 125mph when the regular line speed is lower (I know it will probably never happen, it's just a thought).

Would there be a way around the in cab signalling problem for running at over 125mph? I was reading a document about current and possible future speeds on the ECML that I found a link to on here a few days ago, and it suggested 155mph running was possible between Doncaster and York, and just north of York. The only problem is, ERTMS isn't going to be here for a long time! It would get the 225's (and pendolino's) to run at 140mph though.

Well I think the platforms can be extended to cope with 2 x Class 91 + 16 x Mark 4 sets, of that was the case then EC would have to order another about 50 16 car Class 390 to compensate for the halving of the Intercity 225 fleet and removal of the Intercity 125 fleet

 

[ryan125hst]

As for TASS, I think the clearances on the ECML are better, so I've sometimes wondered why they Voyagers simply switch tilt on at York and leave it (like the APT-E). It would be most useful between Darlington and Dunbar, although Hatfield and Offord might be fun as well.

It sounds like a good idea but, unfortunately, the tilt equipment has been removed from the Cross Country Voyagers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_221

 

[LE Greys]

It sounds like a good idea but, unfortunately, the tilt equipment has been removed from the Cross Country Voyagers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_221

Yes I know! I just wondered why the APT-E coped fine on that stretch while the similarly-sized 221s needed TASS.

 

[ryan125hst]

Yes I know! I just wondered why the APT-E coped fine on that stretch while the similarly-sized 221s needed TASS.

I bet it's all because of heath and safety!

 

[LE Greys]

Those paths will come from quad-tracking some of all of the ECML

Also I got my figures wrong, we need 30 (not 50) 16 car Class 390 trains

The platforms only need to be as long as Eurostar ones, this will only be done if there's is enough demand for 16 car trains

The NOL sets were 2+14 rather than 2+18, and they could only use two platforms, even then the leading power cars projected beyond the signal by a yard or two. The only way you could get something this long into King's Cross would be to start it as two portions and couple up just before departure. That was OK on the Anglo-Scottish Car Carrier, but on the modern railway it would be far too inefficient to work.

 

[LE Greys]

And where that can't be done or to do so would be both incredibly expensive and complex (such as Welwyn Viaduct)? All this expense just to achieve 140mph seems unnecessary to me especially considering that all the fast long distance services will be on HS2 from the early 2030s.

Please don't remind me! Perhaps he wants to give us poor easterners something back after we lose all our trains to Scotland.

 

[AlanFry1]

God what's happened to this thread

We don't need any 16 coach trains and it ain't going to happen as it's nigh on impossible for the ECML. I can't believe a thread originally about a pendolino going up and down the east coast on a test run has run away onto joining MK4 rakes together with double 91s and a supposed 100+ plus east coast train fleet plucked out of nowhere.

Someone said about joining class 91 sets together thus making those trains longer, also is there a big rise in demand on the ECML

 

[ainsworth74]

also is there a big rise in demand on the ECML

Not enough to justify sixteen coach trains!!! I was thinking about this, you could have six coaches of first class (which would be enough to give every passenger their own coach on some trains and would also manage to be quiet on even the busiest services for first class) and still have ten standard class coaches or about double the existing capacity provided on a IC225. There is overcrowding on some EC services yes but it doesn't need combating by adding seven coaches onto the trains! Maybe one or two (you know like an 11 coach EMU for example which would also fit onto the existing infrastructure) but not a sixteen coach train (which would require such extensive modifications to the infrastructure as to make it neigh on impossible)!!

 

[jon0844]

I think before you'd need to add that many coaches, you'd have resignalled the line and allowed trains to run closer together, increasing paths and offering more frequent trains than one train that tries to accommodate every passenger wanting to travel that day.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It's far enough. I've walked it before, but I'd hate to have to do it with a load of luggage. Perhaps a moving walkway between EUS and STP/KGX would also work.

Isn't part of the HS2 plan to create a single complex with Euston / KXStP in exactly this manner anyway?

 

[Eagle]

Isn't part of the HS2 plan to create a single complex with Euston / KXStP in exactly this manner anyway?

I've seen proposals for Crossrail 2 (or Chelney line) that have a station called Euston–St Pancras, in the same way as Crossrail has a Liverpool Street–Moorgate station.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Which would you rather - severe facial bruising and possible skull fractures, whiplash and upper spinal cord damage, or possible massive internal injuries to your digestive system and other organs in your torso/abdomen? I'd say "neither", and I'd rather not choose, but it seems that the designer must make that choice for us.

I would also say neither, but assuming it does happen then wouldn't the abdomen injuries at least be fixable or able to be worked round by the medics whereas the head impact has a high chance of leading to "vegetablisation" ( if it was survivable in the first place )?