Was the Pendolino worth it?

[thenorthern]

Absolutely it's not just the extra 15 miles per hour top speeds but also it has much better acceleration meaning that end to end journey times are quicker.

Also it made train travel much more attractive as the new trains were seen as modern and stylish.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Lord Adonis doesn't think so. Apparently he wanted Blair to scrap the WCRM in 1997 and build a high-speed line from then.

I think generally, it has been worth it. The anti WCRM brigade fail to understand the infrastructure was 30 years old already by the late 1990s and a new high-speed line wouldn't mean the WCML would never need any work to it again. As much as I like to wonder what it would have been like if Intercity 250 was built, I have a feeling that, even if the track was realigned, the trains wouldn't reach 155mph anyway, so the class 93s would have been a bit of a waste.

It is a shame the Pendos couldn't get to 140 mph though-same with the 225s.

 

[a_c_skinner]

As new trains, with better acceleration, replacing worn out stuff, yes, beyond doubt. Tilt, I suspect not. The northern ECML and MML both use (I am told) higher permissible lateral forces on passengers than the WCML and the failure to develop 140 MPH and the more conservative limits on lateral forces probably make tilt a modest gain on the WCML. We've seen 8XX class vehicles ordered for the WCML already. HS2 will make all this moot but there won't be a Pendolino II even if HS2 were cancelled.

 

[corfield]

Grayrigg showed how far ahead the Pendos structure was ahead of legacy coaches.

My first proper job was working with the structural consultants on the Pendos. It was a revolution really, bringing an aircraft standards approach to railways and the result has always impressed me as a piece of engineering.

Having travelled on them they were light years better than Mk3/4s (although it wasn’t until years later I went on a Mk4) in terms of comfort, noise (I also agree on the external noise - I frequently walk near part of the WCML and the difference Pendo to anything else is really noticeable). I put that down partly to good aeros - wish I could take some of the credit but I dont think some spreadsheet tinkering really counted!

In terms of tilt, it seems that the impracticality of going to 140 on the infra does diminish the value of tilt in terms of time savings and with other improvements and 20 years of EMU development means that non-tilting has narrowed the gap.

If it wasn’t for HS2 though replacing the need for time then I bet we’d be seeing tilt on a replacement, and/or improvements to get 140+.

 

[Jozhua]

Grayrigg showed how far ahead the Pendos structure was ahead of legacy coaches.

My first proper job was working with the structural consultants on the Pendos. It was a revolution really, bringing an aircraft standards approach to railways and the result has always impressed me as a piece of engineering.

Having travelled on them they were light years better than Mk3/4s (although it wasn’t until years later I went on a Mk4) in terms of comfort, noise (I also agree on the external noise - I frequently walk near part of the WCML and the difference Pendo to anything else is really noticeable). I put that down partly to good aeros - wish I could take some of the credit but I dont think some spreadsheet tinkering really counted!

In terms of tilt, it seems that the impracticality of going to 140 on the infra does diminish the value of tilt in terms of time savings and with other improvements and 20 years of EMU development means that non-tilting has narrowed the gap.

If it wasn’t for HS2 though replacing the need for time then I bet we’d be seeing tilt on a replacement, and/or improvements to get 140+.

Oh nice! Interesting to hear from people involved with the projects.

I know my mum did some work on freight operations through the channel tunnel, mostly sending out the correct schematics to those working on the project, so pretty much standard office work but still interesting.

 

[43096]

The only two classes that are known by name to millions of Brits are Pendolinos and Pacers, for very different reasons. For a train type to become known by name to the general public for positive reasons automatically makes it successful.

I would suggest InterCity 125 is also widely known.

 

[Bevan Price]

Interesting thoughts, but I wonder how that compares with the best performance available today. Avanti ordering 80x units suggests they expect them to keep to Pendolino timings at least on the southern WCML, with the more motored axles and better power to weight ratio reducing the time penalty of each of those restrictions. The lack of tilt also gives a lower entrance height, allowing elimination of the step that unfolds before door opening on the 390 and therefore shortening dwell times. I've also read that a 110mph TPE 350 isn't far off Pendolino timings on the more curved sections further north, and would be interested to see how the 397 compares.

From the RPS records, over the "curvy" section between Oxenhome and Penrith, the fastest times for various classes are listed below (minsecs)
390.049:- 22:04
86229:- 22:29
221.117:- 22:49
85034:- 22:50
2xCl.185:- 22:53
350.407:- 22:54
90008:- 22:59

and for Oxenholme to Carlisle
390.039:- 33:22
90008:- 33:49
87009:- 33:59
2xClass 221:- 34:12
HST (2+7):- 34:42
350.410:- 35:26
---------------------------------------------------------
So only a marginal time reduction for Pendolinos compared with other traction over these sections. As others comment, Pendolinos gain most time over long sections where 125 mph running is allowed.

 

[Bald Rick]

From the RPS records, over the "curvy" section between Oxenhome and Penrith, the fastest times for various classes are listed below (minsecs)
390.049:- 22:04
86229:- 22:29
221.117:- 22:49
85034:- 22:50
2xCl.185:- 22:53
350.407:- 22:54
90008:- 22:59

and for Oxenholme to Carlisle
390.039:- 33:22
90008:- 33:49
87009:- 33:59
2xClass 221:- 34:12
HST (2+7):- 34:42
350.410:- 35:26
---------------------------------------------------------
So only a marginal time reduction for Pendolinos compared with other traction over these sections. As others comment, Pendolinos gain most time over long sections where 125 mph running is allowed.

I’m guessing that most if not all of those loco hauled trips were in the days before OTMR.

 

[Bevan Price]

I’m guessing that most if not all of those loco hauled trips were in the days before OTMR.

Mostly in the 1990s; the 85 run was in 1987.

 

[Bald Rick]

Mostly in the 1990s; the 85 run was in 1987.

Thanks.

That is useful info. On a reasonable comparable basis I suggest that the 390 vs the 350 is best, as both have OTMR, and the former has tilt. For the 32 miles from Oxenholme to Penrith, there is nowhere where the linespeed is above 110mph (normal or EPS) on the Down line. Just over 10 miles has no EPS differential. The Pendolino is 50 seconds quicker, which can only be due to tilt on the remaining 22 miles. Also counting against the Pendolino is that the 350s are much quicker accelerating at low speeds, and being only 80 metres long vs 217m can clear slower speed restrictions more quickly too. On that basis, I’d say it’s reasonable to suggest that tilt saves around a minute per 20 miles of curvy alignment, which feels about right.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Yes, they have been worth it. Quite significantly faster than a stodgy old 86 or 87 and with a much sleeker, more modern image, attracting people to use the train over flying for inter-city traffic, as reflected in the passenger figures. All for a fraction of the cost of major line upgrades. A great piece of railway engineering, the best train since the HST.

 

[CW2]

Yes, they have been worth it. Quite significantly faster than a stodgy old 86 or 87 and with a much sleeker, more modern image, attracting people to use the train over flying for inter-city traffic, as reflected in the passenger figures. All for a fraction of the cost of major line upgrades. A great piece of railway engineering, the best train since the HST.

Well, where do I start with THAT statement!
The 390 was only able to make use of its 125mph capability as a result of the West Coast Route Modernisation, which was such a cripplingly expensive project that it brought about the downfall of Railtrack. Without the WCRM, Pendos would have delivered very little other than providing a more modern passenger environment. The more frequent and faster services would not have happened without the WCRM. So delivering Pendolinos on the West Coast was horrendously expensive.

 

[e30ftw]

As has been eluded to by other members, the conversation needs to be more defined. The roling stock and the route need to be two seperate conversations.

West cost route Modernasation allowed virgin to run the service that they do/did. Not just the rolling stock.

BR were more than capable of Modernasing the WCML including building or specifiying the trains to run on it. Could they have got 140Mph running on some sections? maybe. However privitisation happened.

Railtrack were a disaster more intrested in the vast amount of land and property they had inherited and less intrested in maintaing a safe railway.

Can some one post the time differentails between Pendos and Ex BR stock over the same section of route after west coast route mod, stopping at the same stations?

Then with the time saved, could it be said X amount of millions for the pendo fleet saved Y amount of time over Ex BR stock.

With this info, how much would BR have asked the government for, to replicate or better these timings?? (if BR had not been privaitised) Probably an unaswerable question.

Unless a user could find detailed info on the class 93/ Intercity 250 proposal

Even if BR had the funding to do it, would they have had the same budget for PR/advertising as branson? or would they but a few hung over press reporters on it a la APT

 

[Uncle Buck]

Well, where do I start with THAT statement!
The 390 was only able to make use of its 125mph capability as a result of the West Coast Route Modernisation, which was such a cripplingly expensive project that it brought about the downfall of Railtrack. Without the WCRM, Pendos would have delivered very little other than providing a more modern passenger environment. The more frequent and faster services would not have happened without the WCRM. So delivering Pendolinos on the West Coast was horrendously expensive.

Right well I certainly stand corrected! Apologies for my ignorance!

 

[Hadders]

Doing nothing on the West Coast Mainline at the time wasn't an option, much of the equipment was becoming life expired and would have needed replacing anyway.

The aftermath of Hatfield had more to do with the demise of Railtrack than the West Coast Route Modernisation.

 

[CW2]

Doing nothing on the West Coast Mainline at the time wasn't an option, much of the equipment was becoming life expired and would have needed replacing anyway.

The aftermath of Hatfield had more to do with the demise of Railtrack than the West Coast Route Modernisation.

Up to a point.
Railtrack's unique skill lay in agreeing to deliver the impossible and signing up for punitive penalty clauses if it failed to deliver. Whilst Hatfield was the immediate trigger of Railtrack's demise, the mountain of liabilities it had built up by signing the "deal of death" with Virgin was what sank it ultimately.

There is a world of difference between the like-for-like replacement of equipment to keep the railway running and the massive upgrade which actually took place on the WCML.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is a world of difference between the like-for-like replacement of equipment to keep the railway running and the massive upgrade which actually took place on the WCML.

Having been involved in it, in detail, that’s not a correct statement. The WCML was knackered. All the signalling needed replacing. Most of the junctions needed replacing. Much of the OLE system needed replacing. It would have cost about 70% of what WCRM programme cost to do that, and we’d have been stuck with the same railway wi5 the same outputs - hourly to Manchester, half hourly Birmingham, every two hours to Scotland, occasional North Wales, etc., all st the old journey times. Of the remainder, some was infrastrucutre specifically required for the Pendolinos (TASS, gauge clearance, Bridge strengthening), some was freight gauge clearance, and most of the rest was for the extra capacity specified, some of which was extra freight.

 

[Statto]

Having been involved in it, in detail, that’s not a correct statement. The WCML was knackered. All the signalling needed replacing. Most of the junctions needed replacing. Much of the OLE system needed replacing. It would have cost about 70% of what WCRM programme cost to do that, and we’d have been stuck with the same railway wi5 the same outputs - hourly to Manchester, half hourly Birmingham, every two hours to Scotland, occasional North Wales, etc., all st the old journey times. Of the remainder, some was infrastrucutre specifically required for the Pendolinos (TASS, gauge clearance, Bridge strengthening), some was freight gauge clearance, and most of the rest was for the extra capacity specified, some of which was extra freight.

Good point the WCML was badly in need of upgrading anyway, as the last time it was modernised was when it was electrified in the 60s & 70s, all the infrastructure was knackered, they were only papering over the cracks, train times were slow compared to other main lines, London to Glasgow via the WCML took 5 to 6 hours

 

[edwin_m]

Grayrigg showed how far ahead the Pendos structure was ahead of legacy coaches.

My first proper job was working with the structural consultants on the Pendos. It was a revolution really, bringing an aircraft standards approach to railways and the result has always impressed me as a piece of engineering.

Please see Bushey and Colwich etc as examples of derailments to Mk3s that were equally survivable. You really shouldn't be drawing that sort of sweeping conclusion from a single accident.

I sincerely hope the Pendolino isn't build to aircraft structural standards...

 

[The Planner]

From the RPS records, over the "curvy" section between Oxenhome and Penrith, the fastest times for various classes are listed below (minsecs)
390.049:- 22:04
86229:- 22:29
221.117:- 22:49
85034:- 22:50
2xCl.185:- 22:53
350.407:- 22:54
90008:- 22:59

and for Oxenholme to Carlisle
390.039:- 33:22
90008:- 33:49
87009:- 33:59
2xClass 221:- 34:12
HST (2+7):- 34:42
350.410:- 35:26
---------------------------------------------------------
So only a marginal time reduction for Pendolinos compared with other traction over these sections. As others comment, Pendolinos gain most time over long sections where 125 mph running is allowed.

Not sure that is a good comparison, records tend to be one offs, give me an average time based on a large sample and it would mean more. It isn't as though a timetable can be based off record runs.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Good point the WCML was badly in need of upgrading anyway, as the last time it was modernised was when it was electrified in the 60s & 70s, all the infrastructure was knackered, they were only papering over the cracks, train times were slow compared to other main lines, London to Glasgow via the WCML took 5 to 6 hours

It's now about 15 years since the major WCRM renewal and upgrade works on the WCML.
That's just about the time interval that it took for the original WCML electrification (London-Birmingham-Manchester-Liverpool) to become troublesome, and it got steadily worse over the next 20 years before WCRM was authorised.
BR did not keep up with the obsolescence of the kit installed, some of it pre-1960 and designed originally for 90mph running.
It's to be hoped that the maintenance regime under NR has kept the present infrastructure in good shape, despite the hammering it gets at higher speeds and frequency.
We don't want to have another WCRM in the 2030s.
Both WCML projects (original electrification and WCRM) also starved other parts of the railway of investment, as they consumed all the cash and priority for a decade each.

WCRM was split into three incremental projects, core, PUG1 and PUG2.
Core was the bulk of the work and would have been needed whatever solution/franchisee was chosen (110mph).
PUG1 was the 125mph tilt upgrade we ended up with, PUG2 was 140mph south of Crewe which was canned.
Only the PUG1 upgrade was really attributable to the eventual Pendolino project.
However, I'm not sure RT/NR ever really planned the work in these phases.
I suspect much of the route is fit for 140mph (track/OHLE) but stymied by the cab signalling issue over 125mph.

 

[ic31420]

I suppose we could not reframe this question..

How different would the 390 look and perform if they was 125mph tilt machines? On presumes for the same installed power they'd be a bit quicker on acceleration.

What would the cost difference be 125 Vs 140.

Then there is the question of tilt, whilst nodoubt it makes things more comfortable is it worth the considerable extra cost and complexity but in terms of infrastructure and trains and reduction in body width.

I suppose given that aventi have gone for new build non tilt they're not convinced. Would be interesting to see how a 397 would fare Vs a 390.

I'm not convinced on all this spending millions to save a 10mins on a couple of hundred miles of journey. My point being that most journeys don't start at the mainline station and there is lower hanging fruit on the way to mainline station.

Last November I travelled from my home to York. Nothing particularly eventful happened in the way from home to Victoria but it took 90mins to travel the 13 miles to Victoria. Via car and metrolink thats 10 more than the journey Man to York.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm not convinced on all this spending millions to save a 10mins on a couple of hundred miles of journey. My point being that most journeys don't start at the mainline station and there is lower hanging fruit on the way to mainline station.

Upgrading the main line benefits all journeys. Upgrading station access in Manchester just benefits some users of Victoria.

 

[Bald Rick]

WCRM was split into three incremental projects, core, PUG1 and PUG2.
Core was the bulk of the work and would have been needed whatever solution/franchisee was chosen (110mph).
PUG1 was the 125mph tilt upgrade we ended up with, PUG2 was 140mph south of Crewe which was canned.
Only the PUG1 upgrade was really attributable to the eventual Pendolino project.
However, I'm not sure RT/NR ever really planned the work in these phases.
I suspect much of the route is fit for 140mph (track/OHLE) but stymied by the cab signalling issue over 125mph.

The principles of PUG1 and PUG2 were abandoned in about 2000/1; they were effectively financial constructs. The extra scope in each was added to relevant projects. For example the PUG 1 scope for track was to bring forward about 2 years worth of track renewals; for power supplies it was to increase the size of the Transformers in the feeder stations. The PUG2 ‘scope’ for Euston was to not abandon platforms 16-18 during the remodelling.

The OLE isn’t fit for 140mph, and whilst the plain line parts of the track probably are from a componentry point of view, the alignment may not be and none of the junctions are.

 

[corfield]

Please see Bushey and Colwich etc as examples of derailments to Mk3s that were equally survivable. You really shouldn't be drawing that sort of sweeping conclusion from a single accident.

I sincerely hope the Pendolino isn't build to aircraft structural standards...

That isn’t the engineering view!

What on earth? because it would have wings and engines, or are engineering standards perhaps a bit more complex than that...

 

[Merle Haggard]

Just a couple of observations.
Benefits of tilting: avoids coffee cups sliding across the table.
Drawbacks: reduces internal width, compromising comfort; can cause nausea in some passengers, putting them off train travel.
What else can be added to the list?

And the suggestion that aircraft design practice is somehow superior to that of rail is not borne out, as far as safety goes, by recent events...

 

[Energy]

I suppose given that aventi have gone for new build non tilt they're not convinced. Would be interesting to see how a 397 would fare Vs a 390.

Avanti have gone for non tilt because they believe that high acceleration will make up for the lack of tilt. The routes they are putting them on have frequent enough stops that high acceleration to get to a high speed quickly is more important than being able to stay at the high speed for a long time. The Pendolinos are staying for the longer routes which have less stops so for them being able to stay at high speed for a long time is more important, which the Pendolinos do well with their tilt.

It is also worth remembering that back when the Pendolinos were ordered the high acceleration available on trains like the 805/7 (Avanti's Hitachi trains) was not available.

 

[gsnedders]

Having been involved in it, in detail, that’s not a correct statement. The WCML was knackered. All the signalling needed replacing. Most of the junctions needed replacing. Much of the OLE system needed replacing. It would have cost about 70% of what WCRM programme cost to do that, and we’d have been stuck with the same railway wi5 the same outputs - hourly to Manchester, half hourly Birmingham, every two hours to Scotland, occasional North Wales, etc., all st the old journey times. Of the remainder, some was infrastrucutre specifically required for the Pendolinos (TASS, gauge clearance, Bridge strengthening), some was freight gauge clearance, and most of the rest was for the extra capacity specified, some of which was extra freight.

How much of the WCRM cost can be attributed to the original much larger scope? (i.e., if the original work scope was what ultimately got delivered, how much would we have saved?) If the Pendolinos were specified for 125mph running, what would that have changed?

 

[nlogax]

The OLE isn’t fit for 140mph, and whilst the plain line parts of the track probably are from a componentry point of view, the alignment may not be and none of the junctions are.

This is intriguing and good to know. Do you know if there were any plans for OHE enhancements when Virgin originally announced their intention to get to 135mph within the scope of the existing signalling way back in 2007?

 

[corfield]

Just a couple of observations.
Benefits of tilting: avoids coffee cups sliding across the table.
Drawbacks: reduces internal width, compromising comfort; can cause nausea in some passengers, putting them off train travel.
What else can be added to the list?

And the suggestion that aircraft design practice is somehow superior to that of rail is not borne out, as far as safety goes, by recent events...

Another engineer? Yes of course, we apply the exact same skin thicknesses, materials and so on. A Pendo is literally just a plane without wings...

Or is it the boring stuff about methodology, process, standards, certification and so on.

What the hell, I can see why professionals get fed up here with the ignorant.