Was the Pendolino worth it?

[LNW-GW Joint]

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?

As I understand it, the fast lines were specifically rewired for higher speed and tilt during WCRM.
When the original plan was 140mph (south of Crewe) it's intriguing that the output is not fit for that.
It suggests the spec was reduced at some point (maybe to get down to the £8 billion outturn cost of WCRM).
TV4 (Tamworth-Armitage) was completely rebuilt on a 4-track layout of course, so it would be surprising if that was not fit for 140mph.

 

[edwin_m]

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...

Not understood. You've quoted one accident where the Pendolino survived relatively well (though not well enough to prevent it being scrapped) and I've quoted two where Mk3 stock did just as well. If you insist on using a single accident as evidence for structural superiority then two accidents says it's not so.

For very good reasons aircraft structural standards don't make any allowance for the risk of hitting another aircraft, or of hitting anything else other than a landing that's somewhat beyond normal limits. Rail standards specifically cover these cases. An aircraft built to railway structural standards would never get off the ground, and a train build to aircraft standards would have been totally wrecked in a Grayrigg-like accident.

 

[43096]

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.

In what way was such high acceleration “not available” back then? Pendolino uses distributed power with IGBT driven AC motors, the same as an 805/7.

 

[6Gman]

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.

Surely they largely replaced 90s rather than 86/87s ?

 

[Domh245]

Surely they largely replaced 90s rather than 86/87s ?

VT inherited 15 90s, compared to 13 86s (for WC) and 31 87s

 

[hexagon789]

Surely they largely replaced 90s rather than 86/87s ?

They kept the 87s the longest.

 

[Bald Rick]

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?

Sorry I don’t really understand that question. The original workscipe was a renewal (the core investment programme, CIP). It was then added to by PUG1, subsequently further added to with PUG2. What was actually built was *significantly more* scope than all of that combined, but without the 140mph capability. Some bits of scope were designed more than once, and there’s some parts that were delivered more than once (Ledburn Junction, I’m looking at you).

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?

I don’t know, but it was of course a Virgin announcement, and not a Network Rail annoucement.

As I understand it, the fast lines were specifically rewired for higher speed and tilt during WCRM.
When the original plan was 140mph (south of Crewe) it's intriguing that the output is not fit for that.
It suggests the spec was reduced at some point (maybe to get down to the £8 billion outturn cost of WCRM).
TV4 (Tamworth-Armitage) was completely rebuilt on a 4-track layout of course, so it would be surprising if that was not fit for 140mph.

As I said earlier, 140mph was abandoned in about 2000, which was before any significant OLE work was done south of Crewe. I’m no OLE expert so can’t say what the change in scope was, but I don’t think it was that much; principally tensioning, which in turn meant extra structures in a few places.

The TV4 scope was settled in 2003, whether it included provision for 140mph OLE I don’t know. The signalling certainly isn’t, and neither is any of the pointwork.

Surely they largely replaced 90s rather than 86/87s ?

All of the above! The W Mids services were almost exclusively 86s.

 

[tiptoptaff]

In what way was such high acceleration “not available” back then? Pendolino uses distributed power with IGBT driven AC motors, the same as an 805/7.

The 800s accelerate almost about 1.5x as fast as a 390. There's been 20years of development, it's probably fair to say that the technology on the 800s probably wouldn't have been available to Alstom with the 390s.

They would of course have performed better if geared for 125 and without the extra weight of tilt, but the 800s would more than likely still have better performance

 

[hexagon789]

The 800s accelerate almost about 1.5x as fast as a 390. There's been 20years of development, it's probably fair to say that the technology on the 800s probably wouldn't have been available to Alstom with the 390s.

They would of course have performed better if geared for 125 and without the extra weight of tilt, but the 800s would more than likely still have better performance

Really? A full electric 801 does 0-125 in about 4.25 mins and is lighter than an 800.

A Pendolino to the best if my knowledge can do 0-125 in less than 3 mins iirc.

(That of course assumes the figures I have are correct so apologies in advance if they aren't.)

 

[Domh245]

The 800s accelerate almost about 1.5x as fast as a 390. There's been 20years of development, it's probably fair to say that the technology on the 800s probably wouldn't have been available to Alstom with the 390s.

There is underground stock from the 40s that has peak acceleration higher than either. Acceleration isn't really dependant on technological development directly, it's a function of weight and power at the rail. There may have been slight improvements in IGBTs and AC motors that allowed Hitachi to get slightly more efficient motors, but the bulk of any performance difference will come down to the design choices of "how many motors do we want on the train" and "how heavy is the train"

 

[Bald Rick]

There is underground stock from the 40s that has peak acceleration higher than either.

Not all the way to 125mph, I’ll wager!

 

[Domh245]

Not all the way to 125mph, I’ll wager!

It'd have made the circle line feel a bit shorter if it did!

 

[gsnedders]

Sorry I don’t really understand that question. The original workscipe was a renewal (the core investment programme, CIP). It was then added to by PUG1, subsequently further added to with PUG2. What was actually built was *significantly more* scope than all of that combined, but without the 140mph capability. Some bits of scope were designed more than once, and there’s some parts that were delivered more than once (Ledburn Junction, I’m looking at you).

I guess I'm largely thinking the design work for 140mph capability, with ETCS L3, etc. As far as I'm aware from the NAO report, dropping ETCS L3 significantly increased costs (presumably in part down to lineside equipment), and then we had the removal of ETCS L2 from scope (along with 140mph capability) which is what started to get the costs back under control. The NAO report says £250M had been spent on ETCS, which is admittedly only about 3% of the overall cost in the end, but I don't know how much was spent elsewhere on things later dropped.

 

[mmh]

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

This is often claimed but it's not true that the current timetable has frequent stops. Liverpool services have no stops south of Stafford, Chester services have one.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The 800s accelerate almost about 1.5x as fast as a 390. There's been 20years of development, it's probably fair to say that the technology on the 800s probably wouldn't have been available to Alstom with the 390s.
They would of course have performed better if geared for 125 and without the extra weight of tilt, but the 800s would more than likely still have better performance

There are New Pendolino versions which have more modern traction packages and don't tilt, of course, which are likely to match AT300s or better.
Those used by NTV/Italo in Italy for instance.
Our 390s were designed more than 20 years ago.

 

[Bald Rick]

I guess I'm largely thinking the design work for 140mph capability, with ETCS L3, etc. As far as I'm aware from the NAO report, dropping ETCS L3 significantly increased costs (presumably in part down to lineside equipment), and then we had the removal of ETCS L2 from scope (along with 140mph capability) which is what started to get the costs back under control. The NAO report says £250M had been spent on ETCS, which is admittedly only about 3% of the overall cost in the end, but I don't know how much was spent elsewhere on things later dropped.

Ah, I see. In the early WCRM days there was no ‘E’ in TCS. Much of the money spent on that was effectively R&D, setting specifications, standards, risk assessments, building the demonstrators etc. This helped to do two things, firstly provide the input to setting the first baseline technical spec for ETCS, and secondly develop the GB specific standards for future ETCS roll out. This later helped the Cambrian project significantly. It’s a brave man that disputes the NAO, but I’m not sure £250m was spent just on (E)TCS, that may well include other things such as the Network Management Centre.

 

[Eloise]

This is often claimed but it's not true that the current timetable has frequent stops. Liverpool services have no stops south of Stafford, Chester services have one.

Two? Crewe and Milton Keynes Central

Ah, you mean south of Stafford. Misread it!

 

[delt1c]

To Decide whether the Pendolinos were worth it you have to look at the costs versus the returns and profitit generated. The fact that units were increased in size may answer the question. As with others I am not a fan espicialy in standard of the claustrophobic seating but this does not seem a problem with the general travelling public

 

[tbtc]

How time flies... feels like only a year or two ago that people kept saying that the DfT should have ordered 390s for the ECML/GWML (as they were much cheaper than 800/801s) - now that the 800/801s are in operation (and people can see how good they are), the 390s seem old hat.

But such is progress - the 390s were good at their time, modern stock evolves. The one issue I have with 390s is that it's hard to find a future for "bespoke" stock once it is no longer suitable for the flagship route it was ordered for (e.g. the various suggestions to find a future for 185s) - not many other routes where you'll be able to cascade 125mph tilting electric stock if/when HS2 replaces some of the current 390 operated services out of Euston. But that's a minor quibble.

Very crudely, it's 3 seconds per mile benefit for 125 vs 110.

From Euston to Crewe, that's about 7.5 minutes difference or so attribitable to 125 running. So about 15 minutes on a typical Euston-North West round trip. On a Manchester circuit, that pretty much saves a diagram on a 20 minute interval service.

The remainder of the journey time benefit comes by:
-Taking out low speed areas, such as the previous 75mph through Rugby
-Timetabling of genuinely fast trains with few stops more consistently
-Removal of pathing time associated with previous bottlenecks such as Rugby and Nuneaton
-Probably some genuinely slicker timetabling of areas like the Coventry corridor to get more out of very little.

Cheers for giving context to it all!

 

[gsnedders]

But such is progress - the 390s were good at their time, modern stock evolves. The one issue I have with 390s is that it's hard to find a future for "bespoke" stock once it is no longer suitable for the flagship route it was ordered for (e.g. the various suggestions to find a future for 185s) - not many other routes where you'll be able to cascade 125mph tilting electric stock if/when HS2 replaces some of the current 390 operated services out of Euston. But that's a minor quibble.

While they're somewhat heavy compared with other stock with correspondingly slower acceleration, they aren't that much worse than much modern stock. I could well imagine them ending up living on with any intercity operator (an open access one?) with the tilt actuators replaced with fixed tie-bars. The problem of course then is the limited use for 125mph stock in general…

 

[Bald Rick]

But such is progress - the 390s were good at their time, modern stock evolves. The one issue I have with 390s is that it's hard to find a future for "bespoke" stock once it is no longer suitable for the flagship route it was ordered for (e.g. the various suggestions to find a future for 185s) - not many other routes where you'll be able to cascade 125mph tilting electric stock if/when HS2 replaces some of the current 390 operated services out of Euston. But that's a minor quibble.

They’d be perfect for the MML, if that was wired of course. Would shave a few minutes off south of Trent for not much effort.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How time flies... feels like only a year or two ago that people kept saying that the DfT should have ordered 390s for the ECML/GWML (as they were much cheaper than 800/801s) - now that the 800/801s are in operation (and people can see how good they are), the 390s seem old hat.

Alstom's proposal for the ECML (I don't think it was ever contemplated for the GWML because of the diesel sections) would not have been 390s.
It would probably have been a UK version of the New Pendolino still being delivered in Europe, or even a TGV derivative.
The 390 tests on the ECML were largely to prove compatibility of the design with the infrastructure.

 

[Trainician]

Class 390s were worth it, it is like the real APT and non tilt trains on the WCML may be even running 110 mph speed limits.

 

[Trainician]

They’d be perfect for the MML, if that was wired of course. Would shave a few minutes off south of Trent for not much effort.

Why? The MML isn't in a need for class 390s
If the MML had electric only trains they will be most likely to be class 801s

 

[Bletchleyite]

With regard to 140mph, I'm not sure we haven't turned out better without it. The proposal was for a railway that was basically 2 separate pairs of tracks from Euston north - a 140mph pair for fast Pendolinos only, and a 100mph pair for local (what would now be LNR) trains. While I believe Silverlink were considering ordering a couple of Pendolinos to provide peak Northampton fasts, it would still have resulted in a considerably reduced local service and capacity.

So I think what we got turned out better - add HS2 if you want true high speed.

 

[Bevan Price]

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.

There were several other loco-hauled times under 23 minutes for Oxenholme to Penrith, and more than a few Pendolino times over 23 minutes.

 

[edwin_m]

By the time HS2 Phase 1 opens, replacing most of their primary WCML duties, the 390s will be pushing 30 years old. So probably a good time to think of a replacement fleet for those duties, which could well major on better acceleration rather than tilt so as to be more optimized for duties with more stops. Any use on other routes probably wouldn't last more than a decade, and given recent experience in trying to find a new lease of life for elderly fleets I'm not sure if anyone would take it on.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why? The MML isn't in a need for class 390s
If the MML had electric only trains they will be most likely to be class 801s

It is of course academic. But the reason why 390s would be perfect for the MML is that it is rather curvy; more so than the WCML. It is therefore perfect for tilt. There are a number of locations where linespeed is restricted because of curvature, in some cases quite significantly. Tilt would enable the speed to be raised by up to 25% at all of them, snd in some places in between, subject to other technical factors.

 

[edwin_m]

There were several other loco-hauled times under 23 minutes for Oxenholme to Penrith, and more than a few Pendolino times over 23 minutes.

This part of the country is well known for being wet, and the WCML electrics were never the most sure-footed. I suspect on a dry day with good adhesion they would be able to beat the timetable, but would be driven more cautiously in more typical conditions. With more motored axles, three-phase drive and traction electronics (not to mention OTMR to discourage speeding!) I imagine a Pendolino would be a much more consistent performer, and an 80x even more so.

 

[Energy]

By the time HS2 Phase 1 opens, replacing most of their primary WCML duties, the 390s will be pushing 30 years old. So probably a good time to think of a replacement fleet for those duties, which could well major on better acceleration rather than tilt so as to be more optimized for duties with more stops. Any use on other routes probably wouldn't last more than a decade, and given recent experience in trying to find a new lease of life for elderly fleets I'm not sure if anyone would take it on.

I think they will last till 40 (or even more) years as they are reliable and well suited to the WCML, some could get transferred off the WCML early as some routes get taken over by HS2 but I think they will find a new home for the remaining part of their life, Boris' 'build build build' message means we could be getting more electrification, giving more possible routes for the Pendolinos. When they do need getting replaced we could see high acceleration taking over from tilt however it would be a bigger order than the recent ones for Avanti and TPE which could allow for a new design which couldn't really happen with a small order like TPE's for 12 trains.