What is the point of the Class 800/801 on the East Coast Mainline?

[jzw95]

Let me start by saying that I am just a ‘normal’ passenger, though one with an interest in both the comfort of rail travel, and design aspects more generally. My knowledge comes from riding on the train, Wikipedia, and occasionally dipping into threads on this forum. So my question might be naive and/or misinformed; please be kind!

From my experience travelling between Edinburgh-London, the current trains are extremely comfortable in most regards: space, seat comfort, seat alignment with windows, smoothness of ride, ambient noise, temperature (except in the rare occasions when the AC isn't working properly), power sockets, WiFi, etc. I refer to both the HSTs and the 225s. I have travelled extensively, but not exhaustively, around the rest of Britain by rail as well. I have to say that I think the trains currently operated by Virgin East Coast provide the best experience out there. I can't think of another train that matches them. (As a side note, I had my first experience of a 'Pacer' 3 years ago and that was quite a shock! It made me appreciate the level of comfort even ScotRail's oldest trains provide.)

Against this, from bits I've pieced together, my understanding of the new Hitachi trains (Class 800/801) to replace the existing ones is that they:

• will have engines under the floors of the coaches, potentially leading to vibration and noise
• due to said engine, the coach floor is raised, reducing space
• due to underfloor engines and sliding doors, there will be poor seat alignment with windows (in standard class)
• windows are smaller and more widely spaced, exaserbating the seat/window alignment issue
• the top speed of the new trains will be the same as both the HSTs and the 225s they are replacing!

Now maybe some of these issues would be considered reasonable trade-offs if the trains were going to be faster. Though I would argue there is not enough attention paid to window size and aligned seats in new trains generally. But from everything I've read/seen, I can't figure out what will actually be better about these trains, other than that they are 'new'. In other words, what will they offer that we don't have with the current high-quality trains? The leasing costs must surely be a lot less on the existing trains than they will be on the new ones, and there are no electrification plans north of Stirling at the moment.

I understand that there might be some desire to upgrade the interiors or services provided (e.g. WiFi could be faster, enhanced catering?), but surely a major refurbishment like GNER performed could achieve any of this for much less than completely new trains which will be a downgrade in many regards? And I believe the HSTs are having new engines put in at the moment, so even emissions can be improved on the current trains.

What am I missing? Please give me hope that the new trains will bring more than just a worse experience!

 

[sciisfun]

I believe that it is only 800's on the ECML. the 800s are pure electric trains, so no engines under the floor (801's are for the semi electrified Great western main line, along with the at300) wifi is down to data connections like your mobile, so will depend on the infrastructure of 02, EE ect. I think the main thing is age, with the hst's being rather old. they are capable of higher speeds, however track side infrastructure, and in cab signalling would be required if I have read a few things correctly.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

What am I missing?

Increases in passenger capacity by replacing locomotives, driving van trailers and power cars with vehicles that can carry passengers, increasing passenger capacity through longer coaches with fewer vestibules and gangways, harmonising performance to release capacity and improve journey times (or at least reduce journey time increases from adding in additional station calls) improving reliability by moving from single locomotive or twin power car to multiple unit configuration, replacing HST stock which is getting to the stage where maintenance costs are becoming unacceptable, and removing diesel powered stock from city centres, where emissions are a health concern.

The new units are all 140mph capable when operating on 25kV AC OLE and plans are in place to provide 140mph capable stretches of track on the ECML and GWML pending resignalling (replacing HST stock which isn't).

The use of bi-mode units will allow services to operate on 25kV AC OLE further as electrification extends from current limits - such as the plan to electrify to Hull, extensions in Scotland to Stirling and Dunblane, onto Perth and Dundee and so on. GWML is likely to see extensions to Exeter well within the lifetime of these trains.

 

[47802]

I'm sorry but there have already been some long and tedious debates about this on this forum.

In a nutshell, the HST need replacement, the 225 sets could have been retained but offer inferior acceleration to the IEP's and the benefit of IEP I see as follows.

New Trains, higher capacity, better acceleration, 5 car bi-modes in particular can offer better services to off wire destinations that might be difficult to justify with a 9 car HST, and less diesel under the wires running, which frankly has reached disgraceful levels in recent years for a country which is spending a fortune on electrification.

In terms of the comment about vibration and noise under the floor, well until you try one you don't actually know how noisy they will be, and terms of the East Coast the majority of Journeys will be mainly under the wires.

 

[swt_passenger]

I believe that it is only 800's on the ECML.

The ECML has to have bi-modes as well to deal with all the current routes that go beyond the wires - which is the main reason for some of today's ECML HSTs. There are also supposed to be new through services to additional destinations in a couple of years time, e.g. regular trains to Middlesborough, and some other places down in Yorkshire that are currently off the wires.

 

[sprinterguy]

[*]will have engines under the floors of the coaches, potentially leading to vibration and noise
[*]due to said engine, the coach floor is raised, reducing space

All of the trains will run on electric power between Kings Cross and Leeds/Edinburgh, with some of the trains having the ability to continue under diesel power onto non-electrified lines, which is known as "Bi-mode". There will be diesel engines under some of the coaches; from one engine under the "pure electric" trains to provide emergency power, up to five on the nine carriage Bi-mode trains; and on these carriages (and presumably other intermediate vehicles where diesel engines could have been fitted but aren't) the floors will indeed be raised.

[*]due to underfloor engines and sliding doors, there will be poor seat alignment with windows (in standard class)

There certainly is a problem with a lack of external visibility from seats at the end of the carriage situated alongside the pockets for the sliding doors...

[*]windows are smaller and more widely spaced, exaserbating the seat/window alignment issue

...However, I haven't yet been able to ascertain whether the seating alignment throughout the rest of the carriages will be any worse than that currently exemplified by the East Coast 125 and 225 trains, which don't exhibit a perfect seat to window alignment, either.

[*]the top speed of the new trains will be the same as both the HSTs and the 225s they are replacing!

The new trains will be able to be upgraded to run at 140mph, which will be possible (though not necessarily probable) following the implementation of ERTMS in-cab signalling. This is due to be installed on the East Coast route between Kings Cross and (just south of) Doncaster in 2020. The new trains will be fitted with this system from new, rather than having to go through the palaver of retrofitting the equipment to the existing trains.

Now maybe some of these issues would be considered reasonable trade-offs if the trains were going to be faster. Though I would argue there is not enough attention paid to window size and aligned seats in new trains generally. But from everything I've read/seen, I can't figure out what will actually be better about these trains, other than that they are 'new'. In other words, what will they offer that we don't have with the current high-quality trains?

Through the use of longer carriages, the new trains will offer more seats per train than the current nine carriage formations, so it's partly the case that seating capacity is being increased through the new train fleet.

Primarily, though it's a question of age: The oldest of the High Speed Trains are approaching forty years old, and at some stage it can be expected that mechanical components will begin to deteriorate. Once you've committed to replacing the 125 fleet, then it makes some sense to also replace the younger 225 electric fleet to create a homogenous fleet of new units that allow standardisation of maintenance procedures and scheduling.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I believe that it is only 800's on the ECML. the 800s are pure electric trains, so no engines under the floor (801's are for the semi electrified Great western main line, along with the at300)

It's an easy mistake to make and a trivial point, but you've got that the wrong way round: Class 800 will be the Bi-mode trains and class 801 the pure electric ones. The electric class 801s will have one diesel engine fitted per unit to provide emergency traction and auxiliary power. The East Coast is receiving a mix of class 800 Bi-mode and class 801 electric trains, primarily as HST, to allow continued off-wires operation, and 225 replacement respectively.

 

[sciisfun]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's an easy mistake to make and a trivial point, but you've got that the wrong way round: Class 800 will be the Bi-mode trains and class 801 the pure electric ones. The electric class 801s will have one diesel engine fitted per unit to provide emergency traction and auxiliary power. The East Coast is receiving a mix of class 800 Bi-mode and class 801 electric trains, primarily as HST, to allow continued off-wires operation, and 225 replacement respectively.

The ECML has to have bi-modes as well to deal with all the current routes that go beyond the wires - which is the main reason for some of today's ECML HSTs. There are also supposed to be new through services to additional destinations in a couple of years time, e.g. regular trains to Middlesborough, and some other places down in Yorkshire that are currently off the wires.

cheers for the correction guys, I only come out from my rock occasionally down here, assumed the entire route was electrified like the WCML is, never having travelled further north than Alexandria palace on the ECML (or any other for the sake of argument)

 

[jzw95]

Thanks for the thorough responses. I hadn't realised the coaches were longer, and hadn't accounted for the extra seating in the end bits (though in photos I've seen, at least one end of the 800/801 looks like it is a luggage van or similar – no windows). And I'm very glad to hear that there is the prospect of the window alignment not deteriorating. I agree it's not perfect in the 225s, but it's about as good as it can be in standard class (given the seating density).

Anyway, it makes a lot more sense now: more seats, better acceleration, and parts wearing out. I guess because the HSTs are still going and still great quality to ride on, I assumed you could just endlessly replace parts. And certainly cutting out use of diesel when running under electric wires for 400 miles is a very good idea.

It is interesting, though, that from a passenger perspective the only advantages are more seats and slightly faster journey times (or more stops/destinations with the same journey time). You would have thought that over the course of 40 years (HST > Class 800) there would be more significant/noticeable improvements to the experience. I'm not saying that seats and a bit of extra speed won't be appreciated, they certainly will.

 

[TheKnightWho]

cheers for the correction guys, I only come out from my rock occasionally down here, assumed the entire route was electrified like the WCML is, never having travelled further north than Alexandria palace on the ECML (or any other for the sake of argument)

The core routes from London-Edinburgh and London-Leeds are (plus branches to Bradford and Skipton), but not the extensions north or some of the other branches. Just like the WCML and its trains to Stafford, Holyhead and Blackpool etc.

 

[Domh245]

Thanks for the thorough responses. I hadn't realised the coaches were longer, and hadn't accounted for the extra seating in the end bits (though in photos I've seen, at least one end of the 800/801 looks like it is a luggage van or similar – no windows). And I'm very glad to hear that there is the prospect of the window alignment not deteriorating. I agree it's not perfect in the 225s, but it's about as good as it can be in standard class (given the seating density).

Those blocked off windows are were the first class galley will be. Similar to the pendolinos on the WCML.

It is interesting, though, that from a passenger perspective the only advantages are more seats and slightly faster journey times (or more stops/destinations with the same journey time). You would have thought that over the course of 40 years (HST > Class 800) there would be more significant/noticeable improvements to the experience. I'm not saying that seats and a bit of extra speed won't be appreciated, they certainly will.

What sort of things were you expecting?

 

[sprinterguy]

I guess because the HSTs are still going and still great quality to ride on, I assumed you could just endlessly replace parts. .

Yeah, it does seem, and I wish it were so, that the HSTs could go on forever.

It is interesting, though, that from a passenger perspective the only advantages are more seats and slightly faster journey times (or more stops/destinations with the same journey time). You would have thought that over the course of 40 years (HST > Class 800) there would be more significant/noticeable improvements to the experience. I'm not saying that seats and a bit of extra speed won't be appreciated, they certainly will.

It is certainly interesting to consider how the East Coast route moved on in the forty-ish years between the introduction of Gresley's "Silver Jubilee" train in 1935 and the introduction of the first HSTs to the route in 1979, compared to the forty-ish years between 1979 and the planned introduction of the new trains between 2018 and 2020: At least we've seen the step change of electrification during that period.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

What sort of things were you expecting?

I wanted a zip slide, but Hitachi's engineers said this couldn't be achieved within the loading gauge.

 

[sprinterguy]

What sort of things were you expecting?

Surely we're meant to have the Anglo-Scottish hovertrains which were being proposed by British Rail in the 1960s by now?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Thanks for the thorough responses. I hadn't realised the coaches were longer, and hadn't accounted for the extra seating in the end bits (though in photos I've seen, at least one end of the 800/801 looks like it is a luggage van or similar – no windows). And I'm very glad to hear that there is the prospect of the window alignment not deteriorating. I agree it's not perfect in the 225s, but it's about as good as it can be in standard class (given the seating density).

Anyway, it makes a lot more sense now: more seats, better acceleration, and parts wearing out. I guess because the HSTs are still going and still great quality to ride on, I assumed you could just endlessly replace parts. And certainly cutting out use of diesel when running under electric wires for 400 miles is a very good idea.

It is interesting, though, that from a passenger perspective the only advantages are more seats and slightly faster journey times (or more stops/destinations with the same journey time). You would have thought that over the course of 40 years (HST > Class 800) there would be more significant/noticeable improvements to the experience. I'm not saying that seats and a bit of extra speed won't be appreciated, they certainly will.

The passenger experience of the older trains may have been better to begin with but now that demand is so much higher, it has gone the other way. Back when the HSTs were new, the ECML and GWML were proper long distance railways designed for long distance travel. Now the line between long distance and commuter travel has been extremely blurred, and the long distance trains are now having to do a role they weren't ever designed to do. On the GWML that means acting like a commuter train to London from Reading, Oxford and Swindon, and seat alignment doesn't really mean much when there are hordes of people standing in the vestibules. Even if the new trains represent a slight decrease in passenger experience, the fact that they'll now be much better suited for the demands passengers put on them means that in aggregate they'll be better. Would you rather have a seat with no armrests or window or no seat at all during your commute?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Yeah, it does seem, and I wish it were so, that the HSTs could go on forever.

I know.

The power car bogies have already had to undergo extensive overhaul and repair when they started to show fatigue issues and they've all been re-engined at least once (there's a handful which have had more than one type of engine fitted). The alternators, traction motors and ancillary electrical equipment is getting to the age where it needs to go off for specialist attention - rewinding, repair or replacement of insulation etc.

It won't be too long before common parts stop being so readily available and it requires bulk orders between ROSCOs 6 or 12 months in advance to get spare parts and overhaul items in stock.

The coaching stock is slowly rotting away too, the underside valances are particularly rot prone thanks to straight discharge toilets and have been replaced or extensively repaired already on pretty much every Mark 3 in service, but are at the stage of needing replacement again. They tend to disintegrate at 125mph throwing large chunks of rust and metal into brake pipes, either ripping the pipes or shearing off the fittings.

The bogie design is good but new designs are better, they tend to throw up ballast a bit too readily, damaging their WSP and braking systems. VTEC have a modification program for this, such is the level of disruption it's now causing, and you find tiny little components, electrical and electronic, aren't as readily available as they once were, just niggling little parts, so something will have to run in service with AC out for a day or two longer, that sort of thing.

In short, it's like trying to run a 1970s Ford Cortina as an every day car - yes, it can be done, especially if you order spares and service items in advance, but it's much easier running a newer Ford Focus, it's just the way of the world.

 

[glbotu]

cheers for the correction guys, I only come out from my rock occasionally down here, assumed the entire route was electrified like the WCML is, never having travelled further north than Alexandria palace on the ECML (or any other for the sake of argument)

I mean, the WCML isn't all electrified either. Notably the Holyhead branch. It just that the ECML has a lot more services running from branches from it's core route.

WCML is London - Glasgow, with (main) branches:

Birmingham "Loop" (Electric)
Manchester (Electric)
Holyhead (Diesel)
Liverpool (Electric)
Blackpool (Diesel)
Edinburgh (Electric)


ECML is London - Edinburgh with (main) branches:

Lincoln (Diesel)
Leeds (Electric)
Harrogate (Diesel)
Skipton (Electric - but limited supply)
Bradford Forster Square (Electric - but limited supply)
Hull (Diesel)
Sunderland (Diesel)
Aberdeen (Diesel)
Stirling (Diesel)
Inverness (Diesel)
Glasgow (Electric)


and in Future

Middlesbrough (Diesel)
Glasgow Queen Street (Electric)
Huddersfield (Diesel)

The WCML also has quite a head start on the ECML when it comes to electrification, having started in 1956 as opposed to 1988.

 

[najaB]

ECML is London - Edinburgh with (main) branches:

Lincoln (Diesel)
Leeds (Electric)
Harrogate (Diesel)
Sunderland (Diesel)
Aberdeen (Diesel)
Stirling (Diesel)
Inverness (Diesel)

The WCML also has quite a head start on the ECML when it comes to electrification, having started in 1956 as opposed to 1988.

Inverness and Stirling are effectively the same branch (in that Inverness trains pass through Stirling).

 

[glbotu]

Inverness and Stirling are effectively the same branch (in that Inverness trains pass through Stirling).

Sure, but it still demonstrates the different style of operation of the ECML compared to the WCML.

 

[LexyBoy]

I guess because the HSTs are still going and still great quality to ride on, I assumed you could just endlessly replace parts. And certainly cutting out use of diesel when running under electric wires for 400 miles is a very good idea.

40 years is pretty good going - keeping a 40-year old car in working order would be pretty good going, let alone driving it for 16 hours every day for that time.

It is interesting, though, that from a passenger perspective the only advantages are more seats and slightly faster journey times (or more stops/destinations with the same journey time). You would have thought that over the course of 40 years (HST > Class 800) there would be more significant/noticeable improvements to the experience. I'm not saying that seats and a bit of extra speed won't be appreciated, they certainly will.

The main improvements for passengers relate to service rather than material changes: better reliability, more seats, more frequent trains. Many of the smaller things we already have, because they've been retrofitted to the current trains, like electric sockets and WiFi.
--

cheers for the correction guys, I only come out from my rock occasionally down here, assumed the entire route was electrified like the WCML is, never having travelled further north than Alexandria palace on the ECML (or any other for the sake of argument)

The ECML is fully electrified, as will be the GWML (eventually...). Some services continue off these lines though, especially off the GWML (Cheltenham, Cotswolds, Weston etc as well as Devon & Cornwall).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I believe that it is only 800's on the ECML. the 800s are pure electric trains, so no engines under the floor (801's are for the semi electrified Great western main line, along with the at300) wifi is down to data connections like your mobile, so will depend on the infrastructure of 02, EE ect. I think the main thing is age, with the hst's being rather old. they are capable of higher speeds, however track side infrastructure, and in cab signalling would be required if I have read a few things correctly.

It's the other way round. 800s are bi-modes, 801s are electric.
GWR and VTEC will each have both types (in addition, GWR to the west country will be bi-mode 802s).
The ECML IEPs came in 2 order tranches.
- The 800s are to replace the HSTs (and therefore go off the wires some of the time).
- The later order of 801s is to replace the IC225s (and so stay under the wires).
A lot of things have to happen to the infrastructure before any of them can run at the 140mph of which they are capable.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

WCML is London - Glasgow, with (main) branches:

Holyhead (Diesel)
Blackpool (Diesel)

Blackpool North is currently undergoing electrification.

Crewe to Holyhead is a possible CP6 and CP7 project, if it isn't authorised by WAG in co-operation with DfT, it's likely that Crewe to Chester will be pursued by DfT as a stand alone project.

 

[jzw95]

The passenger experience of the older trains may have been better to begin with but now that demand is so much higher, it has gone the other way. Back when the HSTs were new, the ECML and GWML were proper long distance railways designed for long distance travel.

I would say that the services Virgin East Coast run are 'proper long distance' ones. I understand what you're saying about GWR – amongst other routes, I have travelled to both Reading and Penzance on their services (when they were branded FGW), and these are fundamentally different services using the same train. The Penzance travellers lose out because of this, as there are noticeably fewer tables than on East Coast's HSTs.

Even if the new trains represent a slight decrease in passenger experience, the fact that they'll now be much better suited for the demands passengers put on them means that in aggregate they'll be better. Would you rather have a seat with no armrests or window or no seat at all during your commute?

I've never been on a GNER/East Coast/VTEC train that was so full there were standing passengers. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it must be uncommon. And it is primarily used as a long-distance route, not a commuter one. So I hope the new trains are fitted out similar to the current ones in terms of layout and passenger conveniences.

What sort of things were you expecting?

Good question, I don't know! It's just surprising that there are so few differences. But, as LexyBoy said, I guess that's because most of them have been added in during the excellent refurb GNER did. And looking backwards from the HST to 1935 as sprinterguy suggests, I guess things were probably a lot more luxurious then, so maybe we're sliding backwards.

But, also, reading about the Silver Jubilee on Wikipedia, it supposedly took 4 hours between London and Newcastle by only calling at one other station. So the HST represented an approximately 1.5 hour saving on the Edinburgh-London journey compared with 1935's fastest train, while calling at many more stations. But there will have been no speed increase in the 40 since the HST.

Another thought: what about innovation in coach interiors? Maybe reconfigurable seating so one coach could be turned into a lounge car? I don't know. I'm not complaining, I'm just noting that it seems there's not been more than incremental improvements. But maybe it's only in hindsight that the changes seem significant.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Increases in passenger capacity by replacing locomotives, driving van trailers and power cars with vehicles that can carry passengers

Not to be picky, but will there actually be an increase in capacity? Thinking about this further, the current trains have 9 coaches, which are used entirely for passenger space. The new trains will have 9 vehicles, but the end ones have cabs, reducing their passenger space. So do the longer coaches do anything more than offset the passenger space taken away by the cabs? Wouldn't it have been better to specify 10 vehicle 801s so there was a genuine increase in capacity?

 

[sprinterguy]

Not to be picky, but will there actually be an increase in capacity? Thinking about this further, the current trains have 9 coaches, which are used entirely for passenger space. The new trains will have 9 vehicles, but the end ones have cabs, reducing their passenger space. So do the longer coaches do anything more than offset the passenger space taken away by the cabs? Wouldn't it have been better to specify 10 vehicle 801s so there was a genuine increase in capacity?

The current trains have 526 or 543 seats (225 and HST sets respectively), the new 9-car trains will have 611. With longer carriages, there's up to 27 metres of additional train length within a set of nine carriages, compared to the current stock, without the need for any additional entrance doors and vestibules.

 

[221129]

I would say that the services Virgin East Coast run are 'proper long distance' ones. I understand what you're saying about GWR – amongst other routes, I have travelled to both Reading and Penzance on their services (when they were branded FGW), and these are fundamentally different services using the same train. The Penzance travellers lose out because of this, as there are noticeably fewer tables than on East Coast's HSTs.



I've never been on a GNER/East Coast/VTEC train that was so full there were standing passengers. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it must be uncommon. And it is primarily used as a long-distance route, not a commuter one. So I hope the new trains are fitted out similar to the current ones in terms of layout and passenger conveniences.



Good question, I don't know! It's just surprising that there are so few differences. But, as LexyBoy said, I guess that's because most of them have been added in during the excellent refurb GNER did. And looking backwards from the HST to 1935 as sprinterguy suggests, I guess things were probably a lot more luxurious then, so maybe we're sliding backwards.

But, also, reading about the Silver Jubilee on Wikipedia, it supposedly took 4 hours between London and Newcastle by only calling at one other station. So the HST represented an approximately 1.5 hour saving on the Edinburgh-London journey compared with 1935's fastest train, while calling at many more stations. But there will have been no speed increase in the 40 since the HST.

Another thought: what about innovation in coach interiors? Maybe reconfigurable seating so one coach could be turned into a lounge car? I don't know. I'm not complaining, I'm just noting that it seems there's not been more than incremental improvements. But maybe it's only in hindsight that the changes seem significant.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not to be picky, but will there actually be an increase in capacity? Thinking about this further, the current trains have 9 coaches, which are used entirely for passenger space. The new trains will have 9 vehicles, but the end ones have cabs, reducing their passenger space. So do the longer coaches do anything more than offset the passenger space taken away by the cabs? Wouldn't it have been better to specify 10 vehicle 801s so there was a genuine increase in capacity?

I don't think the cabs and galley will take up the 27 metres extra length (which is still 4 metres longer than a Mk3 or Mk4 currently used.)

 

[Philip Phlopp]

A lot of things have to happen to the infrastructure before any of them can run at the 140mph of which they are capable.

To further explain for the benefit of sciisfun...

The signalling system needs to be upgraded to support in-cab signalling before 140mph operation is possible. The old idea of double green signals isn't considered safe and any speed beyond 125mph requires in-cab signalling (the signal aspect is displayed not on a signal at the side of the track, but on a display in front of the driver, within the cab).

In-cab signalling on the ECML (and GWML) will be provided by the deployment of the ETCS Level 2 signalling system. It's due for deployment between Kings Cross and Doncaster by 2020, at which point, the route will support 140mph operation, from a signalling perspective. GWML gets ETCS Level 2 (all being well) on the Heathrow branch first, then into Paddington from Heathrow, all by 2017/18, in time for CrossRail launch. The rollout then increases to Bristol for 2019/20. ECML has line side signals removed at rollout, GWML has them removed by 2025.

The 25kV OLE system used on the ECML is also incompatible and only supports one pantograph per train at 140mph but not two pantographs per train at 140mph (it only supports two pantographs per train at 125mph).

The contact and catenary wire oscillate as a train passes, this oscillation increases with speed, and decreases with increased tension and increased contact wire cross section (it's shaped a bit like an upside down keyhole).

The current OLE on the ECML oscillates so severely when used with a single pantograph at 140mph, a second pantograph within the same train formation would be unable to maintain satisfactory contact, which could result in loss of power to the second unit, or damage to the pantograph and overhead line, to mitigate against that, heavier contact wire is to be installed, and the tension will be increased.

The heavier contact wire cannot be supported with the current headspan structures used on the ECML, so these will be replaced with solid portal structures, under which the new OLE system designed for the GWML will be installed. This will enable two pantographs to operate in a formation at 140mph, and it will also enable three pantographs to operate in a formation at upto 110mph, which will enable 3 x 4 car EMUs to couple together and run in service.

The process of replacing headspans with portals is currently underway on the GWML (to improve reliability and resilience) and it's a relatively easy and low disruption project. It's also shortly to begin on the MML, as part of that electrification project, replacing the headspans between Bedford and St Pancras, as that route needs to operate with 12 car EMU formations (but not 10 car IEP formations at 140mph).

 

[jzw95]

Wow, yes, 27 metres is a significant amount of extra space. More than an extra coach 'for free'! I will say that this thread has restored my confidence that there is a point to the whole exercise of buying these new trains.

 

[Starmill]

Blackpool North is currently undergoing electrification.
.

So is Stirling!

 

[sprinterguy]

Good question, I don't know! It's just surprising that there are so few differences. But, as LexyBoy said, I guess that's because most of them have been added in during the excellent refurb GNER did. And looking backwards from the HST to 1935 as sprinterguy suggests, I guess things were probably a lot more luxurious then, so maybe we're sliding backwards.

It was only luxury for a minority though, compared to the standards of the majority of Intercity stock of today, which are available to all who can afford to buy a ticket, and the trains generally were an awful lot slower, "flyers" aside. Although it is disappointing that the seats seem to have gotten so much harder in the intervening decades!

But, also, reading about the Silver Jubilee on Wikipedia, it supposedly took 4 hours between London and Newcastle by only calling at one other station. So the HST represented an approximately 1.5 hour saving on the Edinburgh-London journey compared with 1935's fastest train, while calling at many more stations. But there will have been no speed increase in the 40 since the HST.

There have been incremental improvements in running time as a result of the conversion from diesel HST to electric 225 operation on the ECML, however. The headline London to Edinburgh journey time when HSTs were introduced was reduced to 4 hours 37 minutes, whereas today the majority of trains complete the journey in 4 hours 20 minutes, and the fastest headline time is now 3 hours 59 minutes (though with the benefit of the Selby diversion, which didn't exist until 1983). The use of electric trains with distributed traction should provide another incremental journey time improvement.

There's only so much that can be done to decrease journey times while maximum speeds remain the same, and as speeds get higher the journey time benefit becomes increasingly small anyway: Studies undertaken with regard to the Advanced Passenger Train showed that an increase to 140mph would only shave 8 minutes off the comparable London to Glasgow journey time via the WCML, compared to 125mph operation.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

So is Stirling!

Indeed, the current limit of electrification is just north of Dunblane station, so IEP should be switching from electric to diesel (and vice versa) during the station call there (though it can also change power source when on the move).

 

[RichmondCommu]

The core routes from London-Edinburgh and London-Leeds are (plus branches to Bradford and Skipton), but not the extensions north or some of the other branches. Just like the WCML and its trains to Stafford, Holyhead and Blackpool etc.

Stafford??