Why not more tilting stock?

[mmh]

Exclusivivityy agreement for what?

Umm, for running services. What else could it mean?

From a report by the Competition and Markets Authority in 2016:

In the post-privatisation period, on-rail competition was limited by a policy
referred to as Moderation of Competition. Under this policy, each track access
agreement specified those routes on which Network Rail (and previously
Railtrack) was prohibited from granting access rights to potential competitors
of the franchised TOCs.107 The rationale behind this approach was to ensure
that OAOs could not undermine the viability of the franchise system by ‘cherry
picking’ profitable services. However, in 2004, ORR indicated that it would
only approve Moderation of Competition clauses in exceptional circumstances
(ie where investments would not otherwise occur). In November 2010, ORR
stated that such protection would no longer be approved.

Competition between franchised TOCs on overlapping and parallel
franchises appears to be most intense where the franchises are loosely
specified or where significant changes in franchises and/or access rights
were permitted.

London Midland increased its service frequency on services from
London to Birmingham and North West England through changes to
its access rights and enhancements to its rolling stock to allow
110mph running. The new rolling stock also offered tables and power
sockets throughout. Competition from Virgin Trains and Chiltern
Railways was one driver for the enhancements

As highlighted in paragraphs 3.47 and 4.34, competition from Virgin Trains on
the West Coast main line and from the parallel Chiltern Railways franchise
was one driver in London Midland investing in new capacity in order to grow
its revenue and to limit the opportunity for scarce paths to be consumed by
competitors (which would, in turn, limit its ability to expand in the future).303
The timing of London Midland’s proposal to increase capacity coincided with
the end of Virgin Trains’ moderation of competition clause in 2012 and was
only made possible by the lifting of the restrictions.

 

[Bald Rick]

Umm, for running services. What else could it mean?

From a report by the Competition and Markets Authority in 2016:

That’s moderation of competition.

It is absolutely not an ‘exclusivity’ agreement between NR (or Railtrack) and Virgin.

 

[mmh]

That’s moderation of competition.

It is absolutely not an ‘exclusivity’ agreement between NR (or Railtrack) and Virgin.

Meaningless quibbling over words. They had exclusive access rights. It baffles me why anyone would try to claim otherwise when it's such a well-known fact discussed on here and in public knowledge for many years.

 

[Bald Rick]

They had exclusive access rights.

I happen to be very good friends with the person who agreed the access rights. They were not ‘exclusive’ and could not be.

In what way do you think they were exclusive?

As someone closely involved with both designing the route and renegotiating the contract with Virgin, I respectfully disagree with your statement.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

There’s a crucial difference between designing infrastructure for the trains reasonably expected to use it, and designing infrastructure such that only one type of train would use it to the exclusion / detriment of all others (under normal circumstances).

 

[CW2]

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

There’s a crucial difference between designing infrastructure for the trains reasonably expected to use it, and designing infrastructure such that only one type of train would use it to the exclusion / detriment of all others (under normal circumstances).

Indeed - I would quote the rate of change of cant as an example. If designing for a variety of tilting and non-tilting rolling stock,you would set the rate of change at the slower (non-tilting) rate which requires the curves to be canted over a longer distance. What actually took place was the route was designed specifically for tilting trains, with the rate of change of cant set accordingly.

 

[rebmcr]

Indeed - I would quote the rate of change of cant as an example. If designing for a variety of tilting and non-tilting rolling stock,you would set the rate of change at the slower (non-tilting) rate which requires the curves to be canted over a longer distance. What actually took place was the route was designed specifically for tilting trains, with the rate of change of cant set accordingly.

It was designed to accomodate freight alongside tilt — which comprise cant requirements at both ends of the range. Non-tilt-passenger sits comfortably between them.

 

[CW2]

It was designed to accomodate freight alongside tilt — which comprise cant requirements at both ends of the range. Non-tilt-passenger sits comfortably between them.

The freight isn't trying to run at 125 mph though, is it, so it can indeed run quite happily at lower speeds on the infrastructure that had been designed around tilt operation. My point is that the infrastructure was deliberately designed and delivered to most closely match the tilting capabilities of the 390s (and to a lesser extent the 221s). If 125 mph non-tilt operation had been required, the output of the West Coast Route Modernisation would have looked quite different. Now that non-tilting 125 mph is coming back into favour, some of that work is having to be unstitched. It's a lot more complicated than just changing over a few speed signs.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Indeed - I would quote the rate of change of cant as an example. If designing for a variety of tilting and non-tilting rolling stock,you would set the rate of change at the slower (non-tilting) rate which requires the curves to be canted over a longer distance. What actually took place was the route was designed specifically for tilting trains, with the rate of change of cant set accordingly.

But even then, that does not exclude other operators running tilting trains at 125mph over the WCML.
Arriva XC were doing this from 2006 with 221s before they abandoned tilt, and they (or successor) could do it in the future if they wanted to.
WMT could have ordered tilting stock for their fast-line services.

 

[rebmcr]

The freight isn't trying to run at 125 mph though, is it, so it can indeed run quite happily at lower speeds on the infrastructure that had been designed around tilt operation. My point is that the infrastructure was deliberately designed and delivered to most closely match the tilting capabilities of the 390s (and to a lesser extent the 221s). If 125 mph non-tilt operation had been required, the output of the West Coast Route Modernisation would have looked quite different. Now that non-tilting 125 mph is coming back into favour, some of that work is having to be unstitched. It's a lot more complicated than just changing over a few speed signs.

No, the cant doesn't care about active tilt because the bogies aren't tilting and the centre of mass doesn't change (this differs from Talgo's passive tilt, not used in the UK). Only speed and weight matter.

The optimal cant for 125mph, with relatively light passenger vehicles, is the top end; and the optimal for heavy 60mph freight is the bottom end. What we have is a compromise which increases both categories' wheel and track wear but tries to strike the best balance. Any 110mph passenger vehicles will actually be closer to its optimal cant than the Class 390 is to its own.

 

[CW2]

But even then, that does not exclude other operators running tilting trains at 125mph over the WCML.
Arriva XC were doing this from 2006 with 221s before they abandoned tilt, and they (or successor) could do it in the future if they wanted to.
WMT could have ordered tilting stock for their fast-line services.

At the time WCRM was completed, there was a "Moderation of Competition" clause in the Track Access Contract which effectively prevented anybody competing head-to-head with Virgin on the WCML. Note for example how WSMR were prohibited from serving Birmingham New Street, and could only serve Wolverhampton on a pick up northbound / set down southbound basis. This was because Virgin had invested so heavily that it would be deemed unfair for another operator to come long and benefit from or undermine their investment.
Since the title of the thread is "Why not more tilting stock?" the case of Cross Country bears looking at more closely. They concluded there was no real benefit to be had in running tilting trains, and isolated the equipment. A uniform fleet of 5-car 220s would have been more use to them. Now their 221s spend extra fuel lugging tonnes of unused tilt equipment up and down the network every day.
As to the track cant question, my point was that the rate of change of cant was tuned specifically to the 390s capabilities. The route was set up - particularly north of Lancaster - to match their capabilities. If 125 mph non-tilting trains had been specified, then there would have been an entirely different outcome. By specifying 125 mph tilt (in lieu of 140 mph tilt) DfT and Virgin effectively excluded other operators from making the full benefit of the route.