On Mar 13, 6:48 pm, "Tim Fenton" <timfen> wrote:
> "allantracy" <allanbintr> wrote in message
>
> news:c6b9
>
> > How much easier, cheaper and quicker would it be to ease WCML and ECML
> > congestion by upgrading alternative routes (such as Chiltern) leaving
> > the main lines free for 155 mph train services.
>
> What is this mythical 155mph running of which you speak? What part of
> previous posts telling you that this is not practicable do you not
> understand?
>
> --
> Timhttp://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/

Quite.

How upgrading the Chiltern line will free capacity on the WC fast
lines for more London Midland trains (that don't do 125mph, let alone
140/155) is beyond me, and for me, of equal benefit to reducing
journey times to Birmingham.

On 13 Mar, 20:03, Jamie Thompson <jamiero> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 6:48 pm, "Tim Fenton" <timfen> wrote:
>>
>>
> Quite.
>
> How upgrading the Chiltern line will free capacity on the WC fast
> lines for more London Midland trains (that don't do 125mph, let alone
> 140/155) is beyond me, and for me, of equal benefit to reducing
> journey times to Birmingham.

The plan would be to divert fast Birmingham - Euston services down the
Chiltern Line into Paddington - have a look at the diagrams from page
77 onwards :

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...gicoutline.pdf

On Mar 13, 4:39 pm, allantracy <allanbintr> wrote:

> The Pendolinos we already have could be faster to the north because of
> their tilting capability, which those TGVs won’t be able to do.

Presumably the stock for any new high speed line will be new build so
it is perfectly feasible for them to incorporate tilt as well as high
speed. Given the higher power to weight ratio needed, they will
probably out accelerate an existing Pendo as well as tilt, so they
should win both ways.

George

furnessvale wrote:
> On Mar 13, 4:39 pm, allantracy <allanbintr> wrote:
>
>> The Pendolinos we already have could be faster to the north because
>> of their tilting capability, which those TGVs won’t be able to do.
>
> Presumably the stock for any new high speed line will be new build so
> it is perfectly feasible for them to incorporate tilt as well as high
> speed. Given the higher power to weight ratio needed, they will
> probably out accelerate an existing Pendo as well as tilt, so they
> should win both ways.

They reckon they won't use tilt off the HSL. Section 2.3.16 of the HS2 Ltd
report:

"Curves on the WCML in a number of route sections are sufficiently severe to
restrict speeds of classic trains, so "Pendolino" tilting trains have been
introduced to improve journey times. The latest Japanese Shinkansen train
has a system whereby the suspension provides 1 degree of inclination to
improve passenger comfort, allowing the trains to take 250kph curves at
270kph on dedicated high speed line. There are currently no high speed
trains in service which tilt by rotating the actual vehicle body – in the
way conventional speed trains such as Pendolinos do – to allow higher speeds
around sharp curves on existing railway lines. After discussion with train
manufacturers and rolling stock experts, we have assumed that such trains
would not be designed especially for our high speed classic-compatible
fleet. We have compared the effect of operating classic-compatible high
speed trains over the WCML in place of Pendolinos. The assessment concluded
that, given the installed power and performance of a high speed
classic-compatible train and the extent of WCML route which would not be
limited on speed due to curvature, the time lost north of HS2 on Day One in
comparison to conventional tilting trains would be small. Classic-compatible
trains would, of course, save significant journey time on HS2 itself."

Paul

On Mar 13, 8:23 pm, "Paul Scott" <notvalidpmsc>
wrote:
[..]
> would not be designed especially for our high speed classic-compatible
> fleet. We have compared the effect of operating classic-compatible high
> speed trains over the WCML in place of Pendolinos. The assessment concluded
> that, given the installed power and performance of a high speed
> classic-compatible train and the extent of WCML route which would not be
> limited on speed due to curvature, the time lost north of HS2 on Day One in
> comparison to conventional tilting trains would be small. Classic-compatible
> trains would, of course, save significant journey time on HS2 itself."
>
> Paul

Thanks for that. Given that the (alleged) need for tilt grows the
further away from the smoke you get, this all sounds like an admission
that even now, tilt on conventional lines is a waste of time.

George

> > The assessment concluded
> > that, given the installed power and performance of a high speed
> > classic-compatible train and the extent of WCML route which would not be
> > limited on speed due to curvature, the time lost north of HS2 on Day One in
> > comparison to conventional tilting trains would be small.
>
> Thanks for that.  Given that the (alleged) need for tilt grows the
> further away from the smoke you get, this all sounds like an admission
> that even now, tilt on conventional lines is a waste of time.
>

Except, the Pendolinos have a design speed of 145 mph, the original
APT had a design speed of 155 mph and IC225 has a design speed of 145
mph.

So, just how is the new non-tilting HS2 stock being compared to
Pendolinos?

Is this HS2 TGV running at 125 mph or restricted to 110 mph, as non-
tilting trains on the WCML are currently?

Further, how much worse would that journey time comparison be were the
Pendolinos actually running at their design speed of 145 mph.

How would a HS2 TGV, running at 250 mph only as far as Birmingham,
then compare further north running some 35 mph slower than a tilting
Pendolino could achieve, albeit with some new signalling?

Remember, 145 mph all the way to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and
even Edinburgh, via the WCML, could be delivered in the time it would
take just to introduce a new signalling system, surely just a few
short years.

It looks to me as if the North West and certainly Scotland could have
faster services using the existing Pendolinos than it will ever get
from TGVs via a HS2, that only runs as far as Birmingham.

Further they could have those faster trains a darn sight earlier than
waiting sixteen years for the new railway.

It’s also worth mentioning that Italian tilting Pendolinos have a
maximum design speed of 155 mph on conventional railway.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:36:09 -0800 (PST), furnessvale
<furnessvale> wrote:
>
>Given that the (alleged) need for tilt grows the
>further away from the smoke you get, this all sounds like an admission
>that even now, tilt on conventional lines is a waste of time.


If that is true, then passengers using Pendolinos, Voyagers and
variants thereof have lost a lot of room to no purpose whatsoever.

>
> But not according to the comprehensive Atkins report which was
> published alongside the HS2 report last Thursday - upgrades will be
> very expensive, will not provide the same capacity increase and will
> be very disruptive:
>

Who said anything about electrification, said anything about sending
the three Birmingham to Euston trains via Chiltern.

This scope of that report has deliberately been set up to fail by
proposing Chiltern as an alternative to HS2.

More big blue sky, divorced from all financial reality, overpriced
thinking by the state.

It’s always a sledgehammer to crack a nut with that lot; elegant
always has to be a dirty word.

The capacity constraints on the WCML are mostly caused by the need to
accommodate freight trains.

There could be plenty of spare Pendolino capacity if you could divert
the freight away and then concentrate all the LM services on the slow
lines.

For heaven’s sake, we now have four tracks on the WCML virtually all
the way to Preston.

If two of those tracks were to be permanently dedicated to high speed
trains then that’s equivalent to a HS2.

Upgrading the Chiltern in order to divert away WCML freight does not
require 125 mph neither does it require electrification judging by the
number of diesel operated freight trains currently operating under the
wires.

There’s also the Midland line err… last time I checked that still goes
all the way to Scotland – ideal for some more freight.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:05:38 -0800 (PST), allantracy
<allanbintracy> wrote:
>
>It looks to me as if the North West and certainly Scotland could have
>faster services using the existing Pendolinos than it will ever get
>from TGVs via a HS2, that only runs as far as Birmingham.
>
>Further they could have those faster trains a darn sight earlier than
>waiting sixteen years for the new railway.


From a CO2 reduction point of view, a high speed line is only
worthwhile if it serves Leeds and points further north, because rail
already has car and plane beat between London and Manchester, and HS2
will not save any CO2 compared with cars.

The objective must surely be to attack the London - Glasgow/Edinburgh
market with some real vigour, something that the Pendolinos cannot
possibly do, even with 140 mph. But it will be several decades before
High Speed 2 reaches Glasgow and Edinburgh, if indeed it ever does.

This also calls into question the value of 250 mph running, because
that simply isn't needed if you are only going as far as Manchester,
Leeds or even Newcastle. A 186 mph line would offer a very
considerable saving in CO2 emissions over a 250 mph line.

There would also be a worthwhile saving in construction costs because
curves could be tighter and gradients steeper. Noise would also be
significantly lower.

So why go for a 250 mph scheme which is only worthwhile if it is built
to Scotland, then not build it to Scotland for decades, if ever?

>
> >Given that the (alleged) need for tilt grows the
> >further away from the smoke you get, this all sounds like an admission
> >that even now, tilt on conventional lines is a waste of time.
>
> If that is true, then passengers using Pendolinos, Voyagers and
> variants thereof have lost a lot of room to no purpose whatsoever.

Why do I not find it so hard to believe that, whilst tilting trains
have been exploited very successfully all over Europe and the rest of
the World, here in the UK, with some of the twistiest track around, we
have failed?

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:31:03 -0800 (PST), allantracy
<allanbintracy> wrote:
>
>For heaven’s sake, we now have four tracks on the WCML virtually all
>the way to Preston.


Virtually all the way to Crewe, surely? There's a lot of double track
north of Crewe.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:36:09 -0800 (PST), furnessvale
<furnessvale> wrote:

>Given that the (alleged) need for tilt grows the
>further away from the smoke you get, this all sounds like an admission
>that even now, tilt on conventional lines is a waste of time.

Read the quote again. The benefits of tilt are nullified if you have
a train capable of HSL speeds on a conventional line, or an HSL to run
conventional trains on. Currently, that situation only applies in SE
England.

> The objective must surely be to attack the London - Glasgow/Edinburgh
> market with some real vigour, something that the Pendolinos cannot
> possibly do, even with 140 mph.  But it will be several decades before
> High Speed 2 reaches Glasgow and Edinburgh, if indeed it ever does.  
>

My point is that 140 - 155 mph tilting trains could attack the
Scotland market better (faster) than a HS2 restricted to 110 - 125 mph
north of Birmingham and it's a solution that could be made available
in half the time and at a fraction of the cost.

From the very early days, the whole point of tilting technology was to
avoid the need for new high-speed railway.

We don’t need to be reminded of the painful, highly long winded and
down right embarrassing journey to that end, yet here we are, job
almost done, with the end in sight failing completely to capitalise on
it, all for the sake of few million quid on some signalling.

If the state can’t get that right first surely they don’t deserve to
be trusted with HS2, not least when we have HS1 as permanent reminder
of it’s limitless ability to balls up, go completely OTT, with our
money.

In message <o35op55fc3nk590a0otnfl205n2snrodok>
Bruce <docnews2011> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:31:03 -0800 (PST), allantracy
> <allanbintracy> wrote:
>>
>>For heaven’s sake, we now have four tracks on the WCML virtually all
>>the way to Preston.


> Virtually all the way to Crewe, surely? There's a lot of double track
> north of Crewe.

And how many tph? Less than 1 Glasgow-London!

That's one of the reasons for going Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds,
Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow. You could justify 4 tph
all along that route.

Michael Bell

allantracy wrote:

> Why do I not find it so hard to believe that, whilst tilting trains
> have been exploited very successfully all over Europe and the rest of
> the World, here in the UK, with some of the twistiest track around, we
> have failed? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
Have you never been to Switzerland? or Austria? or parts of Germany? or...

It's crazy to suggest that the UK has "some of the twistiest track around".