WCML upgrade early 2000s

[Philip]

When Virgin took over the running of the WCML, they pledged to bring in new rolling stock in return for Railtrack/SRA upgrading the track and signalling so that the linespeed could be increased. Virgin fulfilled their commitment by introducing Voyagers and Pendolinos, but the other party only partly fulfilled commitments; as the linespeed was only increased to 125mph rather than the 140mph Virgin were hoping for and which the Pendolinos could achieve potentially.

What do people think the situation would be like now if the line had been given the green for 140mph running with the Pendolinos? In particular do you think HS2 would have happened if the WCML had had trains running at 140 from the early 2000s onwards?

 

[The Planner]

Yes, HS2 would have happened. 140mph wouldn't have unlocked vast swathes of capacity and we still aren't in the signalling state the upgrade wanted either.

 

[hexagon789]

What do people think the situation would be like now if the line had been given the green for 140mph running with the Pendolinos? In particular do you think HS2 would have happened if the WCML had had trains running at 140 from the early 2000s onwards?

Yes, because the general capacity would not have been greater than now. Indeed the greater speed differential between trains would probably have caused more problems.

 

[JonathanH]

The need for HS2 might even have been greater because of more demand generated by the higher speeds and less capacity for the LNR services on the main line that now run at 110mph.

A 140mph mainline speed might have led to no capacity at all for the, then, 100mph services run by the local operator in the equivalent of the 2008 timetable change.

 

[Philip]

With capacity being more restricted because of faster running, do people think the 2008 timetable may not have been implemented if the lime had been cleared for 140mph running in the early 2000s?

 

[The Planner]

With capacity being more restricted because of faster running, do people think the 2008 timetable may not have been implemented if the lime had been cleared for 140mph running in the early 2000s?

It would have been different, but not started from scratch.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The need for HS2 might even have been greater because of more demand generated by the higher speeds and less capacity for the LNR services on the main line that now run at 110mph.

If it had gone ahead, Silverlink were talking seriously about leasing Pendolinos so as not to lose their fast line paths. So I think there's a good chance that the Class 350 operated Trent Valley stopper would now be being operated by "Trebor Mint" liveried 390s (or perhaps a Javelin-like doors-at-thirds variant), possibly also the semifast Birminghams.

 

[Bald Rick]

When Virgin took over the running of the WCML, they pledged to bring in new rolling stock in return for Railtrack/SRA upgrading the track and signalling so that the linespeed could be increased. Virgin fulfilled their commitment by introducing Voyagers and Pendolinos, but the other party only partly fulfilled commitments; as the linespeed was only increased to 125mph rather than the 140mph Virgin were hoping for and which the Pendolinos could achieve potentially.

What do people think the situation would be like now if the line had been given the green for 140mph running with the Pendolinos? In particular do you think HS2 would have happened if the WCML had had trains running at 140 from the early 2000s onwards?

Had it been 140 it would have meant a few other things -

Only half hourly to Manchester
No upgrade of Rugby (and therefore fewer trains calling there)
Minimal additional journey time savings

With capacity being more restricted because of faster running, do people think the 2008 timetable may not have been implemented if the lime had been cleared for 140mph running in the early 2000s?

The timetable would have been quite different.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The whole "boulevard of broken dreams" of PUG1 and PUG2 (Planned upgrade 1 and 2 on the West Coast Main line) , is a complex and complicated story.

The 140 mph operation was a bit challenging to say the very least - ! - 125 was a compromise , if not just for the I/C operations , but for the many , other operators on the route. Especially in the context of the various route section upgrades.

There is an honest book to be written sometime about this. Try various past editions of "Modern Railways" for current state of the nation updates.

 

[Hadders]

I'm looking forward to reading all about this in @Bald Rick memoirs...

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm looking forward to reading all about this in @Bald Rick memoirs...

Yes well the memory is not quite what it was.

 

[JonathanH]

Had it been 140 it would have meant a few other things -

Only half hourly to Manchester
No upgrade of Rugby (and therefore fewer trains calling there)
Minimal additional journey time savings

Why would the service to Manchester be limited to two trains an hour in a 140mph timetable? Where would they have gone instead? 4tph to Birmingham?

Or is it just that a timetable devised in 2004 had less aspirations than the 2008 VHF timetable?

 

[Bald Rick]

Why would the service to Manchester be limited to two trains an hour in a 140mph timetable? Where would they have gone instead? 4tph to Birmingham?

Or is it just that a timetable devised in 2004 had less aspirations than the 2008 VHF timetable?

Yes it was 4 to Birmingham, 2 to Manchester.

 

[cle]

Could there ever be a time when certain trunk and more self-contained sections up up to 140mph or even more - for example the middle Trent Valley tracks, Weedon (minus the LNWR Crewe!) - Stafford to Crewe fast lines etc ? Where it might not eat up capacity and where certain branches have already peeled off.

And frankly, north of Carlisle would be most beneficial as HS2 could utilize it too.

 

[Bald Rick]

Could there ever be a time when certain trunk and more self-contained sections up up to 140mph or even more - for example the middle Trent Valley tracks, Weedon (minus the LNWR Crewe!) - Stafford to Crewe fast lines etc ? Where it might not eat up capacity and where certain branches have already peeled off.

And frankly, north of Carlisle would be most beneficial as HS2 could utilize it too.

No chance south of Preston, as HS2 does that job.

and no chance north of Preston, as it’s too twisty to have the sustained running at 140mph that is needed to make a reasonable time difference (you need 20 miles to save 1 minute).

there is an awful lot of infrastructure that needs upgrading for 140mph compared to 125mph. Not least the signalling, track, OLE, power supply and any under track structures.

 

[GLC]

Going the other way (and sorry if this is too off topic), is there an argument for lowering WCML speeds (to say 110mph), once HS2 is fully operational, to lower the maintenance requirements for the new “slow” line, and focussing it on the high speed line?

 

[cle]

No chance south of Preston, as HS2 does that job.

and no chance north of Preston, as it’s too twisty to have the sustained running at 140mph that is needed to make a reasonable time difference (you need 20 miles to save 1 minute).

there is an awful lot of infrastructure that needs upgrading for 140mph compared to 125mph. Not least the signalling, track, OLE, power supply and any under track structures.

But north of Carlisle? Which is the stretch I think is most interesting.

 

[hexagon789]

Going the other way (and sorry if this is too off topic), is there an argument for lowering WCML speeds (to say 110mph), once HS2 is fully operational, to lower the maintenance requirements for the new “slow” line, and focussing it on the high speed line?

I imagine what will happen is the removal of EPS speeds and the TASS balises.

 

[The Planner]

Going the other way (and sorry if this is too off topic), is there an argument for lowering WCML speeds (to say 110mph), once HS2 is fully operational, to lower the maintenance requirements for the new “slow” line, and focussing it on the high speed line?

Wouldn't alter the track category, so maintenance stays the same.

 

[Bald Rick]

Going the other way (and sorry if this is too off topic), is there an argument for lowering WCML speeds (to say 110mph), once HS2 is fully operational, to lower the maintenance requirements for the new “slow” line, and focussing it on the high speed line?

it wouldn’t change the maintenance requirements.

But north of Carlisle? Which is the stretch I think is most interesting.

Last time I looked, north of Carlisle was north of Preston

 

[Agent_Squash]

I imagine what will happen is the removal of EPS speeds and the TASS balises.

And what happens to the Pendolino’s which will still be operating?

 

[hexagon789]

And what happens to the Pendolino’s which will still be operating?

I assumed GLC meant in the future when the 390s are withdrawn, given the suggestion of dropping linespeed to 110.

 

[Wapps]

I imagine what will happen is the removal of EPS speeds and the TASS balises.

What would be the benefit of that?

 

[hexagon789]

What would be the benefit of that?

If we are talking about post-HS2 and post-390 why would you keep TASS, given the 390s will almost certainly be replaced by conventional non-tilting trains?

 

[Mikey C]

By the sound of things, the concept of 140 mph trains on the WCML was a bit flawed in the first place

 

[CW2]

By the sound of things, the concept of 140 mph trains on the WCML was a bit flawed in the first place

A masterly understatement.
Virgin did an excellent job in leading Railtrack by the nose to sign an agreement that neither side could deliver. It ultimately brought about the downfall and ruin of Railtrack, and its replacement by Network Rail.
The notion of having four 390s running to Birmingham per hour would just about stitch up everybody else along the Coventry Corridor, with little or no room for stopping / semi-fast or Cross Country services, let alone freights.
The re-writing of the timetable to produce something that was actually deliverable was taking place in parallel with the re-scoping of the project (i.e. what to build, when, where, at what cost) and the re-negotiation of the Deal of Death done between Virgin and Railtrack.
Yes, there's a good book to be written there, but it might need to wait for one or two key characters to die first!

 

[Speed43125]

There's this old thread from 2012 which includes some interesting comments by OldTimer and others about the then recently introduced VHF timetable on the WCML.

Virgin reckon WCML was a "struggling rail artery"

From the Virgin website. Virgin's worldwide interests and brand strength span transport and many other activities, including financial services and media, and always focus on customer service and innovation. Stagecoach is a leading international public transport group with major operations in...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

By the sound of things, the concept of 140 mph trains on the WCML was a bit flawed in the first place

It was also only 140mph between Euston and Crewe (ie Willesden-Basford Hall).
I don't think we ever discovered how much of the eventual WRCM upgrade was fit for 140mph.
I imagine much of the early major work (eg rebuilding Crewe-Stafford, and the TV4 section) was done with 140mph in mind.
I thought the OHLE spec (fast lines completely rewired) was also for 140mph.

 

[Bald Rick]

I thought the OHLE spec (fast lines completely rewired) was also for 140mph.

originally it was, but that was quickly changed.

the only bit of the whole programme that is still 140 compatible is the power supply. At least it would be, if there weren’t a lot more trains in the system now.

 

[Wapps]

If we are talking about post-HS2 and post-390 why would you keep TASS, given the 390s will almost certainly be replaced by conventional non-tilting trains?

Given that TASS has already been installed, why not replace 390s with next gen tilting trains, to avoid lowering the speed? They are still in manufacture.