Progress on Avanti West Coast's 805/807s Hitachi AT300 sets

[hexagon789]

Not quite. It's 29.5 mins for 390 timings (30.5 for 80x, which most Liverpool services are now timed for), which rounds to 30 and 31 minutes in the public timetable, respectively. However, there's no engineering allowance until after Milton Keynes, and it's very rare for trains to actually make it in 29.5 minutes.

The lack of engineering allowance before Milton Keynes really does seem "optimistic" to say the least; amongst regions where discrete engineering allowances are used (rather than an extra 10% being incorporated into the SRTs, as happens on the ex-SR regions) I don't think there are any other lines out of London where you can go over 50 miles without needing to incorporate an engineering allowance.

That being said, unlike trains on the Up Fast and Down Slow, trains on the Down Fast can't get held for conflicting trains at Watford Junction, Bourne End or Ledburn Jns.

Must've interpreted the WTT wrongly.

Admittedly, 30.5 seemed over generous - not even quite 99mph start-to-stop.

With the exeption of higher maximum speeds, I don't understand why tilt is even considered on UK rails, given it's impacts on our already very restrictive loading gauges

When BR were genuinely proposing 155mph running on the WCML without any alterations to the curvature, you can kind of understand the reasoning behind adopting tilt - at those sort of speeds (admittedly you wouldn't be doing 155 'round most curves), the comfort factor is more pronounced.

At 125 vs 110, the difference must be fairly marginal. As I said, the Northern ECML gets away with the higher cast deficiency to permit higher speeds. It can be lively (I've had similar rides in France and Switzerland though, and France in particular allows higher cabt deficiencies on its classic mainlines), it's not unsafe.

Perhaps when Virgin were originally aiming for 140mph, tilt was of greater benefit.

 

[irish_rail]

I know I risk playing a broken record here but why did Avanti not just go for tilting stock? Tilting trains are still being ordered and it would have been less of an operational issue to have all rolling stock at the same performance levels to keep the WCML reliable and efficient.

It's already problematic enough when a 350 is delayed. The GW fasts being all IET and the odd 110mph 387 have done wonders in increasing reliability and efficiency without a half hourly 90mph Turbo on the fasts. I thought it was a no brainer to keep the line with trains of like peformance.

DFT have previous here though as the IETs that replaced HSTs are slower on diesel and accordingly take longer on certain sections especially on Reading to Penzance. I guess in the overall grand scheme of things it isn't the end of the world and it won't be for Liverpool either.

 

[100andthirty]

I know I risk playing a broken record here but why did Avanti not just go for tilting stock? Tilting trains are still being ordered and it would have been less of an operational issue to have all rolling stock at the same performance levels to keep the WCML reliable and efficient.

It's already problematic enough when a 350 is delayed. The GW fasts being all IET and the odd 110mph 387 have done wonders in increasing reliability and efficiency without a half hourly 90mph Turbo on the fasts. I thought it was a no brainer to keep the line with trains of like peformance.

Avanti would have had to buy what they could get. Their order was small, and this generally means buying something that's in production. There are no UK gauge tilting trains currently in production. Standards have moved on since the Pendolinos were obtained so more of those would have meant a significant redesign. Not viable for a small order. The same applies to the bi-modes.

The CAF class 397 might have been a possible option instead of the Hitachi electric trains, but for 125mph bi-modes, the Hitachi train was, at point of ordering, the only show in town.

 

[RailWonderer]

The CAF class 397 might have been a possible option instead of the Hitachi electric trains, but for 125mph bi-modes, the Hitachi train was, at point of ordering, the only show in town.

Bombardier have offered a 125mph bi-mode Aventra that nobody has yet ordered and since being merged with Alstom they could most certainly add tilt to it. As said though, cost would be a huge factor.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I know I risk playing a broken record here but why did Avanti not just go for tilting stock? Tilting trains are still being ordered and it would have been less of an operational issue to have all rolling stock at the same performance levels to keep the WCML reliable and efficient.

The last UK Pendolino arrived in 2012, and the design is now obsolete.
Alstom could build you a UK version of the New Pendolino still in production, but at a huge cost for a small order, considering the amount of re-engineering involved.
DB/OBB have the ICE-T (with similar tilt mechanism to the Pendolino) but with the same problem of re-engineering for a small UK fleet.
And the killer is that HS2 won't countenance tilt for the HS2 fleet when operating on the WCML north of Lichfield/Crewe, so we are stuck with a future non-tilt speed profile for the long-distance services on the WCML.

To replace the Voyagers a tilting bi-mode design is needed
Talgo/Bombardier made such a train for Renfe (the S-730), but they are cumbersome and unreliable, and would also need re-engineering for UK use.
The tilt mechanism does not have the controls necessary for the UK.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

And the killer is that HS2 won't countenance tilt for the HS2 fleet when operating on the WCML north of Lichfield/Crewe, so we are stuck with a future non-tilt speed profile for the long-distance services on the WCML.

Assuming that these IET's main "stomping ground" (or running lines if you'd prefer!) will be south of Crewe and would be serving stopping-style services (in a similar fashion to LNER's Lincoln/Leeds services) once HS2 Phase 1 and 2A are open, tilt would be less useful given the WCML's rather straight alignment south of Crewe.

 

[Watershed]

tilt would be less useful given the WCML's rather straight alignment south of Crewe.

The WCML is far from straight south of Crewe! It's relatively straight between Stafford and Lancaster, but south and north of these places, there are many differential tilt speeds; some of them quite significant.

 

[gabrielhj07]

The last UK Pendolino arrived in 2012, and the design is now obsolete.
Alstom could build you a UK version of the New Pendolino still in production, but at a huge cost for a small order, considering the amount of re-engineering involved.
DB/OBB have the ICE-T (with similar tilt mechanism to the Pendolino) but with the same problem of re-engineering for a small UK fleet.
And the killer is that HS2 won't countenance tilt for the HS2 fleet when operating on the WCML north of Lichfield/Crewe, so we are stuck with a future non-tilt speed profile for the long-distance services on the WCML.

Of course the sensible thing to do would be to put the ICE-T on HS2.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course the sensible thing to do would be to put the ICE-T on HS2.

Er, why? HS2 itself will be more or less straight, and ICE T would knock platforms off once it ran into the classic line.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

Of course the sensible thing to do would be to put the ICE-T on HS2.

They aren't compatible with the UK's restrictive loading gauge, and the Berne gauge on HS2 is most certainly straight enough not to need the added expense per train

 

[gabrielhj07]

A variant of the ICE-T, adjusted for gauge, obviously, should be able to use EPS speeds on the classic lines.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

A variant of the ICE-T, adjusted for gauge, obviously, should be able to use EPS speeds on the classic lines.

That would likely get prohibitively expensive. I remember reading somewhere around the time the HS2 rolling stock was announced that the cost of creating a UK variant of a Berne Gauge train would cost +50% per unit.

 

[craigybagel]

ICE T is also too slow for HS2. Top speed is only 230kmh.

So basically if you want a tilting train fast enough for HS2 you're designing a new train from scratch.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Assuming that these IET's main "stomping ground" (or running lines if you'd prefer!) will be south of Crewe and would be serving stopping-style services (in a similar fashion to LNER's Lincoln/Leeds services) once HS2 Phase 1 and 2A are open, tilt would be less useful given the WCML's rather straight alignment south of Crewe.

Except for:
Whitmore, Norton Bridge, Stafford-Colwich, Rugeley-Armitage, Lichfield, Atherstone, Rugby, Weedon, Wolverton, Linslade, Berkhamsted etc etc...
We have yet to see what speed profile will apply to non-tilt trains at those locations, where full-tilt is currently necessary to achieve 125mph.

Avanti's 80x will be concentrated south of Crewe (actually Weaver Jn).
However HS2 trains will run north of Lichfield/Crewe, and there are also TPE's WCML services (397, 802).
So the whole route will be run by non-tilt services from 2028 or whenever HS2 rolling stock is introduced.

 

[The Planner]

I travelled Eus to LIV return on an 11-car running to 80x timings. Quite a few slowings for TSR's, so the 390 was driven at normal pace and just about managed to arrive on LIV on time. The return journey was disrupted by late running LNWR service delaying departure from Crewe by 4 mins - pathed SL to Stafford (not FL as booked) so 11 min late at some point, but managed to recoup a fair bit of time to approach Euston 3.5 min down but then frustratingly held at red signals outside Euston resulting in a 6 min late arrival.
Analysis of the sectional running times EUS to MKC is 28.5 mins vs 30.5 mins - so the planners expect the 805/7 to be 2 min slower than a 390 on that section alone! Hevn't yet analysed the remainder of the timings to Weaver Jn. Doesn't seem to be an efficient use of the track. Planners are going to have fun trying to path the tilt 125mph vs 125mph non-tilt and 110mph trains.

Why? They fit.

Not quite. It's 29.5 mins for 390 timings (30.5 for 80x, which most Liverpool services are now timed for), which rounds to 30 and 31 minutes in the public timetable, respectively. However, there's no engineering allowance until after Milton Keynes, and it's very rare for trains to actually make it in 29.5 minutes.

The lack of engineering allowance before Milton Keynes really does seem "optimistic" to say the least; amongst regions where discrete engineering allowances are used (rather than an extra 10% being incorporated into the SRTs, as happens on the ex-SR regions) I don't think there are any other lines out of London where you can go over 50 miles without needing to incorporate an engineering allowance.

That being said, unlike trains on the Up Fast and Down Slow, trains on the Down Fast can't get held for conflicting trains at Watford Junction, Bourne End or Ledburn Jns.

Down Fast departures from St Pancras East Mids don’t get a minute until approaching Bedford Sth Jn, which to all intents and purposes is only about half a mile shy of MKC. Granted though Hanslope as the next mandatory timing point is further on.

I suspect operators argued at the time that adding [1] approaching MKC is redundant and would eat capacity. Far better to use the multi platform layout at MKC to get most capacity out of the network and apply the time after.

Exactly this, it was done to keep a headline MK time and to remove the need to PB back the station times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly this, it was done to keep a headline MK time and to remove the need to PB back the station times.

Though it does give an impression of sloppiness, which can't help the railway's case.

 

[Railperf]

Must've interpreted the WTT wrongly.

Admittedly, 30.5 seemed over generous - not even quite 99mph start-to-stop.


When BR were genuinely proposing 155mph running on the WCML without any alterations to the curvature, you can kind of understand the reasoning behind adopting tilt - at those sort of speeds (admittedly you wouldn't be doing 155 'round most curves), the comfort factor is more pronounced.

At 125 vs 110, the difference must be fairly marginal. As I said, the Northern ECML gets away with the higher cast deficiency to permit higher speeds. It can be lively (I've had similar rides in France and Switzerland though, and France in particular allows higher cabt deficiencies on its classic mainlines), it's not unsafe.

Perhaps when Virgin were originally aiming for 140mph, tilt was of greater benefit.

Fastest time in the RPS archive is 28:46 for a 390 Euston to Milton Keynes. And start to pass on the Royal Scot record attempt was 27:45, albeit 12 secs ahead at Bletchley. So a 29 min timing is possibler when there are no TSR's.
Having looked at the schedules and analysed the sectional running times minus any allowances, the planners expect the 802's to be 1 min slower from Euston to Milton Keynes and 6 min slower from Milton Keynes to Crewe, but from Crewe to Liverpool the times are equal.
Seven minutes slower isn't world ending for the passenger, but that does consume more than two 125mph tilt paths on the rail network!

 

[hexagon789]

Fastest time in the RPS archive is 28:46 for a 390 Euston to Milton Keynes. And start to pass on the Royal Scot record attempt was 27:45, albeit 12 secs ahead at Bletchley. So a 29 min timing is possibler when there are no TSR's.
Having looked at the schedules and analysed the sectional running times minus any allowances, the planners expect the 802's to be 1 min slower from Euston to Milton Keynes and 6 min slower from Milton Keynes to Crewe, but from Crewe to Liverpool the times are equal.
Seven minutes slower isn't world ending for the passenger, but that does consume more than two 125mph tilt paths on the rail network!

That 7 mins is presumably on current SRTs with a 110mph ceiling and ordinary PSRs though?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seven minutes slower isn't world ending for the passenger, but that does consume more than two 125mph tilt paths on the rail network!

If they're not needed for something else then it doesn't overly matter. And don't forget the 350s knocking about at 110 too - are they flighted with those?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

That 7 mins is presumably on current SRTs with a 110mph ceiling and ordinary PSRs though?

I think The Planner indicated they were the intended 80x SRTs, though they must be theoretical as no trains have yet run.
Also on infrastructure that I don't think has been re-signed for 80x/MU operation.
It's unusual to introduce a new timetable before the matching trains/infrastructure are delivered!

 

[Jammy Dodger]

I think The Planner indicated they were the intended 80x SRTs, though they must be theoretical as no trains have yet run.
Also on infrastructure that I don't think has been re-signed for 80x/MU operation.
It's unusual to introduce a new timetable before the matching trains/infrastructure are delivered!

I wouldn't consider anything Avanti does these days to be particularly rational (although I can't comment from first hand experience). The chance that this stock will be publicly operated by DfT's OLR in the near future seems to be increasing. I believe we will find out more in April...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't consider anything Avanti does these days to be particularly rational

I don't like them, but the new Pendolino interior is fantastic (though I think the buffet could have been done better). I really, really like it. So some credit, and I expect the 80x to be fantastic as they have a number of things that make them nicer than Pendolinos e.g. the larger windows (and am quite glad two out of three of MKC's services will be them).

 

[The Planner]

Fastest time in the RPS archive is 28:46 for a 390 Euston to Milton Keynes. And start to pass on the Royal Scot record attempt was 27:45, albeit 12 secs ahead at Bletchley. So a 29 min timing is possibler when there are no TSR's.
Having looked at the schedules and analysed the sectional running times minus any allowances, the planners expect the 802's to be 1 min slower from Euston to Milton Keynes and 6 min slower from Milton Keynes to Crewe, but from Crewe to Liverpool the times are equal.
Seven minutes slower isn't world ending for the passenger, but that does consume more than two 125mph tilt paths on the rail network!

Original proposals (still might be the same) were 805s 1 minute slower to MK as noted with a stop. 2½ slower Euston to Rugby non-stop, 2 minutes with a MK stop. Rugby to Colwich 2 minutes slower non-stop. 30 seconds slower Colwich to Crewe with a Crewe stop. Euston to Crewe non stop is 5 minutes slower on an 800.

 

[Halish Railway]

It's unusual to introduce a new timetable before the matching trains/infrastructure are delivered!

But that’s because it’s unusual for new trains to be introduced that are slower than those they are replacing / supplementing. Implementing a new timetable now has allowed Avanti to add extra calls to its services to try and drum up some extra demand to compensate for the loss in long distance business travelling which probably won’t reach a pre-Covid level until HS2 facilitates another re-write of the WCML timetable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that’s because it’s unusual for new trains to be introduced that are slower than those they are replacing / supplementing.

Is it? Didn't introducing Electrostars and Desiros en-masse in former slamdoor land significantly slow things down? The trains themselves may be sprightlier, but commuters opening doors before it had even stopped would have saved lots of time (at the expense of safety).

Implementing a new timetable now has allowed Avanti to add extra calls to its services to try and drum up some extra demand to compensate for the loss in long distance business travelling which probably won’t reach a pre-Covid level until HS2 facilitates another re-write of the WCML timetable.

Yes, in a changed world connectivity probably trumps speed. Which raises interesting HS2-related questions, of course. Though some of it at the moment is quite sub-optimal, e.g. the Scotland-Brum-Euston has to sit around for a fairly long time to await the semifast Euston path it presently runs in at Wolves.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I wouldn't consider anything Avanti does these days to be particularly rational (although I can't comment from first hand experience). The chance that this stock will be publicly operated by DfT's OLR in the near future seems to be increasing. I believe we will find out more in April...

Well it's Network Rail in charge of the timetable and infrastructure.
And it's pretty much irrelevant who runs the service as the trains are in manufacture and their performance is (or should be) well understood.
But it is odd that no test running with, say, an 802, has not been tried on the 805/7 routes.

For the future, I think it's possible Avanti might stay as incumbent on the classic WCML, but lose the HS2 rights.
That's because DfT won't want HS2's image tarnished by the prospect of a second-rate operator (who was supposed to be "world-class" in the ITT).
The world has changed since the Avanti franchise was awarded in 2019.
In particular, HS2 is now a going concern rather than a vague line on a map.

 

[steeevooo]

Well it's Network Rail in charge of the timetable and infrastructure.
And it's pretty much irrelevant who runs the service as the trains are in manufacture and their performance is (or should be) well understood.
But it is odd that no test running with, say, an 802, has not been tried on the 805/7 routes.

For the future, I think it's possible Avanti might stay as incumbent on the classic WCML, but lose the HS2 rights.
That's because DfT won't want HS2's image tarnished by the prospect of a second-rate operator (who was supposed to be "world-class" in the ITT).
The world has changed since the Avanti franchise was awarded in 2019.
In particular, HS2 is now a going concern rather than a vague line on a map.

Might the fact that no 802 test running (assuming there hasn't been - I haven't checked) has occurred have something to do with the fact that the 805/807s are due to be running on a new, yet-to-be-implemented, speed profile that therefore wouldn't yet be available for 802s to use/test?

 

[Railperf]

Original proposals (still might be the same) were 805s 1 minute slower to MK as noted with a stop. 2½ slower Euston to Rugby non-stop, 2 minutes with a MK stop. Rugby to Colwich 2 minutes slower non-stop. 30 seconds slower Colwich to Crewe with a Crewe stop. Euston to Crewe non stop is 5 minutes slower on an 800.

Comparing the current 80x SRT's from Euston to Crewe it appears to be a 7 min difference compared to 390 SRT's. Maybe a planned 5 min difference will come once the 805's have been able to validate that in testing?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Might the fact that no 802 test running (assuming there hasn't been - I haven't checked) has occurred have something to do with the fact that the 805/807s are due to be running on a new, yet-to-be-implemented, speed profile that therefore wouldn't yet be available for 802s to use/test?

As I understand it, there are no physical changes on the WCML other than speed signage - removing Voyager differentials and introducing MU ones at different places.
It's entirely possible, with the current level of industrial relations, that this change has not yet been signed off.

 

[The Planner]

Comparing the current 80x SRT's from Euston to Crewe it appears to be a 7 min difference compared to 390 SRT's. Maybe a planned 5 min difference will come once the 805's have been able to validate that in testing?

With what stops? Just a MK or something different?