WCML slow lines - upgrade to 125mph?

[Philip]

Do you think the WCML slow lines should be upgraded to allow 125mph running and so provide more flexibility for the Avanti services & timetable? Would it be a lot of work or is most of the necessary signalling and infrastructure in place to allow an upgrade?

The main benefit would obviously be if the fast lines are blocked somewhere, an express could switch to the 'slow' lines and potentially keep to 125mph, depending on how far in front a LNR service is. It would also increase track capacity on certain stretches if you could run 2 fast trains in each direction within the same signal zone, not sure it would be enough to create another path, but it could ease the pressure on the timetable, which is a bit of a tightrope as it stands.

How much would this project cost, including the Watford & Northampton loops and also potentially upgrading Kilsby & Watford Tunnels to 125mph running at the same time?

Do you think the WCML slow lines should be upgraded to allow 125mph running and so provide more flexibility for the Avanti services & timetable? Would it be a lot of work or is most of the necessary signalling and infrastructure in place to allow an upgrade?

The main benefit would obviously be if the fast lines are blocked somewhere, an express could switch to the 'slow' lines and potentially keep to 125mph, depending on how far in front a LNR service is. It would also increase track capacity on certain stretches if you could run 2 fast trains in each direction within the same signal zone, not sure it would be enough to create another path, but it could ease the pressure on the timetable, which is a bit of a tightrope as it stands.

How much would this project cost, including the Watford & Northampton loops and also potentially upgrading Kilsby & Watford Tunnels to 125mph running at the same time?

Hoe much would this project cost, including the Watford & Northampton loops and also potentially upgrading Kilsby Tunnel to 125mph running at the same time?

 

[richieb1971]

Your not going to get 125mph on the slows south of Rugby. Each and every station has an island platform that bulges out on the slow side due to the formation being fasts on the west side, slows on the east side. The fast side is as straight as an arrow in most stations.

North of Rugby the fast and slows change formation with the slows on the outside and the fasts on the inside. At 125 mph the trains would pose a great risk to passengers on the platforms. The fast platforms in a lot of stations were sectioned off by see through fencing as 99.9% of trains do not stop (safety) and I guess suicides.

Also, if a 125mph train is running on the slow line where is the slower train in front of it going to go? The slows have the busiest freight network on the WCML and the top speed is 75mph. It won't take long for a 125mph train to catch a 75mph train. You would need loops all over the place.

HS2 was supposed to solve your problem.

 

[jfollows]

North of Nuneaton the slow lines are already EPS 125, the new four-track sections anyway (including platform lines), see https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sectional-appendix/Sectional Appendix full PDFs December 23/London North Western (South) Sectional Appendix December 2023.pdf

 

[Railsigns]

It would also increase track capacity on certain stretches if you could run 2 fast trains in each direction within the same signal zone, not sure it would be enough to create another path, but it could ease the pressure on the timetable, which is a bit of a tightrope as it stands.

Running a mix of fast and slow trains on the Slow lines would reduce their capacity, compared to running only slow trains.

 

[The Planner]

You would just catch a train up. The two track timetable cannot run more than 6 Avanti per hour, and thats borderline. You would need some serious remodelling to sort Northampton. The slows arent that slow anyway and Im interested why you think the timetable is on a "tightrope"

 

[furnessvale]

The issue of track wear also enters into the equation. The amount of superelevation applied on curves is dictated by the speed of trains over that line. Increase the speed to 125, with commensurate superelevation, and all the slower freights will be bearing down on the lower rail increasing rail wear.

 

[Bald Rick]

South of MK, it would be pointless, as the higher speed would barely be used There’s always something in front.

There could be some benefit of lifting Northampton - Rugby to 100; this would save a couple of minutes for all passenger trains using it. Whether there would be enough benefit to pay for the work, I don’t know.

Sorting out Kilsby is very expensive, and saves 10 seconds. Which is why it wasn‘t done by the Route Modernisation.

 

[Whistler40145]

Indeed, 125mph would be a complete waste of time if you've got a freight limited to a specific speed in front

 

[bramling]

South of MK, it would be pointless, as the higher speed would barely be used There’s always something in front.

There could be some benefit of lifting Northampton - Rugby to 100; this would save a couple of minutes for all passenger trains using it. Whether there would be enough benefit to pay for the work, I don’t know.

Sorting out Kilsby is very expensive, and saves 10 seconds. Which is why it wasn‘t done by the Route Modernisation.

I’d have thought if there was money to spend some of the ECML slow lines would bring more benefit. Finsbury Park to Alexandra Palace, and Woolmer Green to Peterborough, where for many years the trains have been capable of more than the line speed.

 

[jfollows]

I’d have thought if there was money to spend some of the ECML slow lines would bring more benefit. Finsbury Park to Alexandra Palace, and Woolmer Green to Peterborough, where for many years the trains have been capable of more than the line speed.

Is the signalling still a constraint on line speed on the slow lines on the ECML or has it been changed - it used to be 3-aspect in the same signal spacing as 4-aspect on the fast lines?

 

[Whistler40145]

We're talking about the WCML

 

[Philip]

The slows arent that slow anyway and Im interested why you think the timetable is on a "tightrope"

The timetable has been designed really well given how much needs to fit in and the infrastructure constraints, but no one can deny that it doesn't take much delay of a train to potentially cause numerous delays of services across hundreds of miles, particularly at Colwich if there's a train via Stafford running late which means the North Staffs line train then has to be held at a signal, or likewise at Rugby when a delayed Birmingham service conflicts with a Trent Valley service.

On the subject of Colwich & the North Staffs, why is Great Haywood-Colwich so slow, along with the trundles through Stone & Kidsgrove?

 

[bramling]

Is the signalling still a constraint on line speed on the slow lines on the ECML or has it been changed - it used to be 3-aspect in the same signal spacing as 4-aspect on the fast lines?

Yes it’s still 3-aspect. Given the slow lines north of Woolmer Green host 6tph off peak and 8tph peak (from summer) then I’d have thought this would offer a benefit favourable to the WCML.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I could see sense in 110 given that all passenger units using it are capable of that (bar the present 730s, but those are short term). And it would reduce time lost when Avanti have to run slow line due to engineering etc.

 

[The Planner]

I could see sense in 110 given that all passenger units using it are capable of that (bar the present 730s, but those are short term). And it would reduce time lost when Avanti have to run slow line due to engineering etc.

Wouldnt make a sizeable dent. Its 90 or 100 on most of it anyway and the Avanti's will get pathed out behind the stoppers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wouldnt make a sizeable dent. Its 90 or 100 on most of it anyway and the Avanti's will get pathed out behind the stoppers.

On the late evening services I've never wholly understood why they are that way round (causing the Avanti to catch the stopper up just before MKC). Surely sending the Avanti out at xx00/30 and the stopper at say xx02/32 would make a heck of a lot more sense - do that and the stopper should turn right for Northampton by the time the Avanti catches it.

 

[The Planner]

On the late evening services I've never wholly understood why they are that way round (causing the Avanti to catch the stopper up just before MKC). Surely sending the Avanti out at xx00/30 and the stopper at say xx02/32 would make a heck of a lot more sense - do that and the stopper should turn right for Northampton by the time the Avanti catches it.

Depends on the stopping pattern, its take around 67 minutes for a semi fast to get to Hanslope, around 50 for an Avanti on the slows.

 

[Tio Terry]

There is the matter of trackside safety to consider.
Up to 100 MPH you need a 1.5M safe cess, above 100mph you need 2.0M. A full risk assessment would be needed to see what infrastructure changes would be necessary or where maintenance access would need to be restricted and special arrangements made to restrict train speeds if staff have to be lineside to deal with problems.

 

[richieb1971]

Once HS2 is complete you get the extra tracks and capacity south of Rugby. Might as well just wait for that.

 

[Lloyds siding]

Then there's the extra noise fencing that you would need to maintain satisfactory noise climates in trackside properties....

 

[The Planner]

On the subject of Colwich & the North Staffs, why is Great Haywood-Colwich so slow, along with the trundles through Stone & Kidsgrove?

Its not, apart from the first mile where its 60mph, the rest is 85 or 125 up to Stone. The rest is going to be down to the level crossings and the S&C for the junction. It an average of 80mph through there at the moment. Even if you got it to an average of 100mph you save 90 seconds you likely can't do anything with because of Colwich and Cheadle Hulme. Kidsgrove is the same due to the tunnel and junction.

 

[Philip]

Its not, apart from the first mile where its 60mph, the rest is 85 or 125 up to Stone. The rest is going to be down to the level crossings and the S&C for the junction. It an average of 80mph through there at the moment. Even if you got it to an average of 100mph you save 90 seconds you likely can't do anything with because of Colwich and Cheadle Hulme. Kidsgrove is the same due to the tunnel and junction.

It's the first mile I'm referring to, why does it remain 60mph for such a long way past the Colwich Jn?

 

[The Planner]

It's the first mile I'm referring to, why does it remain 60mph for such a long way past the Colwich Jn?

Wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't curvature.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's the first mile I'm referring to, why does it remain 60mph for such a long way past the Colwich Jn?

It is the first mile (and a bit) - 1m 32 ch to be precise from the junction to the 85mph limit.

 

[snowball]

Wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't curvature.

Do you mean you woudn't be suprised if it was curvature?

 

[The Planner]

Do you mean you woudn't be suprised if it was curvature?

Whatever, you know what I meant. Railforums pedantry at full force

 

[Energy]

Wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't curvature.

A lazy look at openrailwaymap and the little bump is quite clear so curvature sounds about right. It's open land so I'm sure all the Network North money could fix it for a fraction of HS2 (just ignore the 45mph section right after of course).