RailUK Forums
RailUK Forums > UK Railway Forums > Infrastructure & Stations

Click to visit us on Facebook

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 27th July 2010, 13:28   #1
YorkshireBear
Established Member
 
Join Date: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 6,112
Default MML Electrification

Say MML goes ahed, would there be a strong case to just carry on the extra miles (dont know how many) to moorthorpe and doncaster from sheffield? Allowing all MML to be electric (cept those which go London nottingham sheffield) And allow sheffield leeds (via bolton on dearne) and sheffield adwick services to become electrified? Also would stopping services from leeds/doncaster to derby be a sensible idea should enough stock become avaliable? (thinking scotrails 322's that are being released)

Also would it not be an idea at this point to buy XC new dual mode trains that can run derby newcastle electric and derby reading diesel. then allow the existing voyagers to strengthen other services.

Personally i think HST's are still good enough to be used to the displaced HST's from EMT where would they be good to go?

On another note, just electrifiy to nottingham and derby and transfer HST's to sheffield services to cut costs.


i know its a bit long just some thoughts id lke responses to
YorkshireBear is offline  
Sponsored links - Registered users do not see these banners - join today!
Old 29th July 2010, 10:57   #2
Kneedown
Driver Instructor
Established Member
 
Kneedown's Avatar
 
Join Date: 29 Dec 2007
Location: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 1,053
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyowl1992 View Post
Say MML goes ahed, would there be a strong case to just carry on the extra miles (dont know how many) to moorthorpe and doncaster from sheffield? Allowing all MML to be electric (cept those which go London nottingham sheffield) And allow sheffield leeds (via bolton on dearne) and sheffield adwick services to become electrified? Also would stopping services from leeds/doncaster to derby be a sensible idea should enough stock become avaliable? (thinking scotrails 322's that are being released)

Also would it not be an idea at this point to buy XC new dual mode trains that can run derby newcastle electric and derby reading diesel. then allow the existing voyagers to strengthen other services.

Personally i think HST's are still good enough to be used to the displaced HST's from EMT where would they be good to go?

On another note, just electrifiy to nottingham and derby and transfer HST's to sheffield services to cut costs.


i know its a bit long just some thoughts id lke responses to
I've always said that electrification of the MML will be the last major outlay in the drive towards a majority electrified passenger network. Once it's all done, and it ALL of it would have to done (not practical to do via Derby and not the Erewash) then everything else is just infill.
__________________
All opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
Kneedown is offline  
Old 29th July 2010, 12:27   #3
ajax103
Established Member
 
ajax103's Avatar
 
Join Date: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 4,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneedown View Post
I've always said that electrification of the MML will be the last major outlay in the drive towards a majority electrified passenger network. Once it's all done, and it ALL of it would have to done (not practical to do via Derby and not the Erewash) then everything else is just infill.
Indeed and could mean when there is engineering works on the ECML for example, some services could divert though the MML ie the Scottish/Newcastle services so calling as booked to Doncaster then off to St Pancras via Sheffield meaning the Leeds, GCs and HTs would go via Peterborough and onto Kings Cross.

It is possible, probably just means a hourly/half hourly service for St Pancras to cope.
ajax103 is offline  
Old 29th July 2010, 12:33   #4
Richard Armstrong
Established Member
 
Richard Armstrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: 8 Jun 2005
Posts: 1,920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajax103 View Post
Indeed and could mean when there is engineering works on the ECML for example, some services could divert though the MML ie the Scottish/Newcastle services so calling as booked to Doncaster then off to St Pancras via Sheffield meaning the Leeds, GCs and HTs would go via Peterborough and onto Kings Cross.

It is possible, probably just means a hourly/half hourly service for St Pancras to cope.
Unfortunately this sort of flexiblity was severely reduced when St. Pancras (MML) was only built with 4 platforms.
__________________
Richard
Photo site | Video site
Richard Armstrong is offline  
Old 29th July 2010, 12:40   #5
MCR247
170397
Established Member
 
MCR247's Avatar
 
Join Date: 7 Nov 2008
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,005
Default

Unless they worked together and there was 1tph from Scotland - St Pancras and then 1tph Leeds - St Pancras and then 2tph Nottingham - St Pancras which could work?
MCR247 is offline  
Old 30th July 2010, 12:48   #6
LE Greys
Established Member
 
LE Greys's Avatar
 
Join Date: 6 Mar 2010
Location: Hitchin
Posts: 5,389
Default

With even more filling in, it's possible to run diversions from King's Cross via Grantham-Nottingham-Sheffield-Leeds-York. I've been considering a series of fill-ins along there, although all would require the electrification of TPX South. Norwich-Ely-Peterborough (the second half providing an ECML diversionary route via Cambridge), Grantham-Nottingham, Sheffield-Manchester (part of the TPX South scheme) and Manchester-Preston. EMT would hand the Norwich-Liverpool route over to XC, and it would extend further, eventually running from Norwich to Glasgow with an increase in frequency, using Voyager-based EMUs.
LE Greys is offline  
Old 30th July 2010, 14:14   #7
jopsuk
Established Member
 
Join Date: 13 May 2008
Posts: 8,081
Default

Peterborough-Birmingham, in addtion to a Norwich-Peterborough electrification, would be of use too (I think some of it would be covered by already suggested bits of fill-in).
Then further away from the MML, ELy/Cambridge to Ipswich, plus the Felixstowe line, allowing much expanded electric freight.
jopsuk is offline  
Old 30th July 2010, 17:46   #8
ashworth
Member
 
Join Date: 10 Sep 2008
Location: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 567
Default

Running trains from Kings Cross to Nottingham via Grantham could be quite fast but perhaps becuse nottingham has always been so much part of MML it has only occasionally been seriously considered.

Last Saturday I caught the 1230 from Kings Cross and was in Nottingham at 1422. That included a 10 minute wait for a connection at Grantham and a rather slow journey from Grantham to Nottingham with stops at Bottesford and Bingham. Also the approach into Nottingham for the last few miles was very slow with lots of stopping and starting. With electification from Grantham to Nottingham and the raising of line speeds this could be a serious contender.
ashworth is offline  
Old 31st July 2010, 22:20   #9
bluenoxid
Established Member
 
Join Date: 9 Feb 2008
Posts: 1,442
Default

Considered? Unlikely? Grantham - Nottingham is only going to be occasionally used as a diversionary route. What's the point? Surely connecting services into East Coast services at Grantham would work better (and consider that the network is fragmented).

It will also be interesting to see who occupies the extra path on the ECML.
bluenoxid is offline  
Old 31st July 2010, 23:03   #10
O L Leigh
Platform 12A again...?
Established Member
 
O L Leigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 3,685
Default

I have always maintained that a major electrification scheme is not worth doing unless it provides an electrified NETWORK. There's no point just wiring a single route because it limits the benefits. I firmly believe that the scope of the ECML electrification should have been greater and provided for more electric services within the WYPTE area and included the Newcastle-Sunderland line and more of Edinburgh's suburban network.

Therefore any MML scheme should provide electrified links to neighbouring locations in order that local services can be improved.

O L Leigh
__________________
We are the willing, lead by the incompetent to achieve the impossible for the ungrateful.
O L Leigh is offline  
Old 1st August 2010, 15:23   #11
LE Greys
Established Member
 
LE Greys's Avatar
 
Join Date: 6 Mar 2010
Location: Hitchin
Posts: 5,389
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by O L Leigh View Post
I have always maintained that a major electrification scheme is not worth doing unless it provides an electrified NETWORK. There's no point just wiring a single route because it limits the benefits. I firmly believe that the scope of the ECML electrification should have been greater and provided for more electric services within the WYPTE area and included the Newcastle-Sunderland line and more of Edinburgh's suburban network.

Therefore any MML scheme should provide electrified links to neighbouring locations in order that local services can be improved.

O L Leigh
Couldn't agree more
LE Greys is offline  
Old 3rd August 2010, 13:50   #12
tbtc
I am the passenger...
Established Member
 
tbtc's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Dec 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 13,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by O L Leigh View Post
I have always maintained that a major electrification scheme is not worth doing unless it provides an electrified NETWORK. There's no point just wiring a single route because it limits the benefits. I firmly believe that the scope of the ECML electrification should have been greater and provided for more electric services within the WYPTE area and included the Newcastle-Sunderland line and more of Edinburgh's suburban network.

Therefore any MML scheme should provide electrified links to neighbouring locations in order that local services can be improved.

O L Leigh
Spot on. apart from the North Berwick line and the Shipley lines, the ECML electrification was about as "basic" as you could get (e.g. they could have wired to Hull, wired the Sunderland/ Middlesbrough lines, wired further in Scotland).

I completely agree with MML electrification, as it would be much more beneficial to the overall network than GWML electrification. This includes Corby (which could go to Thameslink), the lines from Sheffield to Doncaster/ Leeds and the Birmingham - Nottingham line. You'd then have a lot of potential diversionary routes and possible for new EMU links (whereas the GWML only benefits the GWML and would effectively be "stand alone" from all other electrification in the UK)

However, if the MML were to be wired, maybe the handful of trains to Leeds wouldn't be needed any more, so they'd decide it wasn't worth wiring north of Sheffield - just speculating.
tbtc is offline  
Old 3rd August 2010, 13:56   #13
MCR247
170397
Established Member
 
MCR247's Avatar
 
Join Date: 7 Nov 2008
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbtc View Post
Spot on. apart from the North Berwick line and the Shipley lines, the ECML electrification was about as "basic" as you could get (e.g. they could have wired to Hull, wired the Sunderland/ Middlesbrough lines, wired further in Scotland).

I completely agree with MML electrification, as it would be much more beneficial to the overall network than GWML electrification. This includes Corby (which could go to Thameslink), the lines from Sheffield to Doncaster/ Leeds and the Birmingham - Nottingham line. You'd then have a lot of potential diversionary routes and possible for new EMU links (whereas the GWML only benefits the GWML and would effectively be "stand alone" from all other electrification in the UK)

However, if the MML were to be wired, maybe the handful of trains to Leeds wouldn't be needed any more, so they'd decide it wasn't worth wiring north of Sheffield - just speculating.
They are making the MML faster at the moment, but if they wired to Leeds they could extend one of the Sheffield trains to Leeds and it might only be around 20 minutes slower than the ECML!
MCR247 is offline  
Old 3rd August 2010, 14:55   #14
The Planner
Established Member
 
Join Date: 15 Apr 2008
Posts: 4,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MCR247 View Post
They are making the MML faster at the moment,
All that is still at the planning stage, will be a couple of years before you see any of that on the ground.
The Planner is offline  
Old 3rd August 2010, 22:07   #15
tbtc
I am the passenger...
Established Member
 
tbtc's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Dec 2008
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 13,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MCR247 View Post
They are making the MML faster at the moment, but if they wired to Leeds they could extend one of the Sheffield trains to Leeds and it might only be around 20 minutes slower than the ECML!
I take it your "twenty minutes slower" would involve running "fast" from Leicester to Chesterfield? (just curious)

London
Leicester
Chesterfield
Sheffield
Wakefield
Leeds?
tbtc is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright © 2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© RailUK Forums 2005 - 2014