MML Electrification: could it lead to extensions, such as Hope Valley or towards Leeds/Doncaster?

[Killingworth]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/mml-electrification-progress-updates.1104455

8 years and 207 pages ago the first post gave completion to Sheffield December 2020. I see no masts anywhere near Sheffield!

I'm often asked when the Hope Valley line will be electrified - official suggestions of after the MML. No chance in my lifetime is my usual sad response.

That's then followed by the inevitable question 'when is the fully electrified MML to be connected on to Wakefield and Doncaster?' Latest statements suggested Sheffield by 2030 so that seems a sensible suggestion? Apparently a very long time ahead.

Trawling through this thread I see no reassurance that Sheffield itself will be fully wired to St Pancras before 2035, if then? Am I being too pessimistic? Have I missed something?

Has Mark Harper something up his sleeve that he can't tell us about until after the local elections?

I look back to the time when the eastern leg of HS2 was to run via Meadowhall - then Sheffield objected giving an excuse to defer, cut back, or cancel it altogether. Talk about shooting Yorkshire in the foot.

There's an article about NR's plans in Rail this week (#765 p5

It seems that work on site will start in April 2015, the contractor being Carillion Powerlines.
They will be using road-rail vehicles for the work, not a high-output system.
The 125mph design isn't explicitly named but seems to not be either Series 1 (140mph, as used on the GW scheme) or Series 2 (100mph, as used on the NW and EGIP schemes).
The masts are said to be of a new slimmer and cheaper design.
Power supplies will be at Sundon/Luton (upgraded), Braybrooke (Market Harborough), Trent and Chesterfield.

The overall cost is set at £1.3 billion (original estimate £0.9 billion).
The milestones are the same as have been published in the NR CP5 plan, with the first stretch to be completed being Bedford-Kettering-Corby by Dec 2017.
Derby/Nottingham is Dec 2019, Sheffield Dec 2020.

The existing OHLE between St Pancras and Bedford will be upgraded for 125mph running, but will not be completely replaced.
They will be making passive provision for future extensions (eg towards Bletchley and Doncaster/Moorthorpe), but none have been approved yet.
Only 4 platforms will be wired at Sheffield, and the tunnel northwards is not being wired.
That means the electric stock must be based to the south of Sheffield.
There will not be a direct connection to any other electrified route, except Thameslink.
There are indirect electrified connections from St Pancras to the WCML and ECML (and HS1).

This scheme was authorised in the CP5 HLOS (July 2012), so it is good going for NR to get the project off the ground within 3 years.
This makes the 4th concurrent major electrification scheme in progress (and has overtaken the TP scheme).
Let's hope for good progress, and early extension!

 

[Flying Phil]

Killingworth makes a good point but, as this project was cancelled, paused, restarted and subject to covid I'm just pleased that it is actually steadily progressing!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Killingworth makes a good point but, as this project was cancelled, paused, restarted and subject to covid I'm just pleased that it is actually steadily progressing!

Indeed. Exactly how I feel. There was quite a bit of talk in the railway press and DfT that the section north from Wigston will NOT be next.

 

[zwk500]

Indeed. Exactly how I feel. There was quite a bit of talk in the railway press and DfT that the section north from Wigston will NOT be next.

Tbf with Bi-modes coming it's not an unsensible thing to prioritise the bits that can be done readily, especially when the section Syston-Trent includes a feeder station. If anything, it gives more certainty that Leicester WILL be done if there are wires visible from both ends of the platforms!
The bit I'd be most worried about is north of Derby. There would be a strong temptation on Whitehall to say 'we've done as far as Nottingham and Derby, let the bi-modes do the final run into Sheffield given we're not wiring the Erewash or Old road anyway'.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I agree with Syston -Trent being done next especially as it includes the Kegworth grid feeder.

 

[BrianW]

I agree with Syston -Trent being done next especially as it includes the Kegworth grid feeder.

I am reminded Gralistair of your several previous and now-closed threads regarding potential future programmes of possible electrifications. Prompted by the thoughts of posts etc visible from both ends of Leicester platforms, 'missing links', the growing acceptability of bi-modes (and or batteries), and yet growing recognition that cities should be diesel exhaust free ... might this suggest a different set of values to be put into calculations of 'best ways forward'. I expect politics to over-ride all, as recognised in this MML thread. Maybe another thread mods?

 

[Halish Railway]

The problem with going north of Sheffield is that the routes towards Doncaster and South Kirkby Junction could do with a significant upgrade. Granted, the narrowness of the cutting north of Sheffield station makes a four-track alignment all the way from Meadowhall to Sheffield impossible, however, there remains various junctions that could be sped up, have a two track lead installed or be grade-separated entirely. There’s also the debate of whether local services from Doncaster should use the tram-train route into Sheffield.

I think it’d be likely that the Tram-train option would be chosen to decongest the northern throat of Sheffield and save having to significantly upgrade Wincobank and Holmes Junction, although four-tracking, as well as remodelling the various junctions along the Masborough Junction to Swinton stretch should be done, and should be a fairly easy job given the wide formation. South Kirkby Junction could be in contention to be grade-separated.

I think wiring Leicester/Trent Junction/Derby to Birmingham should be higher up on the pecking order given the number of freight trains using these routes, as well as helping to justify bi-modes being ordered for CrossCountry services by electrifying the only remaining 125mph part of their network that isn’t currently electrified (I think that’s right).

 

[zwk500]

I think wiring Leicester/Trent Junction/Derby to Birmingham should be higher up on the pecking order given the number of freight trains using these routes, as well as helping to justify bi-modes being ordered for CrossCountry services by electrifying the only remaining 125mph part of their network that isn’t currently electrified (I think that’s right).

Freight can't switch to electric until the bi-modes are in service in serious numbers. I'd be astonished if XC bought bi-modes anytime soon, the money just isn't going to be there for it.

 

[Meerkat]

Granted, the narrowness of the cutting north of Sheffield station makes a four-track alignment all the way from Meadowhall to Sheffield impossible

There is nothing significant in the way before the junction of the Worksop line (though it would be a disruptive job).
However north of that it does get very expensive, with the major A road, Victoria line tunnel and then viaducts.

 

[zwk500]

There is nothing significant in the way before the junction of the Worksop line (though it would be a disruptive job).
However north of that it does get very expensive, with the major A road, Victoria line tunnel and then viaducts.

Only a couple of junctions! Four-tracking through an existing double junctio area isn't cheap because the potential amount of routes goes up massively - and depends on things like how you pair the lines.

 

[Trainbike46]

Freight can't switch to electric until the bi-modes are in service in serious numbers. I'd be astonished if XC bought bi-modes anytime soon, the money just isn't going to be there for it.

Why would the ability to run freight trains using electric depend on what rolling stock XC uses?

 

[zwk500]

Why would the ability to run freight trains using electric depend on what rolling stock XC uses?

They don't, sorry it's too separate points - Freight requires Bi-mode locos (e.g. 88s, 93s or 99s) in serious squadron service to take advantage of electrification.
Separately, I'd be astonished if XC bought more trains.

 

[YorksLad12]

There is nothing significant in the way before the junction of the Worksop line (though it would be a disruptive job).
However north of that it does get very expensive, with the major A road, Victoria line tunnel and then viaducts.

Only a couple of junctions! Four-tracking through an existing double junctio area isn't cheap because the potential amount of routes goes up massively - and depends on things like how you pair the lines.

You'd have to block everything north of Sheffield, terminate the stoppers at Meadowhall and reroute the through services while you did the work. You might also consider doing something with the platforms and through roads at Sheffield at the same time though. Let me go shake the magic money tree...

 

[Nottingham59]

However north of that it does get very expensive, with the major A road, Victoria line tunnel and then viaducts.

How feasible would it be to re-double the line that goes through Tinsley and Rotherham Central, to give four tracks north of Sheffield to Swinton/Mexborough? It looks to be an old four-track alignment to near Meadowhall. The Rotherham tram service would need accommodating somehow, I guess.

 

[Bartsimho]

You'd have to block everything north of Sheffield, terminate the stoppers at Meadowhall and reroute the through services while you did the work. You might also consider doing something with the platforms and through roads at Sheffield at the same time though. Let me go shake the magic money tree...

I mean the entire area is an infrastructure mess so probably needs to be totally redesigned anyway. It would just require The City Council to decide to change the Roads at the same time.

 

[Halifaxlad]

If it was me once wiring has reached Nottingham and Derby I would wire Sheffield Station and the 15 miles or so section from Sheffield to South Elmsall and from Sheffield to Doncaster, before completing the MML in a Southwards direction.

In the meantime the MML could take advantage of these new bi-modes they are to receive.

As for the Hope Valley for what its worth I can't see that being beneficial any time soon but for 15 miles of pretty much tuneless track and you could have around 30 miles of pure electric running whilst getting rid of the need for alternative traction, which will only become more problematic as the 15xs age!

Long term I would upgrade the Hope Valley with some new tunneled sections and then electrify the bits in between.

 

[zwk500]

If it was me once wiring has reached Nottingham and Derby I would wire Sheffield Station and the 15 miles or so section from Sheffield to South Elmsall and from Sheffield to Doncaster, before completing the MML in a Southwards direction.

In the meantime the MML could take advantage of these new bi-modes they are to receive.

As for the Hope Valley for what its worth I can't see that being beneficial any time soon but for 15 miles of pretty much tuneless track and you could have around 30 miles of pure electric running whilst getting rid of the need for alternative traction, which will only become more problematic as the 15xs age!

Long term I would upgrade the Hope Valley with some new tunneled sections and then electrify the bits in between.

What do you mean by 'tuneless'?

 

[D365]

As for the Hope Valley for what its worth I can't see that being beneficial any time soon but for 15 miles of pretty much tuneless track and you could have around 30 miles of pure electric running whilst getting rid of the need for alternative traction, which will only become more problematic as the 15xs age!

best I can tell, most Hope Valley stoppers are now served by Class 195.

 

[bluelagoon8951]

best I can tell, most Hope Valley stoppers are now served by Class 195.

stoppers, yes, but EMR primarily use 158s

 

[Mzzzs]

Derby to Birmingham
Leicester to Birmingham - Was slated for electrification by BR before 2000.

Surely these lines would provide a useful link now and provide some future proof?

 

[Bartsimho]

Derby to Birmingham
Leicester to Birmingham - Was slated for electrification by BR before 2000.

Surely these lines would provide a useful link now and provide some future proof?

Lawley Viaduct via Water Orton as well as Lichfield to Derby.

It provides a long stretch of OHLE with if the full MML is done it's Sheffield to Birmingham and then it offers a reason for XC to have Bi-modes.

Also then a springboard for Sheffield-Doncaster and to Wakefield/Leeds.

Also Trowell Junction to Nottingham to connect that small spur.

 

[Halish Railway]

It provides a long stretch of OHLE with if the full MML is done it's Sheffield to Birmingham and then it offers a reason for XC to have Bi-modes.

Or straight EMUs - If the Midland Rail Hub aspirations go ahead then there will be quite a few self-contained routes that will be entirely electrified.

 

[zwk500]

Derby to Birmingham
Leicester to Birmingham - Was slated for electrification by BR before 2000.

Surely these lines would provide a useful link now and provide some future proof?

On their own, which services do they allow to move to EMU operation? I think Leicester will have to wait for the final MML sorting out, but once that is done Leicester-Birmingham really is crying out - there's a self contained local service, as well as plenty of freight opportunities to Hams Hall and Lawley Street, and you get the added bonus of a diversionary route if Cov gets blocked.
Derby to Birmingham is a classic case where it will be the final link, as everything running Derby-Birmingham runs further on at both ends.

Lawley Viaduct via Water Orton as well as Lichfield to Derby.

You'll be lucky enough to get the direct route at Water Orton wired, the extension from Lichfield won't happen as part of the scheme because there's no passenger traffic over it.

Also then a springboard for Sheffield-Doncaster and to Wakefield/Leeds.

Bi-modes would paradoxically lower the case for the section through Moorthorpe, although I think Sheffield-Doncaster would be justified even with Bi-modes

Also Trowell Junction to Nottingham to connect that small spur.

Given Erewash is not being wired as part of the MML, what would wiring to Trowell do?

 

[Bartsimho]

Or straight EMUs - If the Midland Rail Hub aspirations go ahead then there will be quite a few self-contained routes that will be entirely electrified.

Yeah. It's just that they would probably only want 1 class so a Bi-mode helps for other routes/the time it takes to electrify

Given Erewash is not being wired as part of the MML, what would wiring to Trowell do?

It should be electrified though as it allows the full Nottingham to Sheffield route to be electrified and if Sheffield to Wakefield is done that's a Northern service from Nottingham to Leeds fully done (Also if the East Midlands Hub is done later then a Derby to the Hub is electric already)

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If it was me once wiring has reached Nottingham and Derby I would wire Sheffield Station and the 15 miles or so section from Sheffield to South Elmsall and from Sheffield to Doncaster, before completing the MML in a Southwards direction.

In the meantime the MML could take advantage of these new bi-modes they are to receive.

As for the Hope Valley for what its worth I can't see that being beneficial any time soon but for 15 miles of pretty much tuneless track and you could have around 30 miles of pure electric running whilst getting rid of the need for alternative traction, which will only become more problematic as the 15xs age!

Long term I would upgrade the Hope Valley with some new tunneled sections and then electrify the bits in between.

Wiring to the junction with the Doncaster to Leeds line just North of Moorthorpe/South Elmsall certainly looks like a no-brainer on paper. One slight complication is the loop through Rotherham Central which is currently partially wired with 750v DC for the tram-trains. I know the 399s have passive capability to use the 25kv AC, but I'm not sure if this would need any modifications to the vehicles themselves, or how much work (if any) this would entail. Either way, the transition period would be a bit awkward I suspect, as would the changeover point for the 399s once the work was complete.

 

[Mzzzs]

On their own, which services do they allow to move to EMU operation? I think Leicester will have to wait for the final MML sorting out, but once that is done Leicester-Birmingham really is crying out - there's a self contained local service, as well as plenty of freight opportunities to Hams Hall and Lawley Street, and you get the added bonus of a diversionary route if Cov gets blocked.
Derby to Birmingham is a classic case where it will be the final link, as everything running Derby-Birmingham runs further on at both ends.

You'll be lucky enough to get the direct route at Water Orton wired, the extension from Lichfield won't happen as part of the scheme because there's no passenger traffic over it.

Bi-modes would paradoxically lower the case for the section through Moorthorpe, although I think Sheffield-Doncaster would be justified even with Bi-modes

Given Erewash is not being wired as part of the MML, what would wiring to Trowell do?

The Bham to Leicester stopping service can use the wires between Bham and Leicester

 

[zwk500]

It should be electrified though as it allows the full Nottingham to Sheffield route to be electrified and if Sheffield to Wakefield is done that's a Northern service from Nottingham to Leeds fully done (Also if the East Midlands Hub is done later then a Derby to the Hub is electric already)

The wires ending at Trowell helps nothing though. You need Chesterfield-Nottingham to be wired as one for any benefit.

Wiring to the junction with the Doncaster to Leeds line just North of Moorthorpe/South Elmsall certainly looks like a no-brainer on paper. One slight complication is the loop through Rotherham Central which is currently partially wired with 750v DC for the tram-trains. I know the 399s have passive capability to use the 25kv AC, but I'm not sure if this would need any modifications to the vehicles themselves, or how much work (if any) this would entail. Either way, the transition period would be a bit awkward I suspect, as would the changeover point for the 399s once the work was complete.

You could do the mainline first and convert the Rotherham loop later after modification if necessary.

The Bham to Leicester stopping service can use the wires between Bham and Leicester

1tph each way. Not a great case, if you don't mind me saying. Class 88s, 93s 99s do help the case though, if GBRf and DRS deploy them on the right diagrams.

 

[Greybeard33]

One slight complication is the loop through Rotherham Central which is currently partially wired with 750v DC for the tram-trains. I know the 399s have passive capability to use the 25kv AC, but I'm not sure if this would need any modifications to the vehicles themselves, or how much work (if any) this would entail. Either way, the transition period would be a bit awkward I suspect, as would the changeover point for the 399s once the work was complete.

The 750V DC OLE through Rotherham was designed and constructed (at considerable extra cost) for easy conversion to 25kV AC. 25kV insulators are used and clearances are to 25kV standards. The 399s were delivered with full dual voltage capability, including 25kV transformers and switchgear. The Tinsley Chord is plenty long enough for the voltage changeover.

The original intention was that the tram-train pilot would demonstrate the dual voltage capability, but it was later decided that a grid supply point for just this short section would be too costly.

 

[Killingworth]

I hadn't intended to start a new thread but now it's here..... my first concern is to see electrification operating continuously from St Pancras into Sheffield before going on elsewhere. Present progress is great but completion by December 31st 2030 looks less than certain, 2035 is possibly more realistic?

Why so? Things like:

Clay Cross and Bradway tunnels (and probably the cuttings and Broad Street tunnel at the north end of Sheffield).

Restoring a 3rd (no room for full 4th) track into Sheffield from Dore to allow for the 3rd fast hourly Manchester passenger service supposedly provided for by the current Hope Valley Capacity Scheme but apparently no longer possible without that 3rd track (or dualling the Hazel Grove chord - and who knows what else).

Reconfiguring Sheffield station is necessary.

For starters there are 3 pedestrian bridges across the station (used to be 4) that need replacement. Design of the 'new' bridge failed to take account of the way it would quickly be accepted as a public right of way - which it is not - making introduction of revenue protection barriers a cause for mass protests and abandonment. It is now too narrow for the numbers of people crossing and probably too low for electrification. The older bridge used for railway barrows is unsuitable for regular alternative passenger use (when lifts break down) but may also to too low. The third bridge at the south end completely spans the station but is now closed on safety grounds - no step free access, completely enclosed and subject to vandalism and loitering with fears about drugs and knives - none of which would have occurred to the Midland Railway when it was built.

There is plenty of space to service long trains as they were 40 or so years ago Platforms 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 would all hold 16 carriages or more and maybe still can if they're going in the right direction at the right time. However we're now trying to run more frequent shorter trains on basically the same infrastructure.

I take Platforms 1 and 2 as starting examples to illustrate limitations. In my first picture a 6 car TPE Liverpool - Cleethorpes has run through and crossed over to 1A. There's room for a following northbound 6 car train to arrive in 1B. - BUT such a 6 car service will stop with the rear carriage still behind the starting signal. If returning south or westwards the driver will be unable to see that signal so will have to set back, having to get clearance to obstruct entry into 1B. Moving the starting signal further down the platform would remove protection for the points onto the west side central road. Moving those points further south would conflict with the other central road.

2a and 2B are even more restricted as there's no crossover from the central roads. 2C will only take a 2 car train which was fine when Hope Valley services were a Pacers or a 2 car 150 or 195. Extending it northwards to 3 cars would require demolition of station buildings or alternatively redesigning trackwork at the southern throat, probably in conjunction with 1A, 2A and 5A..

It starts getting more complicated at the south end with access to 5B and then there's 6, before looking at 3 and 4 going north!

All this needs deciding now bearing in mind that making any further changes after the wires go up would be so costly that they'd probably never be done.

But will it be considered, agreed and done in good time prior to electrification? Or will cost of reconfiguring be a reason not to electrify, or electrification be given as the reason for inadequate reconfiguration?

Mañana rules?

Meanwhile a potential doubling in passenger numbers over the next 10 years is quite within the bounds of possibility. Anyone with a marketing brain would be setting that as minimum target. Sheffield is not alone in being unable to handle such an increase without major investment.


Ah yes, electrifying from Sheffield to to Doncaster, Leeds and Manchester. I'm not a betting man but if any of those are fully wired and operational through to Sheffield by 2040 I'll consider buying and eating my hat! Possibly signed off and work commenced on Leeds and Doncaster, yes.

 

[YorksLad12]

I take Platforms 1 and 2 as starting examples to illustrate limitations. In my first picture a 6 car TPE Liverpool - Cleethorpes has run through and crossed over to 1A. There's room for a following northbound 6 car train to arrive in 1B. - BUT such a 6 car service will stop with the rear carriage still behind the starting signal. If returning south or westwards the driver will be unable to see that signal so will have to set back, having to get clearance to obstruct entry into 1B. Moving the starting signal further down the platform would remove protection for the points onto the west side central road. Moving those points further south would conflict with the other central road.

The TPE set is on P1B, at the northern end, beyond the points. Trains aren't usually let into P1A if P1B is occupied. I kmow this from past experience of waiting for the semi-fast from Nottingham, which is timed to arrive after the TPE to Cleethorpes. What happens now (at 5pm, anyway) is that the TPE pulls into P2, the semi-fast into P1A and the XC into P2. But yes, some of the pointwork at Sheffield is... odd.