Great Western Electrification Progress

[fgwrich]

Crossrail originally went to Maidenhead, so that was the first slice of GW electrification approved, west of Airport Jn.
The next project approved was Thames Valley suburban, which meant Maidenhead-Oxford/Newbury.
Then the main line was approved: Didcot-Bristol-Cardiff (and now Swansea).
When the contracts were let, Stockley-Maidenhead was let by Crossrail to Balfour Beatty, and NR let the rest to Amey (to the same design).
After all that happened, the Crossrail service was extended to Reading, but they are still working on the construction contract split at Maidenhead.
BB are not using the HOPS system, so are not having the same troubles as further west (although they have some troubles of their own, as we have seen in the North West).

Didcot-Oxford is mired by resignalling issues and the overlap of several upgrade schemes (capacity, Chiltern, East West, electric spine, station rebuilding etc).
I think we can forget electric spine for a bit.

Aren't Balfour Beatty supposed to be using or making use of some of the same staff and trains as their NW project as well, which I believe has sent their CrossRail project into running behind schedule as well? The Amey end is supposed to be being done as we know with the HOOPs MPV, while Balfour's seem to be doing it, albeit rather slowly, from Langley with the more traditional RRV attachment to drive their piles in. Of course the issue with the missing signalling cables schematic in the four foot emanating from the former Slough panel hasn't helped matters either which is one reason why some of the pile driving was delayed until the switching of signalling control to TVSC this year.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Aren't Balfour Beatty supposed to be using or making use of some of the same staff and trains as their NW project as well, which I believe has sent their CrossRail project into running behind schedule as well? The Amey end is supposed to be being done as we know with the HOOPs MPV, while Balfour's seem to be doing it, albeit rather slowly, from Langley with the more traditional RRV attachment to drive their piles in. Of course the issue with the missing signalling cables schematic in the four foot emanating from the former Slough panel hasn't helped matters either which is one reason why some of the pile driving was delayed until the switching of signalling control to TVSC this year.

BB did say they were going to use the construction trains from the NW project for GW Crossrail, specifically the wiring train.
But BB have had trouble with all that (eg a couple of accidents), and reverted to RR vehicles for the back end of NW Phase 2.
I did see the WCML OHLE train (used to replace the WCML contact wire) at work around Manchester on Phase 2, so that must be available.
Anyway, neither BB or Amey have reached the wiring stage yet on GW.
On the NW project, progress has slowed to a crawl, which might be because of transfer of resources to GW.
But there are also rumours of contractual problems with NR on the NW project.
Not at all clear.

 

[snowball]

It looks like Cardiff-Swansea and Didcot-Oxford are "at risk" of being pushed back in the GW electrification programme if London-Swindon is prioritised.

The implication of the Modern Railways item (see #1032 on page 69) is that the new push to get Paddington-Swindon finished has been introduced in the awareness that it may have negative effects on the timing of Oxford, Newbury and everything west of Swindon.

 

[w1bbl3]

I really do not understand how HOPS could be designed and manufactured to not install system 1, unless it's a case of separate teams not communicating which is really unforgivable these days.

Another aspect raised in the File on 4 programme on Radio 4 last night, was the risk of rolling out a new electrification design (Series 1) on GW without any trials.
I know NR has the High Marnham test track but that doesn't test performance in normal traffic conditions.
It could also be a reason for not rushing into MML wiring, until the Series 1 system is proved.

Is Series 1 a NR design or a supplier design? I'd assumed Furrer+Frey where the system designers including responsibility designing in for acceptable in-service and degraded performance characteristics. I also thought that NR had reconfigured Old Dalby for Series 1 testing at operating line speed, e.g. full system implementation, recanted tracks for 125mph running and planning permission for 12? passes per hour.

The system should surely work as planned in service or far more detailed pre-production acceptance testing should have been carried out, finding out the whole thing doesn't work £1bn later would be rather silly from a risk management perspective.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is Series 1 a NR design or a supplier design? I'd assumed Furrer+Frey where the system designers including responsibility designing in for acceptable in-service and degraded performance characteristics. I also thought that NR had reconfigured Old Dalby for Series 1 testing at operating line speed, e.g. full system implementation, recanted tracks for 125mph running and planning permission for 12? passes per hour.

The system should surely work as planned in service or far more detailed pre-production acceptance testing should have been carried out, finding out the whole thing doesn't work £1bn later would be rather silly from a risk management perspective.

My understanding is Series 1 (and 2) are Network Rail designs with F&F as consultants.
But the F&F web site seems to treat Series 1 as their proprietary design. http://www.furrerfrey.ch/en/systems/Series-1.html
The NR publicity linked to the start-up of MML (now aborted) said they were going to use a modified (cheaper) version of Series 1 (without HOPS).

I don't know how well the Old Dalby setup replicates service running.
High Marnham was supposed to test the HOPS system before transfer to GW.

I'm not saying anything is wrong with the design, just that there were hints of design or interface problems mentioned in the radio programme.

 

[snowball]

I understood the radio programme to say that after specifying HOPS in the finest detail, NR tried to use HOPS on the GWR to install a different design of OLE from that which they had assumed in the specification.

 

[BananaRepublic]

...When the contracts were let, Stockley-Maidenhead was let by Crossrail to Balfour Beatty, and NR let the rest to Amey (to the same design).

Out of interest, who is contracted to carry out the Paddington to Stockley (Airport Junction) upgrade/replacement of the existing OHLE?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Out of interest, who is contracted to carry out the Paddington to Stockley (Airport Junction) upgrade/replacement of the existing OHLE?

I'm guessing that is Balfours too under the Crossrail banner, but not certain.
There have already been large electrification upgrades at Kensal Green, Acton and Stockley, but I suppose the main lines still have to be upgraded west of (I think) Acton, where the current 125mph track starts.

 

[mr_moo]

I really do not understand how HOPS could be designed and manufactured to not install system 1, unless it's a case of separate teams not communicating which is really unforgivable these days.

It's not quite the case that it was designed for a different system - that's innaccurate journalism.

The Series 1 spec was still under development when the HOPS train (High Output Plant System in case anyone was wondering) was specified and a contract was let for the construction.
The tight timescales for the electrification given to NR by the government meant that the only way to do it was with the HOPS train - This was the only way to hit the productivity required.

The reliability of the existing UK OLE systems was not good enough and so a new system, taking on board the best of the old systems and incorporating a lot of lessons learned from the older system was made. This is called "Series 1". There is also "Series 2", which is also new but designed for the lower speed/traffic lines.

Series 1 took a long time to get finalised as there was a lot of people involved and a lot of people to get agreement from. I know a few of the people involved in getting the approvals done and it was a huge task but the end spec should give a much higher reliability than, for example, WCML Mk I stuff.
The whole idea is that we've not got much electrification in this country so far but we're going to put a whole load more up so let's learn the lessons and get it right for the future.

So: NR had to commission the construction of a train to install a completely new design of system that was not yet finalised. Waiting would have meant that the programme would be even further behind than it is. Pressing ahead carried the risk of the train not being perfectly aligned with the final spec. It's not a show stopper though - it's just not quite as perfect for the job as it could have been and thus there are some inefficiencies and some areas that need a bit of re-thinking.

I'm guessing that is Balfours too under the Crossrail banner, but not certain.
There have already been large electrification upgrades at Kensal Green, Acton and Stockley, but I suppose the main lines still have to be upgraded west of (I think) Acton, where the current 125mph track starts.

A lot of work has taken place so far to support the major works going on at Old Oak Common, Acton and Stockley to change the OLE in line with the requirements. As these changes have been undertaken, headspans have been removed and changed for gantries, cantilevers, portals etc.
There's a lot more work to bring in ATF (it's currently a BT system) and also to upgrade the tensions etc for 125mph running (it's currently rated at 100mph as that's the top speed of the HeX units). This is being done by Carillion in part, as the main works contractor for this area, but there is more work to be done for which a contract has yet to be let.

For the main part of the Crossrail works, Balfours do outer (West of Stockley) and Carillion do Inner (Stockley to Paddington).

 

[HSTEd]

So on the basis of improving reliability because apparently Mark 3 equipment was insufficiently reliable (if it was as unreliable as some people implied no trains would ever run on the ECML or elsewhere as it would fall over every five minutes) Network rail attempted to use an overhead wiring scheme that had never been used on a real project before. They then decided to install this OLE using equipment that had been designed before the aforementioned system and apparently had not been properly checked with it. Doing this in an attempt to push the boundaries of the current state of the art in equipment installation?

Who the hell thought that was a good idea?

They should have just used late model Mark 3 equipment, complete with headspans.
In the interests of "doing it properly" to gain relatively minor efficiency benefits we have now lost the bulk of the electrification programme.

 

[Domh245]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the late model Mk3 kit was not compatible with 140mph running - one of the aspirations for the GWML once ERTMS comes online. It would make more sense to start the next-generation of mainline electrification projects with a new design of OHLE, otherwise in 20 years time, we might well have still been installing equipment that can trace it's lineage to the early 80s.

As for comments about 'loosing the bulk of the electrification program' and similar, it is really rather irritating! We've lost it from this control period and it will almost certainly be re-announced as the 'headline act' of the next CP. This is better because all of the engineers and bods from the GWML project can transfer over to the MML once the GWML is done and start installation with what would now be proven kit ,or modified from series 1 to become series 1.1 if it doesn't live up to expectations. But Furrer & Frey have got a strong track record in OHLE design, so I expect it will work fairly 'out of the box'

 

[BananaRepublic]

A lot of work has taken place so far to support the major works going on at Old Oak Common, Acton and Stockley to change the OLE in line with the requirements.
As these changes have been undertaken, headspans have been removed and changed for gantries, cantilevers, portals etc.

There's a lot more work to bring in ATF (it's currently a BT system) and also to upgrade the tensions etc for 125mph running (it's currently rated at 100mph as that's the top speed of the HeX units).
This is being done by Carillion in part, as the main works contractor for this area, but there is more work to be done for which a contract has yet to be let.

For the main part of the Crossrail works, Balfours do outer (West of Stockley) and Carillion do Inner (Stockley to Paddington).

Thanks for the info Mr Moo.

 

[HSTEd]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the late model Mk3 kit was not compatible with 140mph running - one of the aspirations for the GWML once ERTMS comes online.

The 140mph aspiration for the GWML is one of those things they threw in to gain publicity for the programme, actually attempting to design a timetable to enable it to be used effectively is rather difficult. The GWML has turned into some sort of weird 125mph metro with lots of stops at relatively small spacings.
Mix in the Cross Country trains and all the other traffic and it starts to look more than a little impractical.

It is probably also not totally incompatible, it is just some bean counter at HQ in Milton Keynes decided it was too expensive. BR seriously proposed 140mph running on the Mark 3 equipment on the ECML and got as far as ordering trains for it and running trials with the signalling equipment (which is why we had the flashing green aspect which I believe is still partially in place).
I've even got documentation from the 80s discussing a timetable with flighting of Mark 4 sets and HSTs.

It would make more sense to start the next-generation of mainline electrification projects with a new design of OHLE, otherwise in 20 years time, we might well have still been installing equipment that can trace it's lineage to the early 80s.

Perhaps, but it was rather unwise to attempt to deploy so many firsts at once.
This Series 1 kit should have been trialled on a relatively unimportant "branch" of the GWML electrification whilst the HOPS train was used to put up Mark 3 kit on the main route. Say Swansea-Cardiff once that was added to the programme.
If it actually worked they would have had extra time to work up the proper modifications to the HOPS train (or more likely simply spec and build another) to work with the Series 1 kit, in time for its big serious debut with the MML electrification.

And Mark 3 equipment can trace its lineage from Crewe-Glasgow electrification in the mid-70s.

As for comments about 'loosing the bulk of the electrification program' and similar, it is really rather irritating! We've lost it from this control period and it will almost certainly be re-announced as the 'headline act' of the next CP.

The problem is, if we look historically, that a project that is indefinitely shelved is essentially cancelled.
This has happened over and over in the history of the railways.
If it was just delayed they probably would have said that to avoid the flak from indefinitely shelving it.

Another problem is that the MML electrification is probably going to be overtaken by events - it certainly won't be finished before 2025 at which point HS2 construction will be well underway.
Whilst HS2 won't do catastrophic things to the MML traffic levels directly it will free a bunch of ECML paths.
Currently the all ICEC stop train does London-Grantham in 70 minutes (Stevenage and Peterborough). The fastest regular London-Nottingham train is ~100 minutes, which means if a train could do Grantham-Nottingham leg in 30 minutes it can match it.
It would even be reasonably competitive if it ran through to Derby.

Class 150s did that in the 80s, and any speed improvements on the MML will have to compete against the saving of several minutes on Grantham-London timings we can expect when IEP arrives (something on order of 3-5 with the stopping pattern).

The same diagram extended to York does London-Retford in 98 minutes.
Currently it takes 45 minutes for Retford to Sheffield.
That means 143 minutes London-Sheffield via Retford, IEP savings would probably get that down to ~136 minutes and if we delete the Retford-Sheffield stops (it is only 30 miles and the intervening stations are hardly large) you can save lots of time there. 138 minutes already matches the MML Slow train.
Certainly improvements to speed on the Retford-Sheffield section (and indeed the Nottingham-Grantham section) would get better results than throwing money at 125mph on the MML.

This all assumes that all remaining ICEC trains adopt the same London-Stevenage-Peterborough-Grantham-Newark-Retford-Doncaster stopping pattern, which would provide lots of capacity and allow for lots of trains to be run, even before we consider divisions.
140mph on bits of the ECML makes it look even more problematic for the MML in the post-HS2 environment.

 

[edwin_m]

Another problem is that the MML electrification is probably going to be overtaken by events - it certainly won't be finished before 2025 at which point HS2 construction will be well underway.
Whilst HS2 won't do catastrophic things to the MML traffic levels directly it will free a bunch of ECML paths.
Currently the all ICEC stop train does London-Grantham in 70 minutes (Stevenage and Peterborough). The fastest regular London-Nottingham train is ~100 minutes, which means if a train could do Grantham-Nottingham leg in 30 minutes it can match it.
It would even be reasonably competitive if it ran through to Derby.

These suggestions don't take account of Leicester, which benefits virtually not at all from HS2 (only the possibility of northern links via Toton). Keeping Leicester connected to London, Nottingham and Derby leads directly to the need to maintain a fast frequent service on the MML between London and Derby/Nottingham.

The aspiration for London-Nottingham via MML is 90 minutes. The fastest Nottingham train (a Meridian) almost achieves that today. This will be regularly attainable by a combination of EMU performance instead of HST, transfer of the Market Harborough stop to extra short-distance services and line speed enhancements at Market Harborough and elsewhere. Thus the Grantham route becomes probably uncompetitive for Nottingham and definitely uncompetitive for Derby.

Future Derby times will be similar to Nottingham's, though faster at present because of use of Meridians and fewer intermediate stops. Similar logic probably applies to Sheffield, although there the HS2 option is more competitive because the greater distance partly offsets the need to change at Meadowhall.

Certainly improvements to speed on the Retford-Sheffield section (and indeed the Nottingham-Grantham section) would get better results than throwing money at 125mph on the MML.

125mph on the MML is already allowed virtually everywhere the curvature allows it. Journey time savings will be about tackling some of the lower speed areas.

The 140mph aspiration for the GWML is one of those things they threw in to gain publicity for the programme, actually attempting to design a timetable to enable it to be used effectively is rather difficult. The GWML has turned into some sort of weird 125mph metro with lots of stops at relatively small spacings.
Mix in the Cross Country trains and all the other traffic and it starts to look more than a little impractical.

...

140mph on bits of the ECML makes it look even more problematic for the MML in the post-HS2 environment.

I don't quite see why 140mph should be possible on the ECML under Mk3 catenary, when it's not possible on the GWML under new catenary designed for the purpose. By your logic both will be geared to medium-distance services with a similar stopping pattern and traffic mix.

 

[glbotu]

They should have just used late model Mark 3 equipment, complete with headspans.

As someone who has to use the ECML a fair deal, I can say that Mk3 equipment probably wouldn't be up to scratch for a brand new project. While it doesn't fall over every 5 minutes, it has the problem of

a) Falling over in high winds

and

b) If it falls over on one line, it falls over on all adjacent lines.

The number of cancellations/severe delays during the Winter when the headspans fall over is not good enough and just to repeat that on a new electrification project would be unwise at best.

 

[snowball]

There seems to be a tendency to regard "Mark 3" as implying "headspans". However

1) Where there are only two tracks, Mk 3 would normally use simple cantilevers, not headspans.

2) Where there are four tracks in two pairs with enough separation between the pairs, Mk 3 would probably use simple cantilevers.

3) Mk 3 uses portals in some places.

4) There are also other possible configurations used in some places.

So as far as I know it would be perfectly possible to design an installation that was Mk 3 but deliberately avoided headspans.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As someone who has to use the ECML a fair deal, I can say that Mk3 equipment probably wouldn't be up to scratch for a brand new project. While it doesn't fall over every 5 minutes, it has the problem of
a) Falling over in high winds
and b) If it falls over on one line, it falls over on all adjacent lines.

The number of cancellations/severe delays during the Winter when the headspans fall over is not good enough and just to repeat that on a new electrification project would be unwise at best.

NR has already said that for 140mph on the ECML, it needs:
- new contact wire at higher tension
- strengthened catenary (lineside masts are OK)
- clearance works at bridges and crossings to provide a near-constant wire height

And ETCS signalling.

 

[HSTEd]

As someone who has to use the ECML a fair deal, I can say that Mk3 equipment probably wouldn't be up to scratch for a brand new project. While it doesn't fall over every 5 minutes, it has the problem of

a) Falling over in high winds

The only section really susceptible to that [Newcastle-Edinburgh] was lightly engineered even by Mark 3 standards. Because the BCR ran out at Edinburgh but BR decided it would be better to have electrification all the way to Edinburgh/Glasgow rather than bother with the previously planned loco change at Newcastle.

The rest of the line does not suffer much worse than other lines of older, higher weight, equipment - such as the vaunted Mark 1 gantries on the WCML-South.
(I also use the ECML regularly - ironically I have been delayed by OLE problems less often than on my semi regular travels on the WCML)

and

b) If it falls over on one line, it falls over on all adjacent lines.

It is hard to think of a scenario that will allow one line to fail without forcing a block on all adjacent lines for safety reasons.
In most cases the disruption will last all day in both scenarios - since it will be overnight before they fix anything.
The fact that all new IC (and maybe commuter with bimode taking off) electric trains will be able to drag on diesel also sort of undermines this since they will just be able to proceed through the damaged area on diesel power.

The number of cancellations/severe delays during the Winter when the headspans fall over is not good enough and just to repeat that on a new electrification project would be unwise at best.

Excluding Newcastle-Edinburgh which is right next to a windy featureless coast and was underengineered to get it past the treasury is not really a project you should use to indict the project.

Mark 3 electrification gear was also used at Saltcoats......... where waves break over the trains.

 

[QueensCurve]

As someone who has to use the ECML a fair deal, I can say that Mk3 equipment probably wouldn't be up to scratch for a brand new project. While it doesn't fall over every 5 minutes, it has the problem of

a) Falling over in high winds

and

b) If it falls over on one line, it falls over on all adjacent lines.

The number of cancellations/severe delays during the Winter when the headspans fall over is not good enough and just to repeat that on a new electrification project would be unwise at best.

Am I correct in believing that Germany uses predominantly headspan wires on multiple track sections?

If so how do they make it work and be adequately robust? Are we missing a trick?

 

[HSTEd]

These suggestions don't take account of Leicester, which benefits virtually not at all from HS2 (only the possibility of northern links via Toton). Keeping Leicester connected to London, Nottingham and Derby leads directly to the need to maintain a fast frequent service on the MML between London and Derby/Nottingham.

Yes, a fast frequent stopping service.
Which can be provided by a three or four car Turbostar like every other regional railway with traffic dominated by short journeys.

The aspiration for London-Nottingham via MML is 90 minutes. The fastest Nottingham train (a Meridian) almost achieves that today. This will be regularly attainable by a combination of EMU performance instead of HST, transfer of the Market Harborough stop to extra short-distance services and line speed enhancements at Market Harborough and elsewhere. Thus the Grantham route becomes probably uncompetitive for Nottingham and definitely uncompetitive for Derby.

Big shock, a billion+ pound upgrade project can deliver marginal improvements over my almost zero investment option.
(It will use IEPs rendered surplus by HS2 taking over almost all the ECML's long distance traffic).
It requires no electrification work at all. And it maximises capacity on the ECML by giving all ICEC trains identical stopping patterns so they can be more easily flighted. I doubt that much traffic would be required - but I will assume so and not drop any stops.
I did not previously include IEP improvements to Grantham which are apparently 3-4 minutes which takes us to 96 minutes.

So now the electification wins you 6 minutes.
And will the MML have the paths to give Nottingham two fast trains per hour as the ECML will be able to do?

Future Derby times will be similar to Nottingham's, though faster at present because of use of Meridians and fewer intermediate stops. Similar logic probably applies to Sheffield, although there the HS2 option is more competitive because the greater distance partly offsets the need to change at Meadowhall.

Yes, very marginally improved for enormous expenditure.
The benefits over the via ECML option that accrue from the electrification will certainly gut the "infinite BCR", if balooning costs have not done that already.
Minor upgrades, along secondary lines would provide the bulk of the improvements for less money.
For example 100mph running on the Grantham Nottingham line, even in part, would be able to match the 90 minute aspired travel time for Nottingham, and likely provide it Derby with decent times. And a two train per hour clockface timetable with those times to London.

I don't quite see why 140mph should be possible on the ECML under Mk3 catenary, when it's not possible on the GWML under new catenary designed for the purpose. By your logic both will be geared to medium-distance services with a similar stopping pattern and traffic mix.

I didn't say it wouldn't be possible.
I said it probably wouldn't be practical.
Traffic on the GWML is far more heterogenous than on large parts of the ECML.
140mph running between Peterborough and Stoke Tunnel for example would not interfere with general operations as essentially the only trains on those fast lines will be 140mph capable IEPs. There are also no intermediate stops to get in the way.

This will not be the case on very large parts of the GWML.

Also note that I made no credit in my analysis for 140mph operation on the ECML, I was merely taking a note of ORRs projected IEP performance gains.

 

[QueensCurve]

Excluding Newcastle-Edinburgh which is right next to a windy featureless coast and was underengineered to get it past the treasury is not really a project you should use to indict the project.

Mark 3 electrification gear was also used at Saltcoats......... where waves break over the trains.

Is the implication that, where Mk3 is not "underengineered" it is fit for purpose?

Certainly Mk3 Cantilevers don't look that different from systems in other countries that work well even on high speed lines.

Could it be that the headspan sections of the ECML are underengineered and could have been adequate had they been properly constructed, perhaps at higher expense?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Could it be that the headspan sections of the ECML are underengineered and could have been adequate had they been properly constructed, perhaps at higher expense?

Yes IMHO. If the spacings between the masts had been closer together it would help considerably. That of course increases costs.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, a fast frequent stopping service.
Which can be provided by a three or four car Turbostar like every other regional railway with traffic dominated by short journeys.

No, a mixture of fast and stopping trains so that both Leicester and the places south of it get the service they deserve.

And name me one other place an hour from London with a similar population (300k+) that either relies on diesels with no plan for electrification, or loads to only three or four cars.

By your logic Nottingham would also require three or four car units, wasting capacity on the ECML. Serving both with one train allows it to be a decent length.

And will the MML have the paths to give Nottingham two fast trains per hour as the ECML will be able to do?

The MML is planned to run at least six fasts per hour in the long term plus some semis (Network Rail route strategy).

Yes, a fast frequent stopping service.
For example 100mph running on the Grantham Nottingham line, even in part, would be able to match the 90 minute aspired travel time for Nottingham, and likely provide it Derby with decent times. And a two train per hour clockface timetable with those times to London.

The fastest Nottingham-Derby time is around 20min and it won't improve much due to the horrendous restriction in the middle, so I can't see how a Derby service via Grantham could ever be competitive with one via Leiecester. And if they can't competitively serve either Derby or Leicester as well, then you're back to uneconomically short trains - plus as far as I can see the extra expense of running bi-modes.

Yes, a fast frequent stopping service.
Traffic on the GWML is far more heterogenous than on large parts of the ECML.

You are suggesting that Nottingham (pop 500k-ish for the conurbation) Leicester and Derby (300k-ish each) should put up with a semi-fast service via the ECML. So why do you assume trains to Bristol (437k, somewhat more for the conurbation but served by two stations) and Cardiff (324k) deserve a fast/semi mix?

 

[QueensCurve]

NR has already said that for 140mph on the ECML, it needs:
- new contact wire at higher tension
- strengthened catenary (lineside masts are OK)
- clearance works at bridges and crossings to provide a near-constant wire height

And ETCS signalling.

But BR did run trials at 140mph shortly after electrification the flashing green fifth aspect.

Why was the OHLE adequate for 140mph then, but not now?

 

[NotATrainspott]

The idea that the MML could remain unelectrified is silly. Running diesel trains at 125mph on a four-track railway is silly, since there's blatantly enough demand for electrification infrastructure to be worthwhile. The line runs up the middle of the country, connecting up other lines and traffic flows with strong cases for electrification (Nuneaton-Leicester-Peterborough-Ipswich-Felixstowe, the CrossCountry route via Derby to Sheffield, the freight flows from the South Coast to the Midlands and the North, the local services that already exist and will need to exist around Nottingham and Sheffield, ...) HS2 might be coming in 2030 or so but we're seeing rail passenger numbers increase well above predictions every year, and there is no economic way of carrying that increase in passengers without electrification.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The idea that the MML could remain unelectrified is silly. Running diesel trains at 125mph on a four-track railway is silly, since there's blatantly enough demand for electrification infrastructure to be worthwhile.

I agree. Remember GWML - on hold then big announcement it is going ahead. Then we extend to Swansea, then we do the valleys.

It will be similar with the MML. The MML will in my opinion be delayed only - not cancelled. LETS resurrect this thread in the future. The government will delay and after review do Kettering and Corby. Then it will get extended with another announcement to Sheffield. This will spread the cost over a longer period. This will allow core GWML to be finished or close to and then reallocate the resources to the MML.

I am not a doomsayer. No way will this be indefinitely cancelled - it would be ludicrous. IMHO

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But BR did run trials at 140mph shortly after electrification the flashing green fifth aspect.
Why was the OHLE adequate for 140mph then, but not now?

It was only a limited test (actually for the acceptance of the Mk4 rolling stock), and I imagine the stretch of line was chosen to avoid problems.
Day in day out at 140mph is a different matter.
The WCML had new (larger cross/section) contact wire fitted recently for the same reason, with the OHLE realigned.
Apparently it means closing level crossings to avoid the rise of the contact wire over them, and the reverse under bridges.
Standards have also changed since 1991.

 

[HSTEd]

No, a mixture of fast and stoppin

g trains so that both Leicester and the places south of it get the service they deserve.

Leicester, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough - which together approximate half the population of Nottingham.
It is hardly capable of justifying the project for electrification by itself - which is basically what you are doing.
4 trains per hour using a combinations of the rump 222 fleet and some Turbos (or similar rolling stock) would easily provide a good service to those people, what Leicester loses the people of Kettering and Market Harborough and Wellingborough, which add up to 150,000 or so, will gain. When their service explodes to a clockface four trains per hour.

And name me one other place an hour from London with a similar population (300k+) that either relies on diesels with no plan for electrification, or loads to only three or four cars.

Find me another place with the misfortune to be on a railway backwater which is slow as to be almost worthless.

By your logic Nottingham would also require three or four car units, wasting capacity on the ECML. Serving both with one train allows it to be a decent length.

You mean like the five car trains that will soon dominate the operations of the ECML?
So what if it 'wastes capacity' on the ECML? This is the post HS2 environment, the long distance service out of King's Cross has essentially ceased to exist.
The basis of the timetable ends up being:
1tph calling Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark Northgate, Retford, Doncaster, Wakefield Westgate, Leeds
1tph calling Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark Northgate, Retford, Doncaster, York

That is pretty much it. There is not much demand for anything else apart from occasional trains to Lincoln and Hull which add up to 1tph between them if we are lucky.
We can afford to spend trains on Sheffield and Nottingham/Derby, even before we consider the possibility of splitting trains to support some of the secondary destinations like Hull and the Leeds North Suburban.

The MML is planned to run at least six fasts per hour in the long term plus some semis (Network Rail route strategy).

Ah yes - the glorious NetworK Rail route strategies.
The ones that assume unlimited spend on infrastructure.
They are aspirational - you should look at the ECML one, it seems to invent a way to violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle in the vicinity of Welwyn North.

The fastest Nottingham-Derby time is around 20min and it won't improve much due to the horrendous restriction in the middle, so I can't see how a Derby service via Grantham could ever be competitive with one via Leiecester.

The one via Grantham costs far less to run since you only burn diesel for 20-odd miles at relatively low speed.

And if they can't competitively serve either Derby or Leicester as well, then you're back to uneconomically short trains - plus as far as I can see the extra expense of running bi-modes.

Well I get some operational slack from not spending the billion+ pounds on the MML electrification project.
I can have all the bi-modes I want, since bi-mode Turbo style stock on the 4tph Leicester service (Which I assume will split and run 2tph Nottingham and Derby all shacks) would not burn any diesel south of Bedford.
Nottingham has the population of Derby, Leicester, Kettering, Wellingborough and Market Harborough combined. It is the only city in the area that really matters, the rest are just gravy.
Proper timings of the via Leicester and via Grantham trains will allow them to slot in a timetable that will provide four useable trains to Derby. This will partially offset the degraded travel times by cutting the average wait time from 15 minutes to 7.5 minutes.

Bi-modes are the future, you will just have to get used to it now that the DfT has developed a taste for them.

You are suggesting that Nottingham (pop 500k-ish for the conurbation) Leicester and Derby (300k-ish each) should put up with a semi-fast service via the ECML.

Nottingham's conurbation population comes out closer to eight hundred thousand, the city boundaries are drawn incredibly tightly - the City Ground isn't even in the city for example.
It is larger than Derby, Leicester and Kettering combined.

This 'semi fast' service to Nottingham will be as fast as the MML Fast train and faster than the slow train. Which is a net gain (2 fast trains per hour instead of 1 fast and one snail).

So why do you assume trains to Bristol (437k, somewhat more for the conurbation but served by two stations) and Cardiff (324k) deserve a fast/semi mix?

These places do not have a railway that can deliver the major population centre in the region a service faster than the current fastest using semi fast paths.

Nottingham is as fast or faster and more frequent, Derby is slower but more frequent which partially offsets it (you save 7.5 minutes from 4tph).
Leicester is the only real loser but that has to be traded against the major service improvements at Loughborough, Kettering, Market Harborough and Wellingborough.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

They are aspirational - you should look at the ECML one, it seems to invent a way to violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle in the vicinity of Welwyn North.

I love it - so not- no two electrons can occupy the same space or have the same set of quantum numbers ---- but --- no two trains can have the same headcode or no two trains can occupy the same path.

 

[edwin_m]

Leicester, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough - which together approximate half the population of Nottingham.

Leicester on its own is more than half the population of Nottingham. Please see my figures above and my point below about Nottingham urban area.

4 trains per hour using a combinations of the rump 222 fleet and some Turbos (or similar rolling stock) would easily provide a good service to those people, what Leicester loses the people of Kettering and Market Harborough and Wellingborough, which add up to 150,000 or so, will gain. When their service explodes to a clockface four trains per hour.

So you are disbenefitting 300,000 to benefit half that number, when keeping the service on the MML would benefit all of thm?

Find me another place with the misfortune to be on a railway backwater which is slow as to be almost worthless.

Which your proposals would make worse.

You mean like the five car trains that will soon dominate the operations of the ECML?
So what if it 'wastes capacity' on the ECML? This is the post HS2 environment, the long distance service out of King's Cross has essentially ceased to exist.
The basis of the timetable ends up being:
1tph calling Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark Northgate, Retford, Doncaster, Wakefield Westgate, Leeds
1tph calling Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark Northgate, Retford, Doncaster, York

You might want to compare HS2's projected times to York with those projected by the various accelerated ECML options. There's not much in it.

The one via Grantham costs far less to run since you only burn diesel for 20-odd miles at relatively low speed.

And also burn diesel for four trains per hour north of Bedford, with the extra complication of diesels or bi-modes on this route too.

Nottingham has the population of Derby, Leicester, Kettering, Wellingborough and Market Harborough combined. It is the only city in the area that really matters, the rest are just gravy.

....


Nottingham's conurbation population comes out closer to eight hundred thousand, the city boundaries are drawn incredibly tightly - the City Ground isn't even in the city for example.
It is larger than Derby, Leicester and Kettering combined.

If you take Wikiepedia's very wide definition yes, but for a large chunk of the west of it Toton would be very convenient so they can be taken out of the reckoning for London service by any classic route.

Proper timings of the via Leicester and via Grantham trains will allow them to slot in a timetable that will provide four useable trains to Derby. This will partially offset the degraded travel times by cutting the average wait time from 15 minutes to 7.5 minutes.

So you are retaining some fast trains via Leicester after all?

Bi-modes are the future, you will just have to get used to it now that the DfT has developed a taste for them.

How does the cost compare with essentially an outer-suburban EMU with a better interior and end doors, as could easily provide the MML and Transpennine service on completion of electrification?

This 'semi fast' service to Nottingham will be as fast as the MML Fast train and faster than the slow train. Which is a net gain (2 fast trains per hour instead of 1 fast and one snail).

Which could also happen on the MML and doesn't depend on your rather pessimistic outlook for ECML services.