• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

MML Electrification: progress updates

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
The following are seats along or near the MML that could be considered marginal or have changed hands in recent times (with the current party and majority in brackets:

1)Gedling (LAB 11.10%)
2)Derby North (LAB 6.10%)
3)Bedford (LAB 3.60%)
4)Ashfield (LAB 2.90%)
5)Broxtowe (CON 0.50%)
6)Mansfield (CON 0.10%)
7)Corby (CON 2.50%)
8)Derbyshire North East (CON 3.70%)
9)Loughborough (CON 5.90%)
10)Erewash (CON 7.10%)
11)Sherwood (CON 7.70%)
12)Amber Valley (CON 16.10%)
13)Derbyshire South (CON 20.70%)
14)Leicestershire North West (CON 22.80%)

All are straight fights between labour and conservative, and conservatives felt they were very lucky last time with unexpected wins in Corby, Mansfield, Derbyshire NE, and Broxtowe.
You could add Sheffield Hallam, former seat of Nick Clegg (referred to up-thread) who lost to the Labour candidate in 2017.
The MP now sits as an Independent following withdrawal of the party whip.
If you want one man (or woman, or whatever) to blame, you may want to look to whomever made the suggestion to Nick Clegg to ignore the risks and considerations around having the MML Electrification added onto the CP5 work list and equally to whomever within the Government (party structure) of the time that relented, against advice, and allowed it to go ahead.
 

Flying Phil

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2016
Messages
1,924
There are lots of marginal seats in the east midlands and electrification is a very visible way of saying "look how much we are investing in your region". The expenditure benefits lots of constituencies at the same time. The political problem is that electrification has been promised before and the promises broken. I don't think the east midlands voters will fall for it again. Cameron and Osborne played to the electorate by promising lots of rail investment in East West Rail, electric spine, Northern powerhouse and MML. Grayling either doesn't believe there will be any electoral consequences of cancelling the MML or hasn't even thought about it. I think he's very wrong, but time will tell.
Unfortunately I suspect the electorate will "Fall for it again" as electrification of the MML has been a political/financial football since the 1960's........:'(
 

WymoWanderer

Member
Joined
18 Dec 2017
Messages
114
Location
Between BDM and WEL
Piling South of Sharnbrook early next month, apparently:. I think this will be the first piling activity South of Glendon Junction, apart from a few that were done 3-ish(?) Years ago

https://www.facebook.com/NetworkRailCommunity/posts/347185789080815

Interesting, thanks for this. There's a lot of vegetation and tree clearance work going on between Wymington and Souldrop this week. Will keep an eye out to see when the piles come head further up the line.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,499
Location
Ripon
In the SE of England, there are lots of rail lines, and lots of investment. This is the main and the only railway line for lots of marginal constituencies. Graying has given his political opponents an open goal to shoot at, and of course they will exploit it. On it's own it's not a big single electoral issue, but it will be painted as part of a much bigger picture as evidence that "the government don't care about your region", and "you can't trust the government because they break their promises".

All the technical arguments about whether bi-modes are as good will get lost in the negative headlines. We all read "Grayling cancels MML electrification" and "MML boycots Bedford" and not "Grayling hailed for saving money on MML modernisation"
It is not just the MML that will suffer, so will Yorkshire and NE England as a Derby-Sheffield-Moorthorpe/Doncaster gap will remain unconnected by overheads where local and XC trains would have benefitted from electrification at no additional cost apart from procurement or cascade of bimodes all the way to Edinburgh and Glasgow.
 
Last edited:

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,935
Surely the driving force behind electrification is not politics, but the ability to enhance capacity where needed. So if you have lots of marginal constituencies that use over crowded and under funded railways they will get overlooked? Sometimes democracy works against the people, which is why you sometimes need someone to make an executive decision that was made on logic and common sense.
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
Surely the driving force behind electrification is not politics, but the ability to enhance capacity where needed. So if you have lots of marginal constituencies that use over crowded and under funded railways they will get overlooked? Sometimes democracy works against the people, which is why you sometimes need someone to make an executive decision that was made on logic and common sense.

Politics plays a huge role. Isn't that how rail electrification and expansion is able to make progress in Scotland but not in many parts of England? Then there is the bewildering political decision to electrify the GWML ahead of the common sense MML electrification. The MML had the better business case and could be done incrementally thereby building up capacity and demonstrating proof of concept so should have been done first.

Then there is the length of time it has taken just to get spades in the ground for HS2 compared with how long it takes high speed lines to be built in China. Democracy certainly doesn't get in the way there.
 

ivanhoe

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2009
Messages
929
The electrification of MML will not be a decisive factor in the marginals mentioned. Health, Education and other factors will be way ahead in voters minds.
 

Flying Phil

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2016
Messages
1,924
The electrification of MML will not be a decisive factor in the marginals mentioned. Health, Education and other factors will be way ahead in voters minds.
In a rational world, politics would have very little say in economic decision making. However in reality and voters minds, it is often what is perceived rather than reality that affects decisions. So please get the MML electrified - that is the future!
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,935
I wish railways were still rationally costed for private organizations to build. You can't have a country lead the way in anything if the voters "needs" come in front of moving the country forward. In terms of priorities the EWR is far far better for Bedford than the OHLE MML project is. Trains can only go where the tracks are laid and right now that is very limited.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,641
Politics plays a huge role. Isn't that how rail electrification and expansion is able to make progress in Scotland but not in many parts of England? Then there is the bewildering political decision to electrify the GWML ahead of the common sense MML electrification. The MML had the better business case and could be done incrementally thereby building up capacity and demonstrating proof of concept so should have been done first.

Doing GWML first makes more sense when you think about the rolling stock released. Wiring the Thames Valley releases Networkers that can be used elsewhere to replace end of life stock. Whereas Meridians don’t have quite so many other applications and still leaves you with what to do to replace Pacers and Sprinters.
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
but now we're replacing all the MML rolling stock anyway, so that logic doesn't hold at all.

Events have proved the GWML was simply too ambitious given the lack of electrification experience in recent times. The MML was lower risk and easier to do incrementally.

Ironically, we will now have bi-modes on both the MML and the GWML.
 

jyte

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2016
Messages
670
Location
in me shed
Doing GWML first makes more sense when you think about the rolling stock released. Wiring the Thames Valley releases Networkers that can be used elsewhere to replace end of life stock. Whereas Meridians don’t have quite so many other applications and still leaves you with what to do to replace Pacers and Sprinters.

I swear that the conservative government had also promised the welsh devolved parliament the wires would reach Wales.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Doing GWML first makes more sense when you think about the rolling stock released. Wiring the Thames Valley releases Networkers that can be used elsewhere to replace end of life stock. Whereas Meridians don’t have quite so many other applications and still leaves you with what to do to replace Pacers and Sprinters.
That was certainly the idea at the time. There was always going to be new Intercity stock but GWML commuters were to get cascaded 319s from Thameslink and Northern were to get more 319s plus DMUs as a result of a separate cascade initiated by GWML.
but now we're replacing all the MML rolling stock anyway, so that logic doesn't hold at all.
Indeed, but they didn't know that was going to happen when they authorised the GWML.
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
Indeed, but they didn't know that was going to happen when they authorised the GWML.

Are you sure you're not recycling the political justification given at the time? Surely "they" knew that the HSTs on the MML were going to have to be replaced if the GWML ones were.

The HSTs have always been far more suitable for the long distance GWML, rather than the regular start-stop service pattern on the MML, so the MML's need for electric rolling stock with superior electrification was well known at the time.

The case for the MML electrification had been known for so long, in fact, that far more preparatory work had been done for it. I recall genuine surprise (and some astonishment) that the GWML had overtaken it in the priority list.

Given the lack of electrification experience and skills that Network Rail had in recent times, the huge ask of electrifying the whole GWML on which precious little preparatory work had been done was a very big risk....so not surprising when things started to get so out of hand, particularly in terms of not knowing where signal cabling was and cost over-runs.

I still maintain it was the wrong decision, and people should have known it was a bad decision at the time. The rolling stock issues could have been solved in different ways, as the bi-mode technology is now demonstrating.
 

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
Are you sure you're not recycling the political justification given at the time? Surely "they" knew that the HSTs on the MML were going to have to be replaced if the GWML ones were.

The HSTs have always been far more suitable for the long distance GWML, rather than the regular start-stop service pattern on the MML, so the MML's need for electric rolling stock with superior electrification was well known at the time.

The case for the MML electrification had been known for so long, in fact, that far more preparatory work had been done for it. I recall genuine surprise (and some astonishment) that the GWML had overtaken it in the priority list.

Given the lack of electrification experience and skills that Network Rail had in recent times, the huge ask of electrifying the whole GWML on which precious little preparatory work had been done was a very big risk....so not surprising when things started to get so out of hand, particularly in terms of not knowing where signal cabling was and cost over-runs.

I still maintain it was the wrong decision, and people should have known it was a bad decision at the time. The rolling stock issues could have been solved in different ways, as the bi-mode technology is now demonstrating.
Three questions:
1.) Who did the estimates of cost?
2.) Who makes the decisions?
3.) Who spends/spent the money?
So please don't make the narrative too complicated!
 

InTheEastMids

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2016
Messages
718
Given the lack of electrification experience and skills that Network Rail had in recent times, the huge ask of electrifying the whole GWML on which precious little preparatory work had been done was a very big risk....so not surprising when things started to get so out of hand, particularly in terms of not knowing where signal cabling was and cost over-runs.

Based on this, I don't agree it was a risk - "risk" implies that it ending in tears was one of several possible outcomes. However, if NR had done insufficient preparatory work, and of course had no recent experience of a major electrification project, it's like chucking yourself off a tall building. There is really little "risk" to the outcome. It was certain to end badly and the question is why people deluded themselves otherwise.
 

absolutelymilk

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2015
Messages
1,239
Are you sure you're not recycling the political justification given at the time? Surely "they" knew that the HSTs on the MML were going to have to be replaced if the GWML ones were.

I think it was more to do with the local stock on the GWML, as MML electrification would only have freed up the HSTs/Meridians but GWML electrification frees up all of the Thames Valley diesels
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
I think it was more to do with the local stock on the GWML, as MML electrification would only have freed up the HSTs/Meridians but GWML electrification frees up all of the Thames Valley diesels
If the aim was to free up the Thames Valley diesels, that could have been done with a Bedford-type scheme, extending electrification just out to Oxford and Bedwyn. GW over Midland still looks much more like a Labour political choice, to keep Welsh Labour happy.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Are you sure you're not recycling the political justification given at the time? Surely "they" knew that the HSTs on the MML were going to have to be replaced if the GWML ones were.

The HSTs have always been far more suitable for the long distance GWML, rather than the regular start-stop service pattern on the MML, so the MML's need for electric rolling stock with superior electrification was well known at the time.

The case for the MML electrification had been known for so long, in fact, that far more preparatory work had been done for it. I recall genuine surprise (and some astonishment) that the GWML had overtaken it in the priority list.

Given the lack of electrification experience and skills that Network Rail had in recent times, the huge ask of electrifying the whole GWML on which precious little preparatory work had been done was a very big risk....so not surprising when things started to get so out of hand, particularly in terms of not knowing where signal cabling was and cost over-runs.

I still maintain it was the wrong decision, and people should have known it was a bad decision at the time. The rolling stock issues could have been solved in different ways, as the bi-mode technology is now demonstrating.
I imagine that is why they authorised both schemes, along with others in the North West. As others have suggested, the mistake was not to realise that ramping up so quickly to such a big programme of electrification was beyond the capability of Network Rail and the supply industry when there had been virtually no electrification of existing railways for nearly 20 years. The Scots took a more measured approach, going for a modest but steady programme which has largely been successful (and one of its few mis-steps was down to the standards issue, arising from a mistake which seems to have been made in London).
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
Doing GWML first makes more sense when you think about the rolling stock released. Wiring the Thames Valley releases Networkers that can be used elsewhere to replace end of life stock. Whereas Meridians don’t have quite so many other applications and still leaves you with what to do to replace Pacers and Sprinters.

XC passengers are desperate for more capacity on the long distance routes where voyagers are used. Voyagers are similar to the Meridians, so freeing up those from the MML by electrification would have been very sensible. Now, we're freeing them up by replacing them with bi-modes.

History will show we're replacing all the rolling stock on both lines anyway, and we knew we'd have to do this. Instead of managing to electrify one complete route, we've ended up with incomplete electrification on both and bi-modes on both.
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
I imagine that is why they authorised both schemes, along with others in the North West. As others have suggested, the mistake was not to realise that ramping up so quickly to such a big programme of electrification was beyond the capability of Network Rail and the supply industry when there had been virtually no electrification of existing railways for nearly 20 years. The Scots took a more measured approach, going for a modest but steady programme which has largely been successful (and one of its few mis-steps was down to the standards issue, arising from a mistake which seems to have been made in London).

We really need a commitment to a more modest programme of rolling electrification, so that skills are developed and retained. I think the Scots have the right approach. The MML is perfect for a rolling approach, and at least the bi-modes means that the option is there.

The bewildering thing is why MML electrification was cancelled, and not turned into a longer term rolling programme. Unless Grayling wants to make this announcement just before the next general election. If he does this, then this would be a foolish approach because the industry needs some certainty as to future policy to inform training and investment decisions. It's not a tap that can be turned on or off.
 

jhy44

Member
Joined
7 Aug 2008
Messages
183
Location
Bromsgrove (Worcestershire)
History will show we're replacing all the rolling stock on both lines anyway, and we knew we'd have to do this. Instead of managing to electrify one complete route, we've ended up with incomplete electrification on both and bi-modes on both.

This is very true and sensible. Local Politics aside, the principle reasons for electrification are to increase capacity through faster speed/accelerations of trains which allow for more movements, and to reduce costs by using cheaper to fuel/maintain trains which are lighter/less damaging to the track, thus it makes me most rational sense to electrify lines which can either cascade stock elsewhere or for which the stock is due to be replaced.

The most sensible thing in my opinion, would be to put a ban on buying/producing any more new DMUs and only buy new EMUs, given the need for Pacers to be replaced relatively immediately however, it made sense for Northern to procure so many new DMUs, but going forward such a policy could work (except perhaps for ATW's Pacers which still have no replacement plan even though they're essentially on their last legs which is quite terrifying).

I was quite surprised when the Snow Hill lines here in Birmingham got brand new DMU stock; with the Stock needing to be replaced it seemed like the perfect excuse/time to electrify between Stratford/Leamington - Worcester and get an EMU fleet; I suppose we can rule out electrification there now for another 30 years.

Question as mymechanical engineering knowledge is unfortunately minimal, the government have now made all GWR's Class 800s Bi-Mode; once/if electrification is fully complete, can those Diesel engines be fully removed to make them exact replicas of how the pure-EMU versions would have looked?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Question as mymechanical engineering knowledge is unfortunately minimal, the government have now made all GWR's Class 800s Bi-Mode; once/if electrification is fully complete, can those Diesel engines be fully removed to make them exact replicas of how the pure-EMU versions would have looked?
I'm pretty sure that is possible. I understand all the 80x intermediate coaches were built with raised floors to accommodate a diesel engine even in the units where it wasn't intended to fit one.

I read somewhere also that the 800s, being intended for relatively limited operation on diesel, aren't equipped with rheostatic braking or at least can't use it in diesel mode. As they are now to be running on diesel for longer distances and at higher speeds they will suffer extra brake pad wear and more particulate pollution from those brakes. The 802s for the West of England and Transpennine don't have this problem.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I read somewhere also that the 800s, being intended for relatively limited operation on diesel, aren't equipped with rheostatic braking or at least can't use it in diesel mode. As they are now to be running on diesel for longer distances and at higher speeds they will suffer extra brake pad wear and more particulate pollution from those brakes. The 802s for the West of England and Transpennine don't have this problem.

AIUI, the rheostatic braking on the 800s was designed for when the train passed through neutral sections whilst braking (to prevent the physical brakes having to apply and release rapidly as the VCBs open and close) with the intention of just using physical brakes on diesel mode - which after all was only supposed to be for relatively short trips away from the electrified core of the GWML. With the electrification more limited now, there is more physical braking and brake wear as a result - although supposedly this may be modified. The 802s however being specced for longer periods away from the wires have got larger resistor grids to enable repeated rheostatic braking.
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,935
I know that after the WCML was electrified they stated they ran out of money to do other projects. But that was in the 1960's. Over the past 5-6 decades only one other major route was electrified (I know pockets of some routes were also electrified, but not routes in their entirety). So instead of pre-acting on electrifying more of the network they kicked the can down the road until such a point where passenger levels went through the roof. The political pressure in 2017 is more than justified considering the UK has less % of OHLE track compared to other countries in the world, many much poorer than we are (albeit we have a bigger network than most comparably sized countries). Apart from Meridians the MML hasn't had an upgrade since 1983-4? In fact it was during this era the MML had 4 tracks downgraded to 2 north of Wellingborough and 3 north of Sharnbrook to Wellingborough. During that time the ECML was gearing up for a major upgrade and new class 91 locos and coaching stock. Now in 2017 we have many constituencies lobbying for OHLE at a time when the government is weak, pockets are almost empty and the country is heavily dependent on London being the only epicenter of trade and business in the UK. Something which I think should have been addressed in the past 50 years is building more "Milton Keynes" type of cities so that some of that one way traffic to London is pointed elsewhere.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I understand all the 80x intermediate coaches were built with raised floors to accommodate a diesel engine even in the units where it wasn't intended to fit one

Ah, that reminds me... after seeing messages over the past few years about how steep the 80x floors were going to have to be, to accommodate the engines - how trollies might struggled to get along the sloped carriages etc - it's all gone rather quiet in that respect now people can actually see what the trains are like in operation - funny that...
 

Skymonster

Established Member
Joined
7 Feb 2012
Messages
1,726
To cancel all the MML electrification beyond Kettering or Corby shows Grayling to be a man with no vision and no plan.

I still believe HS2 is in part behind this decision. When [if] it finally comes to Toton and Sheffield, I believe the MML south of Trent will be reduced to a commuter style route simply to drive custom onto the new services and justify its development. Why would many people from the East Midlands and South Yorkshire opt for HS2 when the MML could get them into London in an hour and a half to two hours, at a somewhat lower fare? I think eventually electrification of the MML will be extended from Kettering / Corby to Leicester, which will have some fasts and plenty of stopping services to London. Further north, lack of investment and journey time extensions resulting from MML trains calling all stations will be used as a lever to make HS2 the most viable and quick option in many travellers eyes. Investing in electrification - particularly beyond Trent - makes less sense if the long distance services it was to support will be largely gone in 10-15 years time.
 

Top