MML Electrification: progress updates

[Mugby]

Which I'm sure when Midland Mainline ran the service, they had Leicester to London in under an hour...
Maybe not.

I'm not sure it was under an hour but I seem to remember the Down Master Cutler was timed from London to Leicester in 60 mins. for a while.

I don't know how it was done because it would have meant virtually 100mph. running all the way, perhaps a bit of leeway was gained on the 110mph. sections.
I know it only lasted one or two seasons because more often than not, it simply wasn't achievable.

 

[jayah]

There have been a lot of arguments so far about the supposed lack of passenger benefits from electrification, rather ignoring (I thought) the smoother and quieter ride, the possibility of more capacity during periods of DMU famine, and the slight reduction in the overall amount of poison breathed in in the wider atmosphere.

However, why are benefits to the railway being ignored? Such as easier availability of stock, longer stock lifespan, lower stock and track maintenance costs, reduced dependency on unpredictably-priced oil etc? Why is no-one off-setting the resultant savings against the costs of electrification?

To be fair they are. £23m a year is quoted on MML but against £1bn it is tiny. There must be thousands of cheaper ways to reduce air pollution and as discussed in 10-20 years they probably won't be using diesel anyway.

 

[Flying Phil]

At various points in this thread, mention has been made of the OHLE between Bedford and STP as only being suitable for 100mph running and it will need significant money spending to get it 125mph capable. As it appears to be fairly standard equipment, what are the actual differences, and why is it so costly to uprate?

 

[londonmidland]

At various points in this thread, mention has been made of the OHLE between Bedford and STP as only being suitable for 100mph running and it will need significant money spending to get it 125mph capable. As it appears to be fairly standard equipment, what are the actual differences, and why is it so costly to uprate?

I’m no OHLE engineer but I think it’s to do with the tensioning with the wires, as it was only intended the MML would only use 100mph EMU’s when electrified.

 

[Mikey C]

Simple - Grayling is being short termist. Electrification cost lots up front but lots of the benefits are reaped after the politicians have retired.

Up front expenditure will always be an issue when cash is tight. Indeed the main reason why things are so stop start in this country is that the money runs out!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Up front expenditure will always be an issue when cash is tight. Indeed the main reason why things are so stop start in this country is that the money runs out!

All the more reason for a nice long term plan for a slow but steady rolling programme of electrification. Some infills, some extending existing e.g. Kettering - Market Harb' - then to Leicester - then to Trent Sth Jct - then to Derby - then to Nottingham - you get the point - I am becoming boring as I keep beating the drum. Bit by bit as the money becomes available.

 

[guy]

I’m no OHLE engineer but I think it’s to do with the tensioning with the wires, as it was only intended the MML would only use 100mph EMU’s when electrified.

IIRC the first EMUs were 317s and originally only intended for 90mph maximum. Depending on the type of EMUs introduced for Corby their maximum speed will be either 100mph or 110mph but I think more likely 100mph. Now, if it is intended that these EMUs run on the fast lines at least between Bedford and London it is going to be quite a timetabling challenge to get reliable 125 mph running for the BiMode stock over that 50 miles. At present I believe the fast Thameslink EMU services tend to mainly use the slow lines for the northern part of their journeys only using the fast lines to overtake the slower stopping services at the London end. Even so, EM services get signal checks - eg before Harpenden Junction northbound due to catching up a fast Thameslink service before it can be crossed to the down slow line.

 

[londonmidland]

Perhaps something similar to this will happen, which is currently happening on the ECML - headspan to portal conversion.

Maybe do every other structure to save on cost?

 

[AM9]

IIRC the first EMUs were 317s and originally only intended for 90mph maximum. Depending on the type of EMUs introduced for Corby their maximum speed will be either 100mph or 110mph but I think more likely 100mph. Now, if it is intended that these EMUs run on the fast lines at least between Bedford and London it is going to be quite a timetabling challenge to get reliable 125 mph running for the BiMode stock over that 50 miles. At present I believe the fast Thameslink EMU services tend to mainly use the slow lines for the northern part of their journeys only using the fast lines to overtake the slower stopping services at the London end. Even so, EM services get signal checks - eg before Harpenden Junction northbound due to catching up a fast Thameslink service before it can be crossed to the down slow line.

Are there parts of the formation south of Bedford where a dynamic loop or even a loop past one of the stops, e.g. Flitwick, could be squeezed in between the up and down fasts? West Hampstead is often a queueing area so if the ladders there could be supplemented, it would make it easier to thread the 700s between up fast traffic and blending into the down EM trains. Maybe the goods loop could be realigned to allow the EM trains to overtake them whilst crossing over s>f or even during a West Hampstead stop. It could extend as a dual purpose (freight/loop) during peak hours as there aren't usually freight services hanging around south of Cricklewood. Unfortunately. there's no real opportunity to improve the situation at Thameslink's most important stop on the MML (St Albans), and Harpended would involve considerable civils.

 

[jyte]

Perhaps something similar to this will happen, which is currently happening on the ECML - headspan to portal conversion.

Maybe do every other structure to save on cost?

There's discussion of the pros/cons of this in a thread I started...am I allowed to link that?

I think that focusing on all structures where the linespeeds are 125mph or COULD be 125mph might be a better idea - besides, apparently converting each headspan costs nearly £100k, so certainly not a cheap option - with the ECMLs average 50m spacing I think that's £2mil/km unless I've bungled my maths (very likely).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There's discussion of the pros/cons of this in a thread I started...am I allowed to link that?

I think that focusing on all structures where the linespeeds are 125mph or COULD be 125mph might be a better idea - besides, apparently converting each headspan costs nearly £100k, so certainly not a cheap option - with the ECMLs average 50m spacing I think that's £2mil/km unless I've bungled my maths (very likely).

1km = 1000 m and 1000/50 = 20 and 20 x 100,000 pounds = 2million pounds/km - your maths is perfect

 

[Kettledrum]

All the more reason for a nice long term plan for a slow but steady rolling programme of electrification. Some infills, some extending existing e.g. Kettering - Market Harb' - then to Leicester - then to Trent Sth Jct - then to Derby - then to Nottingham - you get the point - I am becoming boring as I keep beating the drum. Bit by bit as the money becomes available.

This is the really sensible long term approach to electrification - particularly for the Midland Main Line as it would work with the bi-modes being ordered. The current obsession with business cases would have to end though.

 

[Flying Phil]

This is the really sensible long term approach to electrification - particularly for the Midland Main Line as it would work with the bi-modes being ordered. The current obsession with business cases would have to end though.

Needless to say I agree also - steady rolling electrification with BiModes (then MiniBatteryModes?) to cover the ever shrinking gaps.

 

[CdBrux]

All the more reason for a nice long term plan for a slow but steady rolling programme of electrification. Some infills, some extending existing e.g. Kettering - Market Harb' - then to Leicester - then to Trent Sth Jct - then to Derby - then to Nottingham - you get the point - I am becoming boring as I keep beating the drum. Bit by bit as the money becomes available.

As long as there is not a better use for the money that becomes available

 

[Class 170101]

Fastest HST service I could find timetabled is the 1955 from STP, 1h 8 mins to Leicester, averaging 87 mph
The 2026 from STP is a 222 and is timetabled for 1h 4 mins, averaging 92 mph
An EMU isn't going to take much more than a couple of minutes out of the 222 time.

Why do I say this? I had time to play with Excel and (my interpretation of) the Sectional Appendix. Using the linespeeds and distances allowed me to calculate a hard minimum of about 57 minutes at 104 mph average. This assumes no recovery time, no conflicts and importantly, instantaneous acceleration and braking to stay exactly at the permitted speed. So unless I've made significant mistakes... which I probably have done... it's hard to see how you get below 1h without infrastructure projects or bending the laws of physics. Given NR's recent track record, the second option would probably be cheaper.



Sort-of agree, it's not particularly significant in the overall scheme of things
However, a marginal gains type philosophy should see 15-30s here or there crystallise in the timetable as a journey time reduction.

09:58 St Pancras to Leicester is an 1hr and 2 minutes non-stop and is Class 222.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

As long as there is not a better use for the money that becomes available

And of course “ better “ is a matter of opinion and thus is influenced by politics.

 

[richieb1971]

There was a suggestion of having an extra down fast platform at Bedford to the west of the existing down fast platform so that that became an island.

I doubt NR would allow over taking. The timings for such a feat wouldn't work in the customers favour, there would be somewhere in the region of a 15 minute stop. It would be quicker to go through one of the slow line platforms. The real problem is that if you have all these faster trains using the slow lines then freight and stoppers will start to hold up everything.

I would only put the island platform in (P5) if EMT were terminating trains at Bedford from the north. Maybe that is something they can look at. It has its benefits.

 

[deltic08]

I’m no OHLE engineer but I think it’s to do with the tensioning with the wires, as it was only intended the MML would only use 100mph EMU’s when electrified.

Do you mean tension of contact wire or tension of headspan wire? Both would be easy to increase tension. Add weights to one and screw up the connectors on the other

 

[CdBrux]

And of course “ better “ is a matter of opinion and thus is influenced by politics.

Depends on the assumptions used. No more a matter of opinion than yours so I fail to see your point! A clear rationale was given for not electrifying north of Kettering, whether you agree with the inputs to the BCR is another matter, and it would help if they were made public though I think that's rather unlikely. However as you seem to suggest it should be done as it's a nice to do seems rather the rail enthusiasts view over a proper use of money view. Maybe the people you work for think like that, the company I work for would never think like that!

 

[Senex]

Depends on the assumptions used. No more a matter of opinion than yours so I fail to see your point! A clear rationale was given for not electrifying north of Kettering, whether you agree with the inputs to the BCR is another matter, and it would help if they were made public though I think that's rather unlikely. However as you seem to suggest it should be done as it's a nice to do seems rather the rail enthusiasts view over a proper use of money view. Maybe the people you work for think like that, the company I work for would never think like that!

I agree with you that we are unlikely to see the revised cost-benefit figures, but I think that is a great pity because if we do not see them for ourselves then we have to take the word of Grayling that the decision is a rational one. And in today's climate, who would take the word of a politician, especially in a case such as this one ofter all the toing and froing of the last few years starting from a base where the Midland case was so much better than that of the GW? We need to see some very clear modelling of the impact that the wretched HS2 is supposed to have on Derby and Nottingham traffic and a clear plan of how quick and easy the connections from Derby and Nottingham to Toton and to and from HS2 trains at Toton will be.
And quite apart from the economics, it will be very difficult to convince many people of the merits of the diesel traction of the hybrids given the noise and vibration we all know from all diesel units, including the high-power, high-speed 220s series. Most people, I suspect, will see the hybrids as second best.

 

[CdBrux]

I think the key is that the case for MML upgrade (and quite possibly GW as well) was for a whole package of interventions and not just electrification. To bundle them together rather than analyse each separately was the problem.

 

[Flying Phil]

I think the key is that the case for MML upgrade (and quite possibly GW as well) was for a whole package of interventions and not just electrification. To bundle them together rather than analyse each separately was the problem.

....But isn't it also often the case that the Whole job is greater than the Sum of the Parts?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And of course “ better “ is a matter of opinion and thus is influenced by politics.

Depends on the assumptions used. No more a matter of opinion than yours so I fail to see your point! A clear rationale was given for not electrifying north of Kettering, whether you agree with the inputs to the BCR is another matter, and it would help if they were made public though I think that's rather unlikely. However as you seem to suggest it should be done as it's a nice to do seems rather the rail enthusiasts view over a proper use of money view. Maybe the people you work for think like that, the company I work for would never think like that!

Wowsers I thought my point was absolutely totally crystal clear. I am really sorry I have nothing more to add I cannot possibly clarify any more than I have. Peace

 

[grumpyoldman01]

I've just enjoyed quite a few hours reading through this thread; very interesting.

I'd like to add a few thoughts/etc.

Firstly, a lot of the anger towards Grayling in the Derby/Nottingham area results from a video interview when he was canvassing for Amanda Salloway in the Derby North constituency during the 2017 general election; when asked, he specifically stated that the only way to guarantee the electrification of the MML was to vote Tory!

Secondly, costs of electrics v bi-modes. There was a very brief disagreement between Mark Spencer (Con, Sherwood) and Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North) at the end of East Midlands edition of 'Sunday Politics' on 10th December 2017; Spencer said it was a waste of money, Williamson was all for it, arguing that when higher capital costs and maintenance costs of bi-modes were taken into account, electrification was the better option.

So I decided that I would try to see who was right; and over a 25 year period, Chris Williamson does seem to be on a “simple” cost comparison basis.

Based upon EMT's current fleet, I've assumed that the “new” fleet will comprise 242 vehicles formed into 19 x 9-car and 16 x 5-car sets; EMT currently has a mixture of 'Meridians' and sufficient HST trailers to form 12 x 8-car sets, giving a total of 239 vehicles (I've ignored the Grand Central sets from my calculations).

Using published contract values for the CAF built class 397s and the class 802 bi-modes for Hull Trains, the average cost per car is £400k more for each bi-mode; this equates to an additional capital cost of £96.8m for a fleet of 242 vehicles.

This isn't a great deal when compared against the declared saving of £1bn from cancellation of electrification, but the additional maintenance costs are something else altogether. There's a report on one website recording an analysis of the prices being paid for IEP maintenance over the 27 year life of that contract, and this has concluded that an extra £4m per car is being paid for bi-modes over electrics; this equates to roundly £148k per year, so for a fleet of 242 vehicles the extra maintenance cost equates to £900m over a 25 year project life.

Then there's usage charges; I've had to concoct some, as none have yet been published for electric/bi-mode IEPs or class 397s. By using charges available, I've assumed that a 9-car bi-mode running as a diesel will incur usage charges approximately 10% higher than a 9-car straight electric, and one running as an electric approximately 25% higher per mile (both of the electric rates include Network Rail's asset usage charge for the use of the 25kv AC overhead). I won't go into a lot of boring calculations and explanations about assumptions, methodology, etc, but I've estimated that additional usage charges to the tune of £24m will be incurred over 25 years.

Again, assumptions have had to be made regarding fuel v electricity; using various sources, I've estimated that, over a 25 year period and using current fuel prices, bi-modes will cost about £75m more than electrics. This is probably way off the mark, but it does give an indication as to how much more a bi-mode will cost.

The “sparks effect” is widely acknowledged, and reductions in journey times result in revenue growth; if you work to the basic assumption that electrification will result in just one extra Anytime First and one extra Anytime Standard return tickets being sold each day between each of Sheffield, Chesterfield, Derby, Nottingham, East Midlands Parkway, Loughborough, Leicester and London, with an identical growth northbound to these destinations from London, using current ticket prices this equates to roundly £3m per annum. This again isn't substantial, but over 25 years it rises to £75m.

So adding all of these together, the additional cost of procuring/maintaining/operating bi-modes (and not earning extra revenue) is just over £1.17bn; 17% more than the claimed saving from cancelling electrification.

I tried to be conservative when calculating these extra costs. For example, I've used class 395 usage charges, but these have the greatest weight per metre of all EMUs running in GB and are mounted on 'H' framed bogies; if a MML electric was mounted on lightweight inside framed bogies, the usage charge could potentially drop considerably – a class 172 'Turbostar' usage charge is less than 60% of that for a class 170 one.

With access to more accurate figures, a better calculation would be possible; but this “rough-and-ready” estimate confirms that cancellation MAY be the worst option. Moreover, it hasn't included other costs which the split between electrics and bi-modes will cause; depot costs for maintenance of the EMUs south of Corby are an example.

Of course the main difference between electrification and bi-modes is that the cost of electrification is up-front and has to be born by government through a Network Rail grant, whereas most of the bi-mode additional costs are in the future and will be charged to TOCs; so - bearing in mind the Hansford review – couldn't a financing mechanism such as sale and leaseback be considered as an option for the electrification? The initial cost would still be borne by government, but the cost incurred would then be recovered by it through the sale of the OHL, and the leasing costs would be borne by Network Rail and recovered by them from TOCs through asset/track usage charges. However, this still leaves the costs of raising bridges, etc; could this be eliminated with “dead” sections through restricted areas? As trains are likely to be EMUs, is non-continuous electrification possible (remember, class 395s have two pantographs, and although they only usually run with one raised, could both be up and in contact with the overhead at somewhere like Leicester where an electrical supply is desirable when departing southbound)?

Can anyone please explain why bi-mode journey times and enhanced speeds haven't been discussed more in this thread?

From information published in 'Modern Railways' and 'Rail', we've seen that IEPs can't keep up with HSTs; they're quicker off the mark, but after a while a HST goes flying past. The fact that HSTs are inferior in performance to Meridians has been mentioned, but both can capitalise upon the enhanced speed limits for HSTs on the MML, and there are many of them; however, IEPs aren't listed in the Sectional Appendices as being able to take advantage of enhanced speeds marked for HSTs. This isn't really a problem on the GW main line as very few are marked for HSTs, but there are some for MUs; as IEPs aren't excluded from the MU category in the Sectional Appendices, I presume they can operate at the enhanced speeds so marked on the GW main line. Anyone have any knowledge about this?

Sorry to have rambled on!

 

[Flying Phil]

Thank you Grumpyoldman for such a detailed post - much appreciated!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Firstly, a lot of the anger towards Grayling in the Derby/Nottingham area results from a video interview when he was canvassing for Amanda Salloway in the Derby North constituency during the 2017 general election; when asked, he specifically stated that the only way to guarantee the electrification of the MML was to vote Tory!

Precisely. I am a lifelong Conservative voter and supporter and right now I am pissed off with Grayling. Tell the effing truth. I am being conservative - we have overspent on electrification. We need to get costs and budgets under control and the MML has paid the price. It will get electrified as promised but it will have to wait. I will vote for that on honesty alone. Simples people.

 

[edwin_m]

Precisely. I am a lifelong Conservative voter and supporter and right now I am ****ed off with Grayling. Tell the effing truth. I am being conservative - we have overspent on electrification. We need to get costs and budgets under control and the MML has paid the price. It will get electrified as promised but it will have to wait. I will vote for that on honesty alone. Simples people.

He could quite easily have been honest, and it would have realised the same cost saving in the short term while minimising the political damage. But he didn't. Unlike Bristol and Oxford, MML (and Swansea and Windermere) are cancelled on the largely spurious grounds that bi-modes are better.

From information published in 'Modern Railways' and 'Rail', we've seen that IEPs can't keep up with HSTs; they're quicker off the mark, but after a while a HST goes flying past. The fact that HSTs are inferior in performance to Meridians has been mentioned, but both can capitalise upon the enhanced speed limits for HSTs on the MML, and there are many of them; however, IEPs aren't listed in the Sectional Appendices as being able to take advantage of enhanced speeds marked for HSTs. This isn't really a problem on the GW main line as very few are marked for HSTs, but there are some for MUs; as IEPs aren't excluded from the MU category in the Sectional Appendices, I presume they can operate at the enhanced speeds so marked on the GW main line. Anyone have any knowledge about this?

May I also add my thanks for a detailed and thorough post.

It appears the current IEP units are lacking in power when in diesel mode, resulting in less acceleration at higher speeds. The five-car units are particularly affected, as the end car design doesn't allow a diesel engine so they have only three engines where a five-car Voyager has five (but can pretty much keep to timings on four). This probably didn't matter with the original spec, when there would have been relatively little fast running on diesel, but the various reductions of electrification have resulted in a need for high speed running away from the wires. It remains to be seen whether the MML bi-modes will have more power relative to their weight, perhaps by re-designing the end car so one end can have a diesel (the other will have to have the transformer instead). The other problem is that the platforms at St Pancras are too short for two five-car units of 25m 80x stock, so unless they can be lengthened some of the fleet may have to be be nine-car units to match the capacity of the 10-car pairs that run on some peak services. This may lead to more coaches being needed and still higher operating costs.

 

[Mordac]

Precisely. I am a lifelong Conservative voter and supporter and right now I am ****ed off with Grayling. Tell the effing truth. I am being conservative - we have overspent on electrification. We need to get costs and budgets under control and the MML has paid the price. It will get electrified as promised but it will have to wait. I will vote for that on honesty alone. Simples people.

Totally subscribed. But he's Theresa May's bag holder, so will only go when she goes. May that day hasten on.

 

[Bald Rick]

I've just enjoyed quite a few hours reading through this thread; very interesting.

I'd like to add a few thoughts/etc.

Firstly, a lot of the anger towards Grayling in the Derby/Nottingham area results from a video interview when he was canvassing for Amanda Salloway in the Derby North constituency during the 2017 general election; when asked, he specifically stated that the only way to guarantee the electrification of the MML was to vote Tory!

Secondly, costs of electrics v bi-modes. There was a very brief disagreement between Mark Spencer (Con, Sherwood) and Chris Williamson (Labour, Derby North) at the end of East Midlands edition of 'Sunday Politics' on 10th December 2017; Spencer said it was a waste of money, Williamson was all for it, arguing that when higher capital costs and maintenance costs of bi-modes were taken into account, electrification was the better option.

So I decided that I would try to see who was right; and over a 25 year period, Chris Williamson does seem to be on a “simple” cost comparison basis.

Based upon EMT's current fleet, I've assumed that the “new” fleet will comprise 242 vehicles formed into 19 x 9-car and 16 x 5-car sets; EMT currently has a mixture of 'Meridians' and sufficient HST trailers to form 12 x 8-car sets, giving a total of 239 vehicles (I've ignored the Grand Central sets from my calculations).

Using published contract values for the CAF built class 397s and the class 802 bi-modes for Hull Trains, the average cost per car is £400k more for each bi-mode; this equates to an additional capital cost of £96.8m for a fleet of 242 vehicles.

This isn't a great deal when compared against the declared saving of £1bn from cancellation of electrification, but the additional maintenance costs are something else altogether. There's a report on one website recording an analysis of the prices being paid for IEP maintenance over the 27 year life of that contract, and this has concluded that an extra £4m per car is being paid for bi-modes over electrics; this equates to roundly £148k per year, so for a fleet of 242 vehicles the extra maintenance cost equates to £900m over a 25 year project life.

Then there's usage charges; I've had to concoct some, as none have yet been published for electric/bi-mode IEPs or class 397s. By using charges available, I've assumed that a 9-car bi-mode running as a diesel will incur usage charges approximately 10% higher than a 9-car straight electric, and one running as an electric approximately 25% higher per mile (both of the electric rates include Network Rail's asset usage charge for the use of the 25kv AC overhead). I won't go into a lot of boring calculations and explanations about assumptions, methodology, etc, but I've estimated that additional usage charges to the tune of £24m will be incurred over 25 years.

Again, assumptions have had to be made regarding fuel v electricity; using various sources, I've estimated that, over a 25 year period and using current fuel prices, bi-modes will cost about £75m more than electrics. This is probably way off the mark, but it does give an indication as to how much more a bi-mode will cost.

The “sparks effect” is widely acknowledged, and reductions in journey times result in revenue growth; if you work to the basic assumption that electrification will result in just one extra Anytime First and one extra Anytime Standard return tickets being sold each day between each of Sheffield, Chesterfield, Derby, Nottingham, East Midlands Parkway, Loughborough, Leicester and London, with an identical growth northbound to these destinations from London, using current ticket prices this equates to roundly £3m per annum. This again isn't substantial, but over 25 years it rises to £75m.

So adding all of these together, the additional cost of procuring/maintaining/operating bi-modes (and not earning extra revenue) is just over £1.17bn; 17% more than the claimed saving from cancelling electrification.

I tried to be conservative when calculating these extra costs. For example, I've used class 395 usage charges, but these have the greatest weight per metre of all EMUs running in GB and are mounted on 'H' framed bogies; if a MML electric was mounted on lightweight inside framed bogies, the usage charge could potentially drop considerably – a class 172 'Turbostar' usage charge is less than 60% of that for a class 170 one.

With access to more accurate figures, a better calculation would be possible; but this “rough-and-ready” estimate confirms that cancellation MAY be the worst option. Moreover, it hasn't included other costs which the split between electrics and bi-modes will cause; depot costs for maintenance of the EMUs south of Corby are an example.

Of course the main difference between electrification and bi-modes is that the cost of electrification is up-front and has to be born by government through a Network Rail grant, whereas most of the bi-mode additional costs are in the future and will be charged to TOCs; so - bearing in mind the Hansford review – couldn't a financing mechanism such as sale and leaseback be considered as an option for the electrification? The initial cost would still be borne by government, but the cost incurred would then be recovered by it through the sale of the OHL, and the leasing costs would be borne by Network Rail and recovered by them from TOCs through asset/track usage charges. However, this still leaves the costs of raising bridges, etc; could this be eliminated with “dead” sections through restricted areas? As trains are likely to be EMUs, is non-continuous electrification possible (remember, class 395s have two pantographs, and although they only usually run with one raised, could both be up and in contact with the overhead at somewhere like Leicester where an electrical supply is desirable when departing southbound)?

Can anyone please explain why bi-mode journey times and enhanced speeds haven't been discussed more in this thread?

From information published in 'Modern Railways' and 'Rail', we've seen that IEPs can't keep up with HSTs; they're quicker off the mark, but after a while a HST goes flying past. The fact that HSTs are inferior in performance to Meridians has been mentioned, but both can capitalise upon the enhanced speed limits for HSTs on the MML, and there are many of them; however, IEPs aren't listed in the Sectional Appendices as being able to take advantage of enhanced speeds marked for HSTs. This isn't really a problem on the GW main line as very few are marked for HSTs, but there are some for MUs; as IEPs aren't excluded from the MU category in the Sectional Appendices, I presume they can operate at the enhanced speeds so marked on the GW main line. Anyone have any knowledge about this?

Sorry to have rambled on!

Good stuff. A few points to help.

1) you need to discount future spend to allow for inflation plus borrowing costs. 3.5% is the recommended figure for the first 30 years of the assessment. For example £3m a year over 25 years is not worth £75m, it's worth £48.4m in today's money.

2) did you allow for the maintenance of the OLE kit north of Kettering? Very rough guess, but it will be about £10m a year (which is £161.5m in today's money).

3) the "sparks effect" isn't about electrification per se, but improved service levels and faster journeys. Often, but not always, enabled by electrification. One of the most stark "sparks effects" has been the Chiltern line, notable for its absence of electrification.

4) whilst the current bi mode IEPs are indeed a bit short of horses in the diesel dept., and thus are not as quick as the trains they replace, that is because they were specified to run on a largely electric railway. It's reasonable to assume that bi-modes specified to run on a bi-mode railway would have sufficient grunt under the bonnet* to resolve that problem.

* figure of speech, obviously!

 

[Bald Rick]

Do you mean tension of contact wire or tension of headspan wire? Both would be easy to increase tension. Add weights to one and screw up the connectors on the other

Yes because it really is that simple.

Right up to the point that the increased tension in the causes the wires to snap, or pull off the reg arms (particularly on curves) or pull the structures out of their foundations.