• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
Say MML goes ahed, would there be a strong case to just carry on the extra miles (dont know how many) to moorthorpe and doncaster from sheffield? Allowing all MML to be electric (cept those which go London nottingham sheffield) And allow sheffield leeds (via bolton on dearne) and sheffield adwick services to become electrified? Also would stopping services from leeds/doncaster to derby be a sensible idea should enough stock become avaliable? (thinking scotrails 322's that are being released)

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

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

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


i know its a bit long just some thoughts id lke responses to
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Kneedown

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Messages
1,768
Location
Nottinghamshire
Say MML goes ahed, would there be a strong case to just carry on the extra miles (dont know how many) to moorthorpe and doncaster from sheffield? Allowing all MML to be electric (cept those which go London nottingham sheffield) And allow sheffield leeds (via bolton on dearne) and sheffield adwick services to become electrified? Also would stopping services from leeds/doncaster to derby be a sensible idea should enough stock become avaliable? (thinking scotrails 322's that are being released)

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

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

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


i know its a bit long just some thoughts id lke responses to

I've always said that electrification of the MML will be the last major outlay in the drive towards a majority electrified passenger network. Once it's all done, and it ALL of it would have to done (not practical to do via Derby and not the Erewash) then everything else is just infill.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I've always said that electrification of the MML will be the last major outlay in the drive towards a majority electrified passenger network. Once it's all done, and it ALL of it would have to done (not practical to do via Derby and not the Erewash) then everything else is just infill.

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

It is possible, probably just means a hourly/half hourly service for St Pancras to cope.
 

richa2002

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
2,270
Indeed and could mean when there is engineering works on the ECML for example, some services could divert though the MML ie the Scottish/Newcastle services so calling as booked to Doncaster then off to St Pancras via Sheffield meaning the Leeds, GCs and HTs would go via Peterborough and onto Kings Cross.

It is possible, probably just means a hourly/half hourly service for St Pancras to cope.
Unfortunately this sort of flexiblity was severely reduced when St. Pancras (MML) was only built with 4 platforms.
 

MCR247

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2008
Messages
9,564
Unless they worked together and there was 1tph from Scotland - St Pancras and then 1tph Leeds - St Pancras and then 2tph Nottingham - St Pancras which could work?
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
With even more filling in, it's possible to run diversions from King's Cross via Grantham-Nottingham-Sheffield-Leeds-York. I've been considering a series of fill-ins along there, although all would require the electrification of TPX South. Norwich-Ely-Peterborough (the second half providing an ECML diversionary route via Cambridge), Grantham-Nottingham, Sheffield-Manchester (part of the TPX South scheme) and Manchester-Preston. EMT would hand the Norwich-Liverpool route over to XC, and it would extend further, eventually running from Norwich to Glasgow with an increase in frequency, using Voyager-based EMUs.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
Peterborough-Birmingham, in addtion to a Norwich-Peterborough electrification, would be of use too (I think some of it would be covered by already suggested bits of fill-in).
Then further away from the MML, ELy/Cambridge to Ipswich, plus the Felixstowe line, allowing much expanded electric freight.
 

ashworth

Established Member
Joined
10 Sep 2008
Messages
1,285
Location
Notts
Running trains from Kings Cross to Nottingham via Grantham could be quite fast but perhaps becuse nottingham has always been so much part of MML it has only occasionally been seriously considered.

Last Saturday I caught the 1230 from Kings Cross and was in Nottingham at 1422. That included a 10 minute wait for a connection at Grantham and a rather slow journey from Grantham to Nottingham with stops at Bottesford and Bingham. Also the approach into Nottingham for the last few miles was very slow with lots of stopping and starting. With electification from Grantham to Nottingham and the raising of line speeds this could be a serious contender.
 

bluenoxid

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2008
Messages
2,459
Considered? Unlikely? Grantham - Nottingham is only going to be occasionally used as a diversionary route. What's the point? Surely connecting services into East Coast services at Grantham would work better (and consider that the network is fragmented).

It will also be interesting to see who occupies the extra path on the ECML.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
I have always maintained that a major electrification scheme is not worth doing unless it provides an electrified NETWORK. There's no point just wiring a single route because it limits the benefits. I firmly believe that the scope of the ECML electrification should have been greater and provided for more electric services within the WYPTE area and included the Newcastle-Sunderland line and more of Edinburgh's suburban network.

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

O L Leigh
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
I have always maintained that a major electrification scheme is not worth doing unless it provides an electrified NETWORK. There's no point just wiring a single route because it limits the benefits. I firmly believe that the scope of the ECML electrification should have been greater and provided for more electric services within the WYPTE area and included the Newcastle-Sunderland line and more of Edinburgh's suburban network.

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

O L Leigh

Couldn't agree more
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I have always maintained that a major electrification scheme is not worth doing unless it provides an electrified NETWORK. There's no point just wiring a single route because it limits the benefits. I firmly believe that the scope of the ECML electrification should have been greater and provided for more electric services within the WYPTE area and included the Newcastle-Sunderland line and more of Edinburgh's suburban network.

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

O L Leigh

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

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

However, if the MML were to be wired, maybe the handful of trains to Leeds wouldn't be needed any more, so they'd decide it wasn't worth wiring north of Sheffield - just speculating.
 

MCR247

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2008
Messages
9,564
Spot on. apart from the North Berwick line and the Shipley lines, the ECML electrification was about as "basic" as you could get (e.g. they could have wired to Hull, wired the Sunderland/ Middlesbrough lines, wired further in Scotland).

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

However, if the MML were to be wired, maybe the handful of trains to Leeds wouldn't be needed any more, so they'd decide it wasn't worth wiring north of Sheffield - just speculating.

They are making the MML faster at the moment, but if they wired to Leeds they could extend one of the Sheffield trains to Leeds and it might only be around 20 minutes slower than the ECML!
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
They are making the MML faster at the moment, but if they wired to Leeds they could extend one of the Sheffield trains to Leeds and it might only be around 20 minutes slower than the ECML!

I take it your "twenty minutes slower" would involve running "fast" from Leicester to Chesterfield? (just curious)

London
Leicester
Chesterfield
Sheffield
Wakefield
Leeds?
 

MCR247

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2008
Messages
9,564
I take it your "twenty minutes slower" would involve running "fast" from Leicester to Chesterfield? (just curious)

London
Leicester
Chesterfield
Sheffield
Wakefield
Leeds?

Yes it would, and this most likely isn't possible but from St Pancras I'd have:
1tph Leeds fast
1tph Sheffield via Derby
1tph Derby slowish
1tph Nottingham fast
1tph Nottingham slow

And then I'd extend an hourly Brighton - Bedford service to Corby using 377/5s and then extend another as a stopper to Leicester. To make this work it would mean 4 tracking Bedford - Kettering probably so its just a fantasy thing :), nothing serious
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top