MML Electrification: progress updates

[swt_passenger]

Thanks for posting that.
[…]
Also, I'm glad to see that the trackside pad seems to be located far enough away from the running lines to allow Desborough passing loop to be reinstated at that location, if that were ever to be required.

I think it possibly shows the opposite. Firstly there’s the low concrete boundary wall going in along the line of the fencing, which divides the apparent space. Then more importantly from the earlier photo that @Flying Phil provided there are two pairs of the black conduit runs that appear vertically in the ground just beside/behind the lineside concrete troughing, and from their alignment with respect to the concrete pad I’d anticipate they will be at the future locations of the trackside gantries where the supply tails feed up to the overhead. There’s usually quite a complex array of steelwork at these locations, as can be seen down the line at the new Chalton site.

 

[Nottingham59]

I think it possibly shows the opposite.

Oh well, too late now I suppose.

I do find it discouraging that we always seem to miss these low-cost opportunities to allow for future network growth.

 

[zwk500]

Oh well, too late now I suppose.

I do find it discouraging that we always seem to miss these low-cost opportunities to allow for future network growth.

If the loop couldn't be made fit for modern traffic (Length, entry/exit speeds and gauge) I am relieved we don't make achievable network enhancements more expensive than they would otherwise be for no benefit. Especially when the justification is 'there was a loop here years ago'.

 

[edwin_m]

Presuming this is at Desborough summit, it's actually a good place for a loop because the upward gradient into it makes the train stop more rapidly and the downward gradient leaving accelerates it away. However even then the time lost accelerating away may mean the freight train soon has another passenger train behind it. I think you'd need at least one more loop between here and Leicester to allow any increase in freight capacity.

 

[Nottingham59]

more expensive

Locating the lineside pad and cable ducts two metres further north would have cost nothing if they had been designed that way from the start.

If the loop couldn't be made fit for modern traffic (Length, entry/exit speeds and gauge)

I think it's the only place on that line what would be long enough to accomodate an up loop that would be suitable for length and entry/exit speed.

I'm not saying they should build a loop there. I'm just saying that it might be needed one day.
I can see a number of future traffic growth scenarios where it would be very useful to be able to regulate soutbound freight traffic from Nuneaton/Bardon etc., before joining the MML slows at Kettering.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Certainly the workers "on the ground" have been told that approval has been given for electrification to Leicester......so better than rumours I believe.

Well it certainly makes sense to get on with that section having spent a fortune on Baybrooke and its looks pretty straightforward till you get near Leicester.

 

[John R]

The current practice for electrification projects seems to be that work gets underway before any formal announcement, so let's hope so. Though I do hope that at some stage we can progress a bit quicker on the MML than 10 mile sections going ahead at approximately one year intervals.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Presuming this is at Desborough summit, it's actually a good place for a loop because the upward gradient into it makes the train stop more rapidly and the downward gradient leaving accelerates it away. However even then the time lost accelerating away may mean the freight train soon has another passenger train behind it. I think you'd need at least one more loop between here and Leicester to allow any increase in freight capacity.

No, it's not close to Desborough, but adjacent to Braybrooke GSP (actually nearer the edge of Harborough than Braybrooke).

I suspect there are many other constraints to resolve before a passing loop is more use (Wigston-Syston, signalling, Bedford station etc)

The key point for Southbound freight capacity that a loop could address is the time to cover Kilby Bridge Junction to Kettering North Junction, about 20 miles. EMR manage this in 11-15 minutes, depending on whether there's a stop at Harborough. The current timetable seems to offer a gap of up to 27 mins between 1 EMR service passing Kilby Bridge and the following train reaching Kettering North.

So lighter freight trains, maybe with 75mph top seem to take around 20 mins and be interleaved with EMR.
A Cemex train from Peak Forest (60mph, up to 2200 tonnes) seems to take 25 mins plus and can't, so travel South overnight.

Personally I think a switch to electric freight might have greater impact, as presumably something with the electric performance of an 88 is going to be significantly faster on a stone train and might be one reason why a passing loop may never be needed.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The current practice for electrification projects seems to be that work gets underway before any formal announcement, so let's hope so. Though I do hope that at some stage we can progress a bit quicker on the MML than 10 mile sections going ahead at approximately one year intervals.

Leicester's nearly 16 miles so a modest improvement!

 

[Nottingham59]

No, it's not close to Desborough,

The third track ran from the outskirts of Market Harborough all the way to Desborough, which is why I believe it was called the "Desborough Loop".

The extra-wide track bed is now constrained by the new A6 bridge, which (I understand) was built only two tracks wide, limiting any future loop past Braybrooke to 4-5km in length.

But we all agree it's not needed or likely to be needed soon.

I do hope that at some stage we can progress a bit quicker on the MML than 10 mile sections going ahead at approximately one year intervals.

But we do have Wigan-Bolton; Stalybridge; East Kilbride going ahead. And HS2 yet to come. So quite a few miles overall, which is quite encouraging. How long before the 810s arrive in a number?

 

[Bald Rick]

Oh well, too late now I suppose.

I do find it discouraging that we always seem to miss these low-cost opportunities to allow for future network growth.

with traffic levels in the MML, ‘static’ loops are next to useless. See Sundon (which is nearly ‘dynamic’, and barely used).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

But we do have Wigan-Bolton; Stalybridge; East Kilbride going ahead. And HS2 yet to come. So quite a few miles overall, which is quite encouraging. How long before the 810s arrive in a number?

Church Fenton - Colton Jct too.

 

[John R]

Leicester's nearly 16 miles so a modest improvement!

12 to Wigston which the general view is where any extension will be authorised to.

Church Fenton - Colton Jct too.

But all these are painfully small extensions. (I’m excluding East Kilbride too, as that’s in Scotland so subject to a completely different approach.)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

But all these are painfully small extensions. (I’m excluding East Kilbride too, as that’s in Scotland so subject to a completely different approach.)

I hear what you are saying and god knows I agree with you but we need to get these done to build up confidence in HMT and DafT that we can run to time and budget and then we can get bigger schemes before <cynic on>(insert date of next election)(/cynic off).

 

[gingertom]

Church Fenton - Colton Jct too.

Haymarket-Dalmeny, which in the short term would be for battery charging.

 

[John R]

Haymarket-Dalmeny, which in the short term would be for battery charging.

Again it’s Scotland which has a more enlightened approach of a rolling programme (and a much smaller mileage to cover). It’s the U.K. govt responsible for English schemes which I’m whinging about.

 

[Meerkat]

Again it’s Scotland which has a more enlightened approach of a rolling programme (and a much smaller mileage to cover). It’s the U.K. govt responsible for English schemes which I’m whinging about.

What's the difference between the two in effect, and why do you think the English one is worse?

 

[John R]

There appears a much clearer commitment for one thing, but we are straying off topic so I suggest we leave it there.

 

[snowball]

What's the difference between the two in effect, and why do you think the English one is worse?

The Scottish government has apparently told Network Rail to get on with electrifying most of the network in Scotland at whatever rate is possible within the available funds. In England and Wales there is no published detailed government plan; the railway has to wait for specific authorisation from the UK government for each individual scheme. See posts from last year in this thread:

Scotrail future plans for network enhancements

This video has some information about ScotRail's future plans for the network in Scotland

www.railforums.co.uk

There were also some relevant posts in the Barrhead / East Kilbride thread; I may look them out later.

 

[Mordac]

How's the renewal of wires south of Bedford for 125mph going?

 

[londonmidland]

Don’t know if this is the right thread for it but are there any proposed line speed improvements and/or signalling upgrades for the MML? Specially around the Leicestershire area, where it is still limited to three aspect signalling.

 

[CTS1990]

Levelling up: Sheffield and Wolverhampton chosen for government regeneration plans https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60183453

Morning all. Can anyone shed some light on this story?

“In Sheffield, there are plans to focus on the Integrated Rail Plan electrification and upgrades for journeys between Sheffield and London.”

I assume this is not ‘new’ news…how is this any different to plans that have already been announced?

 

[Bald Rick]

Don’t know if this is the right thread for it but are there any proposed line speed improvements and/or signalling upgrades for the MML? Specially around the Leicestershire area, where it is still limited to three aspect signalling.

the three aspect signalling isn’t a specific constraint on linespeeds.

 

[takno]

Levelling up: Sheffield and Wolverhampton chosen for government regeneration plans https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60183453

Morning all. Can anyone shed some light on this story?

“In Sheffield, there are plans to focus on the Integrated Rail Plan electrification and upgrades for journeys between Sheffield and London.”

I assume this is not ‘new’ news…how is this any different to plans that have already been announced?

This is about non-railway investment, but justified on the basis that the railway will enable it to be spent sensibly. In short, no new money for the railway

 

[Meerkat]

The Scottish government has apparently told Network Rail to get on with electrifying most of the network in Scotland at whatever rate is possible within the available funds. In England and Wales there is no published detailed government plan; the railway has to wait for specific authorisation from the UK government for each individual scheme. See posts from last year in this thread:

But why is that worse? It sounds like contractors have the nod that they want to extend to Wigton, and the whole route is to be electrified as part of the plan.
The Scottish way sounds like giving a painter a grand and telling him to paint as much of your house as he can - where is the motivation to be efficient?

Is there any word on the long lead stuff needed for the power supplies further north (Kegworth??)?

 

[takno]

But why is that worse? It sounds like contractors have the nod that they want to extend to Wigton, and the whole route is to be electrified as part of the plan.
The Scottish way sounds like giving a painter a grand and telling him to paint as much of your house as he can - where is the motivation to be efficient?

Is there any word on the long lead stuff needed for the power supplies further north (Kegworth??)?

It's more like paying somebody to paint as much of their own house as they can get done with the money. For NR the electrification itself is a chore they have to go through and the electrified network is a benefit in itself. There's really no reason they'd do it slower than necessary

 

[zwk500]

But why is that worse? It sounds like contractors have the nod that they want to extend to Wigton, and the whole route is to be electrified as part of the plan.
The Scottish way sounds like giving a painter a grand and telling him to paint as much of your house as he can - where is the motivation to be efficient?

In England, you don't know if you've got the next project until the treasury says yes, so unless there's another project already waiting the design teams and suppliers move on to other jobs elsewhere. In Scotland the budget is approved for multi-year periods but reviewed every 12 months.
It's comparable to the difference between paying for each repair to your car separately or buying a service plan.

 

[Meerkat]

It's more like paying somebody to paint as much of their own house as they can get done with the money. For NR the electrification itself is a chore they have to go through and the electrified network is a benefit in itself. There's really no reason they'd do it slower than necessary

But no one hassling them to be efficient - they get the money and work anyway. I think it is likely they run out of money and/or time before completing the target wiring.
There is a book of work - the government has said that MML will get electrified, and it seems that the teams have been given the next bit to get on with as they complete previous sections, but it isnt guaranteed if they don't complete each bit to an acceptable time and cost.
I think the key point will be the schedule for the power supplies - when will Kegworth be done, as that would enable wiring of the section to the north of Syston without relying on Leicester remodelling?

 

[zwk500]

But no one hassling them to be efficient - they get the money and work anyway. I think it is likely they run out of money and/or time before completing the target wiring.

1. The Scottish government aren't just heading out and leaving them to it, the supervision is rather close.
2. If NR aren't providing value for money, the Scottish government will explore other options for achieving it's electrification policies. I think the funding is set out for 5 years in advance, but subject to yearly reviews but might be wrong on that.

There is a book of work - the government has said that MML will get electrified, and it seems that the teams have been given the next bit to get on with as they complete previous sections, but it isnt guaranteed if they don't complete each bit to an acceptable time and cost.

What the government says is no guarantee of what the government will provide funding and authority for. At the moment they're being quick about it, but there's no guarantee they'll authorise another scheme in the next 5 years. If there's no work, then an internal NR team will be closed down/split up and an external contractor will find work in a different part of the world. It will then cost a lot more to get a team back together for the next project.

I think the key point will be the schedule for the power supplies - when will Kegworth be done, as that would enable wiring of the section to the north of Syston without relying on Leicester remodelling?

Agree this is the key point.

 

[edwin_m]

It's more like paying somebody to paint as much of their own house as they can get done with the money. For NR the electrification itself is a chore they have to go through and the electrified network is a benefit in itself. There's really no reason they'd do it slower than necessary

NR don't necessarily have this incentive although GBR might. More electrification means more cost for infrastructure maintenance and future enhancements (although they do these first if they can). The cost savings accrue to train operators through reduced maintenance, and ultimately being able to lease cheaper electric-only trains. But on less busy lines the whole-industry cost base is probably going to be more than staying with diesel, whether the chosen alternative is OLE, battery or hydrogen.

I don't claim to understand the arcane finances of the railway but I imagine the Scottish government is aware of this and is modifying the railway money-go-round accordingly.

But no one hassling them to be efficient - they get the money and work anyway. I think it is likely they run out of money and/or time before completing the target wiring.
There is a book of work - the government has said that MML will get electrified, and it seems that the teams have been given the next bit to get on with as they complete previous sections, but it isnt guaranteed if they don't complete each bit to an acceptable time and cost.

ORR does benchmarking studies and reports on efficiency. Ultimately the Scottish government has the right to stop the programme if costs are excessive - as DfT did with MML, twice, though in that case it did it in the wrong way.