MML Electrification: is it going to be completed?

[HSTEd]

There's many ways to approach it, but aside from really big places (London, Birmingham, Glasgow level), the transmission (400 & 275kV) network doesn't really penetrate into the middle of urban areas.

Just doing Sheffield station (as an example) would probably mean connecting to the local 33kV system, which may then need upgrading to handle the load which will be higher than typical traction because it'll be charging to allow trains to run 50+ miles - so much more then the energy typically needed from a normal traction supply. You've also got to find space for the plant, which at 33kV is likely to mean a static frequency converter, and some other switchgear plus ancillaries. So a nice big space with nothing on it that's adjacent to Sheffield station, please.

And then every train will need to be fitted with batteries, and to carry the mass of those batteries around for their entire lives. And come what may they'd need a long enough dwell to charge them up to get to the next charger, so recovering from disruption just got a lot harder.

Batteries are definitely part of the future, but no matter how good they become they should not be (in my opinion) a substitute for properly electrifying trunk routes such as the MML.

The simple answer is you can put the Static Frequency Converter wherever is convenient, then run a single phase/split phase 25kV-0-25kV pole line or cable into Sheffield to supply the station.

Main line 25kV electrification now (in my view) costs far too much for a large scale electrification programme to be likely - thats just the way it is.
Completing midland main line electrification is likely to cost a very large amount of money.

EDIT:
As an example, there is a 275kV substation directly adjacent to Meadowhall railway station. There is plenty of room out there for a traction substation, whether conventional or SFC.
You can then feed a cable or overhead pole line along the trackside to Sheffield station.

 

[Zomboid]

A pole line? Not a chance. It'd be a cable. But if you did that then there would still need to be a substation near the electrified patch, which wouldn't really be distinguishable from a regular feeder station.

I don't think that holding out for bionic duckweed is an excuse for not doing proper electrification of major trunk routes.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Curiously though, the more large scale the electrification programme the more likely it is to drive down costs because of the rolling programme effect. Electrification is cheaper in Scotland because they've invested in it properly (well technically their rolling programme is over now but it was successful at the time), and the Scottish government does actually have to balance the books in a way that westminster doesn't.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 18:06 ==

Plus lugging several tons of batteries around everywhere the train goes.

the fallacy of bimodes indeed. Including diesel ones, because the efficiency benefits real electrification brings to rolling stock and permanent way maintenance are lost.

I think it would make sense to extend to Meadowhall anyway as this would enable the use of the Wincoback 275kV substation as as supply point. It's right next to the line nextdoor to Meadowhall interchange.

Quite right, and that would easily support extension up to Moorthorpe to connect with the ECML power system for all sorts of supply sharing.

 

[Zomboid]

Quite right, and that would easily support extension up to Moorthorpe to connect with the ECML power system for all sorts of supply sharing

Might be more use reinforcing the Leeds branch, the ECML power supply isn't known for being awash with spare capacity, but Meadowhall to Moorthorpe is short enough that an AT supply could reach beyond onto the Doncaster - Leeds line.

 

[NCT]

The old rule of thumb I used to hear was >100mph or >4tph is where efficiency case for investing in electrification is. Batteries is what we should do with the other side of those thresholds.

Quite right.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Might be more use reinforcing the Leeds branch, the ECML power supply isn't known for being awash with spare capacity, but Meadowhall to Moorthorpe is short enough that an AT supply could reach beyond onto the Doncaster - Leeds line.

Yeah, sorry my wording was unclear - but that's what I meant, offering supply into the ECML system as well as supporting Chesterfield to the south and maybe even the Barnsley route as well.

Quite right.

Should have also clarified, that's more than or equal to 100mph/4tph, and there are also plenty of other shorter lines that would be electrified for operational reasons. I'm pretty sure GWML through Chippenham and Birmingham–Derby are the only 125mph lines without a plan to be electrified. Need to check the 100–120 category though.

 

[The Ham]

A good idea until you look at the costed details and the fear that whatever gets done would probably restrict any further improvements for 50 years.

It has to be done in a way that allows for very substantial growth in passenger numbers. 100% at least with modal shift and a growing population.

To get to a doubling of passenger numbers over a 50 year period you need an average of 1.4% growth year on year.

To put that in perspective from 2009 (when HS2 was suggested) to 2024 (even allowing for a massive drop in passenger numbers and not recovering fully from that) the total growth was 35%, that is 3.4% year on year.

If anything doubling may well happen within 35 years (2% per year growth rate).

 

[Killingworth]

To get to a doubling of passenger numbers over a 50 year period you need an average of 1.4% growth year on year.

To put that in perspective from 2009 (when HS2 was suggested) to 2024 (even allowing for a massive drop in passenger numbers and not recovering fully from that) the total growth was 35%, that is 3.4% year on year.

If anything doubling may well happen within 35 years (2% per year growth rate).

Precisely!

 

[stevieinselby]

Dore-Meadowhall needs doing under any future scenario. Sheffield-Meadowhall is the most intensively used non-electrified route in the country, carrying 11tph. and Dore-Sheffield is close behind with 8tph.

The problem with just counting the number of trains using that 3½ mile section of track is that it doesn't take into account where they go after that.
No trains are confined to just that bit of track – they then continue along unelectrified lines for quite some distance to Barnsley and Leeds, Hull and Scarborough, Moorthorpe (for Leeds) and York, Plymouth and occasionally Reading, Cleethorpes, Manchester, Nottingham, Huddersfield, Lincoln and maybe more that I've missed.
If you want to run all those trains as electric then it's a colossal amount of route miles that you need to electrify – if you want to run them all at least as bi-mode then that's a colossal number of trains you need to replace, and in many cases that 3½ mile section of line is just about the only bit of a very long route that is electrified and so will make negligible difference.

 

[BorderCollie]

Well, Wigan - Bolton was recently electrified with electric bi-mode services to start sometime soon, and who knows what the business case for that was - 6.5miles at £100m...

 

[Nottingham59]

The problem with just counting the number of trains using that 3½ mile section of track is that it doesn't take into account where they go after that.
No trains are confined to just that bit of track – they then continue along unelectrified lines for quite some distance to Barnsley and Leeds, Hull and Scarborough, Moorthorpe (for Leeds) and York, Plymouth and occasionally Reading, Cleethorpes, Manchester, Nottingham, Huddersfield, Lincoln and maybe more that I've missed.
If you want to run all those trains as electric then it's a colossal amount of route miles that you need to electrify – if you want to run them all at least as bi-mode then that's a colossal number of trains you need to replace, and in many cases that 3½ mile section of line is just about the only bit of a very long route that is electrified and so will make negligible difference.

Dore-Sheffield still has far better financial and strategic cases than any other section of MML electrification.

My reasoning is that Dore - Sheffield - Meadowhall is the only section of the MML north of Derby that will be need electrification in a future where most regional services are delivered by battery trains. These could be new build BEMU, or 80x converted to battery running with, say, 2 battery packs and one diesel power pack in each 5-car unit, givng a range off the wires of around 80 miles.

The Liverpool-Nottingham route is ideal for conversion to battery, with recharging opportunities at Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Nottingham. Current services takes 16 minutes from Dore to Dore, which is enough time under the wires to fully recharge. And 20 minutes from Manchester to Hazel Grove. Similarly, the Northern Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham flow is ripe for BEMUs, as are current stopping services from Sheffield to Manchester and to York and to Adwick.

That's very many more trains benfitting from electification than the MML north of Kettering. The only traction likely to use OHLE there in the next twenty years are 810 electro-diesel bimodes. And the 810s have been designed at great expense and delay to have superior performance on diesel so that there will be no "sparks effect" by switching them to AC power.

And if BEMUs prove to be unviable after all, despite the current pace of development in battery technology, then you will still have to electrify Dore-Sheffield.

 

[The exile]

Dore-Sheffield still has far better financial and strategic cases than any other section of MML electrification.

My reasoning is that Dore - Sheffield - Meadowhall is the only section of the MML north of Derby that will be need electrification in a future where most regional services are delivered by battery trains. These could be new build BEMU, or 80x converted to battery running with, say, 2 battery packs and one diesel power pack in each 5-car unit, givng a range off the wires of around 80 miles.

The Liverpool-Nottingham route is ideal for conversion to battery, with recharging opportunities at Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Nottingham. Current services takes 16 minutes from Dore to Dore, which is enough time under the wires to fully recharge. And 20 minutes from Manchester to Hazel Grove. Similarly, the Northern Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham flow is ripe for BEMUs, as are current stopping services from Sheffield to Manchester and to York and to Adwick.

That's very many more trains benfitting from electification than the MML north of Kettering. The only traction likely to use OHLE there in the next twenty years are 810 electro-diesel bimodes. And the 810s have been designed at great expense and delay to have superior performance on diesel so that there will be no "sparks effect" by switching them to AC power.

And if BEMUs prove to be unviable after all, despite the current pace of development in battery technology, then you will still have to electrify Dore-Sheffield.

If everything is going to be recharging on the move on those few miles the power demand is going to be massive at times.
As many others have said, batteries are a useful solution to bridge bits that would otherwise be a blocker to electrification - that will tend to favour wiring up the rural bits and stopping where things get complicated. As and when more conurbations get trams and tram-trains become a viable option it also potentially gets round the voltage issue.

 

[Killingworth]

Dore-Sheffield still has far better financial and strategic cases than any other section of MML electrification.

My reasoning is that Dore - Sheffield - Meadowhall is the only section of the MML north of Derby that will be need electrification in a future where most regional services are delivered by battery trains. These could be new build BEMU, or 80x converted to battery running with, say, 2 battery packs and one diesel power pack in each 5-car unit, givng a range off the wires of around 80 miles.

The Liverpool-Nottingham route is ideal for conversion to battery, with recharging opportunities at Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Nottingham. Current services takes 16 minutes from Dore to Dore, which is enough time under the wires to fully recharge. And 20 minutes from Manchester to Hazel Grove. Similarly, the Northern Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham flow is ripe for BEMUs, as are current stopping services from Sheffield to Manchester and to York and to Adwick.

That's very many more trains benfitting from electification than the MML north of Kettering. The only traction likely to use OHLE there in the next twenty years are 810 electro-diesel bimodes. And the 810s have been designed at great expense and delay to have superior performance on diesel so that there will be no "sparks effect" by switching them to AC power.

And if BEMUs prove to be unviable after all, despite the current pace of development in battery technology, then you will still have to electrify Dore-Sheffield.

Indeed, but I again caution on the potential complexity of this short stretch to get it done right. In 1904 it was widened to provide 4 tracks into Sheffield.

The Beeching era didn't just close branch lines. There was a big push to reduce track mileage and points and incentives with grants to do so. The result is that by 1985 two tracks with bridges across roads and the Sheaf had been removed. The up and down Heeley loops remain.

In the heady days of HS2 it was planned to restore 3 tracks between Dore and Sheffield. Quite how that would be done is potentially tricky due to what now occupies the space needed.

Reconfiguring Sheffield station to handle twice the current level of traffic won't be easy either. If the railway gets its act together that's a reasonable expectation that should be planned for within 25 years.

The Don valley section out of Sheffield to the north and east is an absolute nightmare - maybe involving a billion or two for a tunnel beneath Park Hill.

 

[Nottingham59]

If everything is going to be recharging on the move on those few miles the power demand is going to be massive at times.

Not necessarily.

Consider Sheffield. It has two tracks to the south through to Dore Station Junction, and two tracks to the north to Nunnery Junction. I don't know what signalling headways are, but at three minutes headway Sheffield will not see no more than 20 BEMUs arriving from the south per hour, and twenty from the north. If each has a 2MWh battery (big for a BEMU) then the OHLE will need to supply at most 80MWh every hour, i.e. 80 MW peak load. That's the same as the 80 MVA capacity of Braybrooke grid supply point for the MML.

And yes, you'd want two supply points off different circuits for redundancy - as does Braybrooke. The difference is that the Sheffield GSP could be running at that power level through the day; Braybrooke will only ever see a minimal fraction of its capacity in use for the foreseeable future.

In reality, trains will arrive at Sheffield at around 8 - 10 tph from each direction, only some of these will be battery, and not all batteries will be completely discharged. So with careful modelling and control systems to manage recharging, then a GSP of much less than 80MVA will be needed at Sheffield.

What will be needed is OHLE cables and contact wire thick enough to handle 10MW or 20MW recharging rates, so that a 2MWh battery can recharge in 12 or 6 minutes respectively.

 

[Class15]

Dore-Sheffield still has far better financial and strategic cases than any other section of MML electrification.

I’m not so sure - the project has been started from the south so makes more sense to continue towards and beyond Leicester?

 

[Killingworth]

I’m not so sure - the project has been started from the south so makes more sense to continue towards and beyond Leicester?

I'd agree, not least for points I made in my post 223 above.

 

[Sonik]

The difference is that the Sheffield GSP could be running at that power level through the day

Having done MW connection studies for a living, I'd be willing to bet that Sheffield has plenty spare on DNO due to deindustrialization. It's exactly the kind of place I'd go looking for latent capacity. Also plenty of vacant or underused brownfield land for SFC feeders

The bigger problem, as @Kilingworth noted, is the existing rail bottlenecks and clearances to put wires up.

 

[Zomboid]

What will be needed is OHLE cables and contact wire thick enough to handle 10MW or 20MW recharging rates, so that a 2MWh battery can recharge in 12 or 6 minutes respectively.

10MW at 25kV is 400A. Which is well in excess of the maximum permissable line current for an electric train, never mind 20MW.

Obviously standards are changeable, but the laws of physics are not. A static charging load of 10MW is going to be very challenging to provide anywhere, especially in a station environment.

Widespread adoption of battery technology is a reason to electrify more. Not less.

 

[Nottingham59]

10MW at 25kV is 400A. Which is well in excess of the maximum permissable line current for an electric train, never mind 20MW.

Well, 12-car Javelins take 6.7MW on HS1. Stadler's Euro9000 takes 9MW, so 10MW at least should be within the capabilities of 25kV technology. ...

EURO9000 locomotive | Stadler

Leading the way to a more sustainable future, the Co’Co’ locomotive can be operated with up to three different drive systems: electric, diesel and/or batteries.

www.stadlerrail.com

Obviously standards are changeable, but the laws of physics are not. A static charging load of 10MW is going to be very challenging to provide anywhere, especially in a station environment.

... but not necessarily when stationary at the platform. Which is why planning for batterification at places like Sheffield needs to happen now, rather than waiting until we've spent £2-3bn installing OHLE that needs upgrading within a few years.

Widespread adoption of battery technology is a reason to electrify more. Not less.

Agree. I think we've nearly at the stage where we can electrify the entire GB network with only a few hundred more route-km of OHLE - provided they're in the right place.

 

[Sonik]

Widespread adoption of battery technology is a reason to electrify more. Not less.

Totally agree

SFCs do allow you to squeeze the pips using voltage, and static batteries are also a thing.

So IMO the main goals should be getting wires up, and taking feeds wherever it's easy/cheap.

I think we've nearly at the stage where we can electrify the entire GB network with only a few hundred more route-km of OHLE

Freight would like a word.

 

[Zomboid]

Well, 12-car Javelins take 6.7MW on HS1. Stadler's Euro9000 takes 9MW, so 10MW at least should be within the capabilities of 25kV technology

Those are moving loads, put that on a single contact patch and things are very different.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Having done MW connection studies for a living, I'd be willing to bet that Sheffield has plenty spare on DNO due to deindustrialization.

I'd second this, based on discussions with people from the Northern DNOs. Quite a bit of capacity in the 33-132 kV levels, in areas that were once industrial (Different problems at transmission, lower voltages and rural areas)

10MW at 25kV is 400A. Which is well in excess of the maximum permissable line current for an electric train, never mind 20MW.

The reason to do discontinuous electrification is to enable the transition to zero-emissions trains to be faster and cheaper than wiring everything.
The problem is that doing anything that's beyond the capabilities of current standard kit will tend to become slow and expensive, especially in an industry that is regulated, standards-driven and risk averse (like any utility network). And the risk here is of ending up needing to completely redesign the end-end system of electrification to cope with significantly higher currents.

Stadler's Euro9000 takes 9MW, so 10MW at least should be within the capabilities of 25kV technology

are 9 MW power conversion systems practicable to fit within (ideally low-floor) BEMU? Size/weight/cost etc - not being sarcastic, I really don't know but I would imagine that loco bodies are not just full of empty space. And obviously a big chunk of the available space/weight is going to be batteries.

Dore-Sheffield still has far better financial and strategic cases than any other section of MML electrification.

The EMR IC benefits must surely halve North of the Trent, but the cost per STK of OLE probably doesn't The benefits at Sheffield, which I agree are substantial will take 15 years or more to accrue because we know that 170, 220/1 are being re-done for that sort of time, and 195/185 are still relatively modern and don't have obvious suitability to cascade elsewhere.

The only quick (and that's quick in railway terms) wins are anything 15x which might be being replaced by 2030 if Govt invests and the rolling stock builders don't continue to muck things up.

 

[Nottingham59]

Those are moving loads, put that on a single contact patch and things are very different.

I know. That's why we need to be planning MML electrification to be upgradeable for high static electrical loads into pantographs at stations like Nottingham and Sheffield. Probably thicker contact rods alongside platforms, and several pantographs per train, to spread the heating load over multiple contact points.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

I know. That's why we need to be planning MML electrification to be upgradeable for high static electrical loads into pantographs at stations like Nottingham and Sheffield.

In the general sense, the MML system is passive provisioned for AT and I think they should utilise that honestly, from 6kA to 12kA total capacity.

Probably thicker contact rods alongside platforms, and several pantographs per train, to spread the heating load over multiple contact points.

In the world of reducing overbridge rebuilding due to voltage clearances, tiny measurements matter a lot - so this would probably make £/STK go way up. So we're talking less electrification and each of it is more expensive.

We can also just go ahead with the system we know how to use, that has been fully planned and actively undergoing design and for which contractors must be somewhat preparing for. De- and/or re-scoping MMLe is not going to make it cheaper. Especially when it's being replaced by rolling stock that isn't being ordered, substations and grid connections that have not been planned or agreed, operational procedures that are entirely untested and only theoretical, OLE innovation work that needs to started and matured, etc. We all bemoan GWMLe that had the hubris to create a wiring train that did not pan out as a good idea. We're talking about a lot more risk taking than just going ahead with the plan for Dore-Sheffield that already exists.

 

[cle]

Well, Wigan - Bolton was recently electrified with electric bi-mode services to start sometime soon, and who knows what the business case for that was - 6.5miles at £100m...

It is a little bit random (and diverts/other routings spurious as already a few options) - and for 2tph. I hope one day it does more tph, e.g a WCML service beyond Wigan.

But really it is the counterbalance to Stalybridge bay / EMU service (much like Rochdale wires would be) - enabling way more through traffic through Victoria's paltry platforms! So it's part of a bigger play - and a semblance of a Manchester S-Bahn!

Hopefully also more local uptake of better, quicker services.

 

[Technologist]

the fallacy of bimodes indeed. Including diesel ones, because the efficiency benefits real electrification brings to rolling stock and permanent way maintenance are lost.

Go have a look at the calcs on future BEMU performance and masses based around using car technology. Eventually all trains will be BEMUs even those running exclusively under wires.

 

[Zomboid]

Go have a look at the calcs on future BEMU performance and masses based around using car technology. Eventually all trains will be BEMUs even those running exclusively under wires.

Why on earth would trains that run entirely over electrified routes carry the completely unnecessary mass of a battery pack around with them?

 

[Nottingham59]

just going ahead with the plan for Dore-Sheffield that already exists

By all means do Dore-Sheffield. As I said in post #221, that's the one section of the MML north of Derby that's definitely worth doing, because of all the potential BEMU routes that use that section.

What I'm querying is the value of doing sections like Derby-Clay Cross in the next decade when the 2tph XC trains are likely to be diesel 221s for the next 15 years, and EMR are commited to bimode 810s, with diesel performance as good as electric. There are many places where electrification will have a far better financial and strategic case, and those should be done first.

substations and grid connections that have not been planned or agreed

If the substations and grid connections are as grossly over-specified as Braybrooke at 2 x 80MVA off a 400kV supply, on a line that carries just 4tph bimode passenger and almost no freight then they should be reviewed.

 

[duffield]

By all means do Dore-Sheffield. As I said in post #221, that's the one section of the MML north of Derby that's definitely worth doing, because of all the potential BEMU routes that use that section.

What I'm querying is the value of doing sections like Derby-Clay Cross in the next decade when the 2tph XC trains are likely to be diesel 221s for the next 15 years, and EMR are commited to bimode 810s, with diesel performance as good as electric. There are many places where electrification will have a far better financial and strategic case, and those should be done first.


If the substations and grid connections are as grossly over-specified as Braybrooke at 2 x 80MVA off a 400kV supply, on a line that carries just 4tph bimode passenger and almost no freight then they should be reviewed.

If you've completed the rest of the MML apart from Derby-Clay Cross or something like that, it's bonkers to leave that gap. The bi-modes would be nearly half way through their lifecycle by the time the MML was completed, and they'd be ripe for cascading to routes with substantial wiring but no real prospect of the whole route being done (in fact , possibly XC), or they could be made more efficient by removing all or most of the diesel engines (maybe leaving one for "limp mode"). I really don't see the sense of completing 90% of a route like the MML including all the expensive station bits and then leaving it there.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

By all means do Dore-Sheffield. As I said in post #221, that's the one section of the MML north of Derby that's definitely worth doing, because of all the potential BEMU routes that use that section.

What I'm querying is the value of doing sections like Derby-Clay Cross in the next decade when the 2tph XC trains are likely to be diesel 221s for the next 15 years, and EMR are commited to bimode 810s, with diesel performance as good as electric. There are many places where electrification will have a far better financial and strategic case, and those should be done first.

The MML planning and design work also exists for that section too. It's good future-proofing to allow 810s to go over to XC while all electric intercity trains can run the MML and achieving the maintenance/whole life cost benefits of real electrification. Derby-Clay Cross is not even an especially difficult section compared to others (save for that one tunnel). Also, it's basically ready to be put into delivery, whatever other electrification work you're suggesting we're sacrificing for it, cannot go ahead without it's own proposal, planning and design stages. It's a complete false equivalency.

If the substations and grid connections are as grossly over-specified as Braybrooke at 2 x 80MVA off a 400kV supply, on a line that carries just 4tph bimode passenger and almost no freight then they should be reviewed.

God forbid something is future-proofed for once. There are regular aggregates trains coming up the MML along with a new freight terminal in St Albans and the nationally significant Felixstowe to Nuneaton container corridor. All the MML GSPs are 275-400kV because it was originally specified as an AT system (which all substations are being built passive provisioned for). This was descoped post Grayling but the obviously sensible choice prevailed of continuing with all the GSPs that had been agreed with National Grid rather than going back to the drawing board now with the DNO for new connections. It's not at all grossly over-specified, it's specified to handle an N-2 service into the Leicester area and down into Bedford