The River Soar a few hundred yards west of the Parkway is the county boundary so both the Parkway and the power station site are in Nottinghamshire. The applicable planning authority is Ruschliffe Borough, and according to published HS2 documents they were unwilling to favour development and this is one reason why the HS2 station went to Toton instead of Parkway. I've seen something else which suggests they may have change their mind since then.
You know, I always believed it was on "our" side of the border, but you're right on second glance - I've had a mare there. Though I hope I can be forgiven given the whole Kegworth / Long Eaton area is a 3-way no-mans land separating the East Midlands counties!
Then again, knowing that, it now explains why the bus services to the airport collapsed so spectacularly - from experience I can tell you that the organisation of cross-border buses is absolutely appalling, and chances are that neither authority wanted to stump up the cash to keep them running when it became clear that passenger takings were lower than hoped.
That does however raise the question - what are LCC doing making speculative plans for sites outside their county border? The impracticalities and complexities of making a coal power plant brownfield site suitable for extensive housing development are monumental, the opportunity to even start won't arise until the mid 2020s at the earliest (by which point HS2 construction will be in full swing) and there's no certainty that the plant will even close - there's plenty of talk of a move to biomass a la Drax.
I'm sure they have some say in the future of Ratcliffe, but I'm surprised that they've been advocating residential development there, presumably to make the cash sunk into the white elephant that is EMP pay off in the long run, even though it's glaringly obvious that NCC themselves have given up and put their eggs in the basket marked Toton. Ultimately, it just goes down as another load of guff thrown out there to mask an unwillingness to fund anything transport-related in the county (Leicester-Burton, I'm looking at you...)
The acceleration figure normally quoted applies only at low speed when the acceleration is limited by adhesion, and will be the same whether on electric or diesel power. However above a certain speed (usually around 20-30mph) the acceleration becomes limited by available power so the rate of acceleration will reduce. 0.75m/s/s or indeed 0.79m/s/s may be an average rate of acceleration but without knowing what speed it is from and to it is meaningless. A bi-mode train will have much more power available, and hence better acceleration at higher speeds, when in electric mode.
Problem is, I'm referring to those diesel engines, which on some routes may well end up providing the primary mode of power. Even with the maximum proposed wire extent and with dispensation to use the HS2 wires between Sheffield and Chesterfield (for which there is no guarantee and still the possibility of some grade separation), a Leeds to London train will be "off grid" for 111 miles, or 51% of its 218 mile journey. Assume the HS2 wires are a no-go and the figure is 124 miles (57%), and even on a Sheffield service the split is 47/53 with the HS2 section use and 54/46 without it.
*
Until we know how they perform long-distance on diesel against existing trains, particularly the 222s, I reserve the right to be incredibly sceptical of their introduction. And tacking more diesel engines onto a bi-mode surely isn't the answer? They're already heavy enough as it is.
In an ideal world, I'd hold fire for a few years and wait for battery unit range to improve to the extent needed if we must persist with bi-modes.
Anyway, I'm off on a tangent again. HSTs stop at East Midlands Parkway sometimes. What's their future?
* Fag packet estimate - if anybody has better knowledge of MML mileposts please enlighten me, though I can say with confidence that at least 40% of the longer journeys will be run on diesel power. 
