How could MML line speeds be improved? (e.g. by using tilt)

[43066]

*Ampthill

 

[Bald Rick]

And Amptill, which is long(ish), and 125mph both ways.

quite right, I stand corrected.

 

[baz962]

And Amptill, which is long(ish), and 125mph both ways.



It’s basically all above 100mph from Cricklewood to Chesterfield, apart from the stations and the steep 80mph curve at Wigston. Not that much 125mph it has to be said (especially on the up), but a fair bit above 110.

You didn't forget that it's only 120 out of Ampthill tunnel coming to London did you lol.

 

[cle]

So in actual fact, a fast Sheffield service is not likely to save more than a minute or two, once electric services are able to go full speed and if wires were extended to Sheffield (and Nottingham). The slows would benefit a little more.

There are also no new paths, as we all know so well. Except for north of Bedford, hence the Bedford-Leeds HS2 idea, or maybe some future options to do with EWR. But nothing out of St Pancras.

So with no new frequencies and negligible journey time savings on fasts (perhaps Leicester works are done, Chesterfield is dropped from some?) - there are green and operational benefits, and longer trains could be run - but this is no HS2 substitute whatsoever.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are also no new paths, as we all know so well. Except for north of Bedford, hence the Bedford-Leeds HS2 idea, or maybe some future options to do with EWR. But nothing out of St Pancras.

Not sure there’s a viable path for another long distance train between Bedford and Syston. Too many constraints.

 

[43066]

You didn't forget that it's only 120 out of Ampthill tunnel coming to London did you lol.

Nope. The 120 on the up starts immediately beyond the South portal. If you shut off entering the tunnel at 125 it comes down for the 120 nicely.

Here’s a pointless MML trivia question: what’s the only station through which the fast lines are 125mph in both directions?!

 

[Bald Rick]

Nope. The 120 on the up starts immediately beyond the South portal. If you shut off entering the tunnel at 125 it comes down for the 120 nicely.

Here’s a pointless MML trivia question: what’s the only station through which the fast lines are 125mph in both directions?!

Radlett ? Although not many trains will be doing it!

 

[D365]

When the Derby remodelling was undertaken, did that improve line speeds in and out of the station?

Yes. Up to 40mph now.

 

[43066]

Radlett ?

Correct.

Although not many trains will be doing it!

Certainly not if they’re 360s, or (180s/222s following 360s ).

Absent that, it’s very doable in both directions (historically even by HSTs), albeit not long is actually spent at 125 before shutting off for the 110 limits at either end.

 

[Bald Rick]

Absent that, it’s very doable in both directions (historically even by HSTs), albeit not long is actually spent at 125 before shutting off for the 110 limits at either end.

Forgot it was downhill from Elstree

 

[Jozhua]

I think the MML, like a lot of the UK network, has had most of the practical optimisations done. (besides electrification!!!)

I know even Ambergate junction has been rebuilt for a pretty significant speed uplift, alongside Derby station, etc.

The reality is that the most convenient, cheapest way to speed up journey times and add capacity now is to build new, hence HS2. Unfortunately most of the public don't know this and are under the belief that there is a load of extra magical capacity we can squeeze out of the network without segregating the express services away from it.

I will be interested to see how cancelled the Eastern leg is when the integrated rail plan comes out...

 

[NoRoute]

The reality is that the most convenient, cheapest way to speed up journey times and add capacity now is to build new, hence HS2. Unfortunately most of the public don't know this and are under the belief that there is a load of extra magical capacity we can squeeze out of the network without segregating the express services away from it.

With the cost of HS2 now estimated as at least £100 Billion and the final figure not known, it is something of a stretch to claim it is the cheapest solution. The cheapest solution, cheapest in the sense of being affordable, is likely to be a range of incremental improvements to the existing line.

I doubt the general public has much of an opinion on rail capacity, likely because most of them rarely use it as the railways have a relatively minor role in overall transport, it accounts for a small proportion of total journeys. To most of the public the railways are unimportant, which then makes it difficult to win support for very expensive projects like HS2.

 

[Ianno87]

The cheapest solution, cheapest in the sense of being affordable, is likely to be a range of incremental improvements to the existing line.

Cheaper maybe, but proportionately many, many fewer benefits from doing so.

 

[edwin_m]

Cheaper maybe, but proportionately many, many fewer benefits from doing so.

In fact it's highly unlikely any local intervention on the MML will have a benefit-cost ratio that justifies it - as someone mentioned the low-hanging fruit has already been picked. HS2 only makes a business case because it improves journey times and capacity on the WCML and ECML, with the MML likely to be very much an also-ran in the benefit stakes.

 

[gordonthemoron]

With the cost of HS2 now estimated as at least £100 Billion and the final figure not known, it is something of a stretch to claim it is the cheapest solution. The cheapest solution, cheapest in the sense of being affordable, is likely to be a range of incremental improvements to the existing line.

I doubt the general public has much of an opinion on rail capacity, likely because most of them rarely use it as the railways have a relatively minor role in overall transport, it accounts for a small proportion of total journeys. To most of the public the railways are unimportant, which then makes it difficult to win support for very expensive projects like HS2.

it's cheapest because it's 'supposed' to pay for itself

 

[HSTEd]

Any attempt at an MML modernisation is likely to run into the teens of billions, just look at the utter debacles of the WCRM and GWRM.

HS2 is likely to deliver vastly greater benefits per pound, and in any case still constitutes a small fraction of the national income.

 

[Peter Sarf]

With the cost of HS2 now estimated as at least £100 Billion and the final figure not known, it is something of a stretch to claim it is the cheapest solution. The cheapest solution, cheapest in the sense of being affordable, is likely to be a range of incremental improvements to the existing line.

I doubt the general public has much of an opinion on rail capacity, likely because most of them rarely use it as the railways have a relatively minor role in overall transport, it accounts for a small proportion of total journeys. To most of the public the railways are unimportant, which then makes it difficult to win support for very expensive projects like HS2.

No it is getting pointless tweaking the Midland Main Line. All the cheap and easy upgrades have been done. The lesson was learnt with the West Coast Route Modernisation. A lot of money was spent on that for very little benefit. With hindsight it was realised a new line was needed.

How many new roads have been built in the UK since the 1960s. It is true that roads are improved but the main benefits come from new roads. Principally these are higher speed routes with a restricted number of junctions - called Motorways. HS2 is a sorely needed main line and it has TWO advantages. HS2 speeds up intercity travel but also HS2 creates much needed capacity on the existing mainlines by removing the fastest trains and therefore leaving new capacity for slower services that call at more station plus freight.

But HS2 is not directly giving capacity to the Midland Main Line it is really helping out the West Coast Mainline and the East Coast Main Line. So there is a risk that it is off topic for this thread ?.

 

[The Planner]

WCRM very little benefit?

 

[Peter Sarf]

WCRM very little benefit?

For the money spent I seem to recall a decent chunk of HS2 could have been built. Also the WCRM never achieved the 140mph line-speeds I thought were promised. Although the dropping of 140mph might have been more to do with a change of plan (cost of power required vs expected gain in revenue).

 

[Bald Rick]

For the money spent I seem to recall a decent chunk of HS2 could have been built. Also the WCRM never achieved the 140mph line-speeds I thought were promised. Although the dropping of 140mph might have been more to do with a change of plan (cost of power required vs expected gain in revenue).

140mph wasn’t a benefit. Reduced journey times were the benefit.

Almost the entire journey time reduction enable do by 140mph south of Rugby was delievred by remodelling Rugby (which wasn’t in the ‘original’ plan).

Of the money spent, the majority went on renewing infrastructure that had to be renewed anyway - all the signalling (except Stockport, obvs), most of the track / OLE, and several junctions.

Take Euston for example. That cost £150m in 1998 prices to renew all the signalling track and OLE, which was absolutely knackered. It could have been renewed exactly like for like. But it was decided to renew it all in a way that saved most passengers 1-2 minutes, provided capacity for more trains, reduced delays significantly, was much cheaper to maintain (half the number of point ends) and cost significantly less.

 

[Peter Sarf]

140mph wasn’t a benefit. Reduced journey times were the benefit.

Almost the entire journey time reduction enable do by 140mph south of Rugby was delievred by remodelling Rugby (which wasn’t in the ‘original’ plan).

Of the money spent, the majority went on renewing infrastructure that had to be renewed anyway - all the signalling (except Stockport, obvs), most of the track / OLE, and several junctions.

Take Euston for example. That cost £150m in 1998 prices to renew all the signalling track and OLE, which was absolutely knackered. It could have been renewed exactly like for like. But it was decided to renew it all in a way that saved most passengers 1-2 minutes, provided capacity for more trains, reduced delays significantly, was much cheaper to maintain (half the number of point ends) and cost significantly less.

So in the case of WCRM work had to be done to replace worn out infrastructure anyway. I had got the impression that some of the work was straight improvements. But on the MML is it the case that worn out infrastructure is due for replacement anyway or will it have to be improvements over existing infrastructure that is not yet worn out ?. Probably a mixture I suppose.

 

[Bald Rick]

I had got the impression that some of the work was straight improvements.

The improvements on WCRM were generally incremental to renewals. For example, the OLE needed renewing, but the new kit had higher tension. Or Ledburn Junction needed renewing, it was put back as 60mph rather than 30mph.

The ‘straight improvements’ were relatively a small part of the whole programme. From memory they were mostly:

to accommodate the train and its tilt capability
power supply
taking out the level crossings
tunnel pressure relief
Signal spacing north of Stafford for the EPS linespeed
the extra tracks up the Trent Valley (which were actually mostly for freight, rather than Virgin).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2021 ==

But on the MML is it the case that worn out infrastructure is due for replacement anyway

Most of the MML is in good nick. Largely resignalled north of Sharnbrook. OLE new or being refurbed. Nottingham and Derby recently remodelled. Leicester improved. Harboro sorted. New junctions and tracks Bedford - Kettering. Track alignments all sorted throughout as far as is practical.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The improvements on WCRM were generally incremental to renewals. For example, the OLE needed renewing, but the new kit had higher tension. Or Ledburn Junction needed renewing, it was put back as 60mph rather than 30mph.

The ‘straight improvements’ were relatively a small part of the whole programme. From memory they were mostly:

to accommodate the train and its tilt capability
power supply
taking out the level crossings
tunnel pressure relief
Signal spacing north of Stafford for the EPS linespeed
the extra tracks up the Trent Valley (which were actually mostly for freight, rather than Virgin).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2021 ==

Were they called PUG1 and PUG2 ?, if there was a PUG2.

I had forgotten how much was done a while back. Yes the 1960s knitting was due for replacement, at the Southern end iirc ?..

Most of the MML is in good nick. Largely resignalled north of Sharnbrook. OLE new or being refurbed. Nottingham and Derby recently remodelled. Leicester improved. Harboro sorted. New junctions and tracks Bedford - Kettering. Track alignments all sorted throughout as far as is practical.

I see. Hence your (iirc) point that most of the (easier) improvements have been done already on the MML.

 

[Bald Rick]

Were they called PUG1 and PUG2 ?, if there was a PUG2.

In the beginning of the WCRM programme, there wa the Core Investment Programme (CIP). This was straight renewals in modern form, no change in capacity or speeds, unless it was ‘free’ by doing the renewals. It was costed at £1.495bn in 1995, and subjected to an arbitrary 10% ‘challenge’ by the Railtrack board to become £1.344bn (with no plan on how to make the saving).

PUG1 (Passenger Upgrade 1) was additional work required to deliver reduced journey times through 125mph operation and tilting trains, plus one extra fast line path (to Manchester). This was a deal done with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchsing (OPRAF) in 1996, prior to the competition for the Inter City West Coast franchise in 96/7. It wasn’t valued at around £150m, ie the same as the amount removed from the CIP.

PUG2 was further additional work to deliver 9 fast paths an hour and further reduced journey times requiring 140mph running and cab signalling. This was a deal done in line with Virgin winning the franchise in 1997, and valued at about £600m. With inflation for the year this meant the WCRM programme was £2.2bn.

As it turned out that £2.2bn was hopelessly optimistic. It was based on a less than full understanding of outputs required (particularly the relationship between passenger and freight services), and therefore didn’t include an enormous amount of scope. Neither did it reflect current prices - it had generally been priced by ex BR people using the BR understanding of costs (eg that a lot of cost was assumed to be covered by ‘overheads’ elsewhere, an overhead that no longer existed).

 

[Peter Sarf]

In the beginning of the WCRM programme, there wa the Core Investment Programme (CIP). This was straight renewals in modern form, no change in capacity or speeds, unless it was ‘free’ by doing the renewals. It was costed at £1.495bn in 1995, and subjected to an arbitrary 10% ‘challenge’ by the Railtrack board to become £1.344bn (with no plan on how to make the saving).

PUG1 (Passenger Upgrade 1) was additional work required to deliver reduced journey times through 125mph operation and tilting trains, plus one extra fast line path (to Manchester). This was a deal done with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchsing (OPRAF) in 1996, prior to the competition for the Inter City West Coast franchise in 96/7. It wasn’t valued at around £150m, ie the same as the amount removed from the CIP.

PUG2 was further additional work to deliver 9 fast paths an hour and further reduced journey times requiring 140mph running and cab signalling. This was a deal done in line with Virgin winning the franchise in 1997, and valued at about £600m. With inflation for the year this meant the WCRM programme was £2.2bn.

As it turned out that £2.2bn was hopelessly optimistic. It was based on a less than full understanding of outputs required (particularly the relationship between passenger and freight services), and therefore didn’t include an enormous amount of scope. Neither did it reflect current prices - it had generally been priced by ex BR people using the BR understanding of costs (eg that a lot of cost was assumed to be covered by ‘overheads’ elsewhere, an overhead that no longer existed).

Thanks. A good memory you have. I am surprised that the cost of PUG1 & PUG2 were dwarfed by the earlier work (CIP). Though, as you say, that was just the budget.

 

[Bill_Lestrange]

So I'll chip in my tuppence, for what it's worth.

The mainline between Derby and Chesterfield cannot realistically be electrified - this is due to the limited clearance of the tunnels (a tunnel I believe). This would require the construction of a new tunnel and a realignment of the mainline which would be a significant cost for very little benefit.

My feeling is to electrify the MML through Leicester (I am aware also that Leicester station presents a significant challenge due to low clearance and infrastructure below the platforms - but perhaps this is where a battery/bimode unit might present an advantage). But electrify between Leicester - Derby, Leicester - Sheffield via the Erewash and Leicester - Lincoln. Coupled with high speed services between London and East Mids Parkway, this would mean fast, regular semi-commuter style services between these major cities. Leicester should keep a direct, fast connection to London in any case as an extension of the above services and a commuter connection to Market Harborough, Kettering, Wboro which terminates at Leicester. Passengers for destinations further north should be able to connect then with one of the semi-commuter services to take them through. I am aware that DfT hates this type of thing though.

As for XC services between Derby and Sheffield - this is where bimodes would have an advantage. Electrification between New St. and Derby then picking up the wires again at Chesterfield means only a few miles of diesel running which I think is a step up from how it is currently.

 

[Bald Rick]

The mainline between Derby and Chesterfield cannot realistically be electrified - this is due to the limited clearance of the tunnels (a tunnel I believe). This would require the construction of a new tunnel and a realignment of the mainline which would be a significant cost for very little benefit.

Full Electrification through the tunnel(s) is possible.