Midland Mainline Electricification

[tbtc]

Are there any local services which can switch to EMUs as a direct result of MML electrification without any add-on bits or splitting up services?

It depends on what is wired.

If its "just" the route served by the typical off peak EMT services from St Pancras (to Corby, Nottingham and Sheffield) then the answer is that no local services will be replaced by EMUs apart from the London ones. Not unless you start chopping routes (like the Leicester - Lincoln service), but that's another story.

If the line is wired as far as Moorthorpe/ Doncaster (to allow the current EMT services to/from Neville Hill/ Leeds to continue) then the hourly Sheffield - Moorthorpe - Leeds service could be an EMU (three diagrams). The hourly Sheffield - Doncaster - Adwick service could move to EMU operation, but this comes from Lincoln so you'd need to rejig the timetable. There's potential to run more EMUs between Sheffield and Doncaster if you are prepared to chop other DMU services, of course.

The "biggie" would be if the line from Meadowhall to Leeds through Barnsley was wired. That would free up the (eight diagram?) Nottingham - Sheffield - Leeds service plus the (three diagram) Sheffield - Castleford - Leeds service.

Other short infills would include Ambergate - Matlock (for the hourly Nottingham - Matlock service). Really though it depends on whether you are talking about just the basic "MML" or the whole line to Leeds (in the way that the benefits of TPE electrification vary depending on whether you are wiring just the core or the branches to Hull etc)

 

[Heinz57]

Is it bad that part of me doesn't want electrification of the MML, for the fear of pendolinos?

Nah, part of me doesn't want it electrified either because it will spell the end of the HSTs

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the plan was for the MML to get 91+Mk4s cascaded from the ECML, which would get IEPs in return.

The HST are nearing the end of their design lives and will be scrapped.

Some Meridians might be retained if the Erewash valley isn't to be wired, but the rest will likely go to GW for the Penzance line. (There's nowhere else I can think of using them).

I reckon converting meridians to electric is a non-starter.

It would be nice to see some 91s and Mk4s on the MML though.

I'm not expecting the entire line to be electrified though. Probably just the main section from London to Sheffeild going via Nottingham and via Derby. Plus Sheffeild to Doncaster.

I don't think branches and connecting lines like the Erewash Valley Line will be done. Didn't think it was busy enough to warrent it?

A nice side project to go with all of this though would be to re-open Ilkeston Station. You listening government?

 

[els]

It might make sense to have the Corby services moved to the new Thameslink/Southern franchise e.g. one Bedford service per hour extended, maybe even include stopping services to Leicester.

 

[Skymonster]

I don't think branches and connecting lines like the Erewash Valley Line will be done. Didn't think it was busy enough to warrent it?

Erewash valley is being touted as a "maybe" add-on... It is used occasionally, primarily as a diversionary route and I suspect DBS might like it done so they could get electrics to Toytown.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the plan was for the MML to get 91+Mk4s cascaded from the ECML, which would get IEPs in return.

The HST are nearing the end of their design lives and will be scrapped

I think eMeridians (a la eVoyagers) and 91s+Mk4 to replace the HSTs more likely. That combo would give flexibility of under the wires and also allow the Newarks, Oakhams, Melton Mowbrays, the odd Nottingham north service that goes via Trowell, and the Erewash Valley to remain on bimode eMeridians.

Andy

 

[38Cto15E]

With the large number of curves on the MML, surely a tilting stock would save a few more minutes.
£21 million for Market Harborough, that would probably be where the current track curves over the former Rugby-Peterborough line.

 

[CC 72100]

BBC report on it...

"These diesels will be replaced by new electric trains"

...whilst a Northern Rail 144 rolls past :roll:

They did a report in which they showed pictures of what felt like every train in Sheffield station apart from a 222

 

[Bald Rick]

It might make sense to have the Corby services moved to the new Thameslink/Southern franchise e.g. one Bedford service per hour extended, maybe even include stopping services to Leicester.

It doesn't make sense, and won't happen, for reasons described ad nauseam elsewhere on this forum.

 

[All Line Rover]

I'm torn about this. On the one hand I would like to get to London much faster than the current 1hr 30 mins during peak time. On the other hand I and a lot of other people are already worrying about how much the season ticket will go upto at the end of the year. Wondering if we would still be able to afford to work in London. This is going to make the price even higher. On cosmetic note I'm not a fan of 222s I find them dark and there seems to be less in the seating areas and a lot less luggage space than the HST (even with the improvements).

I don't think you have much to worry about. Compare these current prices:

Nuneaton to London:____________Leicester to London:
£13052 First Class______________£13928 First Class
£7960 Standard Class___________£7940 Standard Class

Leicester to London is more expensive than Nuneaton to London even though it is a shorter distance with trains that take 50% longer! Not forgetting the smaller number of First Class carriages and the very basic complimentary food and drink. Can you imagine the season ticket prices going up even further?

 

[johnnychips]

Erewash valley is being touted as a "maybe" add-on... It is used occasionally, primarily as a diversionary route and I suspect DBS might like it done so they could get electrics to Toytown.

Andy

Pardon my ignorance, but do any regular trains use the Erewash Valley route, and if so, how much time do they save than going through Derby or Nottingham?

 

[tbtc]

Pardon my ignorance, but do any regular trains use the Erewash Valley route, and if so, how much time do they save than going through Derby or Nottingham?

There are a couple of London services a day from Nottingham to Sheffield (and Leeds).

Plus, until a couple of years ago there was a morning service from Leeds via Sheffield that ran non-stop down this route (no Nottingham).

The main benefit would be to convert at least some of the half hourly DMUs that run from Nottingham to Sheffield (the hourly one to Leeds being most likely for conversion, the Norwich - Liverpool one would still be mainly unelectrified). At the moment there are about eight 158s needed just to run the Nottingham - Leeds circuit (half hourly from Sheffield to Leeds), to put things in perspective.

 

[bluenoxid]

It is a shame that the Sheffield via Moorthorpe stopper is quite a bit slower than the fast Barnsley service.

 

[tbtc]

It is a shame that the Sheffield via Moorthorpe stopper is quite a bit slower than the fast Barnsley service.

At the risk of tempting fate, an eight door EMU should be able to deal with the stop/start nature of the Moorthorpe route better than a three door Pacer. Here's hoping!

 

[bluenoxid]

At the risk of tempting fate, an eight door EMU should be able to deal with the stop/start nature of the Moorthorpe route better than a three door Pacer. Here's hoping!

Would have to cut 20 minutes off to get close and I think it would jeopardise the speedy nature of the service even if some of those minutes could be slashed

One option is that it takes the second Crosscountry path (that XC thinks exists) for their second service going via Leeds and fire the Crosscountry non stop via Barnsley.

 

[WestRiding]

if the in-fills are done north of sheffield, how will it fit in with the 750dc overheads for the tram train at rotherham central?

 

[lancastrian]

The detail I guess will follow, but you would hope electric trains could run to Leeds via Wakefield and Doncaster. It would be nice if the following lines were included.

Kettering - Corby
Birmingham - Derby
The long eaton junction
Nottingham - chesterfield and the Erewash valley.

Shall see on Monday.

I will be awaiting the announcement with great interest. However I don't hold out much hope that some proper thinking has been done over this. If we look at all electrification schemes done over the last 40 or so years, it is usually just the main route that is done, and many of the major branches are left unwired, so that desiels have to travel long distances under the wires just to serve the branches. The best example is the East Coast mainline. Just look look at the services that now travel under the wires for the majoritory of their journeys.

Kings Cross to Hull
Kings Cross to Lincoln
Kings Cross to Middlesborough
Kings Cross to Bradford Interchange

Why these branches were never wired completely escapes me. It is not as though the CITIES I have mentioned are small, insignificant places.

If they intend to electrify the Midland Mainline, then along with the Bedford - Leicester - Derby - Sheffield route, and possibly Trent to Nottingham. The following add-ons are desperately needed to make the route benefit all the places now served.

Sheffield to Doncaster
Sheffield to South Kirkby junction (for through services to Leeds)
The Matlock Branch
Nottingham to Grantham
The Earwash Valley route
The Rotherham Central loop
The Corby Branch
Wigston Junctions to Nuneaton

To me these are just the basic requirements, and in any reasonably run European country they would be included without any dificulty, but here in England it is very doubtful if they would be.

I really hope that this is the start of a rolling program of electrification, which has started with the Lancashire triangle, then the Trans-Pennine route, the Great Western Line (sadly without the extension to Swansea) and now the Midland Mainline.

Lets hope our "Government" really gets its act together on Rail electrification. I am not holding my breath though.

 

[HSTEd]

Nottingham-Grantham has no real use without the Breckland Line being done, and it won't be any time soon.

And Through services to Leeds would be provided by the connection to Doncaster, the "direct" route is of questionable usefulness.

 

[WatcherZero]

BBC report on it...

"These diesels will be replaced by new electric trains"

...whilst a Northern Rail 144 rolls past :roll:

They did a report in which they showed pictures of what felt like every train in Sheffield station apart from a 222

David Cameron showing off new electric trains built in Derby...

J/K

If you saw the same report I did the 222's kept being just offscreen when focusing on other trains, you could see the edge of their liveries but it never focused on the trains themselves

 

[Badger]

God that report was painful to watch. Anyone watching it who didn't already know about it would think pacers were being replaced by the HSE.

 

[lancastrian]

Nottingham-Grantham has no real use without the Breckland Line being done, and it won't be any time soon.

And Through services to Leeds would be provided by the connection to Doncaster, the "direct" route is of questionable usefulness.

You could be right on both counts, but the if the Nottingham to Grantham route is not electrified, then Nottingham becomes a deadend for electric services. By the electrification of this route a through service to Nottingham from Kings Cross becomes possible, and just thinking outside the box, a circular service from Kings Cross to St Pancras via Nottingham becomes possible as well.

I know that some people will think that is a daft idea, but no one, expect rail enthusiats will cover the whole route but the benefits of such a service would free up capacity on the trains comeing to and from Sheffield via Derby.

Regarding your second observation, I personally think that directing both the Cross Country Services and the Leeds services via Doncaster will have a detremental effect on botht he capacity of the Swinton to Doncaster line, as well as extending the journey times. In fact having thought about it some more it would be even better to extend all the way up the Swinton & Knottingly route through to Church Fenton, to give an alternate route from York to Sheffield to cover for capacity problems, plus giving an electrified diversionary route as well.

 

[John55]

I will be awaiting the announcement with great interest. However I don't hold out much hope that some proper thinking has been done over this. If we look at all electrification schemes done over the last 40 or so years, it is usually just the main route that is done, and many of the major branches are left unwired, so that desiels have to travel long distances under the wires just to serve the branches. The best example is the East Coast mainline. Just look look at the services that now travel under the wires for the majoritory of their journeys.

Kings Cross to Hull
Kings Cross to Lincoln
Kings Cross to Middlesborough
Kings Cross to Bradford Interchange

Why these branches were never wired completely escapes me. It is not as though the CITIES I have mentioned are small, insignificant places.

If they intend to electrify the Midland Mainline, then along with the Bedford - Leicester - Derby - Sheffield route, and possibly Trent to Nottingham. The following add-ons are desperately needed to make the route benefit all the places now served.

Sheffield to Doncaster
Sheffield to South Kirkby junction (for through services to Leeds)
The Matlock Branch
Nottingham to Grantham
The Earwash Valley route
The Rotherham Central loop
The Corby Branch
Wigston Junctions to Nuneaton

To me these are just the basic requirements, and in any reasonably run European country they would be included without any dificulty, but here in England it is very doubtful if they would be.

I really hope that this is the start of a rolling program of electrification, which has started with the Lancashire triangle, then the Trans-Pennine route, the Great Western Line (sadly without the extension to Swansea) and now the Midland Mainline.

Lets hope our "Government" really gets its act together on Rail electrification. I am not holding my breath though.

The "branches" off the ECML were not electrified as BR had all but abandoned serving these from London. The only real service to London now on these lines is by Open Access operators.

The IIP considers we do have a rolling programme of electrification.

Considering that 5 years ago the DfT (and most of the railway industry) considered electrification a dirty word I think the current situation is admirable. There are 3 major electrification schemes in execution and if rumours are true 3 to follow on by next Tuesday.

 

[Failed Unit]

Would be more sense in IEP being electric only and the order including new trains for MML. Then the 222s with a pantograph vehicle can replace the HSTs on services that include a section that isn't currently or set to be electrified.

Corby-London should be cheaper more commuter/regional style style EMUs opposed to IEP.



Are there any local services which can switch to EMUs as a direct result of MML electrification without any add-on bits or splitting up services?

Not many to be honest, but if MML is done as well as the great western to Swansea maybe this will be followed by an announcement to kill of the Bi-mode IEP.

Not sure how much frieght can be converted with the MML electrified.

But as other posters have said the extensions will make a nice difference. I just can't see the Matlock Branch getting wires.

Doing Derby - Birmingham may help some 170s get realeased, but i guess unless at some point Coventry - Reading - Bassingstoke was done XC would still need Diesel. I wonder how splitting Northern services at Doncaster would go down. Emu Sheffield - Doncaster, DMU hull - Sheffield fast and the Doncaster - Scunthorpe / Hull local. Save crossing the ECML.

On a selfish but unrealistic, Lincoln - Nottingham - Liecester - Birmingham - Cardiff to right a wrong of the CT split up. The if the Birmingham route gets wires all Nottingham - Brum will be EMU.

 

[Skymonster]

If they intend to electrify the Midland Mainline, then along with the Bedford - Leicester - Derby - Sheffield route, and possibly Trent to Nottingham. The following add-ons are desperately needed to make the route benefit all the places now served.

Sheffield to Doncaster
Sheffield to South Kirkby junction (for through services to Leeds)
The Matlock Branch
Nottingham to Grantham
The Earwash Valley route
The Rotherham Central loop
The Corby Branch
Wigston Junctions to Nuneaton
.

Why folks keep proposing these crazy add-ons that would make the basic electrificiation schemes so much more expensive and complex is beyond me.

The EMT mainline fleet is fairly self-contained in that it rarely runs off the basic trunk route, with the exception of HSTs going to Leeds overnight (I'm convinced that getting to the depot at Neville Hill is is the only real reason why Leeds is on the EMT network) and weekend forays to Scarborough via York. If there's a change of EMT fleet (or eMeridians) its not a foregone conclusion that maintenance would remain at Leeds (move the HST replacement's maintenance to Etches Park) and I suspect the franchise could easily lose Scarborough.

As for the rest - whats the point?

• Nottingham-Grantham - the stock runs all the way to Norwich and its not all going to be electrified, so might as well stick with DMUs
• Derby-Matlock - the stock is used on other non-electrified routes (e.g. to Crewe) and the route through Tutbuty and Utoxeter isn't going to be electrified, so again stick with DMUs
• Erewash Valley - just a few Northern services, EMT to Manchester and Liverpool, and a diversionary route for the North. Keep Northern with DMUs, EMT will remain DMUs anyway as the Sheffield-Manchester won't be electrified, and just live with the very few MML electrified diversions having to go via Derby
• Corby - yes, the one that makes a little sense, so that the town can be served direct from London, but also I think it should go all the way round via Manton, Oakham and Melton, firstly to preserve London services for Melton and London and also to serve as a diversion to the double track bewteen Market Harborough and Leicester
• Cross Country services from Nottingham go to Cardiff - they're going to be DMUs for many years due to the gaps well away from the MML, so no point in infill wiring for those services. Other Cross Country services go east from Nottingham but as its the same stock that does Cardiff, again no point in electrification. Same applies to Wigston-Nuneaton
• North from Sheffield might make sense in the context of Northern, but not really in terms of the MML or EMT - if Northern could operate these services with electrics fair enough, but definitely not worth it on the basis of MML services alone

I hope MML electrification gets the go ahead on Monday. I hope its Bedford-Sheffield via Derby, Trent Junction to Nottingham and Corby. Assuming the north chord at Trent is done to allow EMT electics to go between Nottingham and the depot in Derby easily, anything else is just complexity and additional cost that won't really speed the implementation of the basic and long-needed electrificiation of the long-distance MML services.

Andy

 

[Wyvern]

I'm not expecting the entire line to be electrified though. Probably just the main section from London to Sheffeild going via Nottingham and via Derby. Plus Sheffeild to Doncaster.

I don't think branches and connecting lines like the Erewash Valley Line will be done. Didn't think it was busy enough to warrent it?

London to Sheffeild going via the Nottingham branch? Wouldnt the Erewash Valley Line need to be wired.

I still think what will happen is the Erewash Valley will upgraded and wired (only one tunnel and not a listed building either) for through expresses to Sheffield with connecting services from Derby and Nottingham to East Midlands Parkway (with its four platforms) at least outside the peaks.

 

[Skymonster]

London to Sheffeild going via the Nottingham branch? Wouldnt the Erewash Valley Line need to be wired.

I still think what will happen is the Erewash Valley will upgraded and wired (only one tunnel and not a listed building either) for through expresses to Sheffield with connecting services from Derby and Nottingham to East Midlands Parkway (with its four platforms) at least outside the peaks.

The only services that go north from Nottingham to Sheffield via the Erewash Valley are the EMT DMU services to Manchester and Liverpool, the Northern DMU services to Leeds, and the odd few EMT London-Leeds HST services. There are also a couple of Up Sheffield-London services that omit both Derby and Nottingham, going through the Erewash Valley and Toton. But the others (Northern, EMT Leeds, EMT Manchester/Liverpool) go from Nottingham via Radford and Trowell not via Toton, so you'd have to wire both routes unless all services were rerouted through Toton - but there are no more than two or three passenger services a day through the Toton section so is it worth wiring that, but if you don't then the couple of Sheffield fasts would have to go via Derby or Nottingham. There's never going to be many London services on the Erewash Valley because Nottingham and Derby are just too big catchment areas to miss or serve with connecting services. Erewash Valley would just be a "nice to have" in the context of MML services, and as long as the north chord at Trent Junction was done electrics could still easily get all around the MML.

 

[swt_passenger]

Why folks keep proposing these crazy add-ons that would make the basic electrificiation schemes so much more expensive and complex is beyond me.

I'd tend to agree - but the Matlock Branch (for example) is clearly shown in the NR CP5 proposals as an uncosted add-on to the MML, as is the Erewash Valley, Sheffield to Doncaster/Leeds etc.

For what it's worth, NR originally quoted the core MML electrification at around £250m; yet all the media reports over the last few days are now quoting £500m.

Might that mean some sensible add-ons really are getting done?

The core scheme will involve provision of OLE at 25kV AC for the following sections of route
(costs are included for these route sections only):
 Bedford to Sheffield via Derby;
 Kettering to Corby; and
 Trent Junction to Nottingham.

[That bit above is £250m ish]

Separate costs for the following additional route options are being developed as potential
increments to the core scheme:
 Trent Junction to Clay Cross South Junction (Erewash valley line);
 Matlock branch;
 Etches Park depot;
 Sheffield to Doncaster;
 Sheffield to Leeds; and
 Up and Down Hendon lines from Silkstream Junction to Watling Street Junction.

 

[Failed Unit]

We will find out tomorrow, but if it is just the MML could EMT focus all it's fleet on Derby for mainline services? As other posters say they only have Leeds services because the HST fleet is based there.

Likewise if Nottingham - Chesterfield dont get wired, does Langley Mill and Alferton have enough traffic to justify keep the direct services to London? Lincoln will definately go from St Pancras services just like Barnsley, Matlock and Burton on Trent have in the past.

One thing that is getting hard to keep up with is what actually approved now. Take TPE north York - Liverpool I understand is, however hull is unclear, I Hull is part of TPE the you have a larger order of 125mph EMUs are HT may want some. Sending the wires to Doncaster and down the valley may not help many passenger workings but could it get some fully electric frieghts. I am not a big frieght follower so don't know if Totton - ECML could be done electrically if it would mean some 92s coming out of retirement. Passenger workings should not be the only benefit. Whatever MML is a good starting point and Yorkshire can follow later one completed. Surely now the adding of a pantograph car into the voyagers is a no brainer!

 

[Skymonster]

I appreciate what's in CP5 but still some of it doesn't make sense to me. For example:

Trent Junction to Clay Cross South Junction (Erewash valley line);

Nothing much goes between Trent and Trowell on that part of the Erewash Valley - just (IIRC) one Northen Nottingham-Leeds for route learning, and one or two up fasts Sheffield to London. All the other services - Northern Nottingham-Leeds, EMT Nottinghsm-Liverpool, the few EMT Nottingham-Leeds for Neville Hill go via Radford and Trowell, missing out Trent and Toton. So unless you wire the Radford-Trowell section as well, you still need DMUs unless you re-route the services via Toton (but I suspect the Beeston/Attenborough section is too busy for that, and Totonngets quite busy too with DBS movements and coal having to reverse there to access Radcliffe power station from the north)

Andy

 

[WestRiding]

i hope it gets done, but it will be done on the cheap. will the old road get done, sheffield-woodburn-woodhouse-beighton-barrowhill-chesterfield. EMT do use this route very much, especially when there are failures etc on the new line.

 

[Skymonster]

And I gather that at least one stupid local MP Is already complaining about the prospect of electrification on the basis that it might result in huge fare increases on the route... :roll:

Andy

 

[CC 72100]

God that report was painful to watch. Anyone watching it who didn't already know about it would think pacers were being replaced by the HSE.

Yes, it's cruel to get people's hopes up like that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

David Cameron showing off new electric trains built in Derby...

J/K

If you saw the same report I did the 222's kept being just offscreen when focusing on other trains, you could see the edge of their liveries but it never focused on the trains themselves

It was that report, yes