Midland Mainline Electricification

[tbtc]

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?

Fair question - I don't know, but I wonder whether anyone higher up has considered this (which would scupper the Tram Train idea)

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

If you are electrifying Sheffield to Doncaster then the "direct" route through Moorthorpe would only require ten miles of electrification to free up the three DMUs on Northern's hourly Sheffield - Dearne Valley - Leeds service (regardless of any EMT/ XC services that run that way). Wire ten miles to free up three DMUs? I'd say that would be useful.

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.

Agreed - we've come a long way in a fairly short time - after precious little over the past fifteen years, the future suddenly looks bright.

Amazing to think this investment is on the cards during a recession (with much government spending cut) yet couldn't be afforded during the "boom" that we had a decade ago. And I say this as a left leaning voter, who is having to re-appraise things...

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

I don't know, but I'm not a big fan of using freight as a justification for electrification, given how complicated/ irregular/ infrequent routes are. I honestly don't think we'll ever get away from diesel freight.

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

At the moment there are three trains an hour from Sheffield to the far side of the ECML at Doncaster (Hull, Cleethorpes and Scunthorpe), so that's six paths an hour over the flat junctions at Doncaster station.

I could certainly see the pressure to cut some of these direct links (or maybe Hull and Cleethorpes services combined into one, with portions joining/splitting at Hatfield?

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

Bear in mind that MML ordered nine coach 222s to run a direct London - Leeds service via Sheffield, so they seemed to think that there was a case for a daytime service linking Leeds to Leicester etc (which would take pressure off the busiest part of the XC network).

Sadly they weren't allowed to do this, and the franchise currently doesn't have enough stock to do so, but maybe the demand is there?

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.

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

The more I read, the less I understand about what *will* happen and what *might* happen. Hull? I have no idea - it's become "gospel' with some that it's bound to be done, but I've seen no announcements. Then again, I've seen Cleethorpes mentioned in documents (but only as an aspiration?). Hard to keep up and separate fact/fiction!

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Fair question - I don't know, but I wonder whether anyone higher up has considered this (which would scupper the Tram Train idea)

No, it doesn't - you just need dual voltage tram trains. Simples. I rather suspect that the Sheffield - Rotherham trial may well be including 25kV clearances in its work to provide Supertram wiring (they certainly were at GRIP 3).

 

[tbtc]

No, it doesn't - you just need dual voltage tram trains. Simples. I rather suspect that the Sheffield - Rotherham trial may well be including 25kV clearances in its work to provide Supertram wiring (they certainly were at GRIP 3).

Excellent - thanks for confirming.

Going off topic, but I take it this could work for the railway through Sunderland (i.e. if the next generation of Tyne & Wear "Metro" units are dual voltage)? That opens up a few possibilities.

 

[whhistle]

The other thing to consider is diversionary routes. You can't just electrify the main route and that's it.

While I still laugh at the fact the report suggests Bedford to Sheffield (no mention of Nottingham), I would expect the branch to Nottingham, and from there to Chesterfield to be done too.

 

[tbtc]

Assuming that the main lines from Bedford to Corby, Nottingham and Sheffield are electrified (based on the standard off peak EMT pattern of London services), there are the following options:

• Erewash route from Clay Cross to Toton. Roughly twenty miles. Would allow London services to run beyond Nottingham to Sheffield (as happens a couple of times a day), would also allow some of the Nottingham - Sheffield DMUs to move to EMU operation. Benefits depend on whether you are electrifying Sheffield to Leeds though, since that affects what services could be converted to EMU operation. It's a regular diversion route.
  
• Sheffield - Doncaster. Roughly twenty miles. Would allow EMT EMUs to reach Leeds (the slow way) as well as some Pacer replacement (with a recast of local services) like Adwick - Sheffield. It'd also allow East Coast services an alternative electrified route to London in times of disruption (rather than needing a drag via Lincoln).
  
• Swinton - Moorthorpe. Roughly ten miles. A faster route to/from Leeds (following the route that XC currently take) which would all the hourly Dearne Valley Pacer to be replaced by an EMU and speeded up marginally (the Doncaster EMUs are slightly faster than the Sheffield DMUs between Leeds and Fitzwilliam). Would mean that the entire XC route from Glasgow to Birmingham was wired as far south as Derby (which surely improves the case for electrification from Derby to Birmingham)
  
• Ambergate to Matlock. Roughly a dozen miles. Would allow the two DMUs that run the hourly Nottingham - Matlock service to be replaced by EMUs.
  
• Corby to Leicester via Melton Mowbray. Roughly twenty miles. Would allow the token daily service north of Corby to be converted to EMU operation, as well as being a diversionary route.
  
• Hazel Grove to Dore. Not mentioned in the speculation, but this roughly thirty mile stretch would allow EMUs between Liverpool/ Manchester and Sheffield/ Doncaster, depending on what else is wired. Maybe a "second stage" wiring?
  
• Meadowhall to Leeds via Castleford. Roughly forty miles, but would allow the three services an hour from Sheffield to Leeds via Barnsley (one of which starts in Nottingham, one of which diverts into Castleford) to become EMUs (freeing up around a dozen DMUs). I can't see this happening yet, but it would be the "tipping point" in replacing Pacers on Yorkshire routes.

My money (for what its worth...) would be on the Erewash line and the line to Doncaster being announced in the first phase of things, with the rest being "nice to have" (the Moorthorpe line probably has the best case of the other routes). What would be your shopping list?

 

[pemma]

The other thing to consider is diversionary routes. You can't just electrify the main route and that's it.

You can but it will likely mean the operator will want units that can operate away from the wires to cover the diversions, as is the case with Virgin Birmingham-Scotland services.

While I still laugh at the fact the report suggests Bedford to Sheffield (no mention of Nottingham), I would expect the branch to Nottingham, and from there to Chesterfield to be done too.

Do you mean like the announcement of Liverpool-Newcastle going over to electric operation without mentioning electrification of Leeds-York?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

• Sheffield - Doncaster. Roughly twenty miles. Would allow EMT EMUs to reach Leeds (the slow way) as well as some Pacer replacement (with a recast of local services) like Adwick - Sheffield. It'd also allow East Coast services an alternative electrified route to London in times of disruption (rather than needing a drag via Lincoln).
  
• Hazel Grove to Dore. Not mentioned in the speculation, but this roughly thirty mile stretch would allow EMUs between Liverpool/ Manchester and Sheffield/ Doncaster, depending on what else is wired. Maybe a "second stage" wiring?

• 
  
  I was actually thinking of those two.
  
  There have been proposals for a fast Manchester-Nottingham service not via Sheffield, as well as proposals for fast Manchester and Sheffield services via Marple.
  
  So with those 2 bits of line electrified we could have:
  1 tph Liverpool-Nottingham via Chat Moss and Stockport and avoiding Sheffield - EMU operation.
  1 tph Liverpool-Norwich via Warrington, Marple and Sheffield - DMU operation.
  1 tph Manchester Airport to Doncaster via Stockport - EMU operation

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I don't know whether EMT would want to run electric skipping Sheffield (and Dore & Totley of course). That said, wiring the Hope Valley isn't even a plan yet, let alone a scheme, but if MML gets wires then wiring Dore South to Dore West (all 400m of it) would make lots of sense (albeit at 15mph), but there again so would Ashburys West (already wired) to New Mills South, allowing you the choice to miss / diversion around Stockport.

 

[pemma]

I don't know whether EMT would want to run electric skipping Sheffield (and Dore & Totley of course). That said, wiring the Hope Valley isn't even a plan yet, let alone a scheme, but if MML gets wires then wiring Dore South to Dore West (all 400m of it) would make lots of sense (albeit at 15mph), but there again so would Ashburys West (already wired) to New Mills South, allowing you the choice to miss / diversion around Stockport.

The Northern Hub does include proposals for Liverpool-Norwich to be speeded up and to skip Sheffield with Sheffield getting a replacement service.

Hope Valley electrification was one proposal put forward by Network Rail in their electrification RUS, while Sheffield-Doncaster is another scheme, so they are both possibilities once higher priority schemes have been given the go-ahead.

By the time any electrification is complete it's likely EMT will no longer be the franchise holder and the franchise area will have been redrawn.

 

[LTJ87]

As a regular user of this route, I really hope this goes ahead and Nottingham is included.

After decades of procrastination and schemes taking far too long to be given the go ahead it's pleasing to the Government actually making decisions rather than the "yes we really must think about having a consultation about that" of the past.

 

[WestCountry]

So with those 2 bits of line electrified we could have:
1 tph Liverpool-Nottingham via Chat Moss and Stockport and avoiding Sheffield - EMU operation.
1 tph Liverpool-Norwich via Warrington, Marple and Sheffield - DMU operation.

I think that if you were going to wire the Hope Valley, it would be a good idea to split the Liverpool-Norwich services at Nottingham. There's already a major difference in demand, with many services joining/splitting at Nottingham; it might be easier to run Nottingham-Sheffield-Liverpool as a four-car EMU than to run DMUs under the wires across the Peak District.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

What about electrification of the Derby-Crewe as Network Rail have been recommending for a while. Could certainly improve the service along EMT’s poor relation route with a EMU service from Manchester to Derby or Nottingham.

 

[YorkshireBear]

What about electrification of the Derby-Crewe as Network Rail have been recommending for a while. Could certainly improve the service along EMT’s poor relation route with a EMU service from Manchester to Derby or Nottingham.

I think that will come in a list of diversionary routes electrified in a few years time.
I do not know, but does the line warrent a 3 car EMU every half hour (minimum i would say to warrent electrification.

 

[John55]

What about electrification of the Derby-Crewe as Network Rail have been recommending for a while. Could certainly improve the service along EMT’s poor relation route with a EMU service from Manchester to Derby or Nottingham.

Who have NR been recommending this to? It is not in the IIP which is the basis for the HLOS statement tomorrow (or whenever).

While the IIP will not be exactly what is announced tomorrow Derby to Kidsgrove electrification is not one of the options for the MML whereas for example the Matlock branch is.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Who have NR been recommending this to? It is not in the IIP which is the basis for the HLOS statement tomorrow (or whenever).

While the IIP will not be exactly what is announced tomorrow Derby to Kidsgrove electrification is not one of the options for the MML whereas for example the Matlock branch is.

Might have been in the RUS though I carn't be 100% sure, do remember reading it somewhere though

 

[WatcherZero]

I have seen that, I think that was coming from somewhere else not the MML strand though, something like Liverpool services or something.

 

[Kneedown]

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?

Easy add on's would be Ambergate to Matlock, Derby to Stoke and Notts to Lincoln (longish but no low bridges)
All of these routes would enable a decent size fleet of EMU's to take over from the 153's and 156's currently in use that will be due for retirement by the time the scheme is completed.

 

[MK Tom]

Apologies if this has already been asked or isn't known yet but will the scheme include the Corby route?

 

[HSTEd]

I think that if you were going to wire the Hope Valley, it would be a good idea to split the Liverpool-Norwich services at Nottingham. There's already a major difference in demand, with many services joining/splitting at Nottingham; it might be easier to run Nottingham-Sheffield-Liverpool as a four-car EMU than to run DMUs under the wires across the Peak District.

They already tried to break the service at Nottingham once before.... all the county councils east of Nottingham went mad.

Why not start randomly cutting all services in half for operational convenience reasons?

And if Hope Valley gets done it is just as likely that the Breckland Line and Grantham-Nottingham will be done too, since they all have similar business cases.
At which point you can run the entire thing as an EMU.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I would run a nottingham liverpool avoiding sheffield and norwich manchester via sheffield to be honest. Split service with overlap.

 

[HSTEd]

I would run a nottingham liverpool avoiding sheffield and norwich manchester via sheffield to be honest. Split service with overlap.

So you want to trade Manchester-Liverpool under diesel operation for Nottingham-Liverpool under electric operation with an entirely separate train crew?

That isn't going to save any money and it trades away connectivity for no reason.

Also you have to run an extra Manchester-Liverpool diesel service anyway since you would have to reroute it onto the northern Manchester-Liverpool line leaving the southern route without a fast service.

 

[PhilipW]

Apologies if this has already been asked or isn't known yet but will the scheme include the Corby route?

Yes, electrified and double tracked as far as Corby.

 

[Wyvern]

As a regular user of this route, I really hope this goes ahead and Nottingham is included.

After decades of procrastination and schemes taking far too long to be given the go ahead it's pleasing to the Government actually making decisions rather than the "yes we really must think about having a consultation about that" of the past.

Dont forget the Government is worrying about an election coming up.

Let's see if there's any real money on the table.

A few days ago there all sorts of fantastic promises of care schemes for old people but there was no timescale and no meney actually allocated.

In short, before we get too excited it may be pie in the sky.

 

[cle]

Yes, electrified and double tracked as far as Corby.

I'd not seen the double tracking to Corby - does that include a second platform too?

Will there be any more track duplication on the MML, even such as loops or extra platforms for some passing - important if TL trains go further north.

 

[swt_passenger]

Dont forget the Government is worrying about an election coming up.

Let's see if there's any real money on the table.

They are following the Railways Act 2005 procedures laid down by parliament. Once they have committed to the HLOS and published the SofA, that is set. It is therefore real money.

This is why they could not re-do the CP4 HLOS when the government changed in 2010.

 

[WatcherZero]

They are following the Railways Act 2005 procedures laid down by parliament. Once they have committed to the HLOS and published the SofA, that is set. It is therefore real money.

This is why they could not re-do the CP4 HLOS when the government changed in 2010.

No theres a third stage, Network Rail has to respond to say with the money provided and the Governments prefered scheme list what exactly it can supply. Think of it like this:

1. Network Rail says we want to do X, Y, Z and we estimate it will cost £10bn
2. Government responds saying we like X and Y but we would prefer you do P as well as Z, we are willing to give you £9bn to do it.
3. Network Rail responds saying that if you only give us £9bn we can do X, Y and P, we cant afford to do Z as well.

 

[Wyvern]

I still wont believe it until I see it.

Modern politicians are experts in making promises that dont have any substance.

It's called spin.

 

[swt_passenger]

No theres a third stage, Network Rail has to respond to say with the money provided and the Governments prefered scheme list what exactly it can supply. Think of it like this:

1. Network Rail says we want to do X, Y, Z and we estimate it will cost £10bn
2. Government responds saying we like X and Y but we would prefer you do P as well as Z, we are willing to give you £9bn to do it.
3. Network Rail responds saying that if you only give us £9bn we can do X, Y and P, we cant afford to do Z as well.

I know about that further stage, but there isn't a fourth stage where DfT come back and say we've changed our mind there's no longer any money, which is what Wyvern is implying. According to Mr Ford's analysis back in2010 there would have to be new legislation for them to walk back on the offer in the SoFA. That's exactly what the SoFA is designed to avoid - short term changes.

 

[PhilipW]

I'd not seen the double tracking to Corby - does that include a second platform too?

Actual text is:
Kettering – Corby capacity enhancement (additional double track);

 

[WestRiding]

Appologies for been dumb. Is this 9bn quid, the HLOS and total funding for Network Rails CP5, IE, does it include Network Rails resignalling proposals in that money? Or is resignalling from other funds?

To word it simply, is the 9bn quid Network Rails spending for CP5?

Where exactly will the money be spent, is there a definative list?

 

[Skymonster]

Where exactly will the money be spent, is there a definative list?

It is, at present, a wishlist - what the Government want to do, and how much they're prepared to spend to get it. But the "detail" is here:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hlos-2012/railways-act-2005.pdf

I believe that the next stage should be for NR to repsond with more details where clarification has been asked for, and to define whether they agree that the funding is sufficient for them to achieve what the Government want to do.

As far as the MML is concerned, these are the relevent details:

 Bedford – Nottingham and Derby, and Derby – Sheffield (Midland Main Line) 25 kv AC overhead electrification;
 Leicester area capacity enhancement (freight/passenger crossing flows);
 Derby station area remodelling in conjunction with renewals;
 Sheffield station area remodelling in conjunction with renewals;
 Kettering – Corby 25 kv AC overhead electrification;
 Kettering – Corby capacity enhancement (additional double track)
 And, where applicable, on all routes loading gauge enhancement to W12

The work should include gauge clearance for large containers and appropriate electrified links to adjacent electrified routes, depots and freight facilities. Opportunities should be pursued to speed journeys through efficient enhancements in conjunction with the improvements, notably between Bedford and Corby, and at Derby. The Secretary of State wishes to see sufficient capacity to provide for forecast freight flows crossing the Electric Spine at Leicester. The industry is to undertake further development work to confirm the full scope and requirements for the delivery of this scheme, which the Secretary of State believes is deliverable within the SoFA.

As far as I am aware, other upgrades to the MML - line speed to 125mph in some areas, Nottingham station remodeling and Nottingham area resignalling, etc - are already funded and committed.

Andy