Midland Mainline Electrification. What trains?

[43074]

On this thread, East Coast IEP has come up again.

This has got me wandering what the long distance high speed services on the MML are going to get when it is electrified. The route isn't getting IEP at the moment, EMT nor DfT seem keen on Tilting trains and there is speculation that the route is getting 110 mph EMUs for Corby and Leicester. I struggle to see what non tilting, 125 mph electric trains there are for the UK at the moment. A new build of Traxx and Loco Hauled stock perhaps?

What do the forum think will replace the Meridians and the HSTs on the route when it is electrified?

 

[D365]

Struggling to see a current non-tilting, 125mph electric train? Obviously MML isn't getting IEP yet as electrification isn't due for completion until the end of the decade/CP5. No point in getting tilt on the line with HS2 in the wings, although speed increase to 125mph is always welcomed where possible. Instead of 110mph EMUs, perhaps a selection of 8-car Thameslink services could be extended to Corby to free space in St Pancras upper?

 

[tbtc]

225s, so that the Government has an excuse to order electric IEP for the ECML?

(not saying that 225s would be ideal, but it would let the Government "solve" the problem of how to justify more IEP)

 

[Qwerty133]

I would get 15-20 ten coach pendolinos to replace the worn out HSTs and to add capacity with the meridians staying to provide additional capacity and so that a service can be continued in the event of overhead wire

 

[Class377/5]

The official word on new stock is that the new yet to be tendered units for Thameslink prior to the Siemens cities being rolled out may see use on the MML post 2018.

There is a planned all EMT stations service to Leicester from St Pancras using a modern generation EMU (timings used the 350s as a base model) to all for 4, 8 and 12 car operation depending on time of the day.

IEP could displace units from EC to be used on MML.

Right now its all guess work, maybe's and what ifs but nothing concrete.

 

[ryan125hst]

A new build of Traxx and Loco Hauled stock perhaps?

I doubt they would build any more loco hauled stock. They seem to be moving away from that, even though they offer the most comfortable ride. I know there are a lot of advantages to multiple units, but in my opinion, they are the best option for long distance services.

That said, the Midland Mainline isn't really long distance, at only two and a half hours. However, I hope they use stock better suited to the route than Thamslink stock!

 

[HSTEd]

IEPs on the long distance routes, 100/110mph multiple units on everything else.

 

[edwin_m]

Pendolinos would be ideal, as the MML has lots of curves and also now some 125mph sections. But I think it's more likely to be IEP and/or some slightly upmarket EMUs.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Pendolinos would be ideal, as the MML has lots of curves and also now some 125mph sections. But I think it's more likely to be IEP and/or some slightly upmarket EMUs.

I concur and this is something that the wider rail community often fail to realise. The curve south of Wellingborough is crazy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

IEPs on the long distance routes, 100/110mph multiple units on everything else.

But surely everything that runs on the MML is long distance other than the Thameslink services? In which case Pendolinos would make much more sense!

 

[edwin_m]

Corby isn't really long distance and could probably be tacked onto Thameslink, which would have the advantage of reducing occupancy of the four (only) EMT platforms at St Pancras. It would also make it easier to resource the service - a few trains are currently extended to Derby via Melton as a way of getting them to and from depot but this won't be possible with EMUs as the wires will finish at Corby.

This idea has been around for a long time. I think the 319s even have (or had when new) Corby on their blinds.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Corby isn't really long distance and could probably be tacked onto Thameslink, which would have the advantage of reducing occupancy of the four (only) EMT platforms at St Pancras. I think the 319s even have (or had when new) Corby on their blinds.

Thats fair enough but how many trains does Corby get a day; I'll be absolutely honest and say that I have no idea! However, given all the planned 125mph upgrades I dare say that customers using Kettering would rather wait for a 125mph train than a Thameslink service.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Thats fair enough but how many trains does Corby get a day; I'll be absolutely honest and say that I have no idea! However, given all the planned 125mph upgrades I dare say that customers using Kettering would rather wait for a 125mph train than a Thameslink service.

Corby gets currently an hourly service, and yes they might but if the EMUs can do 100mph they wont be much slower. Plus it depends where in London you want to go. If you want to be more central Thameslink might be better for you as it goes to Blackfriars etc. And the point about MML platforms is very important too. I think electrification has the potential to bring service frequency improvements so any removal of services from these platforms should be considered.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Corby gets currently an hourly service, and yes they might but if the EMUs can do 100mph they wont be much slower.

However those units are not likely to run none stop after Wellingborough and its also worth bearing in mind that much of the route south of Wellingborough will be upgraded to 125 mph which is quite a difference if there are no stops.

Plus it depends where in London you want to go. If you want to be more central Thameslink might be better for you as it goes to Blackfriars etc.

You make a very valid point here but don't forget that the Thameslink platforms are very close to the MML platforms so with 125 mph running you would still save time.

And the point about MML platforms is very important too. I think electrification has the potential to bring service frequency improvements so any removal of services from these platforms should be considered.

I concur but I do wonder how much spare capacity Thameslink will have once the ECML trains start running through.

 

[YorkshireBear]

However those units are not likely to run none stop after Wellingborough and its also worth bearing in mind that much of the route south of Wellingborough will be upgraded to 125 mph which is quite a difference if there are no stops.


You make a very valid point here but don't forget that the Thameslink platforms are very close to the MML platforms so with 125 mph running you would still save time.



I concur but I do wonder how much spare capacity Thameslink will have once the ECML trains start running through.

No i mean the Thameslink stations like Blackfriars and city thameslink might be near your final destination removing the need to change from the onto the tube at St Pancras. I imagine the service would be an extension of the current Bedford ones so capacity through core should not be a problem. You do have a good point about journey times and it will be longer. But for me currently Corby is a waste of an hourly fast path on the MML, it is closer to London than Peteborough (just).

 

[RichmondCommu]

No i mean the Thameslink stations like Blackfriars and city thameslink might be near your final destination removing the need to change from the onto the tube at St Pancras. I imagine the service would be an extension of the current Bedford ones so capacity through core should not be a problem. You do have a good point about journey times and it will be longer. But for me currently Corby is a waste of an hourly fast path on the MML, it is closer to London than Peteborough (just).

Don't forget though that you don't need to use the Tube to travel from St Pancras to Blackfriars or City Thamelink or indeed Farringdon. The Thameslink platforms at St Pancras are pretty much directly below the MML platforms unlike the Tube ticket halls which I agree are a bit of a walk!

I completely agree that the Corby service is a waste of a fast path on the MML but with only one bi-directional slow line via Sharnbrook I'm not sure that we have many options. However, once we are south of Bedford this is not a problem.

 

[HSTEd]

But surely everything that runs on the MML is long distance other than the Thameslink services? In which case Pendolinos would make much more sense!

Services to Corby and the like are hardly "long distance".

And a 100mph/110mph multiple unit would probably suffice as far as Nottingham on the "semi fast" services.
Remember HSTs are rather slow off the mark by EMU standards, so we can keep the journey time shorter than today on the semi fasts without using 125mph stock.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Services to Corby and the like are hardly "long distance".

Other than Corby what else is the 'like'? Kettering and Wellingborough are unlikely to welcome a reduction in the level of service that they currently receive.

And a 100mph/110mph multiple unit would probably suffice as far as Nottingham on the "semi fast" services.
Remember HSTs are rather slow off the mark by EMU standards, so we can keep the journey time shorter than today on the semi fasts without using 125mph stock.

But Merridians are much quicker off the mark than HST's. So where is the sense in replacing an existing train with something slower when Network Rail are busy increasing the line speed? And are EMU's really adequate replacements for HST's? Not only that but a Pendolino will surely accelerate as quickly as 110mph EMU's?

 

[HSTEd]

Other than Corby what else is the 'like'? Kettering and Wellingborough are unlikely to welcome a reduction in the level of service that they currently receive.

You could detach Kettering and Wellingborough from the second hourly Nottingham train and put in an hourly all shacks to Leicester in as compensation.
You could even go for 2tph if you can find the paths/platform space for it.
If you want to maintain connections you could extend some of them to Nottingham, although I doubt there is much demand for Nottingham to Kettering, you could even have them alternate on the semi fast Nottingham if you want.

2 Class 350s an hour or one short Pendolino (the track access for a Class 350 carriage is just more than half that of a Pendolino)... I think they will chose the Class 350s.

But Merridians are much quicker off the mark than HST's.

HSTs still make up a substantial fraction of the EMT fleet used on trains to Nottingham, and since raising the average journey time has more effect on passenger numbers than running a handful of crack express trains, I believe comparing to HST timings is a useful metric.

So where is the sense in replacing an existing train with something slower when Network Rail are busy increasing the line speed?

They are raising the line speed on relatively short sections to 125mph, the ruling linespeed on most of the line will still be 110mph, which flat front EMUs are clearly capable of.
The seconds you shave off with those speed increases will almost certainly be used for improved reliability with the existing journey times rather than major journey time reductions.

And are EMU's really adequate replacements for HST's? Not only that but a Pendolino will surely accelerate as quickly as 110mph EMU's?

Pendolino and IEP carriages cost £2.5m each or more.
Flant Front-type carriages cost £1.5m each approximately.

4 Class 350 or similar unit (even with 23m carriages) costs ~£6m and seats about as many people as a 5-car Meridian, while costing far less than the alternatives.

 

[TrainBoy98]

My thoughts would be that the MML should be run up to Leeds as well as Sheffield and Nottingham (also means that more links are being provided to the Leeds area so that HS2 doesnt need to be built). The stock should be 140mph capable so that if the line is upgraded in the future, they wont need new stock; and maybe a tilt capability for the curves on the line (again, pending upgraded infrastructure). These should be of an inter-city style.

For the Corby service (and maybe a Leicester stopper or something along those lines), I would use something like the 444s with 110mph (or even 115mph) capability (I doubt these would need a tilt function though).

The service pattern could go something like:

2tph St Pancras-Leeds (1 Fast, 1 Semi) 9 coaches
1tph St Pancras-Sheffield (Fast) 7 coaches
2tph St Pancras-Nottingham (1 Fast, 1 Semi) 7 coaches
1tph St Pancras-Corby (Semi-fast) 5 coaches
1tph St Pancras-Leicester (Stopper) 5 coaches

As for the current stock, theres not many places it can go :/

 

[HSTEd]

Could run the Corby service as four cars attached to the back of another 4 car unit that would detach at Kettering.

Would allow you to run 2tph to Leicester while maintaining the hourly Corby service.

 

[43074]

If I were planning the service, I would have a High Speed service of 2tph to Nottingham and 2tph to Sheffield, one fast (principal stations only) and one semi fast (non stop to Kettering and then all stations)

To supplement the high speed services, I would have an hourly 110 mph EMU service to Leicester and Corby to serve all EMT intermediate stations.

Tilting trains would be ideal for the high speed services, but no-one in the industry wants tilting trains because of their higher cost.

 

[MCR247]

My thoughts would be that the MML should be run up to Leeds as well as Sheffield and Nottingham (also means that more links are being provided to the Leeds area so that HS2 doesnt need to be built). The stock should be 140mph capable so that if the line is upgraded in the future, they wont need new stock; and maybe a tilt capability for the curves on the line (again, pending upgraded infrastructure). These should be of an inter-city style.

For the Corby service (and maybe a Leicester stopper or something along those lines), I would use something like the 444s with 110mph (or even 115mph) capability (I doubt these would need a tilt function though).

The service pattern could go something like:

2tph St Pancras-Leeds (1 Fast, 1 Semi) 9 coaches
1tph St Pancras-Sheffield (Fast) 7 coaches
2tph St Pancras-Nottingham (1 Fast, 1 Semi) 7 coaches
1tph St Pancras-Corby (Semi-fast) 5 coaches
1tph St Pancras-Leicester (Stopper) 5 coaches

As for the current stock, theres not many places it can go :/

Leeds does not need 2tph from St Pancras, giving Sheffield 3tph! At most, you'd give it 1tph, with another 1tph terminating at Sheffield

 

[Class377/5]

A five car 380 would be a great unit for Corby.

 

[RichmondCommu]

You could detach Kettering and Wellingborough from the second hourly Nottingham train and put in an hourly all shacks to Leicester in as compensation.
You could even go for 2tph if you can find the paths/platform space for it.
If you want to maintain connections you could extend some of them to Nottingham, although I doubt there is much demand for Nottingham to Kettering, you could even have them alternate on the semi fast Nottingham if you want.

2 Class 350s an hour or one short Pendolino (the track access for a Class 350 carriage is just more than half that of a Pendolino)... I think they will chose the Class 350s.

Perhaps my post wasn't clear enough. By service standards I meant the trains themselves. Having been used to high quality high speed trains for as long as I can remember, customers travelling from Nottingham to London will be less than impressed with Class 350's. And who can blame them?

HSTs still make up a substantial fraction of the EMT fleet used on trains to Nottingham, and since raising the average journey time has more effect on passenger numbers than running a handful of crack express trains, I believe comparing to HST timings is a useful metric.

Ok it will give your argument more credence to quote HST's over other members of the EMT fleet but a Pendolino would be just as quick off the mark and will be able to cope with sharp curves.

They are raising the line speed on relatively short sections to 125mph, the ruling linespeed on most of the line will still be 110mph, which flat front EMUs are clearly capable of.
The seconds you shave off with those speed increases will almost certainly be used for improved reliability with the existing journey times rather than major journey time reductions.

From I've read in Modern Railways much of the route from Elstree to East Midlands Parkway will be 125 mph which cannot be described as "relatively short sections". And with Pendolinos more of the route could be upgraded.

Network Rail are not spending £69.4m purely for reliability issues! The whole project is quite rightly being marketed to show that Sheffield to London can be achieved in less than two hours. We're not talking seconds here.

Pendolino and IEP carriages cost £2.5m each or more.
Flant Front-type carriages cost £1.5m each approximately.

4 Class 350 or similar unit (even with 23m carriages) costs ~£6m and seats about as many people as a 5-car Meridian, while costing far less than the alternatives.

For intercity journeys i.e. Nottingham to London Class 350's are not acceptable so it’s hardly surprising that Class 350's are much cheaper! With all the money that is being spent to upgrade the MML (and that’s before we factor in electrification) down grading trains to Class 350's would be an absolute travesty.

 

[HSTEd]

Ok it will give your argument more credence to quote HST's over other members of the EMT fleet but a Pendolino would be just as quick off the mark and will be able to cope with sharp curves.

They would be no better at sharp curves without the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds on TASS installation and gauging work.
The experience of the WCRM has taught the DfT that such work is almost never worth it.

 

[RichmondCommu]

They would be no better at sharp curves without the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds on TASS installation and gauging work.
The experience of the WCRM has taught the DfT that such work is almost never worth it.

In all fairness much of the exorbitant cost was down to very poor project management from what I can gather. And the DfT was very much aware of the need for TASS installation before they decided to go ahead with the Pendolinos. Given the number of sharp curves on the MML I would suggest that it is very much worth the expenditure. Get the cars off the M1 and leave it to the wagons!

 

[HSTEd]

In all fairness much of the exorbitant cost was down to very poor project management from what I can gather. And the DfT was very much aware of the need for TASS installation before they decided to go ahead with the Pendolinos. Given the number of sharp curves on the MML I would suggest that it is very much worth the expenditure. Get the cars off the M1 and leave it to the wagons!

Once HS2 arrives we can expect it to demolish the intercity traffic north of Derby on the MML, so we would be paying for TASS effectively as a stopgap.
You would be looking at something like 70 minutes to Meadowhall on HS2 and rather less than an hour to Nottingham's parkway station.

The MML can't hope to compete with that.

 

[edwin_m]

The MML will still be very important as far as Leicester. HS2 is not relevant to London-Leicester because even if a direct service to Toton is provided backtracking there will take longer than the direct train. Therefore Leicester-London still needs to have a fast and frequent service. Ideally this would be Pendolinos, as most of the curve restrictions are south of Leicester.

It is debatable how much HS2 is relevant to London-Derby/Nottingham. Connections at Toton will need to be really slick if centre-to-centre journeys are to beat the times via MML.

 

[AlanFry1]

What about Class 91s/Mark 4s from the ECML?

Personally I would prefer 390s to the state of the MML.

 

[The Ham]

What about Class 91s/Mark 4s from the ECML?

Personally I would prefer 390s to the state of the MML.

If the MML were to be suggested to be getting IC225's from the ECML then expect a fight from those on the ECML about how they should be keeping them. (Note I am not saying that either is a better home for them).

The only problem with the IC225's is that they are likely be fairly costly to keep much beyond the opening of HS2 phase 2, potentially leading to them being replaced by commuter type trains after that.

390's, 395's, IEP, or some other IC class EMU would all be possible options. I would suggest it very much depends on how quickly the gaps in the electrification of the wider network happens.