MML Electrification: progress updates

[swt_passenger]

Some video on Twitter of it leaving Doncaster as I recall?

Yes, I think there was, it is also covered in this thread, shown between 47s?

Is this the most powerful train to run on the network? And what was it's purpose?

I've seen various pictures and footage of these workings today: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R02736/2020-08-06/detailed https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R02737/2020-08-06/detailed With 2 HST power cars and 2 class 91s, which were all taking power, that makes 17,100 horsepower...

www.railforums.co.uk

which took some finding thanks to the misleading title...

 

[WymoWanderer]

Hopes rekindled of full Midland Main Line electrification... according to Rail Magazine.

 

[Bald Rick]

Hopes rekindled of full Midland Main Line electrification... according to Rail Magazine.

Ahead of the news at RAIL as ever.

Modern Railways reported that NR was working on it a month ago.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Ahead of the news at RAIL as ever.

Modern Railways reported that NR was working on it a month ago.

It's also a tad disingenuous as further MML electrification north OF Market Harborough was always planned, just not FROM Market Harborough. It's the giant infill from Market Harborough to Clay Cross that was and remains the issue.

The obstacles are being slowed removed though - Leicester remodelled, Derby remodelled, so every time you look at MML electrification it magically looks to get cheaper even though the costs in current money are going up and the benefits/RoI which could have been realised previously remain unrealised.

As they say, the Treasury knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Ahead of the news at RAIL as ever.

Modern Railways reported that NR was working on it a month ago.

indeed on page 26 by uncle roger aka captain deltic himself. Here is a screenshot

 

[Meerkat]

It's also a tad disingenuous as further MML electrification north OF Market Harborough was always planned, just not FROM Market Harborough. It's the giant infill from Market Harborough to Clay Cross that was and remains the issue.

The obstacles are being slowed removed though - Leicester remodelled, Derby remodelled, so every time you look at MML electrification it magically looks to get cheaper even though the costs in current money are going up and the benefits/RoI which could have been realised previously remain unrealised.

As they say, the Treasury knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

What stage is Leicester remodelling at?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

What stage is Leicester remodelling at?

The current remodelling/enhancement work is something like half done - I think the physical work is done, but there's signalling to do next year. It's sufficiently far advanced that it ticks boxes for electrification that weren't previously ticked - likewise the enhancements at Market Harborough.

 

[Meerkat]

The current remodelling/enhancement work is something like half done - I think the physical work is done, but there's signalling to do next year. It's sufficiently far advanced that it ticks boxes for electrification that weren't previously ticked - likewise the enhancements at Market Harborough.

Before you electrify don’t you need the whole Wigston to Syston segregation work to be done/rejected?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Before you electrify don’t you need the whole Wigston to Syston segregation work to be done/rejected?

It would be useful for it to be done prior to electrification - but it would be useful for every re-doubling, four-tracking, grade separation scheme that has ever been considered in recent years to be done before electrification.

It's not strictly a problem, indeed, there's a number of the electrification structures on the MML which predate (admittedly only by weeks/months) the reinstated fourth track between Bedford and Kettering, and in a couple of ways, it's quite useful - plenty of space to leave piles and masts, and keeps the piling well clear of the signalling.

 

[Ianno87]

It would be useful for it to be done prior to electrification - but it would be useful for every re-doubling, four-tracking, grade separation scheme that has ever been considered in recent years to be done before electrification.

It's not strictly a problem, indeed, there's a number of the electrification structures on the MML which predate (admittedly only by weeks/months) the reinstated fourth track between Bedford and Kettering, and in a couple of ways, it's quite useful - plenty of space to leave piles and masts, and keeps the piling well clear of the signalling.

Provided you have reasonable confidence if exactly what you eventually want to build! Or do it in a way that's easy to come back and change.

 

[Meerkat]

It would be useful for it to be done prior to electrification - but it would be useful for every re-doubling, four-tracking, grade separation scheme that has ever been considered in recent years to be done before electrification.

It's not strictly a problem, indeed, there's a number of the electrification structures on the MML which predate (admittedly only by weeks/months) the reinstated fourth track between Bedford and Kettering, and in a couple of ways, it's quite useful - plenty of space to leave piles and masts, and keeps the piling well clear of the signalling.

Wigston will involve moving stuff around though, not just adding track??

 

[59CosG95]

Wigston will involve moving stuff around though, not just adding track??

Yes, assuming it does indeed get the go-ahead. In that case, it's probably possible to design up to a point, such as getting a design in up to a tension length before the site.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Provided you have reasonable confidence if exactly what you eventually want to build! Or do it in a way that's easy to come back and change.

Yes, assuming it does indeed get the go-ahead. In that case, it's probably possible to design up to a point, such as getting a design in up to a tension length before the site.

The design rather than the actual works being the important part. If there's a new layout which electrification can be designed to be compatible with, it doesn't really matter (within reason) what's actually on the ground.

It obviously it is undesirable to be reworking electrification almost immediately after installation to accommodate changes to track layout, but having to make such changes is an inevitable part of running a railway, and choosing not to undertake electrification until your 'wish list' of track and layout changes have been completed isn't possible if you want to actually accomplish any significant amount of electrification, similarly, refusing to make track and layout changes because you've just installed some electrification is absurd, so sometimes you just have to accept that relatively new OLE will need modifications early into its service life.

 

[Meerkat]

The design rather than the actual works being the important part. If there's a new layout which electrification can be designed to be compatible with, it doesn't really matter (within reason) what's actually on the ground.

It obviously it is undesirable to be reworking electrification almost immediately after installation to accommodate changes to track layout, but having to make such changes is an inevitable part of running a railway, and choosing not to undertake electrification until your 'wish list' of track and layout changes have been completed isn't possible if you want to actually accomplish any significant amount of electrification, similarly, refusing to make track and layout changes because you've just installed some electrification is absurd, so sometimes you just have to accept that relatively new OLE will need modifications early into its service life.

However sensible it might actually be begging for money to electrify things, then wanting money to ‘rip’ some of it out for an enhancement doesn’t play well in the media or politics.

 

[Bald Rick]

Before you electrify don’t you need the whole Wigston to Syston segregation work to be done/rejected?

That could be a long wait. anything can be changed. Get on with it, and quickly.

 

[Class 170101]

Is it possible to passive provide for a layout change in electrification and thus add to it later alter as little as possible?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Is it possible to passive provide for a layout change in electrification and thus add to it later alter as little as possible?

Yes - as we've said, as long as there's an idea about what goes where, we can make sure there aren't masts/structures in the wrong places - there's plenty of dribs and drabs on the North West electrification which has a degree of future provision, especially in the Bolton area. The NW electrification also had the four tracking between Huyton and Roby to contend with - that was carefully designed to accommodate the additional track, it's not quite the neatest of wiring with some slightly odd structures, but it didn't need to be ripped out and redone.

 

[Class 170101]

Yes - as we've said, as long as there's an idea about what goes where, we can make sure there aren't masts/structures in the wrong places - there's plenty of dribs and drabs on the North West electrification which has a degree of future provision, especially in the Bolton area. The NW electrification also had the four tracking between Huyton and Roby to contend with - that was carefully designed to accommodate the additional track, it's not quite the neatest of wiring with some slightly odd structures, but it didn't need to be ripped out and redone.

I suppose what I'm getting at is does it depend upon how far other schemes are fleshed out? Was the Huyton - Roby scheme well fleshed out or a initial stage idea when witing commenced?

 

[londonmidland]

One of the biggest issues was clearance issues for the wires at Leicester, specifically the London Road bridge south of the station. How does Network Rail propose to solve this issue? Realistically how much can you lower the track?

 

[jfowkes]

One of the biggest issues was clearance issues for the wires at Leicester, specifically the London Road bridge south of the station. How does Network Rail propose to solve this issue? Realistically how much can you lower the track?

Surge arrestors, same as they did in Cardiff?

 

[InTheEastMids]

Assuming MML electrification remains near the top of the priority list... if there is also still significant uncertainty of the detail around Wigston grade separation, then surely the obvious thing to do is immediately extend the scope of the Market Harborough extension to Kilby Bridge, and then go further North when there's adequate detail about Wigston-Syston Capacity upgrades.

MH to Kilby Bridge is plain line, and at least some of the bridges have already been done, so it doesn't seem like a costly/uncertain bit of work.

The only issue I can see is that the Harborough line speed scheme did originally include reinstating the original alignment between Great Bowden and the A6 overbridge, saving time and eliminating a Victorian embankment and redundant overbridge. Installing OHLE on the current alignment obviously further locks you into this sub-optimal bit of infrastructure, but taking it out adds cost.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Surge arrestors, same as they did in Cardiff?

And possibly a polyurea elastomer coating on the bridge underside.

 

[edwin_m]

The only issue I can see is that the Harborough line speed scheme did originally include reinstating the original alignment between Great Bowden and the A6 overbridge, saving time and eliminating a Victorian embankment and redundant overbridge. Installing OHLE on the current alignment obviously further locks you into this sub-optimal bit of infrastructure, but taking it out adds cost.

I can't see that going ahead - didn't somebody do the calculations and decide it only saved a handful of seconds?

 

[Bald Rick]

Assuming MML electrification remains near the top of the priority list... if there is also still significant uncertainty of the detail around Wigston grade separation, then surely the obvious thing to do is immediately extend the scope of the Market Harborough extension to Kilby Bridge, and then go further North when there's adequate detail about Wigston-Syston Capacity upgrades.

I’m no expert on where the feeder stations are, but doing something like that could lead to abortive costs on providing non-OLE through feeding.

 

[59CosG95]

I’m no expert on where the feeder stations are, but doing something like that could lead to abortive costs on providing non-OLE through feeding.

North of Braybrooke, the next planned sites were, as part of KO1:

• East Langton Auto Transformer Site
• South Wigston Sectioning Auto Transformer Site.

I seem to remember that the next Auto Transformer Feeder Station was due to be in the Kegworth area, probably requiring a Mid Point Auto Transformer Site to be between Leicester & Syston (at a guess).
Braybrooke would probably have to handle some (or all) of the load between Leicester & Nuneaton, if F2N (Felixstowe - Nuneaton) got the go-ahead. I believe, on the WCML, the AT Site at Nuneaton also has a Neutral Section, so would be a MPATS.

 

[WAO]

I can't see that going ahead - didn't somebody do the calculations and decide it only saved a handful of seconds?

That was in the context of continued diesel operation (with poorer acceleration) as well as the acute shortage of capital for MH rebuilding because of the GWEP fiasco. Easing the curve to 110+mph would be of greater benefit to IEP's on the juice and would avoid maintenance on the embankment, over-bridge and slightly longer, more curved route.

Don't despair.

WAO

 

[Bald Rick]

That was in the context of continued diesel operation (with poorer acceleration) as well as the acute shortage of capital for MH rebuilding because of the GWEP fiasco. Easing the curve to 110+mph would be of greater benefit to IEP's on the juice and would avoid maintenance on the embankment, over-bridge and slightly longer, more curved route.

Don't despair.

WAO

I disagree. Better acceleration of EMUs means time loss for speed restrictions is reduced.

 

[Class 170101]

That was in the context of continued diesel operation (with poorer acceleration) as well as the acute shortage of capital for MH rebuilding because of the GWEP fiasco. Easing the curve to 110+mph would be of greater benefit to IEP's on the juice and would avoid maintenance on the embankment, over-bridge and slightly longer, more curved route.

Don't despair.

WAO

But does electricity consumption have to be taken into account at specific sites due to the geography of the railway? So a heavy drop and then increase in speed either side of the referred restiction would increase power consumption (and maybe regen) at this point?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

But does electricity consumption have to be taken into account at specific sites due to the geography of the railway? So a heavy drop and then increase in speed either side of the referred restiction would increase power consumption (and maybe regen) at this point?

The estimated electrical demand for each electrical section is taken into account when designing the feeding arrangements.

 

[Class 170101]

The estimated electrical demand for each electrical section is taken into account when designing the feeding arrangements.

And I would assume it has significant over allowance for out of course events, eg crossfeeding adjacent sections in the event of failure / planned or unplanned switch out of feeding station and also in terms of growth either in number of trains or power consumption of trains or perhaps being required to feed more OLE eg in the case of Braybrooke to its north as well as 'currently' to its south.