MML Electrification: progress updates

[MML]

Once the route to Corby is electrified, presumably the Corby to St. Pancras service could become half hourly, with stops at Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford, Luton and Luton Airport using an 8 or 12 car express EMU such as Class 387.

How many Meridians would be available for allocation to other MML services ?
Could Class 180 units released from Hull trains supplement the existing Meridian fleet ?
And would this cascade be sufficient to replace the HST fleet prior to 2020 ?

 

[Kneedown]

We take them up to 125 every day , and they are quite capable of braking from 125 for all stations and speed restrictions and do so every day.

I've had one up to 125 once, on a Leic-Notts refresher job. A good set but even then had to shut off sharpish to make the 110 at Sutton Bonington. Had a Grantham-P'boro run couple of months back but turned slow line at Stoke! That was a Bu**er!

 

[Chester1]

Once the route to Corby is electrified, presumably the Corby to St. Pancras service could become half hourly, with stops at Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford, Luton and Luton Airport using an 8 or 12 car express EMU such as Class 387.

How many Meridians would be available for allocation to other MML services ?
Could Class 180 units released from Hull trains supplement the existing Meridian fleet ?
And would this cascade be sufficient to replace the HST fleet prior to 2020 ?

Grand Central have agreed leases for the entire 180 fleet. 3 HST sets could be removed from service through Corby electrification.The next ICWC franchise holder will not be able to cascade Voyagers until 2026, Cross Country might get Bi modes and cascade Voyagers but I doubt that could happen in time.

 

[Class 170101]

You obviously have no idea about day to day running on the the MML , and also have no idea about HST's and have posted utter rubbish.
We take them up to 125 every day , and they are quite capable of braking from 125 for all stations and speed restrictions and do so every day.

I'll refer you to here which suggests HSTs timed for 110mph!
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C80328/2016/12/12/advanced

Really? HSTs should sit in the Cat C braking curve surely.

Not a technical expert of the braking curve but I understood that the speed improvements were for Meridians only where it could be shown that they could stop within existing braking distances to signals from higher speeds (perhaps with banner repeaters added).

Just so as you know Hairy Bear not impressed with your post I'm afraid.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Once the route to Corby is electrified, presumably the Corby to St. Pancras service could become half hourly, with stops at Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford, Luton and Luton Airport using an 8 or 12 car express EMU such as Class 387.
...

Are you saying it should be six trains per hour to/from St Pancras MML? Could it handle that number, reliably? I thought there were doubts it could handle five per hour (as now), although it seems to manage ok.

 

[Mordac]

Grand Central have agreed leases for the entire 180 fleet. 3 HST sets could be removed from service through Corby electrification.The next ICWC franchise holder will not be able to cascade Voyagers until 2026, Cross Country might get Bi modes and cascade Voyagers but I doubt that could happen in time.

Are they getting the four from Hull Trains as well?

 

[furnessvale]

I'll refer you to here which suggests HSTs timed for 110mph!
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C80328/2016/12/12/advanced

Is RTT reliable in such matters? I am sure I have seen references in these pages to RTT showing trains timed at well over 125mph, and I don't mean on HS1.

 

[devinier]

I'll refer you to here which suggests HSTs timed for 110mph!
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C80328/2016/12/12/advanced



Not a technical expert of the braking curve but I understood that the speed improvements were for Meridians only where it could be shown that they could stop within existing braking distances to signals from higher speeds (perhaps with banner repeaters added).

Just so as you know Hairy Bear not impressed with your post I'm afraid.

You seem to be digging a deep hole over this. The fact a service is timed for a particular speed doesn't mean the train can't exceed that speed. As Hairy Bear actually drives HST's at 125 mph on the MML then I would say, that's how fast they can go.

 

[takno]

Is RTT reliable in such matters? I am sure I have seen references in these pages to RTT showing trains timed at well over 125mph, and I don't mean on HS1.

The HSTs all appear to have a schedule speed of 110 in TRUST, which is what is output on RTT. That speed is only indicative though - it's not used for much, and they can go faster if line speed permits. The sectional appendix has several areas which are rated for 125mph running for HSTs.

 

[Class 170101]

You seem to be digging a deep hole over this. The fact a service is timed for a particular speed doesn't mean the train can't exceed that speed. As Hairy Bear actually drives HST's at 125 mph on the MML then I would say, that's how fast they can go.

Still slower than a Meridian!

 

[whoosh]

I expect, that rather than create brand new sectional running times for everywhere on the Midland Main Line under a timing load of 'HST 125', the existing figures for the timing load of 'HST 110' were altered where necessary when the line speed was increased.

That's my guess.

 

[Chester1]

Are they getting the four from Hull Trains as well?

Good point. No they are not but they need 8 x 180s to run all their services as single units (with one spare). 5 GWR 180s replacing 3 short HST sets does not leave much scope for doubling up. Its entirely plausible that GC will agree a lease on the remaining 180s or another opperator will. Even if EMT does get them then they would need to be doubled up to replace a EMT HST, and therefore would only replace 2 sets, in addition to 3 sets freed because of Corby electrification. 7 more sets would still need replacing + extra stock for passenger growth.

 

[A0wen]

Are you saying it should be six trains per hour to/from St Pancras MML? Could it handle that number, reliably? I thought there were doubts it could handle five per hour (as now), although it seems to manage ok.

I assume you're looking at St P's platform constraints - but you've got 12 tph leaving Marylebone using 6 platforms. Over on the NCL you've got Moorgate with 2 platforms despatching 6 trains an hour.

OK - accepted that the suburban service turnaround time is shorter, but if the Corby's were self-contained diagrams they *could* have shorter turnarounds.

The other factor that needs to change is improved northbound services - currently Wellingborough & Kettering lost out in that regard when the Corby's were introduced having previously had 2 tph to Leicester which is now down to 1. That needs to be addressed somehow. For Bedford and Luton, I'd actually leave them with the Corby's and have an hourly from either Nottingham or Sheffield which stopping at Luton Airport Parkway.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Which diesel locos can pull Mark 4 carriages or could be adapted for a low cost?

any loco can pull mk4s

any loco that can provider standard train supply can power them - although obviously those with a low ETS rating may not be able to power a full rake
( the surrogate DVT use of class 43s becasue the 91s were introduced before the mk 4s and HST coach rakes do not use standard ETS instead expect 415 v three phase AC )

push -pull operation requires compatible control systems with the DVTs or the installation of compatible control systems in the DVTs

 

[hwl]

Which diesel locos can pull Mark 4 carriages or could be adapted for a low cost? Virgin East Coast is retaining some but at least 23 sets will be available for cascading. Corby services could use IC225s from 2019 with the rest being pulled by diesel locos until the wires reach further north. They are 24 to 27 years old and therefore could reasonably expected to last until 2033 and HS2 phase 2. EMT have 12 Mark 3 sets which would mean upto 11 extra sets would be available for new services. With such uncertainity it doesnt make sens to buy new stock and upgrading Mark 4s for use after 2019 would be better than upgrading Mark 3s that are much older.

The Corby services which will probably have more frequent stops than Nottingham / Derby / Sheffield services and are likely (given past DfT thinking) to be EMUs possibly with 110mph max. running. Low Dwell times and great acceleration being more useful with those service parameters.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is RTT reliable in such matters? I am sure I have seen references in these pages to RTT showing trains timed at well over 125mph, and I don't mean on HS1.

That "well over 125 mph" fault (calculation error somewhere) has been explained a few times as only applying to STP schedules, and the fault is within NR's systems rather than RTT.

 

[Chester1]

any loco can pull mk4s

any loco that can provider standard train supply can power them - although obviously those with a low ETS rating may not be able to power a full rake
( the surrogate DVT use of class 43s becasue the 91s were introduced before the mk 4s and HST coach rakes do not use standard ETS instead expect 415 v three phase AC )

push -pull operation requires compatible control systems with the DVTs or the installation of compatible control systems in the DVTs

The Corby services which will probably have more frequent stops than Nottingham / Derby / Sheffield services and are likely (given past DfT thinking) to be EMUs possibly with 110mph max. running. Low Dwell times and great acceleration being more useful with those service parameters.

Corby electrification will only free up 3 HSTs (I think it uses 3 x 7 coach Meredians atm). So 9 extra sets + stock for extra capacity will still be needed regardless of what EMUs are bought for Corby. It sounds like its possible to upgrade the Mark IVs to meet disability requirements and use 125 locos until electrifcation reaches Nottingham and Sheffield. New or nearly new EMUs, Mark IVs and the Meredians would still be a big improvement over the current rolling stock. If 14 EMUs are bought for Corby (12 doubled up for a half hourly service + 2 spares) and all 24 HST power cars were retained to pull Mark IVs then it would be an increase of 112 carriages. New rolling stock could be ordered for 2033 and HS2 phase 2. I don't think new intercity bi modes are the best option when the whole mainline will likely be electrified eventually and the long distance services will mostly be replaced by HS2 in 2033.

 

[furnessvale]

That "well over 125 mph" fault (calculation error somewhere) has been explained a few times as only applying to STP schedules, and the fault is within NR's systems rather than RTT.

I am not casting doubts on RTT, which I find a magnificent tool to use, rather I am questioning the wisdom of using it as potential proof of unrelated matters.

 

[43074]

Corby electrification will only free up 3 HSTs (I think it uses 3 x 7 coach Meredians atm). So 9 extra sets + stock for extra capacity will still be needed regardless of what EMUs are bought for Corby. It sounds like its possible to upgrade the Mark IVs to meet disability requirements and use 125 locos until electrifcation reaches Nottingham and Sheffield. New or nearly new EMUs, Mark IVs and the Meredians would still be a big improvement over the current rolling stock. If 14 EMUs are bought for Corby (12 doubled up for a half hourly service + 2 spares) and all 24 HST power cars were retained to pull Mark IVs then it would be an increase of 112 carriages. New rolling stock could be ordered for 2033 and HS2 phase 2. I don't think new intercity bi modes are the best option when the whole mainline will likely be electrified eventually and the long distance services will mostly be replaced by HS2 in 2033.

I disagree with your analysis: I doubt many of the long distance services on the MML will be replaced by HS2 at all, I think people are seriously overestimating the effect HS2 will have on the route: yes demand for the fast services from Sheffield & Chesterfield to London will take a massive hit, but there will still be demand for fast centre to centre services (e.g. Nottingham to Leicester, Leicester to London) as well as for journeys involving the many intermediate stations post HS2. I'd argue new bi-modes are the best option for the route in the long term, but if no electrification is forthcoming (at least to the appropriate standard - i.e. 125mph running) then I would suggest new diesels would be a better fit on the long distance services.

I desperately hope Mk4s will feature nowhere in the new franchisees fleet plans: they would slow many journeys down, they are expensive to maintain and it would be political suicide - many councils, businesses and politicans have said they do not want cast offs, Mk4s represent a severe downgrade, they are old and increasingly unreliable.

 

[Domh245]

I assume you're looking at St P's platform constraints - but you've got 12 tph leaving Marylebone using 6 platforms. Over on the NCL you've got Moorgate with 2 platforms despatching 6 trains an hour.

OK - accepted that the suburban service turnaround time is shorter, but if the Corby's were self-contained diagrams they *could* have shorter turnarounds.

The other factor that needs to change is improved northbound services - currently Wellingborough & Kettering lost out in that regard when the Corby's were introduced having previously had 2 tph to Leicester which is now down to 1. That needs to be addressed somehow. For Bedford and Luton, I'd actually leave them with the Corby's and have an hourly from either Nottingham or Sheffield which stopping at Luton Airport Parkway.

I think that the issue isn't with St Pancras, but more with the highly congested railway just north of it.

 

[kevjs]

I'd argue new bi-modes are the best option for the route in the long term, but if no electrification is forthcoming (at least to the appropriate standard - i.e. 125mph running) then I would suggest new diesels would be a better fit on the long distance services.

How about a common fleet for Liverpool to Nottingham and MML - Electric from Liverpool to Manchester and on the approaches to Nottingham and Sheffield - around mid-life as the existing mainline upgrades come to an end they would be able to benefit from electrification of the Erewash route follow on and in the interim provide the Intercity route linking four of our largest cities with a standard of train benefiting it, rather than one which looks, to the layman, like a slow branch line train.

With cities like Nottingham consistently exceeding pollution levels it will become politically unwelcome to have diesel vehicles running into Nottingham (and probably the other core cities) at which point an all diesel train will be the least environmentally friendly way to travel (bear in mind NCT - Nottingham's main bus operator - has already set this in motion and will be buying no more diesel vehicles - all Gas and Electric from now on, and CT4N (the local authority subsidised and P&R operator) is all electric* from January).

Alongside that there's the possibility of services to and from Stansted and Birmingham coming under the EMT franchise isn't there - so would there not be a benefit in providing one set of mainline trains, and one set of branchline trains to replace the under-capacity and worn out sprinters.

It would leave the franchise in a much better place when HS2 does arrive, i.e. one with 10 year old rolling stock with all the reliability kinks rolled out and the inevitable interior refresh, rather than one lumbered with 40 year old+ rolling stock in desperate need of replacement (especially if the franchise is for 15 years as opposed to 7) - if it is a 15 year franchise the youngest sprinter will be in it's 40th year when HS2 launches...

* I think, there might be a handful of diesels left - not sure if the old CentreLink Electric buses are being cascaded to replace the last of the diesels or have already been retired)

 

[HSTEd]

MML should be bi-mode, not pure diesel - after all there is all the electrification south of Bedford which provides a significant benefit in fuel consumption terms.

 

[387star]

I am surprised the hsts weren't refitted with new seats when the 158s were done but guess they thought they would be gone quicker so when does work start on dda mods? They seem to be looking tatty recently as well

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think that the issue isn't with St Pancras, but more with the highly congested railway just north of it.

It doesn't help that St Pancras appears to have very slow turn around times compared to Euston. Not to mention having to accommodate trains of varying lengths.

 

[DimTim]

With the possible diversionary routes Kettering - Corby - Leicester, Trent junc. Via Erewash Valley, Chesterfield - old road - Sheffield the availability of a bi-mode to be totally flexible once the core route is electrified will surely be a bonus worth having. At least until the other routes are potentially wired.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I desperately hope Mk4s will feature nowhere in the new franchisees fleet plans: they would slow many journeys down, they are expensive to maintain and it would be political suicide - many councils, businesses and politicans have said they do not want cast offs, Mk4s represent a severe downgrade, they are old and increasingly unreliable.

I concur. Not only that but I think it would be difficult to find a loco capable of matching current Meridian running times not to mention the weight restrictions on the MML due to weak bridges.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I disagree with your analysis: I doubt many of the long distance services on the MML will be replaced by HS2 at all, I think people are seriously overestimating the effect HS2 will have on the route: yes demand for the fast services from Sheffield & Chesterfield to London will take a massive hit, but there will still be demand for fast centre to centre services (e.g. Nottingham to Leicester, Leicester to London) as well as for journeys involving the many intermediate stations post HS2. I'd argue new bi-modes are the best option for the route in the long term, but if no electrification is forthcoming (at least to the appropriate standard - i.e. 125mph running) then I would suggest new diesels would be a better fit on the long distance services.

I think you could also include Nottingham to London and Derby to London in your analysis. City Centre to Central London is barely quicker via HS2 compared to the MML and it cuts out the hassle of having to change train at Toton.

 

[Chester1]

I disagree with your analysis: I doubt many of the long distance services on the MML will be replaced by HS2 at all, I think people are seriously overestimating the effect HS2 will have on the route: yes demand for the fast services from Sheffield & Chesterfield to London will take a massive hit, but there will still be demand for fast centre to centre services (e.g. Nottingham to Leicester, Leicester to London) as well as for journeys involving the many intermediate stations post HS2. I'd argue new bi-modes are the best option for the route in the long term, but if no electrification is forthcoming (at least to the appropriate standard - i.e. 125mph running) then I would suggest new diesels would be a better fit on the long distance services.

I desperately hope Mk4s will feature nowhere in the new franchisees fleet plans: they would slow many journeys down, they are expensive to maintain and it would be political suicide - many councils, businesses and politicans have said they do not want cast offs, Mk4s represent a severe downgrade, they are old and increasingly unreliable.

Stopping at intermediate stations is much more suited to fast EMUs that arent carrying heavy diesel engines, and that have commuter layouts and wide doors. Mark IVs hauled by 125s would buy extra time to complete electrification. They could be retained for 225 hauled fast services and / or cascaded. They are 24 to 27 years old and a major refurb would bring them up to standard to last to 2026 or 2033. I diagree that it is political suicide to cascade them to the MML. Replacing Mark III stock with stock 15 years younger, refreshing relatively young Merdians and buying new EMUs for Corby is an improvement and frankly railways are not a high priority for the average person.

How about a common fleet for Liverpool to Nottingham and MML - Electric from Liverpool to Manchester and on the approaches to Nottingham and Sheffield - around mid-life as the existing mainline upgrades come to an end they would be able to benefit from electrification of the Erewash route follow on and in the interim provide the Intercity route linking four of our largest cities with a standard of train benefiting it, rather than one which looks, to the layman, like a slow branch line train.

With cities like Nottingham consistently exceeding pollution levels it will become politically unwelcome to have diesel vehicles running into Nottingham (and probably the other core cities) at which point an all diesel train will be the least environmentally friendly way to travel (bear in mind NCT - Nottingham's main bus operator - has already set this in motion and will be buying no more diesel vehicles - all Gas and Electric from now on, and CT4N (the local authority subsidised and P&R operator) is all electric* from January).

Alongside that there's the possibility of services to and from Stansted and Birmingham coming under the EMT franchise isn't there - so would there not be a benefit in providing one set of mainline trains, and one set of branchline trains to replace the under-capacity and worn out sprinters.

It would leave the franchise in a much better place when HS2 does arrive, i.e. one with 10 year old rolling stock with all the reliability kinks rolled out and the inevitable interior refresh, rather than one lumbered with 40 year old+ rolling stock in desperate need of replacement (especially if the franchise is for 15 years as opposed to 7) - if it is a 15 year franchise the youngest sprinter will be in it's 40th year when HS2 launches...

* I think, there might be a handful of diesels left - not sure if the old CentreLink Electric buses are being cascaded to replace the last of the diesels or have already been retired)

Unfortunately I think that is incredibly optimistic. MML has been underfunded for decades and is already been put behind GWR and North West Electrification.

I am surprised the hsts weren't refitted with new seats when the 158s were done but guess they thought they would be gone quicker so when does work start on dda mods? They seem to be looking tatty recently as well

Currently there are no plans to upgrade EMT Mark IIIs to meet DDA requirements. They are already about 40 years old. Another TOC might take them but they will likely be scrapped because several hundred will be off lease by 2020. Some are going to Scot Rail and some might be sold to rail tour companies or heritage lines to replace Mark IIs, although that would require an internal transformation to look the part.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Stopping at intermediate stations is much more suited to fast EMUs that arent carrying heavy diesel engines, and that have commuter layouts and wide doors. Mark IVs hauled by 125s would buy extra time to complete electrification. They could be retained for 225 hauled fast services and / or cascaded. They are 24 to 27 years old and a major refurb would bring them up to standard to last to 2026 or 2033. I diagree that it is political suicide to cascade them to the MML. Replacing Mark III stock with stock 15 years younger, refreshing relatively young Merdians and buying new EMUs for Corby is an improvement and frankly railways are not a high priority for the average person.

Are you sure that HST power cars are able to run with Mark IV carriages? I only ask because I'm pretty certain that I've read that they can't.

 

[edwin_m]

Are you sure that HST power cars are able to run with Mark IV carriages? I only ask because I'm pretty certain that I've read that they can't.

The power cars produce a three-phase ETS supply which is incompatible with the standard ETS used on Mk4s and other stock except HST trailer cars. I'm not sure if providing a standard ETS would just be a matter of a few big diodes on the three-phase or whether it's more complicated than that.

Nor does Mk4 and other standard stock have the jumper cables to allow the leading power car to control the trailing one. However there are jumpers to allow the DVT to control the class 91 and it ought to be possible to fit some kind of software adaptor to translate this to and from the system the HST uses. HST power cars and 91s were run in multiple at opposite ends of the same formation (Mk3 not Mk4 though) for a short time around 1990, though I don't recall whether either loco or coaches carried any special translation kit.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Are you sure that HST power cars are able to run with Mark IV carriages? I only ask because I'm pretty certain that I've read that they can't.

Mk 4 stock requires standard ETS electricity supply , class 43 powercars provide 415v 3phase ac for train power.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-....28ETH.29_and_Electric_Train_Supply_.28ETS.29

consequently to use class 43s withmk4 stock an alternative solution is required - which involves rewirign one or the other of the stock or the powercars

this is why the engine was required to be running on the 'surrogate DVT' class 43 when the class 91s hauled HST rakes on the ECML prior to the delivery and release to service of the mk 4 stock and DVTs