MML Electrification: progress updates

[GRALISTAIR]

View attachment 113559
The post author, who works for Network Rail, has also implied that the OLE will continue to Wigston in one job lot, and that energisation of the route will be in December 2023, with an entry into service of 2024 as things stand.

Confirms the Modern Railways story then

 

[Nottingham59]

For Leicester, I can see Wigston as four track but not grade separated.

Agree. Or at least install the OHLE so that it was compatible with such a four-track railway.

Ideally you'd have signalling to allow the 4 tracks to run Down-Reversible-Reversible-Up, so that MML traffic can weave across the Freights at whatever crossover was the most convenient.

The capacity study also recommended a loop between Wigston North and Knighton Junction (for the line to Burton), to park trains to the quarries without blocking the main lines. But that would be five tracks for that section which seems a bit excessive.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

View attachment 113559View attachment 113560View attachment 113561View attachment 113562View attachment 113563View attachment 113564View attachment 113565
(Via LinkedIn) Braybrooke FS' building has now been lifted into position. The post author, who works for Network Rail, has also implied that the OLE will continue to Wigston in one job lot, and that energisation of the route will be in December 2023, with an entry into service of 2024 as things stand.
This timescale seems fairly reasonable given that Market Harborough northwards is only at the design survey stage, and that the bridge works from Kettering to Mkt H'boro' haven't started yet...

Thats the sort of pace that's needed to get economies of scale from the project overheads (no pun intended). Likely to outperform the TRU team working snail like towards Stalybridge as well.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not necessarily. Wiring Wigston-Proof House instantly allows the Birmingham - Leicester passenger service to switch to EMUs releasing class 170s for cascade. If EMUs could have batteries to cope with Syston-Peterborough-Ely. then more 170s could be cascaded off the Stansted Airport route. .

Neatly illustrating the point - wiring Leicester to Birmingham would save three units. Hence the benefits are somewhat lower than many other electrification proposals.

 

[Mikw]

I'm a novice, but will it be electrified as far as Leicester? London Road is rather low on the southern entrance to the station. Would they be able to do it without lifting the roadway or dropping the tracks and station?

 

[snowball]

I'm a novice, but will it be electrified as far as Leicester? London Road is rather low on the southern entrance to the station. Would they be able to do it without lifting the roadway or dropping the tracks and station?

Current authorisation is believed to extend as far as Wigston South Junction, about four miles south of Leicester station. The station will be in the next section, see post #5169. I read an article a couple of yeas ago which mentioned London Road bridge as a difficult point but I don't know what will be done there.

 

[Roast Veg]

I read an article a couple of yeas ago which mentioned London Road bridge as a difficult point but I don't know what will be done there.

Likely a small amount of track lowering, a conductor rail, and a lot of resistant paint.

 

[gingertom]

Likely a small amount of track lowering, a conductor rail, and a lot of resistant paint.

and a handful of surge arrestors....

 

[a_c_skinner]

Is there not a sewer that limits track lowering somewhere in the area?

 

[gingertom]

Is there not a sewer that limits track lowering somewhere in the area?

I believe that is indeed the case. Maybe with the insulating paint and slab track (?) enough clearance can be gained.

 

[snowball]

Likely a small amount of track lowering, a conductor rail, and a lot of resistant paint.

I believe the intersection bridge at Cardiff, where the resistant paint and surge arrestors were first used, doesn't have conductor rail. And it is a metal bridge, which I believe London Road is not.

 

[Ploughman]

Not sure if this is the case here, but, in the Leeds area, a number of ex Midland Railways bridges had sewers crossing the track between the abutments at a shallow depth. Which resulted in a track lower being cancelled on the night.
Railtrack did not supply correct info.
They snowed us under with records when it was replanned 6 months later.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

--and a lot of resistant paint.

It will be a polyurea spray elastomer coating that will be used.

 

[Class 170101]

Neatly illustrating the point - wiring Leicester to Birmingham would save three units. Hence the benefits are somewhat lower than many other electrification proposals.

Unless you split the Stansted - Birmingham service at Leicester, diesel to the east and electric to the west. Whilst on current plans it would save the three units referred to if they were cascaded out to replace 15x units elsewhere one would expect the Class 170s to be replaced with bi-mode units like Class 755s (other options are no doubt available) then the Stansted to Birmingham route could be electric between Stansted and Ely and between Leicester and New Street.

 

[edwin_m]

I believe the intersection bridge at Cardiff, where the resistant paint and surge arrestors were first used, doesn't have conductor rail. And it is a metal bridge, which I believe London Road is not.

Pretty sure it doesn't have conductor rail, and in fact wires can be reduced to a similar height as conductor rail for short distances so I believe it's not necessary to use it purely because of vertical clearances. Perhaps one of our resident experts can remind us what situations it is useful in?

London Road bridge is metallic - see https://www.flickr.com/photos/kpmarek/2760982298/

On my first trip through the area since January 2020, I noticed a few places where there is are one or two pile with no masts, with masts on the piles immediately north and south. This seems a little inefficient, as another visit will be needed to the missing ones. Anyone know why this is happening?

The comments being made a few posts back about doing the wiring all the way to Leicester as one project chime with those a few weeks ago about not providing a wire run that would allow an EMU to reverse north of the crossovers at Market Harborough. It means there is little point in providing for that turnback on a temporary basis when the permanent wiring will follow soon after.

 

[59CosG95]

Pretty sure it doesn't have conductor rail, and in fact wires can be reduced to a similar height as conductor rail for short distances so I believe it's not necessary to use it purely because of vertical clearances. Perhaps one of our resident experts can remind us what situations it is useful in?

London Road bridge is metallic - see https://www.flickr.com/photos/kpmarek/2760982298/

Conductor rail is most useful in long tunnels, e.g. Chipping Sodbury Tunnel, where tensioning arrangements aren't required as a direct result of its installation. The rigidity of the bar means that, if coupled with slab track, regular height & stagger adjustments (as required on conventional OLE) aren't required. Only the contact wire requires regular replacement (wear depending).

London Rd Bridge would not be a good place to put it. Zero-encumbrance contenary will almost certainly be what goes in.

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps one of our resident experts can remind us what situations it is useful in?

Overhead conductor bar is typically used where it helps to have minimal maintenance And very reliable kit. Hence used in some tunnels where access is difficult and the implications of failure are high.

As you say, conventional wired OLE is perfectly ok for very reduced clearances. Indeed conductor bar needs slightly more clearance than wires.

 

[ABB125]

conventional wired OLE is perfectly ok for very reduced clearances

I was recently in Hamburg, and was slightly surprised at just how close the overhead wires got to the underside of the metal-beamed road bridge immediately to the south of the station canopy. I'd estimate that it was less than 10cm (though the OHLE is "only" 15kV there, so presumably is fine for closer distances). If, as you say, very low clearances are fine (though presumably only for very short distances), why are so many bridges rebuilt for electrification? Is it physical clearance?

 

[snowball]

I was recently in Hamburg, and was slightly surprised at just how close the overhead wires got to the underside of the metal-beamed road bridge immediately to the south of the station canopy. I'd estimate that it was less than 10cm (though the OHLE is "only" 15kV there, so presumably is fine for closer distances). If, as you say, very low clearances are fine (though presumably only for very short distances), why are so many bridges rebuilt for electrification? Is it physical clearance?

To state the obvious, electrical clearance is needed (1) between the train roof and the lowest possible point of the wires, (2) between the bridge structure and the topmost possible point of the wires, and (3) between the ends of the pantograph and any point of the bridge structure. I've forgotten what the current UK minima are. Designers have to allow for things like a train bouncing about on its suspension, or the track or wires being a bit higher or lower than their nominal positions. Presumably where special reduced clearances are used, the maintenance has to be more careful.

 

[Bald Rick]

If, as you say, very low clearances are fine (though presumably only for very short distances), why are so many bridges rebuilt for electrification? Is it physical clearance?

What I said was that you don’t need conductor as a solution for tight clearances, as wires can be used.

Tight clearances themselves are a whole other subject.

 

[Nottingham59]

the current UK minima

I understand that the absolute minimum as used in Cardiff is just 20mm. According to this article in Modern Railways: https://www.modernrailways.com/article/myths-and-misapprehensions-challenged

 

[Mikey C]

I was recently in Hamburg, and was slightly surprised at just how close the overhead wires got to the underside of the metal-beamed road bridge immediately to the south of the station canopy. I'd estimate that it was less than 10cm (though the OHLE is "only" 15kV there, so presumably is fine for closer distances). If, as you say, very low clearances are fine (though presumably only for very short distances), why are so many bridges rebuilt for electrification? Is it physical clearance?

I imagine there's a difference between a low speed trundle into and out of a station, and a train passing through at 100mph plus?

 

[John Webb]

Napsbury Access: Some steelwork has now been erected - noticed while on way to St Albans South after lunch today. Will try and call in on Sunday to record progress.

 

[Trainben]

Dates for next piling works around Market Harborough.

 

[59CosG95]

Dates for next piling works around Market Harborough.

Thanks for the update; there can't be much left to do within the town boundary now.

 

[cle]

Unless you split the Stansted - Birmingham service at Leicester, diesel to the east and electric to the west. Whilst on current plans it would save the three units referred to if they were cascaded out to replace 15x units elsewhere one would expect the Class 170s to be replaced with bi-mode units like Class 755s (other options are no doubt available) then the Stansted to Birmingham route could be electric between Stansted and Ely and between Leicester and New Street.

I think this renders the service far less useful.

Peterborough would be a more logical place to split, if frequencies were increased on one side (i.e extend the B'ham-Leicester perhaps, with another Leicester terminator in the new platform). Cambridge and Birmingham are the key cities on the route, but of course, Ely strikes again. Leicester's traffic is nominal eatsbound, and Peterborough is important for connections especially.

 

[Bald Rick]

You beat me to it - I noticed the foundations had gone in on Monday.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Thanks for the update; there can't be much left to do within the town boundary now.

Agree... Can't see many gaps in town. The but where there is little or no steelwork (and therefore maybe piling to do) is South from the town down to the footbridge near Braybrooke

 

[59CosG95]

Agree... Can't see many gaps in town. The but where there is little or no steelwork (and therefore maybe piling to do) is South from the town down to the footbridge near Braybrooke

Yes - specifically east of the oversailing powerlines (on wooden pylons) just west of the new housing development. My guess is that, for the stretch through Braybrooke (i.e. past the 2 masonry bridges), and through central Desborough, we won't see much in the way of progress until the offending bridges are modified/replaced.

Napsbury Access: Some steelwork has now been erected - noticed while on way to St Albans South after lunch today. Will try and call in on Sunday to record progress.

You beat me to it - I noticed the foundations had gone in on Monday.

Thameslink & EMR are reporting a block between Harpenden & Bedford all day Saturday & Sunday; this may well be works for East Hyde and the Luton area. EMR aren't running anything south of Bedford.
I suspect that if the masts have gone up nr Napsbury, they've probably done so at East Hyde too.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thameslink & EMR are reporting a block between Harpenden & Bedford all day Saturday & Sunday; this may well be works for East Hyde and the Luton area. EMR aren't running anything south of Bedford.
I suspect that if the masts have gone up nr Napsbury, they've probably done so at East Hyde too.

not this coming weekend, as the WCML is closed. the weekend after perhaps.