Blame whoever suggested that the project should go ahead in the first place for its eventual cancellation? Interesting logic.
I still believe HS2 is in part behind this decision. When [if] it finally comes to Toton and Sheffield, I believe the MML south of Trent will be reduced to a commuter style route simply to drive custom onto the new services and justify its development. Why would many people from the East Midlands and South Yorkshire opt for HS2 when the MML could get them into London in an hour and a half to two hours, at a somewhat lower fare? I think eventually electrification of the MML will be extended from Kettering / Corby to Leicester, which will have some fasts and plenty of stopping services to London. Further north, lack of investment and journey time extensions resulting from MML trains calling all stations will be used as a lever to make HS2 the most viable and quick option in many travellers eyes. Investing in electrification - particularly beyond Trent - makes less sense if the long distance services it was to support will be largely gone in 10-15 years time.
another poor response from Grayling, using selective bits of information to support a poor decision, with no understanding of the bigger picture such as the need for a rolling program of electrification to retain skills and keep overall costs down.
HS2 will have a zero affect on passengers from Leicester, Market Harborough or Loughborough so cutting the electrification from Kettering to Loughborough can't be anything to do with HS2.......and HS2 to the East Midlands is decades away from being operational.
As Kettledrum says
"If Graying had said bi-modes were a temporary stop gap, and acknowledged the benefits of electrifying the rest of the MML on a rolling basis, he might get more respect."
EXACTLY!
I don't understand the DfTs long term plan here when it comes to electrification - in the direction we're going diesel fuel will either be far too expensive or not usable (due to public opinion/new laws or regulations) within the at least 30 year timeframe these trains will be used in......
The transport secretary has been called back before MPs for a further grilling in the New Year on cancelled rail electrification schemes.
Chris Grayling will be asked to produce information previously requested by the Transport Select Committee and explain in more detail his reasons for replacing plans with bi-mode trains on 22nd January 2018.
In July, the government announced it had scrapped electrification plans for railway lines in Wales, the north and the Midlands.
Grayling said instead, faster trains will be rolled out with more seats and improved facilities.
"Passenger numbers on the UK rail network have more than doubled since privatisation 20 years ago and our country’s railways need to adapt and change to be able to meet current and future demand," he said.
"New bi-mode train technology offers seamless transfer from diesel power to electric that is undetectable to passengers," Grayling added. "The industry is also developing alternative fuel trains, using battery and hydrogen power. This means that we no longer need to electrify every line to achieve the same significant improvements to journeys, and we will only electrify lines where it delivers a genuine benefit to passengers."
The routes affected included the Great Western route west of Cardiff, the line north of Kettering to Sheffield and Nottingham, and the line between Windermere and Oxenholme.
The secretary of state was previously questioned about the plans in October, and asked for further information on the benefit cost ratios for the schemes involved. The Committee said not all information requested has been provided.
Chair of the Transport Select Committee, Lilian Greenwood MP, said:
“Being accountable to parliament means ministers must explain and justify the decisions they take.
I am pleased that the secretary of state will appear before the Transport Committee again in January and I hope that after this session we will better understand his decision to cancel planned rail electrification schemes.
The choices the government have made lock us into a mode of operation that will persist for many years and we need to test and challenge their position to ensure it is robust”.[/UOTE]
Let us hope that assumptions to be tested include when will HS2 services begin to operate on the eastern arm of the "Y" as opposed to the completion of MML electrification? What isochronic (door to door journey time) mapping has been made showing the split whereby passengers going to their local station on the MML as opposed to a separate journey to Toton will get to St Pancras faster by the classic route. What sort of fare structure does he anticipate on both the HS and classic lines - what is the value of the deemed abstraction factor that an electrified MML could adversely impact HS2?
Speaking to the Rail Magazine Conference in Birmingham last year, Sir David Higgins said he expected Ryanair pricing structures to apply rather than Premium fares. Is it the Ministers intention to similarly disinvest in other adjacent rail routes by subnstantially degrading frequencies? Does he think that other MP's might have noticed his decision and does he still expect MPs from Kettering north to support the HS Phase 2 legislation as it goes through Parliament.
Finally in October 2017 Rail Engineer asked an interesting question
The bi-mode trains for the Midland main line are intended to deliver improved journey times – for example, a 20-minute reduction in journey time between Sheffield and London. It has become apparent, since the announcement, that this improvement will be delivered through infrastructure improvements and omitting station stops.
As has been shown, bi-mode trains do not deliver the performance of an electric train. Moreover, there are still many unanswered questions about the remaining electrification on this route from Bedford to Kettering and Corby. For example, will it (and the existing London St Pancras to Bedford section) be installed (upgraded) to allow 125mph operation with multiple pantographs? If not, the bi-mode trains might be slower on the southern half of the line than the current diesel Meridian and High Speed Trains.
Does Grayling even understand what he's talking about, or is he simply the talking head spouting out whatever his bi-mode-fanatic civil servants tell him?Chris Grayling is to be questioned over his responses to the TSC. Now that his decision to disinvest in the MML because of the benefits arising from HS2's Toton -Sheffield link has been become clear perhaps he might like to fill in the detail by providing the assumptions and the numbers that prompted his decision.
Does Grayling even understand what he's talking about, or is he simply the talking head spouting out whatever his bi-mode-fanatic ........
I doubt he knows what he is talking about.
But what about those from Derby and Nottingham who want to travel to Sheffield and beyond? They are stuck with XC and Northern respectively in slow speed diesel units. Where is the competition then to keep fares low?Well is there any major reason why we couldn't provide a northward running 'slip' onto HS2 from the Classic line through Toton?
There are no capacity concerns as the Eastern branch is unlikely to be close to full, and it would allow, fast, electrified running between Toton and points north on the HS2 infrastructure.
You could run a hybrid MML/HS2-2E service
Competition inside the railway is largely a mirage anyway.But what about those from Derby and Nottingham who want to travel to Sheffield and beyond? They are stuck with XC and Northern respectively in slow speed diesel units. Where is the competition then to keep fares low?
Surely the driving force behind electrification is not politics, but the ability to enhance capacity where needed..
But what about those from Derby and Nottingham who want to travel to Sheffield and beyond? They are stuck with XC and Northern respectively in slow speed diesel units. Where is the competition then to keep fares low?
A change into HS2 services at Toton would be quicker but passengers shouldn't have to change to travel between cities as large as Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds for the fastest journey time. Changing trains is a disincentive to travel for many.Competition inside the railway is largely a mirage anyway.
And it would be interesting to see a travel time comparison for Nottingham to Leeds via the existing route and Nottingham to Leeds via Toton.
Comparing the Midland route north of Derby with HS2, XC Voyagers will be slow speed diesel.I have a lot of detrimental expressions I could use for XC Voyagers, but 'slow speed' would not be one of them.
That's why I wasn't talking about changing trains - I was talking about a north facing connection from the MML at Toton to HS2A change into HS2 services at Toton would be quicker but passengers shouldn't have to change to travel between cities as large as Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds for the fastest journey time. Changing trains is a disincentive to travel for many.
A change into HS2 services at Toton would be quicker but passengers shouldn't have to change to travel between cities as large as Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds for the fastest journey time. Changing trains is a disincentive to travel for many.
A train via Sheffield joining HS2 at Toton would only be on HS2 infrastructure for a relatively short distance before rereturning to the existing route south of Clay Cross. Nottingham-Sheffield would be slightly quicker but mostly by avoiding the three intermediate stops on this section; hence a train would still be needed on the existing route as well as one on the high speed route, so no capacity release or saving in operating cost. Leicester-Sheffield would also save a small amount of time by not running via Derby (but again a train would still be needed on the existing route). Derby-Sheffield today has a relatively direct route via Ambergate, where speeds are generally higher than on the Erewash line, so it's unlikely that they would save any time via Toton. Thus I think it would be difficult to justify the likely high cost of a grade-separated connection at Toton based on a small time saving to the relatively small Leicester-Sheffield and Nottingham-Sheffield flows (which include any passengers from beyond either end).That's why I wasn't talking about changing trains - I was talking about a north facing connection from the MML at Toton to HS2
The Green considerations were a significant factor if you look back at the discussions, justifications, and reports in the lead-up period. Adding the MML scheme to the CP5 workload pushed NR beyond it's ability to resource all the schemes properly within the committed time-scales. Weak and out of touch management at NR was to blame for accepting a work bank that NR was unable to deliver, but there was political factor in pushing the MML route onto the list.
The 700's will utilize the Corby route and the new trains will not have to be bought until a later date.
I don't think Grayling is uneducated. He probably knows he cannot meet the expectations and just says whatever he needs to, to deliver something much cheaper on his watch.
If I were Grayling i'd let OHLE go ahead to reach Corby and then re-assess the situation at that point. The 700's will utilize the Corby route and the new trains will not have to be bought until a later date.
At least that shifts some of the budget from trains to infrastructure. As usual though, my ideas will be bombarded with at least 3 reasons this is unfeasible.
No they won't - there are no plans to extend TL services beyond Bedford.
EMT need a fleet of EMUs for the Corby services - there are several candidates, but the obvious option seems to be the soon-to-be available 379s from the Stansted Express which will be ousted by GA's fleet refresh.