MML Electrification: progress updates

[Robertj21a]

Is the really big problem with further MML electrification (whenever it gets approved) the height available at Leicester ?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is the really big problem with further MML electrification (whenever it gets approved) the height available at Leicester ?

That is a problem. However AIUI it can be solved in the same was as at Cardiff.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

but is the MML the best candidate to be in the next electrification projects?

Considering at one point the MML had a stronger business case for electrification than the GWML did and was meant to be electrified before the GWML yet ended up being leapfrogged I would say that is absolutely the best candidate.

We shouldn’t have major cities without wires.

 

[Bald Rick]

Considering at one point the MML had a stronger business case for electrification than the GWML did and was meant to be electrified before the GWML yet ended up being leapfrogged I would say that is absolutely the best candidate.

We shouldn’t have major cities without wires.

Ah, but things change. The MML had a positive financial case because it assumed replacement of the existing fleet with all electrics, with much lower maintenance costs. It also assumed some journey time improvements from the electric fleet and better acceleration. Finally it assumed a rather (rather=extremely) optimistic cost of electrification.

Now a new bimode fleet is ordered, the journey time benefits are in the bags already, the maintenance cost savings don’t exist (unless the fleet is replaced again); then add in the actual cost of electrification, and the business case isn’t so shiny.

However I still think it will get done, simply because of politics and sustainability objectives. But expect Oxford and Bristol first.

 

[WAO]

Even with Bi-modes the costs of running under diesel power are significantly higher than with pure electric traction, whether in terms of energy, maintenance, reliability or availabilty. Also Bi-modes' capital costs are nearly twice those of pure electrics. Moreover, the power at rail, which governs performance and journey times, is about double for an electric unit.

This was all proved with the Class 73 electro-diesels and is unlikely to be very different for the Class 80x's.

Diesels are only appropriate for lower speed, low frequency and low capacity services over easily graded routes with few stops, even if the fuel is environmentally acceptable. Wires still make sense.

WAO

 

[InTheEastMids]

An easy win is to go beyond Harborough to Wigston Junctions. But given Leicester capacity Scheme seems to have dropped off the radar, perhaps go further, if it can be future proofed (or do it as part of the aforementioned project).

 

[CdBrux]

Even with Bi-modes the costs of running under diesel power are significantly higher than with pure electric traction, whether in terms of energy, maintenance, reliability or availabilty. Also Bi-modes' capital costs are nearly twice those of pure electrics. Moreover, the power at rail, which governs performance and journey times, is about double for an electric unit.

This was all proved with the Class 73 electro-diesels and is unlikely to be very different for the Class 80x's.

Diesels are only appropriate for lower speed, low frequency and low capacity services over easily graded routes with few stops, even if the fuel is environmentally acceptable. Wires still make sense.

WAO

But that applies to many lines, not just MML and there is only so much that can be done at once...

 

[59CosG95]

indeed.
this country has two problems:
1)elected officials who will promise the world, deliver little, then promise the world again 4 years later.
2)career civil servants, who are petrified of any real change and will fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo.

change HAS to happen, but the best solution is somewhere in between 1 and 2.
neither of the above are capable,and both of the above are also rather obstinate in their positions.

in addition to the wiring to sheffield,it should also make sense to wire up the links between wcml/mml/ecml.
for freight/passenger diversions/marshalling this would open up quite a few options vis a vis traction?

Not forgetting (in my eyes, one of the most crucial links) the Poplar branch at Acton, linking the NLL with the GWML...

But yes, I'd be all for wiring the Felixstowe - Nuneaton corridor, the remaining TransPennine routes, etc. - basically any WCML/MML/ECML links you can think of. Obviously those with the highest traffic justify it first...

 

[hooverboy]

Not forgetting (in my eyes, one of the most crucial links) the Poplar branch at Acton, linking the NLL with the GWML...

But yes, I'd be all for wiring the Felixstowe - Nuneaton corridor, the remaining TransPennine routes, etc. - basically any WCML/MML/ECML links you can think of. Obviously those with the highest traffic justify it first...

I think the poplar branch may end up defacto wired once brent cross kicks off.
The plan is to use dudding hill line as part of the overground network I think

 

[edwin_m]

Ah, but things change. The MML had a positive financial case because it assumed replacement of the existing fleet with all electrics, with much lower maintenance costs. It also assumed some journey time improvements from the electric fleet and better acceleration. Finally it assumed a rather (rather=extremely) optimistic cost of electrification.

Now a new bimode fleet is ordered, the journey time benefits are in the bags already, the maintenance cost savings don’t exist (unless the fleet is replaced again); then add in the actual cost of electrification, and the business case isn’t so shiny.

That's true in absolute terms but I think the relative attractiveness of the two schemes is worth thinking about.

When these were assessed in 2009 the entire GWR intercity fleet was HSTs needing renewal, whereas on the MML the 222s were only five years old at the time. Also replacing a 222 with an electric doesn't save much in journey time, but the GW business case would have been justified in claiming more time savings as all their electrics would be replacing lower-accelerating HSTs. I think these factors would have outweighed the negative for GW, known in 2009, that it would need a mixed fleet including bi-modes, so that on balance the rolling stock issues would have been a larger proportion of benefits in 2009 for GW than for MML.

Today rolling stock for both routes is committed, so the associated costs and benefits will disappear from both business cases. Hence the case for completing MML ought to be better relative to completing GW than it was in 2009. Both cases will have got weaker due to increased infrastructure costs, but it would be logical to apply the same cost increase to both so this shouldn't affect the relative position. Alternatively if actual figures are used MML should do even better as it is reported that its actuals were significantly lower than on GWs.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

in addition to the wiring to sheffield,it should also make sense to wire up the links between wcml/mml/ecml.
for freight/passenger diversions/marshalling this would open up quite a few options vis a vis traction?

You are correct. Which is exactly why there should be a rolling program on the MML. Leicester first. Then Nottingham followed quickly by Derby and the bits in between. Notts to Sheffield then infill back to Derby. Then Sheffield to Doncaster. Then to Leeds and then to York. Progressively release the bimodes and have a steady flow of all electric stock.

 

[Killingworth]

You are correct. Which is exactly why there should be a rolling program on the MML. Leicester first. Then Nottingham followed quickly by Derby and the bits in between. Notts to Sheffield then infill back to Derby. Then Sheffield to Doncaster. Then to Leeds and then to York. Progressively release the bimodes and have a steady flow of all electric stock.

That's far too sensible.

It would mean keeping teams together at all levels in the programme, and allowing the bi-modes to be cascaded - but at the present rate they could be worn out by then.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I think the poplar branch may end up defacto wired once brent cross kicks off.
The plan is to use dudding hill line as part of the overground network I think

Dudden Hill, not Dudding Hill. The Midland Railway Company made a silly mistake when they first built the line and they named the signal box Dudding Hill and for some reason the railway industry has never seen fit to correct that mistake. The area of London through which this is line runs is Dudden Hill and there are roads named accordingly, e.g Dudden Hill Lane. If I were Secretary of State For Transport I would order the mistake rectified.

 

[Bald Rick]

If I were Secretary of State For Transport I would order the mistake rectified.

But you’re not. So it’s Dudding Hill.

 

[Kneedown]

Ah, but things change. The MML had a positive financial case because it assumed replacement of the existing fleet with all electrics, with much lower maintenance costs

The mainline electric fleet was always going to be bi-mode in one form or another due to the requirement to operate over non electrified diversionary routes. That came from Tim Shoveller when he was the MD.

 

[Bald Rick]

That's true in absolute terms but I think the relative attractiveness of the two schemes is worth thinking about.

When these were assessed in 2009 the entire GWR intercity fleet was HSTs needing renewal, whereas on the MML the 222s were only five years old at the time. Also replacing a 222 with an electric doesn't save much in journey time, but the GW business case would have been justified in claiming more time savings as all their electrics would be replacing lower-accelerating HSTs. I think these factors would have outweighed the negative for GW, known in 2009, that it would need a mixed fleet including bi-modes, so that on balance the rolling stock issues would have been a larger proportion of benefits in 2009 for GW than for MML.

Today rolling stock for both routes is committed, so the associated costs and benefits will disappear from both business cases. Hence the case for completing MML ought to be better relative to completing GW than it was in 2009. Both cases will have got weaker due to increased infrastructure costs, but it would be logical to apply the same cost increase to both so this shouldn't affect the relative position. Alternatively if actual figures are used MML should do even better as it is reported that its actuals were significantly lower than on GWs.

Ah, but the key difference is that the GW electrification is nearly finished, and the money has been spent. Whereas on the MML (north of Kettering) the money hasn’t been spent.

Also, the MML electrification costs are broadly the same as GWML on a consistent basis.

 

[Bald Rick]

The mainline electric fleet was always going to be bi-mode in one form or another due to the requirement to operate over non electrified diversionary routes. That came from Tim Shoveller when he was the MD.

There’s bi modes and bi modes. All the ECML fleet is bimode....

 

[Railwaysceptic]

But you’re not. So it’s Dudding Hill.

Yes, because no-one in the industry is embarrassed about continuing with an idiotic and pointless mistake.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, because no-one in the industry is embarrassed about continuing with an idiotic and pointless mistake.

Alternatively, no one outside the industry actually cares!

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Alternatively, no one outside the industry actually cares!

Yes, in this instance the railway is fortunate that most people in this country have zero interest in railway matters.

 

[59CosG95]

There’s bi modes and bi modes. All the ECML fleet is bimode....

Indeed, although some are more bi-mode (800s) than others (801s).

 

[The Ham]

Yes, because no-one in the industry is embarrassed about continuing with an idiotic and pointless mistake.

That or by having a minor change in spelling it allows everyone to know if you're talking about the place or the railway whilst still being able to easily identify where the railway is in the world.

As such changing the railway spelling may not be that helpful and even if it did start as being an error there could have been an informed decision made to keep it as it is.

 

[The Ham]

Even with Bi-modes the costs of running under diesel power are significantly higher than with pure electric traction, whether in terms of energy, maintenance, reliability or availabilty. Also Bi-modes' capital costs are nearly twice those of pure electrics. Moreover, the power at rail, which governs performance and journey times, is about double for an electric unit.

This was all proved with the Class 73 electro-diesels and is unlikely to be very different for the Class 80x's.

Diesels are only appropriate for lower speed, low frequency and low capacity services over easily graded routes with few stops, even if the fuel is environmentally acceptable. Wires still make sense.

WAO

What's the source for capital costs being double?

Is it from the IET debate? If so there's errors in the workings. Not least that they were working on total project costs (including maintenance and depots) vs just rolling stock and comparing 23m coaches with 26m coaches.

On a per seat basis the IET's could be 1/3 more expensive per coach and still be comparable when it comes providing the same capacity.

This means that, even before the extras which were included, at most the difference is 45%.

 

[Flying Phil]

Whilst the historic cost basis of the various electrification projects are still relevant, surely a more important factor these days, is to be seen to address climate change with a sense of urgency....on that basis, further electrification on a rolling basis is the prudent option.

 

[WAO]

What's the source for capital costs being double?

Roger Ford.

There's no absolute value in costings as they are commercial not scientific. A maker may quote at a loss to get the business/kill a competitor or bid excessively if busy.

 

[Bald Rick]

Roger Ford.

There's no absolute value in costings as they are commercial not scientific. A maker may quote at a loss to get the business/kill a competitor or bid excessively if busy.

I suspect there is a slight misunderstanding here. Whole life costs may be double, taking into account fuel and additional maintenance of the engine / related systems, plus the increased capital costs. But the up front purchase cost of a bi mode is not double that of the equivalent all electric.

 

[hwl]

Roger Ford.

There's no absolute value in costings as they are commercial not scientific. A maker may quote at a loss to get the business/kill a competitor or bid excessively if busy.

It is actually about 27-31% when comparing the electric IET vs other electric on just the rolling stock...

Then add the cost of the MTU engine rafts on top of that.

 

[gingertom]

It is actually about 27-31% when comparing the electric IET vs other electric on just the rolling stock...

Then add the cost of the MTU engine rafts on top of that.

and the higher track access charges....

 

[Railwaysceptic]

That or by having a minor change in spelling it allows everyone to know if you're talking about the place or the railway whilst still being able to easily identify where the railway is in the world.

As such changing the railway spelling may not be that helpful and even if it did start as being an error there could have been an informed decision made to keep it as it is.

????? In what circumstances might it be helpful "to know if you're talking about the place or the railway whilst still being able to easily identify where the railway is in the world." Has there ever been a problem caused by the correct spelling of a place?

 

[hwl]

????? In what circumstances might it be helpful "to know if you're talking about the place or the railway whilst still being able to easily identify where the railway is in the world." Has there ever been a problem caused by the correct spelling of a place?

If all the records for the past 145+ years and the act of parliament all use one name the cost of ensuring all the documentation is brought up to data is quite large.
Hardly a good use of money?