• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

MML Electrification: progress updates

Joined
7 Nov 2017
Messages
25
Oh really? I just assumed it was a given considering there is an existing platform from the old BR station in the late 80s and the plans to double track the line?

While I can see that as a terminus station on what is basically a branch off the mainline there is no issue with trains starting and ending at platform 1 and switching lines just south of the station, it does seem a little miserly
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MMLLuton

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2017
Messages
9
Location
Luton
In regards to the upgrade south of Bedford is there any idea of what is possibly going to be done to the OHLE? I know it involves the retention of the wires from 100-125mph.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,928
Location
Nottingham
On my travels for work yesterday I popped into Corby station and took a quick snap of the lines. Platform 2 doesn't seem to be any nearer completion nor is there any access to it however the track is now laid and there is what appears to be a single wire (not an expert on what they are called) whereas platform 1 seems to be fully wired.
If platform 2 was ever needed (and I agree there is no intention currently) and was opposite platform 1, then the supports visible here would have to be replaced as they are too close to the track for a platform to be built.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,495
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
In regards to the upgrade south of Bedford is there any idea of what is possibly going to be done to the OHLE? I know it involves the re-tensioning of the wires from 100-125mph.
Fixed that for you. The power supply is also highly likely to be upgraded, with the existing Booster Transformer/Return Conductor arrangement (north of Borehamwood FS) making way for Auto Transformer Operation.
(Chalk Farm - Borehamwood already operates with AT feeding; this was done as part of Thameslink Programme works)
 

apinnard

Member
Joined
2 Aug 2017
Messages
261
Location
Kettering
There is a wired up turnback siding just beyond Corby station, which I assume is there to put the 360s in when the higher frequency timetable kicks in and they need to weave freight in between passenger workings.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,495
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
EMR are stating on their website that, on midweek nights from the 8th to 11th of June, engineering work is taking place between Wellingborough & Kettering.
I've a hunch that some of the snags on the OLE will be dealt with then.
 

Trackman_DY

Member
Joined
16 May 2019
Messages
6
It does appear that the 4th track between Kettering South Junction through Wellingborough to Sharnbrook Junction is now in use.

I assume that it was all commissioned over the recent Bank Holiday weekend (23-25 May).

Yesterday, (Friday 29 May), I noted the passage of a freight train (688Z) which was routed from the Up Main to the Up Slow at Kettering North Junction and ran all the way through to Sharnbrook Junction on the same line.

The usefulness of the bi-directional Down Slow between Kettering and Sharnbrook was demonstrated when 1C98 07:30 Derby - St. Pancras was routed from the Up Fast to the Down Slow at Harrowden Junction to use Platform 3 at Wellingborough (which I believe is its usual routing) while 688Z was using the Up Slow line at the same time.

I believe there is still further work to be carried out on the OHLE equipment in the Bedford Station area.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,495
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
It does appear that the 4th track between Kettering South Junction through Wellingborough to Sharnbrook Junction is now in use.

I assume that it was all commissioned over the recent Bank Holiday weekend (23-25 May).

Yesterday, (Friday 29 May), I noted the passage of a freight train (688Z) which was routed from the Up Main to the Up Slow at Kettering North Junction and ran all the way through to Sharnbrook Junction on the same line.

The usefulness of the bi-directional Down Slow between Kettering and Sharnbrook was demonstrated when 1C98 07:30 Derby - St. Pancras was routed from the Up Fast to the Down Slow at Harrowden Junction to use Platform 3 at Wellingborough (which I believe is its usual routing) while 688Z was using the Up Slow line at the same time.

I believe there is still further work to be carried out on the OHLE equipment in the Bedford Station area.
There's also another wire run to complete (on the Down Slow) just north of Wellingborough.
 

louis97

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
1,903
Location
Derby
The fourth line between Wellingborough and Sharnbrook junction is no longer showing as out of use on Open Train Times. Will keep an eye out for any use of it.
The restriction blocking its use was removed at 1500 on Wednesday (27th May).
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,699
It does appear that the 4th track between Kettering South Junction through Wellingborough to Sharnbrook Junction is now in use.

I assume that it was all commissioned over the recent Bank Holiday weekend (23-25 May).

...

So does this mean we have a four-track main line again all the way to Kettering North Jcn, which I assume is around MP 71, ie about 1 1/4 miles short of the former four-track section to Glendon North Jcn?

Kind of historical restoration, in its own quiet way, is that for me.
 

eMeS

Member
Joined
12 Jun 2011
Messages
954
Location
Milton Keynes, UK
A query about the height of the electrification support metalwork.
I visited the MML a short distance north of Bedford this pm (i.e. the bridge on Lower Farm Road, Bromham), and noticed that to my very untrained eye, there's a lot of "air" between the catenary supplying the 25KV and the top of the gantry structure. I spent a little time trying to think why such a gap was necessary, and I still don't get it. Is the height to stop air turbulence from passing trains bouncing off the gantry arms?
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,495
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
A query about the height of the electrification support metalwork.
I visited the MML a short distance north of Bedford this pm (i.e. the bridge on Lower Farm Road, Bromham), and noticed that to my very untrained eye, there's a lot of "air" between the catenary supplying the 25KV and the top of the gantry structure. I spent a little time trying to think why such a gap was necessary, and I still don't get it. Is the height to stop air turbulence from passing trains bouncing off the gantry arms?
On older equipment (Mark 1, most notably), the encumbrance (separation between catenary and contact wires) is very large, so much so there that catenary often went over the tops of the booms while the contact obviously stayed under. Newer equipment tends to only have an encumbrance of 1300mm nominally; Mk3 on single cantilevers was as low as 900mm on average (this allowed for smaller masts, ergo less cost for steelwork).

As for the large gap between the underside of the boom and the top of the catenary, it's mainly electrical clearance in case a stray current bypasses the insulation on the cantilevers - which could be rather unsafe.
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
... ... ... ... Mk3 on single cantilevers was as low as 900mm on average (this allowed for smaller masts, ergo less cost for steelwork).


The following doesn't seem to apply on the MML extension, but on the GW many of the (vertical) posts project a considerable distance above the horizontal arms (that support the wires). This extension provides nothing mechanically as far as I can work out, and just seems to be un-necessary steel-work. My guess is that it's because the bases (the hollow tubes that are driven into the ground) project above ground level by similarly large amounts, and the design assumed the top of the bases would be only just above ground level.
Travelling on the GWML it's intrigued me. My guess may be completely wrong, but there does seem to be a lot of un-necessary metal. (In my description, I'm not sure of the technical names for the components).
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
Does anyone know when the Up Slow platform (4) at Wellingborough will be put into use? Is it the intention that the 07.30 Derby-St P. (the only train timetabled S.L. at the moment) will use it, or will it continue to use the bi-directional line and Platform 3, leaving the Up Slow clear for overtaking freights?
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
The following doesn't seem to apply on the MML extension, but on the GW many of the (vertical) posts project a considerable distance above the horizontal arms (that support the wires). This extension provides nothing mechanically as far as I can work out, and just seems to be un-necessary steel-work. My guess is that it's because the bases (the hollow tubes that are driven into the ground) project above ground level by similarly large amounts, and the design assumed the top of the bases would be only just above ground level.
Travelling on the GWML it's intrigued me. My guess may be completely wrong, but there does seem to be a lot of un-necessary metal. (In my description, I'm not sure of the technical names for the components).

I've dug out an old post from the GW Electrification thread about just that:

The space between the top of a single track cantilever, twin track cantilever horizontal element or portal crossbeam is for the auto transformer cable to be installed in a position of safety.

There's a potential difference (as in the electrical term) of 50kV between the ATF cable and the catenary elements, and a potential difference of 25kV between ground and both the ATF and catenary elements (the 25-0-25 figure discussed). If we assume the ATF is live at -25kV (and the catenary - contact wire etc is live at +25kV) that means ATF cables have to be a little further from anything that's live at +25kV than they do from anything that's 0V (ground), if the two come into contact, they should in theory cancel each other out to 0V, but in doing so, they're likely to damage or at least trip everything in the electrical section, as the voltage drops below the lower threshold.

The fact it's live at 25kV needs specific precautions for permanent way staff safety, because it's not tensioned and thus less likely to trip in the event of damage, it needs to be placed into a position where an insulator failure results in the ATF cable (though it's not really a cable, as it's an uninsulated wire when mounted on the OLE) earthing and tripping, rather than remaining live and dropping down to track level where anybody on track could come into contact with the cable.

It also needs to earth without coming into contact with the +25kV catenary, so as to prevent any damage potential, because you can run without ATF, not having to deal with damage to the catenary itself is a major reliability plus point. If it's not possible to put the ATF wire in a position of safety, then it'll be fitted with an earthing bar (the thing that looks like a garden rake) or ultimately, it'll be buried using insulated HV cable.

Mast height seems to be causing some confusion too, there's not a massive amount of wasted mast needing to be cut off the top, the height is deliberate give or take an inch or two.

Portal masts vary slightly depending on track alignment, the only scheme where portals have been perfectly installed was the WCML and that needed the foundations for the portals to be precisely levelled so the prefabricated portals could be installed in the correct position, there's simply too much traffic and too many H&S rules for that sort of work today.

The twin track cantilever masts have a small amount of adjustment based on the quick release mounting mechanism, everything above that is again deliberate, and single masts are as per previous electrification schemes, standard length, but each mast will be mounted at approximately the same level in relation to the running line, so height on those masts is once again deliberate.

There's only a very small difference in mast foundation height in relation to running rail, a matter of an inch or two, we're not talking about foundations being a couple of feet out and needing two or three feet cut off the top.


As for the mast heights on MML, my guess would be that standard components come into it - when you look at pictures of the TTCs they all seem to be installed quite a distance from the nearest rail, meaning a long arm is required to bring the wires out to the nearest line. When you then look at the top tie, this attaches to the mast quite close to where the top beam of the mast is attached. My guess would be that between the standard sizes of arms and masts available (as well as electrical clearance considerations, both as-is but also with ATF in mind?), this is the best compromise.
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
I've dug out an old post from the GW Electrification thread about just that:




As for the mast heights on MML, my guess would be that standard components come into it - when you look at pictures of the TTCs they all seem to be installed quite a distance from the nearest rail, meaning a long arm is required to bring the wires out to the nearest line. When you then look at the top tie, this attaches to the mast quite close to where the top beam of the mast is attached. My guess would be that between the standard sizes of arms and masts available (as well as electrical clearance considerations, both as-is but also with ATF in mind?), this is the best compromise.


Thank you for that, does explain it. I must admit I hadn't noticed the return wire but it probably hadn't been fitted when I travelled on the GWML (generally on diverts and HSTs, so a little while ago!)
 

Trackman_DY

Member
Joined
16 May 2019
Messages
6
A newsflash just in from my Bedford area correspondent!

Network Rail has sent a letter out to local residents informing them that the Bromham Road bridge works have now been completed and the bridge will re-open to road traffic on Tuesday 9 June.

There are some ancilliary works still to complete such as the removal of the remains of the temporary pedestrian bridge and some utilities work to complete but that work will be carried out overnight in the next couple of months.

The road closed on 24 June 2019 so very nearly a year ago but the end is finally in sight and road traffic on the A4280 can get back to normal whatever that is these days.

My correspendent also informs me that the wiring on the Up Fast at Bedford station still remains to be done.

This is through Platform 3 1/2 at Bedford station - the one that doesn't exist!

Work has been carried out in recent weeks on the Track Section Switches (TSS) immediately to the north of Bromham Road bridge.

There are 2 TSS on 2 separate structures and apparently these are worked by motor and can be operated either from a Local Control Panel located by the Up Slow line or remotely from the Electrical Control Room at York so my correspondent was informed.

There would also appear to be 2 TSS between Bromham Road bridge and Bedford station but apart from some feed wire (droppers?) being coiled up on the wire spans awaiting connection, no further work has been carried out on these Track Section Switches.

Earth straps are still connected to the OHLE and so despite several notices in the area stating that the OHLE is now live, it would appear that it is still dead.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,209
newsflash just in from my Bedford area correspondent!

Network Rail has sent a letter out to local residents informing them that the Bromham Road bridge works have now been completed and the bridge will re-open to road traffic on Tuesday 9 June.

Your correspondent is a little slow on the uptake. It was on the telly 5 days ago!

 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,495
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
EMR are stating on their website that, on midweek nights from the 8th to 11th of June, engineering work is taking place between Wellingborough & Kettering.
I've a hunch that some of the snags on the OLE will be dealt with then.
With these dates now complete, I'll take a peek round the Harrowden Jn area to see what's changed - probably this afternoon.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,495
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
Just north of Wellingborough.
Strictly speaking, the yard is officially Wellingborough Up Yard, but the Finedon part comes from its proximity to Finedon Road overbridge, which provides the best vantage point for trains leaving the yard.
Additionally, this should not be confused with Finedon Station Road overbridge, situated to the north of Harrowden Jn.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,495
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
With these dates now complete, I'll take a peek round the Harrowden Jn area to see what's changed - probably this afternoon.
Just paid a visit there - the missing contact wire run on the Down Slow has now been installed (very recently - the copper still hasn't oxidised!) and the loops on the spanwire disconnectors have been trimmed.

Another tidbit - the compound at Finedon Station Rd is indeed for Harrowden TSC, which looks pretty much complete. South of the overbridge, there are 2 TTCs on the Slow lines for which the contact has been run but the registration arms are not yet attached.

Photos to follow.
 
Last edited:

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,495
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
Photo update pt. 1: Missing Contact wire on Down Slow between Finedon Rd & Harrowden Jn complete.

View attachment IMG_2871.jpg
1) Evidence of the new contact wire at structure SPC3/107/145/US.

View attachment IMG_2874.jpg
2) Evidence of the new contact at MPA Portal SPC3/106/842. Note the blue earths, meaning wires are still dead.

View attachment IMG_2875.jpg
3) Evidence of the new contact at Anchor Portal SPC3/107/553. All 4 pairs of cut-in insulation are now in on the London side (left) of the structure, as are the continuity jumpers.
 

Top