MML Electrification: progress updates

[RichmondCommu]

Has that been stated? I thought work to redouble the Slow/Corby lines between Sharnbrook and Corby was already underway as a separate project. They're certainly on with something very substantial most nights south of Corby.

Maybe that's work to rebuild bridges for clearance purposes? Each time I travel along the MML (roughly three to four times a month) more progress appears to have been made.

Hopefully it won't be too long now before we see further work taking place north of Kettering.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Positive its not underway that's for sure, probably just relaying in preparation for electrication.

With regards to MK, looks like they'll wire through on the curve, then in a decades time rip it all up at great cost to rebuild the station on a straight, faster alignement.

Only in the bargin basement UK!

NX

A decade is a fair amount of time though.

I have often thought that it would be cheaper to order to trains with the ability to tilt to run on the MML. That way you could extend 125 mph running to pretty much the whole route. Market Harborough is not the only location on the MML with a sharp curve!

 

[Olaf]

I'm still assuming that this project will be put on hold due to the funding gaps.

 

[LowLevel]

I'm still assuming that this project will be put on hold due to the funding gaps.

For once we agree - I'm expecting it to be significantly delayed/suspended after the election, with the possible exception of Corby (though I'm doubtful about that too).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm still assuming that this project will be put on hold due to the funding gaps.

It seems the ORR have cleared it to proceed within the CP5 funding.

 

[Tomnick]

Maybe that's work to rebuild bridges for clearance purposes? Each time I travel along the MML (roughly three to four times a month) more progress appears to have been made.

Hopefully it won't be too long now before we see further work taking place north of Kettering.

I don't know exactly what's been going on between Corby and Kettering, but the descriptions in the WON suggest that it's more likely to be in connection with doubling than electrification. I'll try to find out more next week. It seems almost certain that Corby is being resignalled and control passed to the EMCC this year though, as a result of the proposed new layout.

A decade is a fair amount of time though.

I have often thought that it would be cheaper to order to trains with the ability to tilt to run on the MML. That way you could extend 125 mph running to pretty much the whole route. Market Harborough is not the only location on the MML with a sharp curve!

Tilting trains certainly wouldn't allow anything like 125mph to be achieved through Market Harborough, or indeed some of the other locations!

 

[dosxuk]

I'm still assuming that this project will be put on hold due to the funding gaps.

It's worth remembering that in the NR electrification strategy report, this route had an infinite BCR, unlike all the other routes which are also being electrified. Effectively (under the terms of that appraisal), it will cost the country more to do nothing than it will to electrify the route.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's worth remembering that in the NR electrification strategy report, this route had an infinite BCR, unlike all the other routes which are also being electrified. Effectively (under the terms of that appraisal), it will cost the country more to do nothing than it will to electrify the route.

That was Network Rail-onomics at the lower cost of £900m.
Might not look so good at £1.3bn.

 

[TheKnightWho]

That was Network Rail-onomics at the lower cost of £900m.
Might not look so good at £1.3bn.

I find it unlikely that a mere (!) £400m will make much of a difference to that sort of thing.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Based on the BCR it was at the top of Network Rail's "do next" list in 2009, and yet the GW, NW and TP schemes were authorised first.
They probably did design work in advance on the MML scheme, hence the ability to get going quickly.
In the meantime Trans-pennine has gone backwards.

 

[gerryuk]

Currently to free up platform space at Sheffield some services that terminate there, then go north to sit in sidings at Woodburn Junction before returning to service at Midland station.
As there will be no wires north can we assume that trains will now have to have a quick turnaround at Sheffield before heading back south?

 

[Tomnick]

Currently to free up platform space at Sheffield some services that terminate there, then go north to sit in sidings at Woodburn Junction before returning to service at Midland station.
As there will be no wires north can we assume that trains will now have to have a quick turnaround at Sheffield before heading back south?

I understand that the current trip out to Woodburn and back is because, following the recent linespeed increases (meaning that Up trains leave slightly later and Down trains arrive slightly earlier), the Down semi-fast London now arrives slightly before the Up departs (but far too close to form it), necessarily at a different platform (and therefore necessarily a through platform) whereas previously it'd arrive into the same platform (7?) a few minutes after the Up left. Hopefully a complete timetable recast would eliminate this unfortunate conflict, and also sort out the horribly inefficient platform occupation at St Pancras.

It does, though, mean that the well-used diversionary route via Beighton and the old road will no longer be available - as with the route via Manton that's used on a regular basis. I'm not sure that that's a good thing, although the coach companies might disagree...!

 

[TheKnightWho]

I understand that the current trip out to Woodburn and back is because, following the recent linespeed increases (meaning that Up trains leave slightly later and Down trains arrive slightly earlier), the Down semi-fast London now arrives slightly before the Up departs (but far too close to form it), necessarily at a different platform (and therefore necessarily a through platform) whereas previously it'd arrive into the same platform (7?) a few minutes after the Up left. Hopefully a complete timetable recast would eliminate this unfortunate conflict, and also sort out the horribly inefficient platform occupation at St Pancras.

It does, though, mean that the well-used diversionary route via Beighton and the old road will no longer be available - as with the route via Manton that's used on a regular basis. I'm not sure that that's a good thing, although the coach companies might disagree...!

Due to the work around Sheffield being due in CP6, I wouldn't be surprised to see wiring further north to Leeds and Doncaster announced, along with short diversionary routes like those you mention. As with the WCML and ECML, routes of only a few miles or so have been done for this reason.

 

[CdBrux]

I'm still assuming that this project will be put on hold due to the funding gaps.

Do you expect the funding to decrease, or the cost of various projects to increase meaning the same funding covers less projects?

 

[HowardGWR]

Do you expect the funding to decrease, or the cost of various projects to increase meaning the same funding covers less projects?

I don't think there will be fewer but there may a lesser scope to some.

 

[snowball]

Sheffield to Doncaster and Sheffield to Moorthorpe are two of the 8 or 9 routes being looked at by the group on electrification in the north, due to report later this year.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Having just read the article in Rail, it made me go back and re-read a similar article in Decembers Modern Railways. The Modern Railways article had some interesting information about the scope of works being planned around Leicester station and on the approaches including doubling the chord at Syston, building new platforms at Leicester station on the slow lines and interestingly possible grade seperation of Wigston Junction (probably through a dive under) to completely seperate North/South freight and East/West freight and passenger services from MML fast services.

The graphic of the Leicester approaches also showed the possible reinstatement on the North facing Knighton Chord to remove the need to run around freight trains on the mainline which would remove one of the major obstacles in the reinstatement of passenger services on the Leicester to Burton line.

 

[Senex]

The graphic of the Leicester approaches also showed the possible reinstatement on the North facing Knighton Chord to remove the need to run around freight trains on the mainline which would remove one of the major obstacles in the reinstatement of passenger services on the Leicester to Burton line.

There has been talk of that for very many years, primarily in connection with the wish to get that passenger service re-instated. I wonder if anything will ever happen. Strange if it were growth in freight traffic that was finally the driver for the passenger re-opening!

(I'm curious that it is a flyunder being suggested for Wigston. The geography has always looked to me as if it rather suggests a flyover. Or maybe the idea is to build a pretty tight curve on the railway-owned flatted land inside the triangle and where the former up-side sidings were.)

 

[deltic08]

Based on the BCR it was at the top of Network Rail's "do next" list in 2009, and yet the GW, NW and TP schemes were authorised first.
They probably did design work in advance on the MML scheme, hence the ability to get going quickly.
In the meantime Trans-pennine has gone backwards.

GW, NW and TP probably given priority as these schemes release the greatest numbers of DMUs for use elsewhere for withdrawal of Pacers.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

There has been talk of that for very many years, primarily in connection with the wish to get that passenger service re-instated. I wonder if anything will ever happen. Strange if it were growth in freight traffic that was finally the driver for the passenger re-opening!

It would be a little ironic. Another question that reading the article made me think about is why is Sheet Stores Junction called that and not Trent West Junction (along with Trent South and Trent East)?

 

[swt_passenger]

It would be a little ironic. Another question that reading the article made me think about is why is Sheet Stores Junction called that and not Trent West Junction (along with Trent South and Trent East)?

I think it's probably because 'Sheet Stores' as a place would originally have been a fairly important railway facility, so the adjacent junction would naturally take its name. Once a name sticks, it is unusual for the railway to rename something. More background here, I hadn't realised the location was originally a canal/railway transhipment basin:

From 1854, the site found a new use as the Midland Railway’s Sheet Stores. The “sheets” were tarpaulins to protect freight carried in open railway wagons, and the Sheet Stores was where they were manufactured and repaired...

From: http://www.long-eaton.com/sheetstores.asp

 

[edwin_m]

There was originally another junction between Sheet Stores and Long Eaton, where the Derby-Leicester line joined the original Derby-Nottingham line. This route followed the line of Fields Farm Road and was later diverted by a sharp curve into the north end of Trent station. This may, or may not, have been Trent West Junction - can't find the relevant RCH diagram on Wikipedia.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think it's probably because 'Sheet Stores' as a place would originally have been a fairly important railway facility, so the adjacent junction would naturally take its name. Once a name sticks, it is unusual for the railway to rename something. More background here, I hadn't realised the location was originally a canal/railway transhipment basin:

That would make sense as you can see the canal basin from the railway. On the other side of the tracks there is an old building which is now used as industrial premises. Having traveled past it many times over years it's suddenly occurred to me :roll: that may well have been the Midland Railway built transfer shed.

 

[Senex]

There was originally another junction between Sheet Stores and Long Eaton, where the Derby-Leicester line joined the original Derby-Nottingham line. This route followed the line of Fields Farm Road and was later diverted by a sharp curve into the north end of Trent station. This may, or may not, have been Trent West Junction - can't find the relevant RCH diagram on Wikipedia.

If my memory serves right, the end of that very sharp curve was Trent Station North Junction.

 

[brianthegiant]

Fair amount of vegetation clearance just north of Loughborough, Silver Birches felled, not normally needed for track renewals, so I wonder if this is to enable survey work for OHL equipment?

 

[edwin_m]

If my memory serves right, the end of that very sharp curve was Trent Station North Junction.

I was thinking more of the other end, sorry my text was a bit misleading. On reflection I think the west end was probably Sawley Junction as that was the previous name of what is now Long Eaton station. Because Sheet Stores Junction was much closer to Sawley Junction than it was to Trent, it would have been confusing to name it Trent West.

 

[Senex]

I was thinking more of the other end, sorry my text was a bit misleading. On reflection I think the west end was probably Sawley Junction as that was the previous name of what is now Long Eaton station. Because Sheet Stores Junction was much closer to Sawley Junction than it was to Trent, it would have been confusing to name it Trent West.

It was indeed Sawley Junction, as the station.

 

[richieb1971]

As a railway enthusiast I can tell you that the bridges they chose north of Bedford all have 8 foot walls. I am bitterly disappointed that NR decided on walls so high that even with a mini ladder you can't see over the top. The views at Radwell have been eradicated to the point where no view exists at all.

 

[RichmondCommu]

As a railway enthusiast I can tell you that the bridges they chose north of Bedford all have 8 foot walls. I am bitterly disappointed that NR decided on walls so high that even with a mini ladder you can't see over the top. The views at Radwell have been eradicated to the point where no view exists at all.

I suspect that was their intention to stop you looking over the top of the bridge. If you're able gawp at passing trains someone else might be able to jump and kill themselves. I suspect that NR regard rail enthusiasts as being a bit of a nuisance.

 

[John Webb]

As a railway enthusiast I can tell you that the bridges they chose north of Bedford all have 8 foot walls. I am bitterly disappointed that NR decided on walls so high that even with a mini ladder you can't see over the top. The views at Radwell have been eradicated to the point where no view exists at all.

Similar works to heighten parapets took place South of Bedford when that section of line was electrified to St Pancras and on southwards some while back. So it's nothing new! I understand it to be primarily an anti-vandal measure, to prevent (or at least deter) people dropping things onto the OHLE, as well as an anti-jumper measure.

 

[Olaf]

It seems the ORR have cleared it to proceed within the CP5 funding.

Correct, however it would seem that the CP5 funding issues have not yet been resolved and it is not clear yet when the outcome will be known.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's worth remembering that in the NR electrification strategy report, this route had an infinite BCR, unlike all the other routes which are also being electrified. Effectively (under the terms of that appraisal), it will cost the country more to do nothing than it will to electrify the route.

Perhaps so, but the funding for the work will still have to be allocated from somewhere, and at present the a cuber of projects are going over budget in a big way, eating into the CP5 assessment. Something will have to take a hit; MML and the Electric Spine are the stand-out candidates.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you expect the funding to decrease, or the cost of various projects to increase meaning the same funding covers less projects?

NR has an assessment for the CP5 projects, but a number have already gone significantly over budget, and it is not clear that costs are under control and fully known yet.

It is not yet clear how this gap will be resolved; both of the principle political parties are committed to infrastructure investment, but both will have to start making significant cuts in the new Parliament. The gap in NR's funding is now probably too large to close by internal savings such as further cutting operational costs and scaling back other projects, so either additional funding is made to close the gap, or capital projects have to be cut/postponed.

Even if the gap is closed, there is a risk of claw-back in the next parliament given that Government expenditure is out of control.