MML Electrification: progress updates

[SpacePhoenix]

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.

My gut feeling is that it'll be the electric spine that will take the hit as there must be enough diesel locos overall around the country for that freight route to continue to be diesel hauled. Ultimatly it'll probably come down to which route will generate the most revenue for NR and the government

 

[Olaf]

My gut feeling is that it'll be the electric spine that will take the hit as there must be enough diesel locos overall around the country for that freight route to continue to be diesel hauled. Ultimatly it'll probably come down to which route will generate the most revenue for NR and the government

I'm thinking it will be both, plus the TP project. I would go as far as to say that until the issue is resolved all projects that have not been fully costed and had funds committed are at risk. It is not clear how big the gap is, nor how it will be resolved, so we may end up with a freeze similar to the one that happened in 2010 at the start of the current Government.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I'm thinking it will be both, plus the TP project. I would go as far as to say that until the issue is resolved all projects that have not been fully costed and had funds committed are at risk. It is not clear how big the gap is, nor how it will be resolved, so we may end up with a freeze similar to the one that happened in 2010 at the start of the current Government.

How will that likly play out with DMU stock allocation if all three get put on hold, will it lead to the dft having to bite the bullet and order new builds of DMUs?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm thinking it will be both, plus the TP project. I would go as far as to say that until the issue is resolved all projects that have not been fully costed and had funds committed are at risk. It is not clear how big the gap is, nor how it will be resolved, so we may end up with a freeze similar to the one that happened in 2010 at the start of the current Government.

The usual fall-guy for cost overruns is the resignalling programme.
There are many non-electrification capital projects which could be cut/delayed.

I agree Electric Spine is vulnerable, but I would expect TP and MML to continue, pretty much whatever the cost - TP is political, and MML is an NR pet project.
East-West is also political, but there doesn't seem to be the willpower to electrify east of Bletchley yet, because of the design problems.

The ORR always said it would review projects at an early stage of development after a year - ie about now.
It's time NR had some successes to counter all the drift to the right.
Reading and New St still seem pretty much on track.

 

[Chris125]

I doubt anything will be explicitly cancelled given the political fallout, they'll simply push back the completion dates.

 

[Class 170101]

I would say Electric Spine is most at risk particularly South of Basingstoke where it seems a bit uneccessary anyway.

EDIT I would suggest that the GOB Wiring could beome a cheap scheme with no feeder stations provided and the power supply supllied from adjacent sub stations from already electrified routes.

 

[edwin_m]

I would say Electric Spine is most at risk particularly South of Basingstoke where it seems a bit uneccessary anyway.

EDIT I would suggest that the GOB Wiring could beome a cheap scheme with no feeder stations provided and the power supply supllied from adjacent sub stations from already electrified routes.

I agree about south of Basingstoke - they will be very tempted to file it under too difficult. However I think one reason it took so long to agree GOB was that it was actually a very expensive scheme for the distance, because of the number of structures that had to be fitted to viaducts. Perhaps some economies were found to allow it to go ahead?

 

[47634 "Holbeck]

I think you will find the Dis-placed 91's and mk4 sets will be used on East Midlands Franchise after Class 800/801's arrive
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
i think that thameslink services will become confined to slow lines because after Electrification of the midland mainline the toc operating the midland mainline franchise will increase intercity train frequencies so there probably wont be much chance to run fast thameslink services over fast lines!

 

[mr_jrt]

I would say Electric Spine is most at risk particularly South of Basingstoke where it seems a bit uneccessary anyway.

I agree about south of Basingstoke - they will be very tempted to file it under too difficult.

...what people seem to keep forgetting is that the equipment on that stretch is fast approaching life-expiry. You may be able to spend a small fortune to life-extend it for another few years...but it will still all ultimately need replacing. It just so happens that when that replacement occurs it will probably be cheaper to do so with OHLE as you will have greater economies of scale. All the other benefits of OHLE over 3rd rail are just gravy (faster potential speeds, more efficient, can be largely put in place whilst the current infrastructure remains in use, etc).

Spending £BIGNUMx1.5 for like-for-like replacement of the 3rd rail infrastructure when you could just spend £BIGNUM and install OHLE is just madness.

 

[HSTEd]

That assumes OHLE replacement is actually cheaper.
Considering NR's overhead wiring estimates have been shown to be consistently junk I really have my doubts about that.

 

[Andyjs247]

My gut feeling is that it'll be the electric spine that will take the hit as there must be enough diesel locos overall around the country for that freight route to continue to be diesel hauled. Ultimatly it'll probably come down to which route will generate the most revenue for NR and the government

I'm thinking it will be both, plus the TP project. I would go as far as to say that until the issue is resolved all projects that have not been fully costed and had funds committed are at risk. It is not clear how big the gap is, nor how it will be resolved, so we may end up with a freeze similar to the one that happened in 2010 at the start of the current Government.

How will that likly play out with DMU stock allocation if all three get put on hold, will it lead to the dft having to bite the bullet and order new builds of DMUs?

I agree Electric Spine is vulnerable, but I would expect TP and MML to continue, pretty much whatever the cost - TP is political, and MML is an NR pet project.
East-West is also political, but there doesn't seem to be the willpower to electrify east of Bletchley yet, because of the design problems.

Whilst there doesn't seem to be any appetite for electrically hauled freight at the moment I do think the East West part of Electric Spine will need to be electrified from the outset given the lack of spare DMUs to run the new passenger service between Oxford and Bletchley.

So maybe we will just get Oxford-MK by EMU for a couple of years? I guess DMUs could continue on Marston Vale if the service is split at Bletchley; but if the aspiration is to run Oxford to Bedford as well then presumably it will need to be an EMU from the beginning of through services. But it is not going to be a particularly attractive option in the long term (think dogboxes) so the political pressure is going to be on to electrify on from Bletchley to Bedford. An alternative could be to send some XC Voyagers that way to provide a through service.

 

[Tomnick]

i think that thameslink services will become confined to slow lines because after Electrification of the midland mainline the toc operating the midland mainline franchise will increase intercity train frequencies so there probably wont be much chance to run fast thameslink services over fast lines!

I doubt it - by my brief calculations, it'd be impossible to operate even an 8tph off-peak service (alternating slows and semi-fasts) using just the slow lines, at least without putting quite a bit of time into the semi-fasts. A Bedford semi-fast leaving the core immediately ahead of a stopper would catch up the previous stopper (assuming 15 minute interval) well before Luton! It'd be even worse in the peaks, where it'd be simply be impossible to provide sufficient capacity on the slow lines alone. I don't know where all these extra fast line trains would appear from either - the theoretical capacity must be around 15 or 20tph each way!

 

[mr_jrt]

I doubt it - by my brief calculations, it'd be impossible to operate even an 8tph off-peak service (alternating slows and semi-fasts) using just the slow lines, at least without putting quite a bit of time into the semi-fasts. A Bedford semi-fast leaving the core immediately ahead of a stopper would catch up the previous stopper (assuming 15 minute interval) well before Luton! It'd be even worse in the peaks, where it'd be simply be impossible to provide sufficient capacity on the slow lines alone. I don't know where all these extra fast line trains would appear from either - the theoretical capacity must be around 15 or 20tph each way!

...one of the many reasons why I advocate upgrading (and extending) the MML freight lines. They can easily be extended to at least Mill Hill Broadway, meaning that assuming you could operate a sufficiently frequent local service, you could close the Thameslink (aka. slow line) platforms of the intermediate stations between Mill Hill and West Hampstead (i.e. Hendon, the proposed Brent Cross, and Cricklewood), as well as opening a couple of new stations, perhaps. Longer-term, projecting north from Mill Hill to St Albans would enable you to completely remove the metro services from the slow lines if desired (i.e. non-stop between St Albans and West Hampstead, so also skipping Elstree, Radlett and a potential station at Napsbury), though I suspect retaining the stop at Mill Hill might be desirable, even if only off-peak.

The capacity you would gain would be immense, and would be essential for making the most of the Radlett rail-freight depot. Freight trains don't like stopping, and thus hate congested passenger railways. A clear run to and from the West Hampstead/Carlton Road Junction would be quite the boon. Removing this service group would also largely remove the need for so many fast-line paths.

 

[CdBrux]

what is it that makes MML BCR so good? Is it to do with the current trains being so expensive to operate?

I could also see this as a prime candidate to delays, GWR will enable the IEP's - hugely political if now double the budget for the electrification, TP also political (though maybe revised following any 'HS3' proposals) so barring electric spine the other major electrification scheme left is MML and it also has a 'problem' that few decent options seem to have been identified for where to cascade the released DMU's to.

Personally if anything is to be cut back I would prefer it's not the 'cost reduction' schemes like this (assuming sensible BCR)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

what is it that makes MML BCR so good? Is it to do with the current trains being so expensive to operate?

I could also see this as a prime candidate to delays, GWR will enable the IEP's - hugely political if now double the budget for the electrification, TP also political (though maybe revised following any 'HS3' proposals) so barring electric spine the other major electrification scheme left is MML and it also has a 'problem' that few decent options seem to have been identified for where to cascade the released DMU's to.

Personally if anything is to be cut back I would prefer it's not the 'cost reduction' schemes like this (assuming sensible BCR)

To me the MML electrification is a vital link in the rolling program of electrification.
Shef- Donc
Shef -York
Shef -Leeds
Derby -Birmingham
Derby -Alsager
Nottingham -Newark

You get critical mass. I would never cut the MML.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

what is it that makes MML BCR so good? Is it to do with the current trains being so expensive to operate?

It's because the first 50 miles is already done (St Pancras-Bedford, the most expensive bit too, 4-track etc), so you get more electric bangs for the buck.
That was before they discovered that stretch would need upgrading, though.

The same thinking got the ECML done (get King's Cross-Hitchin done and it cuts the cost of the mainline scheme).

Actually the train side of MML isn't helpful to the case at all, with all those newish Meridians.

 

[class26]

It's because the first 50 miles is already done (St Pancras-Bedford, the most expensive bit too, 4-track etc), so you get more electric bangs for the buck.
That was before they discovered that stretch would need upgrading, though.

The same thinking got the ECML done (get King's Cross-Hitchin done and it cuts the cost of the mainline scheme).

Actually the train side of MML isn't helpful to the case at all, with all those newish Meridians.

But it is done for 100 mph only, it needs alot of work to make it fit for 125 mph hence the overrun in price.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But it is done for 100 mph only, it needs alot of work to make it fit for 125 mph hence the overrun in price.

Similarly the first few miles out of Paddington are, I believe only fit for 100 mph, a fact overlooked by those preparing the case for electrification, again one of the reasons for the price escaltion

 

[Grumpy]

Actually the train side of MML isn't helpful to the case at all, with all those newish Meridians.

Cheapest/simplest solution possibly to convert to straight EMU's (not some electro-diesel hybrid)

 

[HSTEd]

What would it actually do to journey times if you hold the speed south of Bedford down to 100mph?
That would avoid that particular cost.
EDIT:

According to the sectional appendix - between Cricklewood where >100mph running commences and Bedford South junction (where it appears fast line electrification terminates at present) - ~65km (on the up fast anyway) of line operates at above 100mph, just under half of which is 105mph/110mph.
If you neglect acceleration times the cost of running 100mph throughout is roughly 3 minutes, 38 seconds.

If you get the OLE to work at 105mph (which is probably less challenging than 125mph) that shrinks to 2 minutes, 26 seconds.

Be interesting to see what happens if you compare today's Meridians to a 100mph limited Javelin on that route.

 

[Camden]

If you're limited to 100mph then why not just use rolling stock like the class 350 units?

Supposedly once HS2 is built no one will be using the MML north of Leicester for long distance journeys anyway, so what's the point in bothering upgrading the speed here if London can be reached in an hour?

 

[HSTEd]

Because the line is not 100mph North of Bedford, so restricting the speed there would trigger further time losses.
And the calculation changes if its the question fo installing 100mph or 125mph OHLE on new line, rather than expensive upgrades against doing nothing and cutting the service according to the cloth.

 

[Camden]

Class 350 are 110mph, but I suppose my question is more "Why bother upgrading any lines, as speed increases don't seem to be necessary? Why not just electrify to current speeds?"

 

[Martin222002]

What would it actually do to journey times if you hold the speed south of Bedford down to 100mph?
That would avoid that particular cost.
EDIT:

According to the sectional appendix - between Cricklewood where >100mph running commences and Bedford South junction (where it appears fast line electrification terminates at present) - ~65km (on the up fast anyway) of line operates at above 100mph, just under half of which is 105mph/110mph.
If you neglect acceleration times the cost of running 100mph throughout is roughly 3 minutes, 38 seconds.

If you get the OLE to work at 105mph (which is probably less challenging than 125mph) that shrinks to 2 minutes, 26 seconds.

Be interesting to see what happens if you compare today's Meridians to a 100mph limited Javelin on that route.

Have you looked at the most up to date sectional appendix? As this shows a significant stretch of (HST)120/125mph running between Bedford South Junction and Leagrave, as well as line speeds of 110mph and (HST)110/115/120/125mph between Harpenden and Cricklewood, with the exception of 100/105mph limits in the St Albans area.

If the existing wires were not make suitable for 100+mph running it would be to a great waist of the money which has ready been spent on increasing the MML lines speeds up to 125mph south of Bedford.

 

[The Ham]

Have you looked at the most up to date sectional appendix? As this shows a significant stretch of (HST)120/125mph running between Bedford South Junction and Leagrave, as well as line speeds of 110mph and (HST)110/115/120/125mph between Harpenden and Cricklewood, with the exception of 100/105mph limits in the St Albans area.

If the existing wires were not make suitable for 100+mph running it would be to a great waist of the money which has ready been spent on increasing the MML lines speeds up to 125mph south of Bedford.

Also faster journey times can result in less rolling stock being required to run the same level of service.

 

[HSTEd]

Have you looked at the most up to date sectional appendix? As this shows a significant stretch of (HST)120/125mph running between Bedford South Junction and Leagrave, as well as line speeds of 110mph and (HST)110/115/120/125mph between Harpenden and Cricklewood, with the exception of 100/105mph limits in the St Albans area.

Yes, roughly 31km at 120mph, 15km at 125mph and the balance at 100/105/110mph.

If the existing wires were not make suitable for 100+mph running it would be to a great waist of the money which has ready been spent on increasing the MML lines speeds up to 125mph south of Bedford.

It would still get 10 years of service on the diesel services.
But the question has to be, is the upgrade of the OLE beyond that already carried out for thameslink worth it?

 

[21C101]

If the existing wires were not make suitable for 100+mph running it would be to a great waist of the money which has ready been spent on increasing the MML lines speeds up to 125mph south of Bedford.

I think that they are not suitable for running with trains that need more than one pantograph up at once (ie EMUs)

Presumably the IEP Javelin Mk2s that will form the IC stock will only need one panto up at a time.

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably the IEP Javelin Mk2s that will form the IC stock will only need one panto up at a time.

Almost. The solution is that south of Bedford, if they need to go above 100mph they drop the pans and run on the hybrid diesel.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I'm interested to know why the MML and indeed the GWML electrification projects don't appear to have been costed properly in the first place.

In terms of upgrading the MML south of Bedford when is this work due to start? Despite all the speculation on this thread I'm assuming that it is still Network Rails intention to carry out the upgrades that are required for 125 mph running south of Bedford.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think you will find the Dis-placed 91's and mk4 sets will be used on East Midlands Franchise after Class 800/801's arrive

I would suggest that is highly unlikely to happen given the number of stations served by Intercity services on the MML and the need to accelerate away from station stops and permanent speed restrictions.

EMU's are the only solution. The other issue is of course that 225 sets cannot be split according to demand.

 

[Class 170101]

I agree about south of Basingstoke - they will be very tempted to file it under too difficult. However I think one reason it took so long to agree GOB was that it was actually a very expensive scheme for the distance, because of the number of structures that had to be fitted to viaducts. Perhaps some economies were found to allow it to go ahead?

I did note one in my post - no dedicated feeder stations - use existing ones from adjacent electrified routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To me the MML electrification is a vital link in the rolling program of electrification.
Shef- Donc
Shef -York
Shef -Leeds
Derby -Birmingham
Derby -Alsager
Nottingham -Newark

You get critical mass. I would never cut the MML.

I assume you mean Derby to Stoke, Stoke to Crewe via Alsager is already wired - Class 350s use it and Pendolinos occasionally.

I would add Newark to Nottingham and Derby to Birmingham would be both routes via Tamworth and between Burton on Trent and Lichfield connecting to already electrified lines between Lichfield and Birmingham.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I did note one in my post - no dedicated feeder stations - use existing ones from adjacent electrified routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I assume you mean Derby to Stoke, Stoke to Crewe via Alsager is already wired - Class 350s use it and Pendolinos occasionally.

Yes I did - thanks for that.