MML Electrification: progress updates

[philjo]

Presumably in a few years there would be the option for an east-west service to provide one of the stoppers per hour - e.g. Nottingham -Leicester-Bedford-Oxford (& beyond) so Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering & Market Harborough would get an extra local service north without using another path south of Bedford into St Pancras.

 

[edwin_m]

Isn't the two-track section between Kettering and Leicester another bottleneck? Electrification would have improved this by reducing the time penalty of a Market Harborough stop and the associated re-signalling would have shortened the very long block sections.

 

[Chester1]

Isn't the two-track section between Kettering and Leicester another bottleneck? Electrification would have improved this by reducing the time penalty of a Market Harborough stop and the associated re-signalling would have shortened the very long block sections.

Yes but it is not going to happen. The clear plan for the MML is to limit investment prior to HS2 opening to Totton and Sheffield in 2033. The decision that EWR will not be electric ends any chance of electrification between Leicester and Kettering through providing an alternative non electric destination. I wouldn't be surprised if the plan for 2033 is to replace the Sheffield services with EMUs to provide a 4tph Corby/Kettering service with 1tph each from Nottingham and Derby to London with Leicester also served by EWR service to Reading via Oxford.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Isn't the two-track section between Kettering and Leicester another bottleneck? Electrification would have improved this by reducing the time penalty of a Market Harborough stop and the associated re-signalling would have shortened the very long block sections.

I think Wigston to Syston through Leicester is the real bottleneck, NR plans a grade seperated junction at Wigston and additional platform(s) at Leicester

 

[Mugby]

Isn't the two-track section between Kettering and Leicester another bottleneck? Electrification would have improved this by reducing the time penalty of a Market Harborough stop and the associated re-signalling would have shortened the very long block sections.

There are more than two tracks between Kilby Bridge and Leicester, surely the third track could be upgraded to passenger standards and used as a dynamic loop?

 

[whhistle]

I wonder if there is an opportunity to create a better junction / tunnel / overbridge for the Nuneaton spur as that seems to be a bit of hassle. Not sure what the speed of the junction is but coming from Leicester side, it's slow.

 

[edwin_m]

I think Wigston to Syston through Leicester is the real bottleneck, NR plans a grade seperated junction at Wigston and additional platform(s) at Leicester

I wonder if there is an opportunity to create a better junction / tunnel / overbridge for the Nuneaton spur as that seems to be a bit of hassle. Not sure what the speed of the junction is but coming from Leicester side, it's slow.

There's certainly a plan to do that, although I'm not sure when if ever it will be done in the current state of things. It will relive capacity problems on that part of the MML but it's mostly about de-conflicting the MML from the east-west passenger and particularly freight traffic. The MML itself beween Kettering and Kilby Bridge is a separate issue.

There are more than two tracks between Kilby Bridge and Leicester, surely the third track could be upgraded to passenger standards and used as a dynamic loop?

When talking about Kettering to Leicester I was using the term loosely. Between Kettering North and Kilby Bridge is a double track section with no facility for overtaking (the bi-directional signalling is no use in normal service). Gradients are fairly severe and there are various freight trains using the section amongst the 4TPH of passenger. As I mentioned the signalling blocks are very long with three-aspect signalling that worsens the consequences of a delay by slowing following trains more severely than would happen on the WCML or ECML.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Isn't the two-track section between Kettering and Leicester another bottleneck? Electrification would have improved this by reducing the time penalty of a Market Harborough stop and the associated re-signalling would have shortened the very long block sections.

I wouldn't call three-aspect signalling sections "very" long - you'd run out of words to describe two aspect! - although I appreciate that four-aspect would be an improvement. You can still get 10 trains an hour through a three-aspect section, +/- the reduction in capacity for trains of different speeds. It's three aspect north of Derby and that copes OK with more trains and, as south of Leicester, different train speeds.

 

[edwin_m]

I wouldn't call three-aspect signalling sections "very" long - you'd run out of words to describe two aspect! - although I appreciate that four-aspect would be an improvement. You can still get 10 trains an hour through a three-aspect section, +/- the reduction in capacity for trains of different speeds. It's three aspect north of Derby and that copes OK with more trains and, as south of Leicester, different train speeds.

The three-aspects between Leicester and Kettering were spaced at about the longest intervals allowed by the standards. It is very noticeable that if a train encounters a yellow it has to dawdle for a long distance until the signal that might be red comes into view. There are no intervening loops, whereas Derby-Chesterfield has them at Ambergate.

 

[MichaelAMW]

The three-aspects between Leicester and Kettering were spaced at about the longest intervals allowed by the standards. It is very noticeable that if a train encounters a yellow it has to dawdle for a long distance until the signal that might be red comes into view. There are no intervening loops, whereas Derby-Chesterfield has them at Ambergate.

Indeed - I guess I knew most of those points and wasn't trying to be pointlessly contradictory! I guess even the present signals give better section lengths than the old boxes did. North of Derby, as well as those loops at Broadholme it's also less distance in any case before the four aspect starts and, critically, the extra tracks appear at Clay Cross, so the queues can be dispersed a bit more quickly and easily up there.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed - I guess I knew most of those points and wasn't trying to be pointlessly contradictory! I guess even the present signals give better section lengths than the old boxes did. North of Derby, as well as those loops at Broadholme it's also less distance in any case before the four aspect starts and, critically, the extra tracks appear at Clay Cross, so the queues can be dispersed a bit more quickly and easily up there.

Yes they probably gave more capacity than the semaphore signalling, although counteracted by the removal of much of the four-tracking between Kettering and Bedford. At the time of the Leicester re-signalling (1987ish) the MML service was around 2TPH, nobody was really expecting any growth and with the Intercity sector having control of the scheme they cut anything they saw as unnecessary. This was probably the nadir for over-rationalisation, along with Crewe done about the same time. The ECML schemes a few years later took out a lot of ironmongery from station throats but what remained was traversed much faster so capacity didn't suffer so badly. Whereas Leicester took out the track but left most of the speed restrictions (or in some cases made them worse).

 

[cle]

It's a shame everything is being pared back - MML and E/W.

Otherwise an E/W service could help augment local service (e.g. between Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby or Market Harborough) - and then the London stopping pattern could be more varied than just stoppers to Corby. Maybe a E/W to Corby would allow another London service to Leicester and beyond - and again, shake up the stopping patterns. Or enable a Manchester service, which I think would be hugely useful for many station pairs along the route... possibly even without London-Manc traffic, but could be useful during HS2 works also.

Oakham/Melton looks good on the map - and I see the 'rounder' as being potentially useful. But it'd never justify wires and that section will be electric shortly - so it's moot.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Agreed - there seems to be a view that the best way to serve Croby to Leicester is direct, whereas changing at Kettering is probably quicker assuming sensible connections.

That would mean services from Corby north are there to either maintain route knowledge - which is a valid reason for one or two a day - or to provide a link from Corby to Oakham and Melton - for which I doubt there is any real demand. Neither Oakham nor Melton are that significant as destinations. Now if there were a south curve at Manton, I *could* see a justification for running a service beyond Corby to Peterborough, but I'm not sure that's likely to happen and there's no way the costs of constructing such a curve with the associated re-signalling will ever be viable.

There's an hourly bus from Melton via Oakham to Corby, but it's mostly a local service for Rutland villages rather than one used for end-to-end journeys. To be honest, as someone who grew up in the area, I'm not even convinced there's much Corby-Leicester demand - neither of the two road routes are particularly busy.

Given that Bedford-Cambridge is some way in the future, Bedford-Corby-Oakham-Peterborough would be an interesting continuation for East-West Rail services, even with a reversal at Oakham rather than a new curve at Manton. Great Western Holdings were reputedly looking at it in the early days of their franchise.

 

[59CosG95]

There are more than two tracks between Kilby Bridge and Leicester, surely the third track could be upgraded to passenger standards and used as a dynamic loop?

Not entirely. Three tracks exist from Kilby Bridge Jct (93m 40ch) to Wigston North Jct (96m 4ch), around the goods loop at Knighton Jct (97m 45ch, and a wee but south), and Leicester S Jct (98m 46ch) into the station. Everywhere else is two-tracks. (taken from the Sectional Appendix for the LNER route)

IMO, it would make more operational sense to re-introduce 4 tracks between Leicester & Kilby Bridge, with fast tracks in the centre & slows on the outside. Knighton Tunnel would have its disused eastern bore refurbished and brought up to modern standards, and the previously mentioned grade separation would either involve a flyover between the Up Main and hypothetical Up Slow to the Down Nuneaton. The Up Nuneaton would still connect with the current Up & Down Slow (to be just the Up Slow), as per the current arrangement.

 

[edwin_m]

As far as I know the proposal for capacity enhancement through Leicester is:
- Reinstate fourth track from Syston North to Leicester station
- Two new but fairly short platforms in the area of the miscellaneous sidings beyond plaform 4
- Reinstate third and fourth tracks on the vacant east side formation from Leicester to Wigston where they go over or under (can't remember which) the MML tracks to continue towards Nuneaton.
Hence the existing layout doesn't change much, but a largely independent two-track route is added on the east side for east-west traffic (no doubt with various crossovers). This makes sense considering that relatively few trains transfer between the north-south and east-west routes in the Leicester area.

 

[TheBigD]

Deleted

 

[Domh245]

It was announced earlier that Carillion PL have won the contract to install the wires to Corby, as well as a second contract to "improve the track and infrastructure between London and Corby" - presumably that'll include the much talked about OLE upgrades south of Bedford?

UK: The Carillion Powerlines joint venture is to begin work shortly to complete 25 kV 50 Hz electrification of the route from Bedford to Corby. The contract awarded by Network Rail as part of its Midland Main Line improvement programme is expected to generate revenue of £260m for the equally-owned joint venture over the next three years.

Under a second contract, Carillion is to upgrade existing track and infrastructure on the route from London to Corby. Carillion expects this work to generate revenue of £62m over the next two and a half years.

‘We are pleased to have agreed these awards with Network Rail, demonstrating that we continue to have the support of key customers and win important new contracts’, said Carillion Interim Chief Executive Keith Cochrane on November 6. ‘The group faces significant challenges, but we remain focused on executing our disposals programme, taking cost out and strengthening our balance sheet.’

 

[Mugby]

I'm no expert on such matters but wouldn't a dive under at Wigston be preferable to a flyover?
A flyover would need to provide for possible future MML electrification and and would there be enough space for it to return to ground level before South Wigston station?

 

[snowball]

I'm no expert on such matters but wouldn't a dive under at Wigston be preferable to a flyover?
A flyover would need to provide for possible future MML electrification and and would there be enough space for it to return to ground level before South Wigston station?

Why would the headroom problem (if problem it is) be any less with a diveunder than a flyover?

 

[Mugby]

Why would the headroom problem (if problem it is) be any less with a diveunder than a flyover?

Because a dive under wouldn't need to provide for any wiring, assuming Leicester - Nuneaton won't be included in any electrification plans?

 

[snowball]

Because a dive under wouldn't need to provide for any wiring, assuming Leicester - Nuneaton won't be included in any electrification plans?

There are two problems with that:

1) Electrification headroom only makes a relatively small difference to total headroom. A significant difference if it means you need to rebuild an existing bridge, but a relatively unimportant difference where you need to build a new bridge anyway.

2) Electrification clearance is almost certain to be provided on any new bridge, especially this one, as there have already been calls to electrify the Felixstowe-Nuneaton route. Even if it takes 20 or 30 years until the route is wired, that's much less than the lifetime of a bridge.

Virtually all new bridges over railways (e.g. for new roads) in the last 60 or so years have provided electrification clearance.

Also it's likely to be much cheaper and simpler to build a new route over an existing route than under.

 

[TheBigD]

Deleted

 

[A0wen]

There's an hourly bus from Melton via Oakham to Corby, but it's mostly a local service for Rutland villages rather than one used for end-to-end journeys. To be honest, as someone who grew up in the area, I'm not even convinced there's much Corby-Leicester demand - neither of the two road routes are particularly busy.

Given that Bedford-Cambridge is some way in the future, Bedford-Corby-Oakham-Peterborough would be an interesting continuation for East-West Rail services, even with a reversal at Oakham rather than a new curve at Manton. Great Western Holdings were reputedly looking at it in the early days of their franchise.

I'm not sure there's the infrastructure to allow a reversal at Oakham?

Looking on Google Earth (admittedly not the best way to do this) there appears to be one crossover between Oakham and Manton to allow southbound traffic access to the Corby line - but it's a long way down the line, closer to Manton than Oakham.

To do what you're suggestion would need a distance of northbound running on the south / east bound track which may not be signalled for bi-direction.

 

[whhistle]

I wonder if they will close South Wigston and build a new station at Blaby instead.
There was talk of a new station at Blaby for years but nothing actually came about.
With the dismal service to South Wigston anyway, I suspect it wouldn't be too difficult to push though.

 

[Mugby]

I'm not sure there's the infrastructure to allow a reversal at Oakham?

Looking on Google Earth (admittedly not the best way to do this) there appears to be one crossover between Oakham and Manton to allow southbound traffic access to the Corby line - but it's a long way down the line, closer to Manton than Oakham.

To do what you're suggestion would need a distance of northbound running on the south / east bound track which may not be signalled for bi-direction.

That's correct, traffic from Oakham for the Corby line crosses over before entering Manton Tunnel, roughly adjacent to where the reservoir is and then travels 'wrong line' so to speak, to Manton Junction.
In the old days, the junction used to be at the other end of the tunnel, near the signal box and the crossover speed was biased for the Corby (or London) route. The remodelling was to achieve a greater speed for the Peterborough line when that became the more important route.

If a train from Corby used the existing crossover to access the PBO platform at Oakham, it would, as you say, involve running a considerable distance, wrong line, on the Up.

 

[QueensCurve]

It's not the EC that's lumbered us with increased clearances. Indeed EC rail officials - many of them Brits - went out of their way to make sure that the UK clearances could be maintained. The increase is entirely home grown.

Indded. The TSI has a section making allowances for limited British clearances. I think it is Annex G. The British standard states that the Annex should not be used. This is very much a home-grown problem and not one for which we can blame the EU.

In Britain the law is supreme and is to be obeyed above all.
In much of continental europe it is really not.

I don't know about that, but most of Europe has a system of law very different to English Common Law, including, as I understand it, Scotland.

 

[TheBigD]

Deleted

 

[Mugby]

Manton was remodelled about 2-3 years ago... The junction was redoubled so that it's double track on to the Corby line once again... The crossover north of the tunnel was removed... There is a trailing crossover just south of the junction on the Corby line which allows a train from Oakham to reverse and return to Oakham... There is also a trailing crossover on the Peterborough line but this is operated from a ground frame... Not 100% sure but I think there is a shunt signal at the tunnel mouth allowing a train from Corby to access the Peterborough line and vv... I stress that I'm not 100% sure about the latter though and could be wrong...

I didn't know that, it's more than 3 years since I left NR. I am surprised to hear that Manton Junction has been re-doubled considering the small amount of traffic the Corby line normally carries. With only one passenger TPH to and from Peterborough, it's not as if anything to Corby would cause any delays.

 

[delticdave]

I've just had a peek at the Google Satellite view of Manston Junction shows the crossover near the tunnel & the single lead junction still in place.

Then again, how often are the images updated?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I've just had a peek at the Google Satellite view of Manston Junction shows the crossover near the tunnel & the single lead junction still in place.

Then again, how often are the images updated?

Clearly not often enough!

The junction is a recent renewal and is indeed a double junction i can confirm.