MML Electrification: progress updates

[B&I]

HS2 shortens the time scale though

Is it really the case that we are going to abandon improvements to busy lines between major towns because of HS2 particularly when they will serve different places / markets?

 

[jyte]

Is it really the case that we are going to abandon improvements to busy lines between major towns because of HS2 particularly when they will serve different places / markets?

If it improves the C:B ratio of HS2, then it looks like we will. I think Chris Grayling even (reluctantly) admitted something of that nature recently.

 

[mwmbwls]

Is it really the case that we are going to abandon improvements to busy lines between major towns because of HS2 particularly when they will serve different places / markets?

See the video indicated in post #1533 - Yes it is. Leicester and Loughborough residents will no doubt be incensed that they are treated as collateral damage.

 

[Flying Phil]

Mr Grayling performed very well.....I was almost convinced that Bi-Modes are so much better than electric only .... and when we get Hydrogen fuelled trains they will be even better. A much cheaper solution to get the 1 minute shaved off the London to Sheffield time, and it already is electric in London, so the air quality there will not change.......
However he did say the extra cost of MML bi-modes would be £23M pa and electrification would cost £1B so, over about 40 years, would not the cost of electrification be covered by the savings? He kept talking about increasing capacity but I thought electric only trains could accelerate better than Bi-mode, and so you could run more trains per hour?

 

[B&I]

See the video indicated in post #1533 - Yes it is. Leicester and Loughborough residents will no doubt be incensed that they are treated as collateral damage.

A city of (on some measures 0.5 million people). Some coateral damage.

And the more Talibannish element of HS2 supporters wonder why it does not enjoy universal support. Mind you, I suspect HS2 is in this case being used as yet another excuse to avoid electrification by the DfT

 

[tbtc]

he did say the extra cost of MML bi-modes would be £23M pa and electrification would cost £1B so, over about 40 years, would not the cost of electrification be covered by the savings?

What is the cost of (pure) electric trains though?

Or is the reference to £23m the difference between bi-mode and pure electric?

A city of (on some measures 0.5 million people). Some coateral damage.

And the more Talibannish element of HS2 supporters wonder why it does not enjoy universal support. Mind you, I suspect HS2 is in this case being used as yet another excuse to avoid electrification by the DfT

I'm a supporter of HS2, but I don't think HS2 is the problem here.

Network Rail failed to deliver GWML electrification properly (to time, budget etc), so other ambitions have been scaled back.

Given the significant rise in costs on the GWML (i.e. Network Rail finding out that something they expected to cost a quid actually cost a fiver once they dealt with the practicalities), the cost/benefit ratio for the MML will no doubt be rather different now to the fantastic sounding ratio being bandied around five years ago (where it was commonly said to be have such a good business case that it'd be significantly cheaper to electrify it than not to).

I'm annoyed about cutting back MML electrification - I'd love to see my local lines in Sheffield wired - but I don't think it's fair to blame HS2 - and it's not totally fair to blame Chris Grayling. There was always going to be a difficult decision for whoever was Transport Sec when a decision had to be taken about how to deal with the overbudget/ delayed/ de-scoped GWML.

HS2 is just an excuse to justify the tough decision that was probably always going to have to be made on the MML - but the decision not to go ahead with the full electrification previously committed to is no different to the Transpennine line, the "electric spine", Windermere and various in-fills.

Blaming HS2 for the MML is on a par with blaming the decision not to wire the Windermere branch due to wanting to try out "new technologies" (i.e. they were always going to cancel Windermere, they've used the justification about using it as a trial for battery powered trains etc but it's not the battery powered trains' fault that proper electrification got cancelled).

If people want to get angry, focus on either why CP5 commitments were over-promised or why CP5 commitments were under-delivered (rather than on the fig-leaf justification given for some of the cut backs).

Trouble is, HS2 is always a convenient whipping-boy. The general public seem to dislike it, a lot of railway enthusiasts seem to dislike it, so it's handy to blame it for things that are not the fault of HS2. Unless anyone is seriously telling me that they believe Teresa May's Government would have maintained a commitment to electrifying the MML in the 2010s were it not for a line that won't be operational until the 2030s?

 

[Verulamius]

I thought that the plans for HS2 were for a link through to the line through Chesterfield, Sheffield and onwards to a connection back to HS2. This would require electrification, but the cost of the electrification was not included in the HS2 budget.

Now that MML electrification past Kettering has been cancelled the costs of the Sheffield diversion electrification should fall back into the HS2 budget.

This should mean that when electrification is looked at again for MML, the costs should be less as the project should only include electrification up to around Chesterfield.

Has this been done?

 

[Hairy Bear]

Monday night, observed 2 road/rail lorry travelling in possession Bedford up to Oakley, 1 a pilling machine , the other carying half a dozen piles, so work has restarted for the overheads.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If people want to get angry, focus on either why CP5 commitments were over-promised ----

I do agree with a lot of the sentiments of your post however: Government has to share some of the blame here - yes NR to in that they should have taken a Growacet pill and stood up to the government and said "That is just too much work for one CP"

If people want to get angry, focus on why CP5 commitments were under-delivered

I could still argue that government has to share some of the blame here - see above - yes primarily NR for either under-delivering or again not taking a Growacet pill.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I'm a supporter of HS2, but I don't think HS2 is the problem here.

Given the significant rise in costs on the GWML ------ but I don't think it's fair to blame HS2 - .

-- HS2 is just an excuse to justify the tough decision that -----

Blaming HS2 for the MML ----- i

Trouble is, HS2 is always a convenient whipping-boy ------- so it's handy to blame it for things that are not the fault of HS2.

I definitely agree

 

[westcoaster]

Monday night, observed 2 road/rail lorry travelling in possession Bedford up to Oakley, 1 a pilling machine , the other carying half a dozen piles, so work has restarted for the overheads.

I believe some are up already in the great Oakley area.

 

[snowball]

I thought that the plans for HS2 were for a link through to the line through Chesterfield, Sheffield and onwards to a connection back to HS2. This would require electrification, but the cost of the electrification was not included in the HS2 budget.

Now that MML electrification past Kettering has been cancelled the costs of the Sheffield diversion electrification should fall back into the HS2 budget.

This should mean that when electrification is looked at again for MML, the costs should be less as the project should only include electrification up to around Chesterfield.

Has this been done?

Unless the plans for HS2's NE arm are changed again, Clay Cross - Sheffield - Clayton will have to be electrified, but I expect HS2 Ltd will try to ensure it isn't counted as part of the cost of HS2.

Also it may happen up to a decade later than it would have done if MML hadn't been chopped.

However it should improve the economics of any future reconsideration of wiring Kettering to Clay Cross.

 

[hwl]

Unless the plans for HS2's NE arm are changed again, Clay Cross - Sheffield - Clayton will have to be electrified, but I expect HS2 Ltd will try to ensure it isn't counted as part of the cost of HS2.

Also it may happen up to a decade later than it would have done if MML hadn't been chopped.

However it should improve the economics of any future reconsideration of wiring Kettering to Clay Cross.

On the first part - NR stitched HS2 up good and proper on this one, Grayling was passed a bit of paper in the commons just after announcing MML cancellation explaining that HS2 cost had just gone up as a result as this one one of the design assumption for the revised route.
As the NR Grid feed will be at Doncaster, Swinton -Doncaster look like very cheap add on.

Agree on the economics of electrifying the gap (or parts of) improving at a point in the future, especially South of Trent Jn.

 

[B&I]

What is the cost of (pure) electric trains though?

Or is the reference to £23m the difference between bi-mode and pure electric?



I'm a supporter of HS2, but I don't think HS2 is the problem here.

Network Rail failed to deliver GWML electrification properly (to time, budget etc), so other ambitions have been scaled back.

Given the significant rise in costs on the GWML (i.e. Network Rail finding out that something they expected to cost a quid actually cost a fiver once they dealt with the practicalities), the cost/benefit ratio for the MML will no doubt be rather different now to the fantastic sounding ratio being bandied around five years ago (where it was commonly said to be have such a good business case that it'd be significantly cheaper to electrify it than not to).

I'm annoyed about cutting back MML electrification - I'd love to see my local lines in Sheffield wired - but I don't think it's fair to blame HS2 - and it's not totally fair to blame Chris Grayling. There was always going to be a difficult decision for whoever was Transport Sec when a decision had to be taken about how to deal with the overbudget/ delayed/ de-scoped GWML.

HS2 is just an excuse to justify the tough decision that was probably always going to have to be made on the MML - but the decision not to go ahead with the full electrification previously committed to is no different to the Transpennine line, the "electric spine", Windermere and various in-fills.

Blaming HS2 for the MML is on a par with blaming the decision not to wire the Windermere branch due to wanting to try out "new technologies" (i.e. they were always going to cancel Windermere, they've used the justification about using it as a trial for battery powered trains etc but it's not the battery powered trains' fault that proper electrification got cancelled).

If people want to get angry, focus on either why CP5 commitments were over-promised or why CP5 commitments were under-delivered (rather than on the fig-leaf justification given for some of the cut backs).

Trouble is, HS2 is always a convenient whipping-boy. The general public seem to dislike it, a lot of railway enthusiasts seem to dislike it, so it's handy to blame it for things that are not the fault of HS2. Unless anyone is seriously telling me that they believe Teresa May's Government would have maintained a commitment to electrifying the MML in the 2010s were it not for a line that won't be operational until the 2030s?

To make myself clear, I don't think HS2 is to blame here either. If the DfT try to use it as a justification for nixing MML electrification, though, HS2 ends up getting discredited unfairly.

It should not be an either/or decision. An electrified MML with enhanced services should complement HS2, particularly by feeding passengers into it from Toton up.

Incidentally, the well-publicised problems with Great Western electrification do not explain the MML kibosh by themselves. If the DfT had put half the effort they have put over the last couple of decades into providing excuses not to electrify, into devising a program for electrification, most of the network would be wired up by now.

As for Grayling, I would find it a lot easier to be kind to him if he didn't keep spouting such obvious drivel. Pretending that bi-modes are a sensible long-term solution on mainline routes, rather than a stopgap to cover up for Network Rail's failure, and the DfT's rabid elctrophobia, just makes him look stupid. Still, in my own professional capacity I saw him doing that plenty of times when he was at Justice, so maybe I'm just not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[CdBrux]

I do agree with a lot of the sentiments of your post however: Government has to share some of the blame here - yes NR to in that they should have taken a Growacet pill and stood up to the government and said "That is just too much work for one CP"

I could still argue that government has to share some of the blame here - see above - yes primarily NR for either under-delivering or again not taking a Growacet pill.

This does assume that NR knew the job was too big. My impression was they actually didn't know how big the job was.F course the political aspect comes in, if the project is announced to cost x and deliver by y and then later it's announced that it now costs 5x and will b delivered in y + 3 years you can be your bottom dollar that the opposition will put the blame squarely on the government which is, of course, nonsense

 

[InTheEastMids]

Back on the topic of the current electrification, I hadn't noticed this subtlety in the December update of the NR Delivery Plan.

"To develop solutions to provide traction power and other associated asset capability to allow 6 long distance high speed services to use electric traction between Market Harborough/Kettering and London in CP6."

Suggests to me that NR are looking at different options as to where to terminate the wiring on the fast/Leicester route. We know that the main supply point will be at Braybrooke (between Harborough & Desborough). I thought of a few different options
1. South of Kettering (i.e. wire only as far as the last crossing from the fast lines to the Corby lines)
2. Glendon Junction where the Corby line diverges
3. At the Braybrooke substation
4. Market Harborough station
5. Great Bowden (i.e. electrify the new alignment being done as part of the Harborough project)

My uninformed guess is that it'll be 2 or 3
However, I think 4 and 5 would have better business cases, because they're on gradients around a station and speed restriction, which plays to the better performance and regen braking capabilities of electric trains.

That being said, avoidance of CapEx seems to be more important than the business case itself, so I won't count on the highest value option getting the nod.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I hope and pray that it is option 4.

 

[CdBrux]

That being said, avoidance of CapEx seems to be more important than the business case itself, so I won't count on the highest value option getting the nod.

Assuming limited Capital (which there almost certainly is) then the Capex should either be used here if the business case for say 4 or 5 vs 1 or 2 is better than the best project for which Capex available does not cover. If it doesn't then the other project should get it.

 

[pitdiver]

Just found out today that Ford End Rd bridge which is just south of Bedford Midland Rd stn is going to be closed from the 16th Feb until "The end of July" . This is obviously part of MML electrification but has anybody got any idea what will be happen for 6 months.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Agree on the economics of electrifying the gap (or parts of) improving at a point in the future, especially South of Trent Jn.

In this bi-mode world we now live in, it also occurs to me that wiring up between Trent Junction and Kettering might get back on the agenda once the "Leicester Capacity (Syston-Wigston)" scheme is done, along with proposed resignalling around Leicester. I guess one of the advantages of bi-modes is that you don't end up trying to do electrification ahead of major remodelling/resignalling schemes, which feels like it should be a more effective use of budgets. Seems to be the approach taken for Oxford and Bristol Temple Meads

 

[InTheEastMids]

Just found out today that Ford End Rd bridge which is just south of Bedford Midland Rd stn is going to be closed from the 16th Feb until "The end of July" . This is obviously part of MML electrification but has anybody got any idea what will be happen for 6 months.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...ement-programme/ford-end-road-bridge-bedford/

Apparently the 3rd from West bridge arch is too low for electrification. I assume it's the fast lines that pass through this arch.

 

[pitdiver]

Phase 1 which has been completed already involved digging trenches in the road from one end to the other and putting in some sort of trunking. Surely if they are raising the arches this would affect the completed work but perhaps not.

 

[Class 170101]

I feel the only way NR will be able to electrify in the current political climate is on the cheap. So given this climate and the way certain projects are being done (eg Nottingham and Derby resignalling) I would suggest a blockade from Kettering North to Wigston and divert all services via Corby for an extended period just to get the wires as far as Wigston.

 

[richieb1971]

I thought Grayling held himself up well. No need for all those questions that kept on being repeated time and time again. At the end of the day he stated his case clearly that he has a finite amount of money and he thought it could be spent better elsewhere. Good for the common folk of Bristol etc but not so good for the people of the midlands. He did argue that if the Midlands wants results sooner rather than later they will have to go with his plan rather than the full OHLE program.

The only downer is that OHLE is off the table for the foreseeable future and that is what midland folks want. He should have stated more clearly that line speeds are dictated by curves and there are plenty of those on the MML. There was no mention of tilting trains to keep the line speeds up (I only watched 2 3rd's of the video). If the MML does end up with unique traction that can wander elsewhere I think thats a good thing in a way. I would also argue these trains would deal better with high winds, as of late we have had high blowing winds that could potentially bring down an OHLE system. A power source that comes from the train itself is not going to be as equally affected in such weather conditions.

For freight though, you would wonder why the freight locomotives of the future cannot adopt the same traction type as those of the passenger workings.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I feel the only way NR will be able to electrify in the current political climate is on the cheap. So given this climate and the way certain projects are being done (eg Nottingham and Derby resignalling) I would suggest a blockade from Kettering North to Wigston and divert all services via Corby for an extended period just to get the wires as far as Wigston.

However, the cost of disruption could be colossal. Every train North of Leicester taking at least 30 minutes longer
Could you even run an additional 4tph from Leicester to Kettering via Oakham?
Doesn't really matter whether this is implicit cost to the UK economy or explicitly realised in disruption payments from NR (i.e. the project budget) to TOCs and passengers

For freight though, you would wonder why the freight locomotives of the future cannot adopt the same traction type as those of the passenger workings.

It's the long-tail effect - think of all branch lines that would need to be (expensively) electrified, maybe for just a couple of trains a day? The diesel in a class 88 is really only for "last mile" operation, so you're specifying a locomotive that not only can match an 88 on electrified routes, but a 66 away from the wires, within UK loading gauge. Perhaps there's a garden shed project to semi-permanently couple redundant 60s and 90s... <fetches crayons>

 

[richieb1971]

It's the long-tail effect - think of all branch lines that would need to be (expensively) electrified, maybe for just a couple of trains a day? The diesel in a class 88 is really only for "last mile" operation, so you're specifying a locomotive that not only can match an 88 on electrified routes, but a 66 away from the wires, within UK loading gauge. Perhaps there's a garden shed project to semi-permanently couple redundant 60s and 90s... <fetches crayons>

I meant bi-modes, hydrogen and all the other gubbins Grayling was talking about in the video. Not AC traction.

 

[jyte]

There was no mention of tilting trains to keep the line speeds up.

I'm pretty sure that NR doesn't view tilting as really that viable. Various train operators have proposed tilting trains since the WCML Modernisation but none of them ever got anywhere, kind of like what happened with BR and the APT? The UKs gauge issues are ever present here, but maybe it's the lack of political will to just 'make it happen'.

I wouldn't be surprised that given HS2 stock apparently will not tilt, the 390 replacements would not tilt either.

 

[richieb1971]

I believe the WCML was suitable for tilt and that there were minimal gains to be had on the ECML (hence no tilt). HS2 will not have tilt because the tracks are straight enough to get max speed without tilting. The MML is certainly a great candidate for tilting because near where I live there are lots of corners from Bedford all the way to Market Harborough.

 

[snowball]

Press release

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds...g-to-corby-upgrade-to-take-place-in-february/

The major upgrade of the line between Kettering and Corby reaches the next stage in February as testing begins on the newly fitted equipment.

Since 2014, work has been taking place to build a second track on the seven-mile stretch between the two Northamptonshire towns as well as installing the associated junctions, signals and foundations for overhead line equipment that will create the potential for a more frequent and reliable service in the future.

The project is a key part of the biggest upgrade of the Midland Main Line since it opened in 1870 and will support better journeys not just between Northamptonshire and London, but the entire length of the line right through the East Midlands and to Sheffield.

With much of the infrastructure for the extra line now in place, a nine-day period of testing is required meaning there will be no passenger trains between Corby and Kettering on Saturday 17 February until Sunday 25 February, with a bus replacement service in place.

East Midlands Trains services to all other stations are unaffected and will run as normal.

An information event will take place at Corby Station on Tuesday 30 January between 6.30am and 1.30pm for passengers who like to find out more about both the work involved and the travel arrangements.

Spencer Gibbens, Principal Programme Sponsor for Network Rail, said: “A significant amount of work has taken place on the route between Kettering and Corby since this part of the Midland Main Line upgrade began and the project is now approaching the final stages.

“To safely test the new equipment, our engineers need a nine-day period of ‘wheels free’ access to the railway, meaning a short period of bus replacements between Kettering and Corby is unavoidable. From 2020, when the upgrade of the Midland Main Line is complete, passengers will really see the benefits of this investment and I’m grateful for their patience while the work is carried out.”

Jake Kelly, Managing Director, East Midlands Trains, said: “The final testing of this seven-mile stretch of track is an important milestone for the upgrade of the Midland Main Line.

“Although the main benefits of this work will arrive in 2020, it will help to maintain a reliable service for our customers today, including providing a new diversion route if the main line to London is disrupted.

“While this work is being carried out, we will be providing a bus replacement service between the two stations as well as ensuring staff are on hand at both stations to help customers.

“Passengers should check with eastmidlandstrains.co.uk for details about the journey between Kettering and Corby during this time.

So far the Kettering to Corby route has seen:

• Fourteen bridges and viaducts strengthened – including Harpers Brook Viaduct, a 12 arch brick structure constructed in 1879
• 21 kilometres of track laid (12km of new track and 9km renewal of exiting track)
• 4km of drainage equipment installed
• 15km of railway embankment stabilisation completed
• 73km of signal and power cabling laid
• Six new signal gantries erected
• The creation of a wider ‘gauge’ – meaning larger freight containers can be transported on the route

 

[whhistle]

If Grayling is suggesting the MML is about capacity, does that mean significant work will be done to raise bridges on the route so double deck trains can run?
That's the only realistic way to add capacity...

I mean, you can keep extending platforms but what happens when those trains are full too? Trains a mile long?
It's like this whole smart motorway business. Allowing people to run in the hard shoulder isn't really helping with the grand scheme of more and more cars on the roads.