MML Electrification: progress updates

[A0wen]

Personally all the talk about Grayling and his decisions is getting tedious. He has blatantly stated he wants money spent elsewhere in preference to the MML. Until he is no longer the secretary of Transport its not going to change.

Perhaps if the conversation piece changed how to get the most out of bi-mode/hydrogen technology we might actually get to the point where we are grateful the wires didn't go up.

We are arguing a case of "Technology we know" vs " what technology is that?" and we only have Graylings word that Bi modes will support the MML as well as OHLE will.

After watching a video about a Toyota Hydrogen cell car I Can see the attraction of putting this tech into a train. Its quiet, accelerates reasonably well and the train will never be bogged down by bad weather like OHLE trains will be, well not until you get to Kettering anyway.

I think you're placing too much store about it being a specific person as the Secretary of State in your first part - SoS's don't usually take such decisions unilaterally. Changing the SoS probably won't change anything - there will be others, a mix of industry experts and civil servants who hold some sway here and they don't tend to change when the SoS does.

 

[jyte]

The person I kind of feel sorry for is the next SoS for transport, having to explain exactly why we have a load of half electrified mainlines and bi-mode trains with increasing operating costs running on diesel for distances much longer than they were designed for...

 

[jayah]

Personally all the talk about Grayling and his decisions is getting tedious. He has blatantly stated he wants money spent elsewhere in preference to the MML. Until he is no longer the secretary of Transport its not going to change.

Perhaps if the conversation piece changed how to get the most out of bi-mode/hydrogen technology we might actually get to the point where we are grateful the wires didn't go up.

We are arguing a case of "Technology we know" vs " what technology is that?" and we only have Graylings word that Bi modes will support the MML as well as OHLE will.

After watching a video about a Toyota Hydrogen cell car I Can see the attraction of putting this tech into a train. Its quiet, accelerates reasonably well and the train will never be bogged down by bad weather like OHLE trains will be, well not until you get to Kettering anyway.

He has said they are still investing in all of the other outputs e.g. Derby, Market Harborough, Corby just not the wires north of Kettering. He has also said this is a good thing as the MML will get new trains sooner than waiting for wires.

Doesn't sound like a great conspiracy against the region to me.

 

[jayah]

Yes, you can make a business case produce pretty much whatever you want. A business case is always a projection, a model, an estimate. In most cases they are more suitable for comparing between different investment options, whether doing X or Y makes things better/more optimal or not, and what might be the impact if cost A, performance B or revenue C changes substantially.

You might not agree with it, but the model they've used must show that electrifying North of Kettering increases costs a lot without increasing benefits enough, and given capital constraints, it's a non-starter. However, a model is only a model. If it captured and predicted reality perfectly, then these modellers wouldn't be beavering away for DfT, they'd be too busy counting their winnings from the 3.30 at Kempton Park.

What *is* annoying is the lack of transparency. There could be significant flaws in either the methodology or the inputs, which we (Taxpayers, electorate) as Grayling's boss do not seem to be allowed to see (There might not be though). For example, in methodology, how have they tried to capture the "network benefits" - e.g. that doing Derby to Sheffield improves the case for doing Birmingham to Derby? On inputs, we don't know what £/km, CO2 price, fuel price forecasts, cost of capital on different elements etc... etc... they have used.

The development of batteries in particular, adds another level of risk to the business case. A whole-system model will be looking at the trade-off between increasing the weight of batteries on-board future (B)EMUs vs the increasing Capex of providing less-discontinuous electrification. It's a real game-changer because it allows you to completely re-think what an "electrified railway" could look like, and it's a lot more advanced from the bionic duckweed hypothesis of a decade ago. This is clearly playing into DfT/Grayling's thinking.

Generally these business cases use fuel price forecasts that assume a steady year by year increase (as do projections if you are looking at getting solar panels). But if anyone could forecast the price of oil they wouldn't work in the civil service.
If Kettering to Sheffield saves I think £23m a year, Birmingham - Derby or any similar scheme isn't going to get close to being approved.

 

[jayah]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? That the wires would only save 1 minute between Kettering and Sheffield and nothing between Cardiff and Swansea? ...because that's irrelevant to the point I was making. I was making the point that you could make a additional stop and accelerate away largely within the existing timetable thanks to the vastly superior acceleration electrification provides, not that it would cut a major chunk out of existing journey times.

The margin created by extra stops is far more than what is saved by any traction.

If Kettering to Sheffield is worth 1min, then your acceleration is worth about 15sec per stop. In other words it doesn't really exist.

 

[Domh245]

He has also said this is a good thing as the MML will get new trains sooner than waiting for wires.

That doesn't make cancelling the wiring any better. We could get the new bi-mode trains (as that's the flavour of the day and what is inevitably going to be prescribed to the bidders for the next EM Franchise) and then slowly extending the wires as and when funds are available - rather than outright cancellation.

 

[jayah]

That doesn't make cancelling the wiring any better. We could get the new bi-mode trains (as that's the flavour of the day and what is inevitably going to be prescribed to the bidders for the next EM Franchise) and then slowly extending the wires as and when funds are available - rather than outright cancellation.

This was looked at, but proved an even worse option than electrification and buying Electric only. Unless they are proposing to pay for their own wires, don't expect anyone to bid for anything except BiModes as they won't win the bid terminating their services at Kettering.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Given that the HSTs can put in some intense performance, presumably an electric would make considerable real gains even within the present linespeeds etc?

Fastest HST service I could find timetabled is the 1955 from STP, 1h 8 mins to Leicester, averaging 87 mph
The 2026 from STP is a 222 and is timetabled for 1h 4 mins, averaging 92 mph
An EMU isn't going to take much more than a couple of minutes out of the 222 time.

Why do I say this? I had time to play with Excel and (my interpretation of) the Sectional Appendix. Using the linespeeds and distances allowed me to calculate a hard minimum of about 57 minutes at 104 mph average. This assumes no recovery time, no conflicts and importantly, instantaneous acceleration and braking to stay exactly at the permitted speed. So unless I've made significant mistakes... which I probably have done... it's hard to see how you get below 1h without infrastructure projects or bending the laws of physics. Given NR's recent track record, the second option would probably be cheaper.

The margin created by extra stops is far more than what is saved by any traction.

If Kettering to Sheffield is worth 1min, then your acceleration is worth about 15sec per stop. In other words it doesn't really exist.

Sort-of agree, it's not particularly significant in the overall scheme of things
However, a marginal gains type philosophy should see 15-30s here or there crystallise in the timetable as a journey time reduction.

 

[jayah]

Fastest HST service I could find timetabled is the 1955 from STP, 1h 8 mins to Leicester, averaging 87 mph
The 2026 from STP is a 222 and is timetabled for 1h 4 mins, averaging 92 mph
An EMU isn't going to take much more than a couple of minutes out of the 222 time.

Why do I say this? I had time to play with Excel and (my interpretation of) the Sectional Appendix. Using the linespeeds and distances allowed me to calculate a hard minimum of about 57 minutes at 104 mph average. This assumes no recovery time, no conflicts and importantly, instantaneous acceleration and braking to stay exactly at the permitted speed. So unless I've made significant mistakes... which I probably have done... it's hard to see how you get below 1h without infrastructure projects or bending the laws of physics. Given NR's recent track record, the second option would probably be cheaper.



Sort-of agree, it's not particularly significant in the overall scheme of things
However, a marginal gains type philosophy should see 15-30s here or there crystallise in the timetable as a journey time reduction.

There are probably large inefficiencies from things like approach control as well as the amount of slowing down and speeding up on the MML. One interesting point is they think there is a good case for the realignment at Market Harborough and this will go ahead. Looking at the real racetrack the ECML I think York to London non stop averages only 110mph so unlikely Leicester will ever get close to that.

 

[jayah]

I could have quoted any one of a number of your posts here Jayah, but there is a common style to your prolific posting on this thread. You appear to view things as black and white and are somewhat dismissive of other people's views. With business cases like the electrification of the Midland Main Line, there are so many uncertainties and judgements and assumptions that you could make an argument either way from full electrification to partial to none at all.

Are you Grayling's Spin Doctor in disguise?

I am afraid there is a bit of having cake and eating it going on here. On the one hand folk looking at partial work done in 2009 and argue it completely justifies MML electrification.

Then when the work is updated for the realities of the current world, completely dismissing it, even though the current appraisals for both Swansea and Sheffield which are to be blunt, pretty one sided.

Do try not to resort to personal insults when you read something you don't like. Jibes like 'Grayling's spin doctor' are cheap and unnecessary. I may have strong views about spending £1bn of public money on achieving zero passenger benefits, but I don't go for playground name calling.

 

[Flying Phil]

The 2026 from STP is a 222 and is timetabled for 1h 4 mins, averaging 92 mph
That is also very close to the APT-E record!

 

[jayah]

The person I kind of feel sorry for is the next SoS for transport, having to explain exactly why we have a load of half electrified mainlines and bi-mode trains with increasing operating costs running on diesel for distances much longer than they were designed for...

The current SoS is already being asked to explain why the previous incumbents though KO2 and Swansea were a good idea. He could have done better, the business cases were partial in not considering BiModes and the cost assumptions were, as we have discovered, a work of utter fiction.

 

[InTheEastMids]

One interesting point is they think there is a good case for the realignment at Market Harborough and this will go ahead. Looking at the real racetrack the ECML I think York to London non stop averages only 110mph so unlikely Leicester will ever get close to that.

Remember the Harborough scheme has a stacked business case. Millions needed spending anyway on extending and raising the platforms, a bridge, lifts and a car park extension. There's also an embankment supposed to be taken out at Great Bowden. It's a lot of "good things to do" before electrification happens (that now won't happen) and locks you into the status quo for decades.

The Great Bowden work could be ripe for cancellation, if NR are short of cash (which they are), the wires aren't coming (which is doubtful - NR December update is vague about where the wires will stop) and the embankment is structurally OK (who knows).

Agree that 110mph average to Leicester is a pipe dream because of the infrastructure required, it would be cheaper to move Leicester closer to London.

 

[Flying Phil]

Jayah ... one of the reasons some people on here and elsewhere feel aggrieved is because we have been promised electrification for the past 40+ years so to have it suddenly taken away, after it had been started, was a bitter pill despite your point "I am afraid there is a bit of having cake and eating it going on here. On the one hand folk looking at partial work done in 2009 and argue it completely justifies MML electrification."

 

[whhistle]

Which I'm sure when Midland Mainline ran the service, they had Leicester to London in under an hour...
Maybe not.

 

[hwl]

Fastest HST service I could find timetabled is the 1955 from STP, 1h 8 mins to Leicester, averaging 87 mph
The 2026 from STP is a 222 and is timetabled for 1h 4 mins, averaging 92 mph
An EMU isn't going to take much more than a couple of minutes out of the 222 time.

Why do I say this? I had time to play with Excel and (my interpretation of) the Sectional Appendix. Using the linespeeds and distances allowed me to calculate a hard minimum of about 57 minutes at 104 mph average. This assumes no recovery time, no conflicts and importantly, instantaneous acceleration and braking to stay exactly at the permitted speed. So unless I've made significant mistakes... which I probably have done... it's hard to see how you get below 1h without infrastructure projects or bending the laws of physics. Given NR's recent track record, the second option would probably be cheaper.



Sort-of agree, it's not particularly significant in the overall scheme of things
However, a marginal gains type philosophy should see 15-30s here or there crystallise in the timetable as a journey time reduction.

Electrification offers far more gains on services with lots of stops especially on mixed stopping pattern 2 track sections with a mix of fast, semi fast and stopping as the "15 seconds per stop" acceleration helps to increase the number of paths as it takes longer for a fast to catch a slow /semi fast etc.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Electrification offers far more gains on services with lots of stops especially on mixed stopping pattern 2 track sections with a mix of fast, semi fast and stopping as the "15 seconds per stop" acceleration helps to increase the number of paths as it takes longer for a fast to catch a slow /semi fast etc.

I completely agree - acceleration and more homogeneity in performance across the GTR, EMT Corby and EMT bimode fleet, especially South of Bedford will presumably help quite a bit, although I expect it's quite a decent modelling task to quantify that benefit.

However, people were also wondering about the impact on end-end journey times. Most Sheffield services are worked by 222s and are non-stop South of Leicester, so the journey time benefit was never going to be there, especially if the rush-hour trains can omit stops south of Leicester because of the new Corby services.

 

[guy]

I completely agree - acceleration and more homogeneity in performance across the GTR, EMT Corby and EMT bimode fleet, especially South of Bedford will presumably help quite a bit, although I expect it's quite a decent modelling task to quantify that benefit.

However, people were also wondering about the impact on end-end journey times. Most Sheffield services are worked by 222s and are non-stop South of Leicester, so the journey time benefit was never going to be there, especially if the rush-hour trains can omit stops south of Leicester because of the new Corby services.

It strikes me as a little ironic that the BiModes will not be calling at Luton,Bedford, Wellingborough, and partially Kettering when their acceleration in electric mode would minimise the time penalty of those stops. Whereas on diesel power they will struggle north of Kettering especially on the stopping Nottingham and Derby services.
I don't know exactly how much power will ultimately be wrung out of the diesel engines but performance on the Western suggests they may not match HST performance and will be a long way short of Meridians.
Is it even possible that the towns and cities north of Kettering may land up with worse journey times to and from London than with the present timetable?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I am afraid there is a bit of having cake and eating it going on here. On the one hand folk looking at partial work done in 2009 and argue it completely justifies MML electrification.
Then when the work is updated for the realities of the current world, completely dismissing it, even though the current appraisals for both Swansea and Sheffield which are to be blunt, pretty one sided.
Do try not to resort to personal insults when you read something you don't like. Jibes like 'Grayling's spin doctor' are cheap and unnecessary. I may have strong views about spending £1bn of public money on achieving zero passenger benefits, but I don't go for playground name calling.

Let me reply to this please in what I hope is a balanced way without an ad hominem attack. I am a lifelong conservative supporter and voter. Also I am a lifelong electrification enthusiast. What sticks in the craw is that the MML has been promised electrification for a while. Many assumed it would be electrified before the GWML. In the RUS 2009 document (the fact that it is out of date is almost an irrelevance) showed the BCR at the time to be higher than the GWML. Then many other schemes got added (to boost the economy). Then in 2015 General Election every party’s manifesto contained commitment to electrification schemes. All parties were onboard with electrification. The SoS got changed – now of course there were other factors -but – it just seems to many -including me – that on first glance a new secretary of state and PM and Chancellor and electrification is no longer in vogue. GRAYLING MUST TAKE SOME OF THE BLAME -SORRY.

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...-but-completion-delayed-by-three-years/120202

The GWML fiasco became general knowledge and other schemes got delayed – so the MML paid the price. The MML scheme is paying the price of other schemes failure when on a like for like basis back in 2009 it had the best case. GRAYLING MUST TAKE SOME OF THE BLAME -SORRY.

 

[InTheEastMids]

It strikes me as a little ironic that the BiModes will not be calling at Luton,Bedford, Wellingborough, and partially Kettering when their acceleration in electric mode would minimise the time penalty of those stops. Whereas on diesel power they will struggle north of Kettering especially on the stopping Nottingham and Derby services.
I don't know exactly how much power will ultimately be wrung out of the diesel engines but performance on the Western suggests they may not match HST performance and will be a long way short of Meridians.

I thought the idea was that the Cl 800 bimodes currently being brought in are deliberately underpowered (at least in their "low tune" state) for a 125 mph railway, because it was expected they would be mostly used on diesel towards the edge of the network where there's no 125 running. It's not the trains' fault that things have not worked out that way.

The EMT bi-modes will be specified in the knowledge that Kettering-Sheffield electrification is not happening, and there are number of steps that can be taken to ensure there are no issues, such as more engines per train, or use batteries and have a diesel hybrid

Also, people here have said that 222s can keep time with an engine out, which for a 5-car suggests that 3000 hp is enough. A 5 car 802 will be 2800 hp, even with only 3/5 powered vehicles.

There's also the possibility of the reverse of GWR - i.e. that once the design of the train has been frozen, a future SoS at DfT announces wires to Leicester or Trent or something, and this diesel performance anxiety becomes less of an issue.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There's also the possibility of the reverse of GWR - i.e. that once the design of the train has been frozen, a future SoS at DfT announces wires to Leicester or Trent or something, and this diesel performance anxiety becomes less of an issue.

Exactly what I am hoping for (not performance anxiety though !! )

 

[CdBrux]

Jayah ... one of the reasons some people on here and elsewhere feel aggrieved is because we have been promised electrification for the past 40+ years so to have it suddenly taken away, after it had been started, was a bitter pill despite your point "I am afraid there is a bit of having cake and eating it going on here. On the one hand folk looking at partial work done in 2009 and argue it completely justifies MML electrification."

This is one of the problems. A (one) means to achieve an end (objective) has been promised, not the end. If the Objective is 6tph and a certain journey time then, if you are to believe the NR calculations, this is pretty much met without electrification north of Kettering.

 

[IanXC]

I am afraid there is a bit of having cake and eating it going on here. On the one hand folk looking at partial work done in 2009 and argue it completely justifies MML electrification.

Then when the work is updated for the realities of the current world, completely dismissing it, even though the current appraisals for both Swansea and Sheffield which are to be blunt, pretty one sided.

Do try not to resort to personal insults when you read something you don't like. Jibes like 'Grayling's spin doctor' are cheap and unnecessary. I may have strong views about spending £1bn of public money on achieving zero passenger benefits, but I don't go for playground name calling.

Personally I'm just assessing the information as it stands in front of me. The 2009 study is the only one which actually compares schemes in a meaningful way with each other, and yes I absolutely agree that is has to be out of date, but at this time it is the best we have.

In terms of MML, as yet, I am simply not willing to trust the figures that Grayling comes out with, as they are so incomplete and selective; coupled with the way in which he appears to have been deliberately misleading to the Transport Select Committee do you blame me?

 

[B&I]

There have been a lot of arguments so far about the supposed lack of passenger benefits from electrification, rather ignoring (I thought) the smoother and quieter ride, the possibility of more capacity during periods of DMU famine, and the slight reduction in the overall amount of poison breathed in in the wider atmosphere.

However, why are benefits to the railway being ignored? Such as easier availability of stock, longer stock lifespan, lower stock and track maintenance costs, reduced dependency on unpredictably-priced oil etc? Why is no-one off-setting the resultant savings against the costs of electrification?

 

[hwl]

However, why are benefits to the railway being ignored? Such as easier availability of stock, longer stock lifespan, lower stock and track maintenance costs, reduced dependency on unpredictably-priced oil etc? Why is no-one off-setting the resultant savings against the costs of electrification?

Simple - Grayling is being short termist. Electrification cost lots up front but lots of the benefits are reaped after the politicians have retired.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Simple - Grayling is being short termist. Electrification cost lots up front but lots of the benefits are reaped after the politicians have retired.

To be fair - most politicians are. Hence the phrase "A week is a long time in politics"

 

[ainsworth74]

Please note that the discussion around Hydrogen vehicles, whilst interesting, is rather off-topic so has been moved to a new thread which can be found here. There has been a lot of discussion around Grayling and the cancellation of the MML electrification (and wider anti-electrification sentiments). We would ask that such discussion is confined to a new thread.

This thread is for updates to the work that is ongoing to electrify the MML as such posts on other topics are off-topic and liable for deletion.

Many thanks,
ainsworth74

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Just thinking -even the bit Bedford -Kettering - Corby is about 3 years off completion. So deveging is taking place in connection with electrification and other piling work etc. 3 years seems a long time though.

 

[Domh245]

Just thinking -even the bit Bedford -Kettering - Corby is about 3 years off completion. So deveging is taking place in connection with electrification and other piling work etc. 3 years seems a long time though.

There is also the 4 tracking isn't there? So it'd be daft not to be making provision in terms of piling when the opportunity is available, and I'd expect the deveging is related to fitting the fourth track in as well?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There is also the 4 tracking isn't there? So it'd be daft not to be making provision in terms of piling when the opportunity is available, and I'd expect the deveging is related to fitting the fourth track in as well?

Yes of course forgot about that - just 3 years seems a long time to electrify that length.