• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

MML Electrification: progress updates

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
As an outside, this seems to have run pretty smoothly, without horrendous time or cost overruns. If the Great Western electrification programme had gone as well, maybe the overall programme wouldn't have been cut so drastically in the first place
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
There will be additional steelwork installed south of Bedford as part of the upgrade to enable 125mph electric operation
From the previous post that seems to be part of KO2 but the "electrification moves north" in the Adey Steel press release still sounds over-optimistic.
 

adamedwards

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2016
Messages
796
On the East Coast Main Line at Connington headspans have been replaced with booms (hope that's the correct terms) because of dewirings, so I would assume similar work would be feasible on the MML. There's picture here showing the masts looking oddly tall:
https://twitter.com/networkrail/status/946395340940308480

I'm also curious to know how far north this work needs to start. From a standing start at St Pancras I am guessing 125 mph isn't possible until Mill Hill, if not further out, so I would assume there's no need for works where lower speeds apply? (There may of course be supply issues rather than tensionning.)
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
That is really rather good. Take a bow.

Thank you. I was very pleased with it.

As an outside, this seems to have run pretty smoothly, without horrendous time or cost overruns. If the Great Western electrification programme had gone as well, maybe the overall programme wouldn't have been cut so drastically in the first place

If the MML had cost the same as the GW on a £/mile basis, the former would have been 30% cheaper...


I'm also curious to know how far north this work needs to start. From a standing start at St Pancras I am guessing 125 mph isn't possible until Mill Hill, if not further out, so I would assume there's no need for works where lower speeds apply? (There may of course be supply issues rather than tensionning.)

It is potentially needed anywhere where the linespeed is above 100mph. That starts at Cricklewood. Given that I have been on a 700 that hit 100mph a mile north of Cricklewood having previously stopped at West Hampstead, it’s safe to say that suitable electric trains will be able to reach over 100mph well before Mill Hill.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,477
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
On the East Coast Main Line at Connington headspans have been replaced with booms (hope that's the correct terms) because of dewirings, so I would assume similar work would be feasible on the MML. There's picture here showing the masts looking oddly tall:
https://twitter.com/networkrail/status/946395340940308480

I'm also curious to know how far north this work needs to start. From a standing start at St Pancras I am guessing 125 mph isn't possible until Mill Hill, if not further out, so I would assume there's no need for works where lower speeds apply? (There may of course be supply issues rather than tensionning.)
Not far off there! The Conington headspan portal conversions were indeed due to dewirements - but also to act as lateral braces in high winds (which that short area of route is prone to). Indeed, one such boom has already gone in on the MML at Borehamwood Neutral Section, to support a quartet of Earthed MIR Cantilever assemblies.

The only problem with the Conington arrangement, as it stands, is the tensioning arrangements - there isn't a definitive Mid-Point Anchor yet (it's still all pulleys, links and clamps), the catenary is still bridled (again, the pulleys), and at overlaps, the Fast lines' OLE still uses Tail Wires to anchor at a structure beyond the structure anchoring the Slow lines' OLE. Plus, NR haven't found a solution regarding those headspans where Booster Transformers were formerly located - they're much trickier to portalise.

EDIT: I've been having a look at the Sectional Appendix for the MML; 110mph begins on the Fasts at 5m 30ch (north of Cricklewood), although this may change when Brent Cross West gets built. This drops to 105mph through Hendon (6m 40ch to 7m 33ch), whereupon 110mph resumes until 12m 70ch (Up Fast)/12m 71ch (Down Fast). North of here, 125mph is the top speed limit for HSTs (which includes 222s, and will doubtless include 180s and 810s); additionally, the speed limit for non-high speed stock is 100mph through Elstree Tunnel.
The 110/HST125 differential continues until 18m 38ch (around Napsbury), where it becomes 100/HST110 until 19m 21ch (Up Fast)/19m 24ch (Dn Fast), where a blanket 100mph limit is imposed through St Albans City.
The linespeed of the Fasts, which change throughout the route north of St Albans, never drops below 100mph (except through Luton), while the Slows' linespeed never exceeds 90mph.
 
Last edited:

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
On the East Coast Main Line at Connington headspans have been replaced with booms (hope that's the correct terms) because of dewirings, so I would assume similar work would be feasible on the MML. There's picture here showing the masts looking oddly tall:
https://twitter.com/networkrail/status/946395340940308480

I'm also curious to know how far north this work needs to start. From a standing start at St Pancras I am guessing 125 mph isn't possible until Mill Hill, if not further out, so I would assume there's no need for works where lower speeds apply? (There may of course be supply issues rather than tensionning.)

I think 59CosG95 got most of it.

Arup were working on the remaining issues, it's all doable, but the intention was always to try and do the replacements during conventional possessions rather than having to take longer and more complex possessions to do the work.

The masts are retained from their use for headspans, they get a Series 1 boom added and depending on which electrification system is in use, line speed and layout, the components will either be Series 1 (GWML) or UK1 (ECML). The trial portal at Potters Bar, from memory, had Mark 3c/d rather than UK1 portal components. The portals installed at Werrington as part of the grade separation, and the new bits of electrification on the new/re-routed track have Series 2/UK Master Series components instead.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
If the MML had cost the same as the GW on a £/mile basis, the former would have been 30% cheaper...

Perhaps I need another coffee, but you're saying MML worked out more expensive per mile? Surely there are some 'mitigating circumstances' that explain that, such as the number of feeder stations/km wired, or is it really that the much maligned GWEP wasn't so bad (or the much repeated claim that the more NR wire, the cheaper it gets, is nonsense)
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Perhaps I need another coffee, but you're saying MML worked out more expensive per mile? Surely there are some 'mitigating circumstances' that explain that, such as the number of feeder stations/km wired, or is it really that the much maligned GWEP wasn't so bad (or the much repeated claim that the more NR wire, the cheaper it gets, is nonsense)

When you look at the costs of the pure electrification, ie OLE & power, the two are roughly the same (within 10%). The MML had a lot more clearance works to do - bridges etc, and that also pushed up the design and management costs.

The main difference, though, is that the estimating for GWEP left something to be desired, and made a number of assumption (particularly around how train services could be amended to enable the work) which subsequently did not hold. So the initial estimates were rather optimistic. The MML team estimated and planned their work on the back of the GW experience.
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
As a matter of curiosity, this new FS at Braybrooke could presumably feed an extension of MML wiring further North. How far? Where would the next FS need to be?
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
When you look at the costs of the pure electrification, ie OLE & power, the two are roughly the same (within 10%). The MML had a lot more clearance works to do - bridges etc, and that also pushed up the design and management costs.
Do the costs of the MML (or rather, Glorified Thameslink) scheme include the re-quadrification works, or was that a separate project? And do you know if there was any particular reason for the clearance works to be so much more extensive — were there significantly more overbridges per mile, or more areas were other clearances were not up to standard, or what?
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,477
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
As a matter of curiosity, this new FS at Braybrooke could presumably feed an extension of MML wiring further North. How far? Where would the next FS need to be?
I seem to recall that the next ATFS would be at Kegworth (just south of East Midlands Parkway). @WAO's post below lays the scope bare.

From a FoI letter from NR:

"The proposed locations of the four National Grid supply points were:
Sundon, Bedfordshire
Braybrooke, near Market Harborough
Kegworth, near East Midlands Parkway
Hasland, near Chesterfield"

Kegworth is the Ratcliffe power station site and Hasland is from the Chesterfield NG 400kV substation nearby.

Braybrooke should be able feed to Leicester, about the mid point in mileage.

WAO
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Do the costs of the MML (or rather, Glorified Thameslink) scheme include the re-quadrification works, or was that a separate project? And do you know if there was any particular reason for the clearance works to be so much more extensive — were there significantly more overbridges per mile, or more areas were other clearances were not up to standard, or what?

Firstly - it has nothing to do with Thameslink

Secondly, I don’t know for sure that the cost doesn’t include for the track and signaling extra track (clearly it includes for the OLE) but from deduction of what I do know I’m reasonably sure it doesn’t.

Thirdly, I don’t know the detail, but as an educated guess from occasional travel on the line I suggest that there are more bridges and areas of limited clearance, not least because much of the MML was built on the cheap, and of course the GW has more space around it due to being formerly broad gauge.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,807
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
Thanks to both of you! So would Braybrooke cover Leicester?
Attached is a schematic originally in Modern Railways of the discussed parts of the MML electrification scheme. I have manually annotated and hopefully it makes sense. The grid feeders are approximate.
 

Attachments

  • D0F2620B-6982-4A84-BC4B-5E9529020409.jpeg
    D0F2620B-6982-4A84-BC4B-5E9529020409.jpeg
    78.4 KB · Views: 116

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,813
Location
Sheffield
Attached is a schematic originally in Modern Railways of the discussed parts of the MML electrification scheme. I have manually annotated and hopefully it makes sense. The grid feeders are approximate.

Years ago I saw a Network Rail plan with a feeder sub station positioned beside Dore West Junction. Probably another bit of unused railway planning consigned to forgotten history.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,807
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
Years ago I saw a Network Rail plan with a feeder sub station positioned beside Dore West Junction. Probably another bit of unused railway planning consigned to forgotten history.
I am no expert and do not want to get too far OT, but I suppose it depends on what gets electrified. If Hope Valley and a rolling program of Sheffield - Doncaster, Leeds and York all got electrified you could make a case. I am sure someone with better knowledge than me will correct this understanding of wrong. If Dore West is very near the National Grid who knows.
 

ohgoditsjames

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
379
Location
Sheffield & Shipley
I am no expert and do not want to get too far OT, but I suppose it depends on what gets electrified. If Hope Valley and a rolling program of Sheffield - Doncaster, Leeds and York all got electrified you could make a case. I am sure someone with better knowledge than me will correct this understanding of wrong. If Dore West is very near the National Grid who knows.
The day electrification makes it to Sheffield I’ll buy everyone on here a pint :D
 

InTheEastMids

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2016
Messages
718
From the previous post that seems to be part of KO2 but the "electrification moves north" in the Adey Steel press release still sounds over-optimistic.

KO2 was killed by Grayling, and then replaced with KO1a, the outcome of which is to provide OHLE and power to enable all EMR services to run on electricity, i.e.
- Availability of sufficient power by extending to the new grid supply point at Braybrooke (the Kettering to Harborough bit might be 'the electrification moves North' that is being referred to
- Allowing electric trains to run at 125mph by upgrading the OHLE south of Bedford

This all used to be in the CP5 Enhancements Plan updates, but since CP6 started they were taken down by NR so now my memory will have to do...
 

John Webb

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Messages
3,048
Location
St Albans
Update re the proposed works at Napsbury: Had a close look this afternoon as I returned home at the area next to the North Orbital Trading Estate - this is an official NR access point - and there is no sign of any works at all at present.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,477
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
Update re the proposed works at Napsbury: Had a close look this afternoon as I returned home at the area next to the North Orbital Trading Estate - this is an official NR access point - and there is no sign of any works at all at present.
Based on the fact that Napsbury was already an NR access point, it seemed like as good a guess as any for the proposed site - although I may yet be wrong on that count. Similarly, the locations for the substations at East Hyde and Leagrave are nought but marginally educated guesses.
 

WAO

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2019
Messages
657
I am no expert and do not want to get too far OT, but I suppose it depends on what gets electrified. If Hope Valley and a rolling program of Sheffield - Doncaster, Leeds and York all got electrified you could make a case. I am sure someone with better knowledge than me will correct this understanding of wrong. If Dore West is very near the National Grid who knows.

Google:


gives a map of the UK grid, (enlargeable) which suggests that power is concentrated on the East. The Chesterfield substation, 275kV, is not too far from Dore. An ATFS can feed quite a long way, about double a classic .

WAO
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,813
Location
Sheffield

38Cto15E

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2009
Messages
997
Location
15E
Kegworth is a good place for a feeder station given how close it is to Ratcliffe Power Station. :)
 

Top