Should the MML electrification project have been done as a continuous programme right through to Sheffield?

[Mikey C]

Moderator note - split from:

MML Electrification: progress updates

There's an article about NR's plans in Rail this week (#765 p54). It seems that work on site will start in April 2015, the contractor being Carillion Powerlines. They will be using road-rail vehicles for the work, not a high-output system. The 125mph design isn't explicitly named but seems...

www.railforums.co.uk

AH: I am not familiar with the detail. I will need to talk to Network Rail about that. What tends to happen with the electrification market is that they tend not to be tied to a geographic area; they tend to move round the country depending on where the work is. That highlights the need for a smooth rolling programme of efficient electrification because it enables the supply chain to invest in the plant and the equipment and skills that you need to sustain a rolling programme. Both on electrification and on rolling stock, one of our intentions is to have a more joined-up strategy, which has been difficult in the fragmented railway that we currently have.

Surely the issue here isn't the fragmented railway, but rather stop start funding from the government (both parties)? From the outside, the MML electrification programme seems to have gone smoothly, with none of the overruns seen on the GWML, and could have been done as a continuous programme right through to Sheffield.

 

[AM9]

Surely the issue here isn't the fragmented railway, but rather stop start funding from the government (both parties)? From the outside, the MML electrification programme seems to have gone smoothly, with none of the overruns seen on the GWML, and could have been done as a continuous programme right through to Sheffield.

Only at the expense of other jobs, notably the trans-Pennine and of course available parallel funding. Local/regional politics play loudly there.

 

[Mikey C]

Only at the expense of other jobs, notably the trans-Pennine and of course available parallel funding. Local/regional politics play loudly there.

Which won't change under nationalisation and GBR. Indeed it might get worse., with even more political interfering.

 

[Transilien]

If BR did the project I can imagine it would be, the fractured nature of the modern railway makes this impossible. The treasury/government can simply change its mind too quickly for large scale projects like the ECML electrification to be done today.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Surely (alas) this stop-go-stop inefficiency is nothing new. There are specialists in here who will be able to correct me, but as I remember BR wanted to continue with WCML electrification from Weaver to Motherwell as soon as work was finished at the southern end, ie from 1966-7. This was prevented by the government, teams broken up, only to start all over again abour five years later when the northern section was given the go ahead.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Surely (alas) this stop-go-stop inefficiency is nothing new. There are specialists in here who will be able to correct me, but as I remember BR wanted to continue with WCML electrification from Weaver to Motherwell as soon as work was finished at the southern end, ie from 1966-7. This was prevented by the government, teams broken up, only to start all over again abour five years later when the northern section was given the go ahead.

Even before that; the Government stopped work at London Road/Piccadilly for about 18 months after work had started.
Later, South of Rugby, lots of pruning of original plans - e.g. manual boxes retained, route abandoned, very cut-price station refurbs.

 

[nw1]

Is the reason that bi-mode stock is now available, while in say the late 80s when the last really big job (the ECML) was done, it was not, so it had to be done as one long programme (albeit completed in stages)?

 

[Snow1964]

Is the reason that bi-mode stock is now available, while in say the late 80s when the last really big job (the ECML) was done, it was not, so it had to be done as one long programme (albeit completed in stages)?

Partly, but if there was a rolling programme to keep specialised crews working (and getting better and more efficient), they would also be a plan for moving the bi-modes to replace diesels, and introducing pure electric trains to coincide with final stage of the route.
The bi-modes would then move to next route being done in phases.

When the ECML was done, there was a plan to move the few years old HSTs to improve another line at same time. Not really being done with current piecemeal MML works. Instead will be trains pointlessly carrying around unused diesel units, and elsewhere diesels without bimode capability on electrified sections.

 

[HSTEd]

This stop start issue is likely a result of the huge cost growth that has afflicted previous schemes.

Given the huge political costs of a cancellation, it is the best method available to avoid committing the government to another huge programme.

The government has no confidence in the ability of the railway to deliver on time or on budget, so needs to be able to pull the plug.

Much easier not to fund something than to cancel.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is the reason that bi-mode stock is now available, while in say the late 80s when the last really big job (the ECML) was done, it was not, so it had to be done as one long programme (albeit completed in stages)?

Not quite what you mean, but for a time on the ECMl there were ‘bi mode’ trains runnign about, with a 91 one end and an HST oower car the other. Both modes in use st the same time, and therefore 8,700hp available to shift 8 Mark 3 coaches… performance was accordingly exciting!

 

[Transilien]

Not quite what you mean, but for a time on the ECMl there were ‘bi mode’ trains runnign about, with a 91 one end and an HST oower car the other. Both modes in use st the same time, and therefore 8,700hp available to shift 8 Mark 3 coaches… performance was accordingly exciting!

They only operated on electrified lines with the HST essentially being a stand in for the mark 4 DVT as that stock wasn't built yet.

 

[Harpo]

Answer to OP - Yes.

Aspirational answer to OP- Yes, as part of an efficient rolling national programme.

Envious answer to OP- Wish we were Scotland.

Realistic answer to OP- Who is SOS for transport this week?

Cynical answer to OP - Which parties hold the constituencies the MML passes through?

Treasury answer to OP - How much of this can be discontinuous. And what is a ‘freight train’?

GBR answer to OP - Where is the MML? Isn’t it a bit of Cross Country that’s going soon?

National Grid answer to OP - We are
installing diesel generators to ensure that electric vehicles on the M1 can continue to save the environment. (No fact in that one - But there are ‘generator farms’ elsewhere.)

 

[Bald Rick]

They only operated on electrified lines with the HST essentially being a stand in for the mark 4 DVT as that stock wasn't built yet.

Well yes, but I’m sure there were occasions when the HST powercar provided the sole power during incidents of 91 failure.

 

[30907]

Not quite what you mean, but for a time on the ECMl there were ‘bi mode’ trains runnign about, with a 91 one end and an HST oower car the other. Both modes in use st the same time, and therefore 8,700hp available to shift 8 Mark 3 coaches… performance was accordingly exciting!

I recall great enthusiasm from an EC manager whose career ended up at the SRA/DfT....

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I mean, surely it should have been done right through to Wakefield too? At the very least, you can run electric Cross-Country trains from Scotland down to Derby. Although going to Birmingham makes better sense.

There must be other short stretches of track on the Midland you could electrify to create suburban and regional electric services too. Nottingham to Leeds is one example.

 

[A S Leib]

done right through to Wakefield too?

And Doncaster; even if the Sheffield – Doncaster / Adwick stoppers would be the only diesel services eliminated, it doesn't make sense to me to have two electrified lines that close together without electrifying the line between them.

 

[Harpo]

it doesn't make sense to me to have two electrified lines that close together without electrifying the line between them.

You can't go bringing facts or logic into an OHLE discussion!

But yes, even BR found ways to make a business case for small electrifications.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

And Doncaster; even if the Sheffield – Doncaster / Adwick stoppers would be the only diesel services eliminated, it doesn't make sense to me to have two electrified lines that close together without electrifying the line between them.

A Chesterfield to Doncaster Sheffield Crossrail, a man can dream…

 

[70014IronDuke]

Even before that; the Government stopped work at London Road/Piccadilly for about 18 months after work had started.
Later, South of Rugby, lots of pruning of original plans - e.g. manual boxes retained, route abandoned, very cut-price station refurbs.

I think this depends. For example - I think it was yourself who reported not too long ago in another thread that the Northampton - Blisworth line was cut and then lifted - but this was no longer really needed as the electrics could handle the mineral trains up the bank to Roade with ease, and the traffic was dropping off anyway. So in this case, it was a case of changing demand issues, which is a perfectly good reason to change plans.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I mean, surely it should have been done right through to Wakefield too? At the very least, you can run electric Cross-Country trains from Scotland down to Derby. Although going to Birmingham makes better sense.

And if you're going to Birmingham, you might as well go to Bristol. That leaves an odd gap from Leeds to Colton Junction, should probably fill that in... oh bugger, have we accidentally invented rolling electrification again?

 

[Merle Haggard]

I think this depends. For example - I think it was yourself who reported not too long ago in another thread that the Northampton - Blisworth line was cut and then lifted - but this was no longer really needed as the electrics could handle the mineral trains up the bank to Roade with ease, and the traffic was dropping off anyway. So in this case, it was a case of changing demand issues, which is a perfectly good reason to change plans.

Indeed the case that the route pruning was because of the steady loss of goods and mineral traffic; but the other cuts were, I think, just to keep the whole project within budget where there had been overspends. Northampton No 1 to Northampton No 4 - manual boxes with lever frames and electric switches at the bottom of the lever for signals, though still point rodding for most points. Block working bell codes to Rugby and Bletchley PSBs.

 

[Topological]

And if you're going to Birmingham, you might as well go to Bristol. That leaves an odd gap from Leeds to Colton Junction, should probably fill that in... oh bugger, have we accidentally invented rolling electrification again?

This would be the logical conclusion. Eventually, you would need to continue further South West though as it would be a long way off-wires to Plymouth and back (I think you would cut CrossCountry further than Plymouth)

In the first instance just getting the wires to Birmingham from Derby would be transformative.

 

[Mikey C]

Bristol and Cardiff to Birmingham are major routes anyway, connecting important cities, via busy intermediate stops. The sort of route that ought to be electrified for those journeys alone, never mind the longer distance ones.

 

[Indigo Soup]

This would be the logical conclusion. Eventually, you would need to continue further South West though as it would be a long way off-wires to Plymouth and back (I think you would cut CrossCountry further than Plymouth)

In the first instance just getting the wires to Birmingham from Derby would be transformative.

In fact, in the optimistic days of 2009, the general idea was for:

1. Midland to Nottingham and Sheffield (at the same time as the GWML to Bristol and Swansea
2. Transpennine electrification, which would take the hit for Colton Junction to Leeds
3. Birmingham to Oxford, Reading and Basingstoke, with access to Central Rivers
4. Gap filling northwards from Birmingham to the ECML
5. Southwards from Bromsgrove to Plymouth
6. Berks & Hants line

It would have required building a lot more dual mode trains (probably IETs), but the cascaded 22x units would probably have come in useful in various places.

If only we'd been able to actually deliver such things at sensible costs.

 

[Bald Rick]

In fact, in the optimistic days of 2009, the general idea was for:

1. Midland to Nottingham and Sheffield (at the same time as the GWML to Bristol and Swansea
2. Transpennine electrification, which would take the hit for Colton Junction to Leeds
3. Birmingham to Oxford, Reading and Basingstoke, with access to Central Rivers
4. Gap filling northwards from Birmingham to the ECML
5. Southwards from Bromsgrove to Plymouth
6. Berks & Hants line

It would have required building a lot more dual mode trains (probably IETs), but the cascaded 22x units would probably have come in useful in various places.

If only we'd been able to actually deliver such things at sensible costs.

There were plans for the first three, excluding the Central Rivers connection, but not the others.

And no.3 was never more than a ‘hope’ job, there was no work done on it before it was annoucned by the then Government. It was a surprise to almost everyone.

 

[Indigo Soup]

There were plans for the first three, excluding the Central Rivers connection, but not the others.

You'll note the words 'optimistic' and 'general idea'. Had costs been less ludicrous they might have turned into plans. The wheels would probably have fallen off at some point.

The Electrification RUS also reckoned the Basingstoke-Exeter line was a good shout, which even I think is probably a bit pie in the sky.