Midland Main Line Electrification

[Hobby]

47 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

But at least Market Harborough has a station... South Wigston is nothing these days.  Just a bend in the track and a branch to Cov.

 

Birmingham rather than Coventry I'd have thought.... It's Nuneaton which has a branch to Cov!!

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

25 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

Birmingham rather than Coventry I'd have thought.... It's Nuneaton which has a branch to Cov!!

 

I had a quick look - it's the branch to Nuneaton.    Then Birmingham.  

[DY444]

1 hour ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

But at least Market Harborough has a station... South Wigston is nothing these days.  Just a bend in the track and a branch to Cov.

 

So does Chippenham but it didn't stop them ending the ole just before it reached it!

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

1 minute ago, DY444 said:

 

So does Chippenham but it didn't stop them ending the ole just before it reached it!

 

Honestly, it makes me despair.  I have no confidence we'll ever have a decent, electrified, integrated railway network in the UK.

[Edwin_m]

2 hours ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

Excellent.  I'll get out there and walk the final few miles to Leicester station...  or perhaps the Down trains can freewheel the last bit if they've got up enough speed by this point.  Up trains will need a push.

 

I expect the reason to finish at South Wigston is that there are ideas for re-modelling the section from there through Leicester to Syston, to reinstate the fourth track and possibly provide a grade separation to remove conflict between the MML and east-west (mainly freight) traffic.  If they wire the existing layout it becomes that much more difficult and costly to change it.  

 

Possibly by the time they get to South Wigston that idea might have been firmed or or abandoned, so in theory they might just be able to continue to Leicester.  

[rodent279]

4 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Rumours elsewhere that the cost per km of Bedford - Corby has come in sufficiently low that it has been agreed "in principle" (whatever that means) to continue beyond Market Harborough to Wigston Jn. 

 

As we know from Leeds-Manchester, the Government brains trust has decided that we no longer have the ability to install ole through tunnels or under low bridges without breaking the bank so stopping at Wigston avoids the "horrors" of Knighton tunnel and the bridge at the South end of Leicester station.  That sound you can hear is the 25kV pioneers of the late 50s and 60s turning in their graves.

If they can wire through Linslade Single Bores, then Knighton Tunnel and the Sparkenhoe St bridge should be a doddle.

[Titan]

37 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

If they can wire through Linslade Single Bores, then Knighton Tunnel and the Sparkenhoe St bridge should be a doddle.

 

The issues with Linslade are not even remotely similar, it does not have a station next to it for a start which severely restricts what you can do.  And unlike the Leicester bridges, particularly London Road Linslade is more than just a few inches above the train roof.  Not even the old OLE guys can change the laws of physics, irrespective of what may or may not be deemed acceptable in the standards in force at the time!

[DY444]

13 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

The issues with Linslade are not even remotely similar, it does not have a station next to it for a start which severely restricts what you can do.  And unlike the Leicester bridges, particularly London Road Linslade is more than just a few inches above the train roof.  Not even the old OLE guys can change the laws of physics, irrespective of what may or may not be deemed acceptable in the standards in force at the time!

 

From my perspective the key point is that Leicester is no more difficult than several bridges done in the past and yet back then a way was found to do them.  Now the whole scheme is made useless to straight electric traction because bi-modes provide an excuse not to figure out what that way is.

 

I know the past is a different place where they do things differently and all that, but the laws of physics were the same and sure as eggs are eggs if BR had been presented with the opportunity of electrifying the MML then they would have found a way to deal with the Leicester bridge. 

 

Remember too that bridge lies on the Felixstowe - Nuneaton/Birmingham freight artery too so odds are it is going to have to be faced at some point.

Edited December 21, 2021 by DY444

[phil-b259]

47 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

Remember too that bridge lies on the Felixstowe - Nuneaton/Birmingham freight artery too so odds are it is going to have to be faced at some point.

 

Yes a route which had its loading gauge enhanced MANY years ago and thus needs no further work!

 

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

If they can wire through Linslade Single Bores, then Knighton Tunnel and the Sparkenhoe St bridge should be a doddle.

 

Linslade tunnel is an arched structure thus conveniently having a dead space at the top of the arch which can be used for OLE equipment.

 

Leicester's London Rd Bridge on the other hand is a flat structure with square openings for the tracks (with a listed building on top of it) - the only way of creating space for OLE is to dig downwards and lower the trackbed - which in turn means reconstruction of the adjacent station platforms to suit massive increasing the bill - and not something BR would have been able to avoid either!

[rodent279]

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Linslade tunnel is an arched structure thus conveniently having a dead space at the top of the arch which can be used for OLE equipment.

 

Leicester's London Rd Bridge on the other hand is a flat structure with square openings for the tracks (with a listed building on top of it) - the only way of creating space for OLE is to dig downwards and lower the trackbed - which in turn means reconstruction of the adjacent station platforms to suit massive increasing the bill - and not something BR would have been able to avoid either!

Ah, is London Rd bridge the problem? I assumed it was Sparkenhoe St.

[eastwestdivide]

25 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Yes a route which had its loading gauge enhanced MANY years ago and thus needs no further work!

 

But was its loading gauge enhanced for wide containers or for tall and pointy pantographs which stand taller than the tallest container, or maybe for both? I don't know the answer. 

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, eastwestdivide said:

But was its loading gauge enhanced for wide containers or for tall and pointy pantographs which stand taller than the tallest container, or maybe for both? I don't know the answer. 

 

It was enhanced for 'wide' containers - not OLE!

 

Thus bridges and other structures (like the critical one at Leicester) which could already cope with square profile containers (but which are too low for OLE) were not touched during the process.

 

Where a bridge needed to be rebuilt to let containers fit through then yes, the rebuild would have also included passive provision for OLE.

 

 

[eastwestdivide]

OK that's what I thought - I read it as if you were suggesting no work needed for electrification. Moving right along...

[Rugd1022]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Yes a route which had its loading gauge enhanced MANY years ago and thus needs no further work!

 

 

At the overbridge (no.22 known as the skew bridge) between Narborough and Croft the track bed was lowered slightly to allow for the taller containers in use on the route.

[DY444]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Yes a route which had its loading gauge enhanced MANY years ago and thus needs no further work!

 

 

It does if you want to use electric locomotives on intermodals!

Edited December 21, 2021 by DY444

[phil-b259]

22 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

It does if you want to use electric locomotives on intermodals!

 

Yes but thats unrelated to this thread which is about MML electrification and the clearance problems pertaining to electric passenger services.

 

The point is gauge clearance is done for two totally separate reasons (though in some cases both might apply):-

 

(1) To permit certain types of rail vehicle to physically fit

(2) To provide extra clearance for OLE

 

As desirable as it might be to use electric traction for freight - wiring the MML makes sod all difference - as long as Felixstowe - Ipswich, Haughley Junc - Syston Junc and Wigston Junc  -Birmingham remain without OLE than diesel / Hydrogen traction will continue to have to be used

 

 

 

 

 

[Titan]

37 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

It does if you want to use electric locomotives on intermodals!

 

Previously, in order to fit the corners of the containers within the loading gauge, the tops of the containers had to be somewhat below the top of the locomotive.  With the gauge enhancement making more room for the corners, the tops of the containers are now about level with the top of the locomotive, with the corners sticking out more beyond the cantrail.  As the OLE is over the centre of the train, the higher containers have made no practical difference to the height required for the OLE.  The only significant issue is making sure that all the OLE assemblies that provide support are clear of the containers corners, the wire itself is not a problem.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Titan

[corneliuslundie]

"diesel / Hydrogen traction will continue to have to be used"

That is what needs to change. But I am very cynical about the advantages of hydrogen, as it is a very wasteful way to use energy for transport. And to change the freight to electrical traction would also allow electrification of the MML passenger services. And on the MML (and elsewhere) Bimode must only be a short term expedient. Just kicking things into the "too difficult" bin will not do in even the medium let alone the long term. So bite the bullet do it now. (sorry about the mixed metaphors)

Mind you that message will not go down well with the Treasury who can only as far as I can tell see as far as the next six months (presumably because most of them were trained in the City).

Jonathan

[phil-b259]

38 minutes ago, Rugd1022 said:

 

At the overbridge (no.22 known as the skew bridge) between Narborough and Croft the track bed was lowered slightly to allow for the taller containers in use on the route.

 

The problem is that such techniques cannot always be used. On the incline at Acton linking the GWML to the NLL there is a high pressure gas main preventing such work happening and bridge reconstruction was the only way of providing OLE clearance.

 

At Cardiff a similar constraint precluded track lowering to increase clearances under the Valley lines bridge, but fortunately as the bridge concerned was metal a special non-conductive paint solution could be employed.

 

At Leicester London Rd bridge and associated listed station building needs raising upwards or the platforms need lowering - simply lowering the trackbed alone is not possible due to the proximity of the platforms. That increases the bill considerably and I predict the eventual solution will be to have a dead section and use on train battery power to get over the gap.

 

Freight would have to be catered for with some sort of avoiding lines that do not have platforms to get the necessary clearances.

 

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Ah, is London Rd bridge the problem? I assumed it was Sparkenhoe St.

 

Sparkenhoe Street is a pretty straightforward bridge to deal with (i.e. no buildings on it, approaches with no road junctions, etc). A bog standard reconstruction to raise the deck height is entirely feasible - though if the entire station has to be lowered to deal with the London road end then that would also increase clearances at Sparkenhoe street.

Edited December 21, 2021 by phil-b259

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I can't help feeling we're being somewhat under-ambitious with this project.... low clearance indeed

 

 

[Titan]

It's actually a worse problem than that - OLE has to be a minimum height alongside the platform which is significantly higher than the minimum under a bridge.  This means that low bridges next to stations can be a really, really big problem.

[rodent279]

Is a battery for the short gap through the station feasible? 

 

(Or have pairs of 20's hauling each train between Leicester station & Wigston. There you go, problem solved )

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, rodent279 said:

Is a battery for the short gap through the station feasible? 

 

 

It certainly could be - IIRC trials are due to be undertaken by Hitachi and one of the 800 series users where one of the engines is swapped out for a battery pack