Midland Main Line Electrification

[Edwin_m]

The lead time on a major Grid connection is around five years and I believe the Braybrooke site was fixed some time ago.  The question seems to be whether to extend the OLE to the vicinity of that site, or provide a trackside feeder cable to feed into the OLE at Kettering. 

[jamie92208]

The lead time on a major Grid connection is around five years and I believe the Braybrooke site was fixed some time ago.  The question seems to be whether to extend the OLE to the vicinity of that site, or provide a trackside feeder cable to feed into the OLE at Kettering.

They've had to do similar things on other projects. There is a long feeder cable into Stalybridge from the grid supply point which is a couple of miles up the line towards Standedge on a former power station site. There are some very good photos on the Trans Pennine electrification thread of the installation of the equipment needed at the site.

 

It would certainly make sense to extend the wires as far as possible but that assumes that sensible decisions are being taken.

 

 

Jamie

Edited July 24, 2018 by jamie92208

[caradoc]

If the electrification was extended to Market Harborough, what services would be able to make use of it ?

[jamie92208]

If the electrification was extended to Market Harborough, what services would be able to make use of it ?

presumably the new bi modes would be able to use electric power for a bit further.

 

Jamie

[Dava]

Have any bi-mode trains been ordered for the MML, or does it have to wait for the new franchisee/set of offshore opportunists/muppet managers to be appointed in 2019 first? Pardon my cynicism....

 

Dava

[Zomboid]

I don't think any trains have been ordered for running to Corby (though they'll probably use "second hand" EMUs for that given the glut of essentially new trains coming off lease in the next couple of years).

Guess they've got to do something about the HSTs though, and I'd be a bit surprised if that meant anything other than 802s. And the 222s would probably find a home elsewhere quite easily.

[jamie92208]

Have any bi-mode trains been ordered for the MML, or does it have to wait for the new franchisee/set of offshore opportunists/muppet managers to be appointed in 2019 first? Pardon my cynicism....

 

Dava

As far as I know bi modes are in the spec for the new franchise. I think that there is some mention of contenders in the forthcoming Modern Railways.

 

Jamie

[Zomboid]

It would certainly make sense to extend the wires as far as possible but that assumes that sensible decisions are being taken.

Think they've done the bridges, probably best put the wires up before the rules change again...

[DY444]

I think that one of the main obstacles to going further north is the bridge at the south end of Leicester station so it may not come much further north however daft that partial electrification is.

 

Jamie

 

I read somewhere that NR are experimenting with fitting insulated plastic sections under bridges as a way of reducing clearances.  If that's true, and a success and the ORR winds its neck in a bit on unnecessary standards then that may be a solution for Leicester and other difficult sites.

[Dava]

Leicester is difficult because Up trains would need to be able to draw current starting from the station, which sits on the low bridge, so an insulated scction wouldnt work.

 

Dava

[Zomboid]

That would depend on several other factors - gradient, length of the neutral section, that magnet location. Would be a challenging location, though.

 

Or perhaps the proposed plastic bits are secondary insulation to attach to the bridge, which ought to reduce the risk associated with limited clearances.

[jamie92208]

That would depend on several other factors - gradient, length of the neutral section, that magnet location. Would be a challenging location, though.

 

Or perhaps the proposed plastic bits are secondary insulation to attach to the bridge, which ought to reduce the risk associated with limited clearances.

I think that I saw somewhere tat the plastic would be secondary insulation. It might even have been on some of the discussion of the Steventon problem on the GWML.

 

Jamie

[Sir TophamHatt]

Or maybe they could reverse the train a little bit, then start and have a bit of a run up?

[Edwin_m]

Or maybe they could reverse the train a little bit, then start and have a bit of a run up?

Or do something involving a very large rubber band? 

 

Bombardier have announced a 125mph bi-mode so that could be another contender. 

 

As far as I know there are at least three issues with recent standards changes for OLE at bridges:

• Minimum parapet height has been increased.  Probably no way to avoid this one on new electrification schemes, even if the bridges were built/upgraded before electrification with parapets that complied with the rules at the time. 
• Clearance between wires and structures has been increased.  As far as I can tell arcing to a bridge structure isn't really a safety issue although it can cause damage, and by that logic it ought to be possible to make a tradeoff to avoid re-building a bridge but accept increase risk of arcing. 
• Clearance from platforms to live components, both fixed and part of the train (eg ends of pantograph).  This is a particular problem if there are overbridges on or near the platform, as the wire generally ramps down to pass under them.  Not meeting the new standard can be justified by risk assessment and nobody seems to have found any instance of people being killed by arcing from wires while on a platform so that oughtn't in principle to be too difficult.  However a (safety) risk assessment and associated approval process introduces (project) risk - what if someone spends a year trying to get approval, fails to do so and the bridge has to be re-built late in the day? - so projects may just spend the money to re-build the bridge and avoid the risk of missing completion dates. 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Are all these "risks" real risks, or just perceived ones?

 

How many have been injured with the current standards in place?

Will the new standards actually improve things, or is it just a box-ticking exercise?

[cheesysmith]

What you mean to say is are these new standards a improvement or is it some civil servant in the DaFT unwilling to sign off on the needed derogerations from the new standards? After all, if 1ft of clearance is good, 2ft must be better? And on one will challenge the new standards as if anything happens it will be their heads called before the judge at a inquiry so because someone else is paying for it lets go for the gold plated standards and so what if it make electrification too expensive.

[Dava]

The bridge in question at Leicester has the station concourse on top and 6 tracks underneath, with limited clearances as seen in the video.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CqpIQti5VOQ

 

I'll warrant no-one is prepared to rebuild the station [listed structure] and bridge, or to excavate the tracks by rebuilding the platforms and southern approaches to increase clearances, where there is already a track flooding risk.

 

Dava

[The Stationmaster]

Are all these "risks" real risks, or just perceived ones?

 

How many have been injured with the current standards in place?

Will the new standards actually improve things, or is it just a box-ticking exercise?

 

Interestingly many of the bridge clearances from overhead catenary on the GWML look to be far closer to the original BR dimensions rather than the new nonsense figures which DafT failed to sort at the right stage in their introduction.  However at least a couple of footbridges originally said to be compliant have subsequently been demolished notwithstanding teh fact that in one case electric trains seem to have been passing under said bridge at 125 mph without any flashes and bangs as they passed.  And there are a number of brick arch structures where track has not been lowered but the catenary is there and in use at maximum ;line speeds every day of the week.

 

I think as far as DafT/the ORR were concerned it was basically down to stupidity or ignorance in dealing with the original harmonisation paperwork but they seem to have subsequently been quite happy to pile additional cost onto electrification schemes.  In the real world what could be simpler than carrying out a risk assessment and sticking with the past, and well used, BR dimensions and clearances where there is a mass of data to confirm the old standards are perfectly safe? 

[caradoc]

I read somewhere that NR are experimenting with fitting insulated plastic sections under bridges as a way of reducing clearances.  If that's true, and a success and the ORR winds its neck in a bit on unnecessary standards then that may be a solution for Leicester and other difficult sites.

 

Such a method was used to enable the Corkerhill/Paisley Canal route to be electrified (relatively) cheaply.

[caradoc]

The bridge in question at Leicester has the station concourse on top and 6 tracks underneath, with limited clearances as seen in the video.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CqpIQti5VOQ

 

I'll warrant no-one is prepared to rebuild the station [listed structure] and bridge, or to excavate the tracks by rebuilding the platforms and southern approaches to increase clearances, where there is already a track flooding risk.

 

Dava

 

Perhaps some kind of battery pack as per the EMUs planned for South Wales might be needed ? (although given the rate of progress with electrification in the UK at present it will sadly be a long time before the Midland Main Line is wired to Sheffield, in fact we'll probably have Star Trek style transporters before then).

[Rugd1022]

The bridge in question at Leicester has the station concourse on top and 6 tracks underneath, with limited clearances as seen in the video.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CqpIQti5VOQ

 

I'll warrant no-one is prepared to rebuild the station [listed structure] and bridge, or to excavate the tracks by rebuilding the platforms and southern approaches to increase clearances, where there is already a track flooding risk.

 

Dava

 

Well at least we can take heart that recent P/Way remodelling just south of the bridge has raised the line speed to 40mph on the curve, and 25mph for freight. It's still 15mph on the down road though.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Rugd1022

[Covkid]

Such a method was used to enable the Corkerhill/Paisley Canal route to be electrified (relatively) cheaply.

 

But in that case I believe locomotives and conventional roofed rolling stock is unable to operate without the OLE being switched off.  

[caradoc]

But in that case I believe locomotives and conventional roofed rolling stock is unable to operate without the OLE being switched off.  

 

Good point Covkid, although I believe the restriction is not universal; Some Paisley Canal trains are worked by Class 314 sets with flat(tish) roofs, and others are Class 380 sets with conventional roofs. However the OLE does have to be switched off for trains such as diesel-hauled track recorders, which can only therefore run at night. It must depend on just how much clearance there is ?

[Edwin_m]

Good point Covkid, although I believe the restriction is not universal; Some Paisley Canal trains are worked by Class 314 sets with flat(tish) roofs, and others are Class 380 sets with conventional roofs. However the OLE does have to be switched off for trains such as diesel-hauled track recorders, which can only therefore run at night. It must depend on just how much clearance there is ?

I think the issue here is that the Canal line keeps the wire live under low-clearance bridges.  There is enough clearance for the local EMU fleets to operate but not enough for safe clearance to other stock.  The MML or other major route that carries a wide variet of stock couldn't adopt this approach, but it might be possible to have a short dead section where the wire is high enough to physically clear the roofs but not high enough for electrical clearances.  This obviously carries some risk of trains being stranded in the dead section, although a bi-mode could rescue itself by switching to diesel power. 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Probably a recipe for disaster, but if the unit had two pans, couldn't they lower the front one to go under the Leicester overbridge (still drawing

power via the rear one}, then raise it after the bridge and lower the rear pan.

 

Somehow doubt I'll see the wires reach Derby in my lifetime though.....