Midland Main Line Electrification

[russ p]

They'd be rather good on EMT's Liverpool-Norwich services.

 

Not good for SP speeds so would be 75 mph max east of Peterborough and 45 between Ely and Lakenheath

[Dava]

There is a great deal of anger in the East Midlands about the perceived broken promises, lies and betrayals by government ministers re non-electrification of the MML even though the danger signs have been increasing in recent months. THere is also a lot of cynicism about the perceived excessive costs re lack of benefits of HS2 for the region [1 station at Toton] with completion 2026 at the earliest.

 

The issue is not what noddy hybrid trains might run the MML but the economic and political consequences of this mistaken decision. And how we can get it reversed.

 

This would not happen in any other core Western European economy. But of course we will not be European much longer.

 

Dava

[great central]

They'd be rather good on EMT's Liverpool-Norwich services.

That assumes that Liverpool-Norwich doesn't get split up

[eastwestdivide]

Anglia are also buying bi-modes but built by Stadler.

Stadler make 200km/h intercity trains, and they make bi-modes, so not beyond the realms of possibility to combine the two, even if they don't have an off-the-shelf solution as yet.

[great central]

Question is, if the new fleet will be Bi-Modes, where do the 222s go?

Any bl**dy where but outside where I'm sitting now!! Whole flippin building is vibrating!

[Pandora]

If wikipedia is correct:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_railway_electrification_in_Great_Britain

 

£4.2 billion allocated  from  2012  to fund 7 electrification projects,  GWML at 2.8 bn  is 400% of  budget, I disappointed by the cancellation, but certainly not surprised

Edited July 21, 2017 by Pandora

[Pete the Elaner]

This is true - but the GEML has a maximum line speed of 100mph. By contrast a fair proportion of the MML is 125mph now - and their may be aspirations to increase this further in future. The 800s have a top design speed of 140mph* as once ERTMS is fitted to the GWML and ECML lines, it is planned to increase the permitted speed

 

*(The ORR / HSE will not allow speeds higher than 125mph unless some form of in cab signalling system is fitted)

140mph will be another empty promise & will get swept under the carpet just like it did with the ECML electrification. In cab signalling may be a requirement but it is not the only problem.

 

It never happened on the ECML because more braking distance would have to be maintained between trains, which means less trains or total separation of slower ones. Neither of these are realistic solutions.

 

Similar on the WCML: Pendolinos are designed for 140mph running.

Virgin pushed for it, asking for all other traffic to use the slow lines. This would have made them too full so line speed has been capped at 125 to stop them catching slower trains too quickly.

 

With more trains running, braking distances need to be reduced in order to fit them in. I don't doubt that modern trains can stop more quickly but slower speeds is a way to run trains closer together, not increasing the line speed to 140.

There is a solution....HS2.

[TheSignalEngineer]

 

Similar on the WCML: Pendolinos are designed for 140mph running.

Virgin pushed for it, asking for all other traffic to use the slow lines. This would have made them too full so line speed has been capped at 125 to stop them catching slower trains too

There was no financial case for 140mph running with Pendolinos. The extra time savings for the full scheme as opposed to 125mph were about 4 minutes to Birmingham, 8 minutes to Manchester and 11 minutes to Glasgow. The extra cost of developing the cab signalling and more civils works was likely to cost £8bn.

Cost escalation to speed increase tends to be exponential especially over 100mph. Before the 4-tracking to Colwich I was asked to review a proposal for 125mph on the old layout. The estimated cost was about £9millon, and deemed too expensive for the saving of 15 seconds. Reducing the top speed by 10mph cut the time saving to 12 seconds but the cost estimate came down to below £3million.

[ess1uk]

So I take it the wires won't reach Manton now?

[Hairy Bear Digital]

So I take it the wires won't reach Manton now?

They never were. The extension of wires is/maybe, Bedford -Kettering- Corby.

Don't hold your breath though.

[RANGERS]

They never were. The extension of wires is/maybe, Bedford -Kettering- Corby.

Don't hold your breath though.

 

The Manton stretch was only ever a possibility if a Felixstowe - Birmingham freight spine became reality.

 

The announcement the other day has cast a cloud over the East Mids franchise bids as there is no clarity over who will operate the Corby electrics. The original franchise spec had this as part of the East Mids franchise but it now looks as though it could be attached to the next Thameslink when that comes up in 2021. The way things are looking at the moment, there's little prospect of Corby being wired much in advance of that anyway and it would also allow a reduction in EMT paths to LSP to accommodate increased Thameslink paths as part of the MML share of the 24 per hour from Farringdon to Blackfriars

[great central]

I doubt the MML would want to give up a path to STP, more likely Thameslink would operate the Corby services as an extension of their Bedford route and leave MML with another path to the East Midlands

[Shed]

What a mess

[D854_Tiger]

The irony isn't lost on me that just a few years back Corby didn't even have a train service, then it had a bubble car, then it didn't even have a train service, then it got one again and now it even gets some knitting whilst Leicester and Nottingham can go swivel.

[D854_Tiger]

Just my oppinion / speculation / wibble (delete as appropiate), I would put money on it that they end up with XC, with the 170s cascaded elsewhere, 

 

Meridiens and Voyagers cannot work in multiple as they are wired differently

['CHARD]

Meridiens and Voyagers cannot work in multiple as they are wired differently

 

Indeed - emergency rescue only.

[Rob F]

Indeed - emergency rescue only.

 

But not an unsolvable problem, I would have thought.

 

Rob

[RANGERS]

But not an unsolvable problem, I would have thought.

 

Rob

 

A lot more difficult than you might think I gather, the two are completely different and it would entail replacing the control systems and internal wiring together with partial replacement of the HVAC. On 18 year old units (by the time they leave the MML), its not a viable option. More likely they'll gravitate to secondary services elsewhere, some of the Northern routes and Scotland have been mooted, and with the tendency to send cast off's that way, its a pretty fair bet I'd have thought.

[RANGERS]

I doubt the MML would want to give up a path to STP, more likely Thameslink would operate the Corby services as an extension of their Bedford route and leave MML with another path to the East Midlands

 

If MML services to Luton and Bedford are withdrawn, to maintain the current capacity there, the East Mids franchise services would lose at least one path (currently the single one each hour to Corby), and either space would have to be found for an additional path or the existing second one serving Luton and Bedford would go to the extended Thameslink franchise. This would give the two per hour to Corby.

 

In reality, the dictating factor has always been seen as the upper level platform capacity rather than track capacity North of Kentish Town (although anyone on an EMT express thats stuck behind a Brighton - Bedford peak hour service might disagree!), in which case if the two Corby's an hour are sent downstairs and South of the river as part of the 24 per hour through Farringdon - Blackfriars, it might not be quite so much of an issue.

[phil-b259]

Meridiens and Voyagers cannot work in multiple as they are wired differently

 

So can the 170s work in multiple with the Meridans or Voyagers then?

 

Or can Meridans work in multiple with HSTs?

 

XC currently operate 3 types of non compatible stock, a few HST sets, a large feet of Voyagers and a small fleet of 170s. Ditching the HSTs and 170s in favour of Meridans is one option giving more capacity while replacement of the HSTs prevents expenditure on fitting powered doors, etc. Also selective diagramming could see some Voyager services go over to Meridans thus allowing more trains to be made up of double Voyagers to relive overcrowding

[caradoc]

Absolutely phil-b259, many TOCs operate non-compatible stock. There is no reason why Voyagers should not operate Midland Main Line services, as long as they are not diagrammed to attach to Meridians. 

[Edwin_m]

Or, conversely, Meridians go to XC but are diagrammed separately to Voyagers, for example on different routes that only meet for a short distance around Birmingham.

 

Nottingham-Cardiff would be a good option, as this would give an all-125mph fleet between Derby and Cheltenham so should ease pathing, especially if suggested journey time improvements south of Birmingham go ahead.  Birmingham-Stansted is less good because of the number of Sprinter differential speed restrictions that Voyagers can't take advantage of.  Voyagers are so space-inefficient that replacing a 170 of the same length doesn't increase capacity, so it's only worth doing if there is a speed benefit. 

[Edwin_m]

If MML services to Luton and Bedford are withdrawn, to maintain the current capacity there, the East Mids franchise services would lose at least one path (currently the single one each hour to Corby), and either space would have to be found for an additional path or the existing second one serving Luton and Bedford would go to the extended Thameslink franchise. This would give the two per hour to Corby.

 

In reality, the dictating factor has always been seen as the upper level platform capacity rather than track capacity North of Kentish Town (although anyone on an EMT express thats stuck behind a Brighton - Bedford peak hour service might disagree!), in which case if the two Corby's an hour are sent downstairs and South of the river as part of the 24 per hour through Farringdon - Blackfriars, it might not be quite so much of an issue.

The problem with putting Corby into the Thameslink core is that it would then have to be operated by the 700s.  I think the protests at substitution of outer-suburban EMU for Intercity stock will be dwarfed by what might happen if they have to put up with a Metro-style interior!  The alternative is some sort of fleet which matches the performance and boarding times of the 700 and also has ATO for the Thameslink core - realistically a 700 with a slightly different interior (perhaps a 707 as they will be going spare) and still unlikely to be what the clientele expects.

[Northroader]

I reckon Thameslink and Corby will be turned over to TfL, matching what's happened with the old Crossrail, now the Elizabeth line.

[RANGERS]

It always been the concern but the wording of Graylings statement more or less confirms its going to happen. The operational pattern is still to be unveiled but it looks as though the Corby service will cease to be a semi-fast Luton-Bedford-Wellingborough-Kettering and have Harpenden and St Albans stop added, possibly West Hampstead also.

 

Either way it seems almost inconceivable that there will be enough IEPs for this diagram and equally that the East Mids will only have a handful of EMUs for Corby services. Fraid its pretty obvious which way this is going.

Edited July 24, 2017 by RANGERS