Midland Main Line Electrification

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

Having just started working on the London to Corby re-signalling doing train flows, the future services will be very much like today's services, just increased slightly. Not much I can say other than that, apart from 700s are not allocated to Corby runs (I know what is, but I don't think it is common knowledge yet, so can't reveal).

 

On a slight different note, Chris F, when Thameslink is finished, anything can still be accommodated in the core (as the line will still be fitted with AWS / TPWS and conventional colour light signalling), but this will only be during very quiet periods (weekends, late at night etc), however, to get the service required a train will have to be fitted with ETCS & ATO, it just so happens at the moment that is only the 700s, but anything could be so fitted in theory.

Simon

[jim.snowdon]

I am waiting with interest to see if the passengers, who have neither ETCS nor ATO, will be able to match up to the expectations of the 24tph Thamelink service, especially those who are not commuters but the occasional passengers using Thameslink as a longer distance service, particularly to Luton and Gatwick airports. They have much less idea of which train they want and are inclined to come encumbered with baggage.

 

Jim

[D854_Tiger]

I would have thought it most likely that Corby will simply be served by five car IEPs, running on electric all the way, and interchangeable with the rest of the bi-mode MML IEP fleet.

[geoff]

ETCS, European Train control System, part of ERTMS, European Rail Traffic Management System, ATO, no definition found. IEP, Intercity Express Programme, not a train at all. MML, Midland Main Line ceased to exist years ago as a train operation company running trains into LSP, London St. Pancras, EMT, East Midlands Trains currently operate those services. 

Sometimes I find it quite difficult to follow what on earth we are on about because there are so many acronyms, abbreviations or other short forms of language used, or perhaps I am just getting too old and grumpy to survive in the modern communication environment.

sorry I missed out Tfl and DFT IIRC.

TTFN Geoff

[Chris116]

ETCS, European Train control System, part of ERTMS, European Rail Traffic Management System, ATO, no definition found. IEP, Intercity Express Programme, not a train at all. MML, Midland Main Line ceased to exist years ago as a train operation company running trains into LSP, London St. Pancras, EMT, East Midlands Trains currently operate those services. 

Sometimes I find it quite difficult to follow what on earth we are on about because there are so many acronyms, abbreviations or other short forms of language used, or perhaps I am just getting too old and grumpy to survive in the modern communication environment.

sorry I missed out Tfl and DFT IIRC.

TTFN Geoff

ATO Automatic Train Operation, at least that is what they call it on the Victoria Line!

[phil-b259]

As I understand it, once the Thameslink programme is finished, only the 700s will be allowed down below and I suspect that they are all accounted for. 

 

You are forgetting the DfT have already said the new franchise will be required to procure new EMUs for Corby services. There is no reason why these 'new EMUs' could not be more 700 series trains from Siemens given that they are still building the similar 707 units for SWT and are also due to build replacement stock for the Moorgate - GN line.

[Edwin_m]

Hi,

 

Having just started working on the London to Corby re-signalling doing train flows, the future services will be very much like today's services, just increased slightly. Not much I can say other than that, apart from 700s are not allocated to Corby runs (I know what is, but I don't think it is common knowledge yet, so can't reveal).

 

On a slight different note, Chris F, when Thameslink is finished, anything can still be accommodated in the core (as the line will still be fitted with AWS / TPWS and conventional colour light signalling), but this will only be during very quiet periods (weekends, late at night etc), however, to get the service required a train will have to be fitted with ETCS & ATO, it just so happens at the moment that is only the 700s, but anything could be so fitted in theory.

Simon

 

The interior layout of the 700s is as it is mainly because of concern about station dwell times on the central sections - wide aisles etc mean people can get on and off more quickly.  This is probably incompatible with a 2+2 seating layout with armrests, which I think is a reasonable expectation for the Corby service.  Thus running Corby trains through the Thameslink core would be a threat to the rest of the service. 

[phil-b259]

Nothing to do with whether its bi-mode or electric, its having the stock and the space to put it in, the two are inextricably linked. No good having stock and no track to put it on any more than it is having track and no trains.

 

 

Not true.

 

Electric trains have faster acceleration than diesels and also don't have to be refuelled (though they do obviously need things like toilets emptying etc). As such if EMT services went over to electric traction south of Kettering (yes I know the current OHLE south of Bedford is not set up for 125mph running) then its quite possible you might be able to squeeze an extra train path or two out of the existing infrastructure due to the superior performance of electric traction.

[Edwin_m]

Having just started working on the London to Corby re-signalling doing train flows, the future services will be very much like today's services, just increased slightly. Not much I can say other than that, apart from 700s are not allocated to Corby runs (I know what is, but I don't think it is common knowledge yet, so can't reveal).

I'd be surprised if this has been decided, as DfT is trying to avoid specifying rolling stock for a future franchise and unless something major is happening that hasn't been made public there are several options for the market to supply suitable units for the Corby service (379s, re-fitted 707s, new build from any of at least three suppliers, even refurbished 321s might be in with a chance).  I know of many engineering schemes where the actual rolling stock is unknown at the time the design is done, but it is based around a particular unit type that may or may not turn out to be what is actually used but is usually pretty similar in performance terms. 

[phil-b259]

The interior layout of the 700s is as it is mainly because of concern about station dwell times on the central sections - wide aisles etc mean people can get on and off more quickly.  This is probably incompatible with a 2+2 seating layout with armrests, which I think is a reasonable expectation for the Corby service.  Thus running Corby trains through the Thameslink core would be a threat to the rest of the service. 

 

Some would say that seats with arm rests are a 'reasonable expectation' for commuters from Peterborough, Cambridge, Brighton, Littlehampton and Ashford - yet passengers from those stations will have to do without.

 

I repeat, there is nothing in the DfTs invitation to tender that rules out building more 700s and adding Corby into Thameslink - though I also agree said invitation to tender also holds open the option of EMT services into St Pancras high level.

 

Alternatively could we see some sort of mix and match going on say one Thameslink service an hour (with connections into an EMT at Kettering) and one EMT to St Pancras.

 

Ultimately, with no ability to add any extra infrastructure at the London end, it is going to be impossible to keep everyone happy.

[phil-b259]

I'd be surprised if this has been decided, as DfT is trying to avoid specifying rolling stock for a future franchise and unless something major is happening that hasn't been made public there are several options for the market to supply suitable units for the Corby service (379s, re-fitted 707s, new build from any of at least three suppliers, even refurbished 321s might be in with a chance).  I know of many engineering schemes where the actual rolling stock is unknown at the time the design is done, but it is based around a particular unit type that may or may not turn out to be what is actually used but is usually pretty similar in performance terms. 

 

Indeed - particularly with the likes of the GA and SWT franchises seeing complete or partial fleet replacement! Given the call for bi-modes for EMT (the 800s are not the only bi-mode train out there now) plus 'high quality EMUs' of an unkown type, then its quite possible that the winning bidder may have their own ideas with regards rolling stock provision.

[phil-b259]

Hi,

 

Having just started working on the London to Corby re-signalling doing train flows, the future services will be very much like today's services, just increased slightly.

 

Simon

This is not surprising as I don't foresee any signifficant signalling changes occurring south of Bedford. In fact unless there are issues with the condition of the current lineside assets then I would have expected the resignalling to actuallly be more of a 'recontrol*'

 

* For those that don't know, a 'recontrol' usually consists of a new interlocking but connected to the existing limeside kit - know as an 'Interfaced SSI' scheme. At Kings Cross this was done by simply mounting a load of SSI modules round the walls of the relay room and using them to feed the outgoing cables, with the old really interlocking replaced by a solid state one. Given I believe the MML uses relay based interlocking (with the exception of the St Pancras area) then a similar process could be applied.

 

P.S, Is the signalling plan still to have the MML south of Bedford move into Three Bridges ROC?

[St. Simon]

You are forgetting the DfT have already said the new franchise will be required to procure new EMUs for Corby services. There is no reason why these 'new EMUs' could not be more 700 series trains from Siemens given that they are still building the similar 707 units for SWT and are also due to build replacement stock for the Moorgate - GN line.

 

 

I'd be surprised if this has been decided, as DfT is trying to avoid specifying rolling stock for a future franchise and unless something major is happening that hasn't been made public there are several options for the market to supply suitable units for the Corby service (379s, re-fitted 707s, new build from any of at least three suppliers, even refurbished 321s might be in with a chance).  I know of many engineering schemes where the actual rolling stock is unknown at the time the design is done, but it is based around a particular unit type that may or may not turn out to be what is actually used but is usually pretty similar in performance terms. 

 

 

Hi,

 

The trains for the Corby services have been allocated, they are not 700 series units. We have been given the diagrams for services to use as part of our risk assessments, if we don't know the units, we can't complete our risk assessments.

 

This is not surprising as I don't foresee any signifficant signalling changes occurring south of Bedford. In fact unless there are issues with the condition of the current lineside assets then I would have expected the resignalling to actuallly be more of a 'recontrol*'

 

* For those that don't know, a 'recontrol' usually consists of a new interlocking but connected to the existing limeside kit - know as an 'Interfaced SSI' scheme. At Kings Cross this was done by simply mounting a load of SSI modules round the walls of the relay room and using them to feed the outgoing cables, with the old really interlocking replaced by a solid state one. Given I believe the MML uses relay based interlocking (with the exception of the St Pancras area) then a similar process could be applied.

 

P.S, Is the signalling plan still to have the MML south of Bedford move into Three Bridges ROC?

 

There is no work being done South of Bedford (even if the project is called London to Corby). As far as I can tell for the moment (I don't have the very latest plans and we're not in the core team), no, it won't be transferred to Three Bridges ROC, it's being kept in the East Midlands Control Centre.

 

Simon

[jim.snowdon]

As I understand it, once the Thameslink programme is finished, only the 700s will be allowed down below and I suspect that they are all accounted for. 

 

Chris

That rather depends on whether they leave conventinal signalling in place as part of the design, with ETCS overlaid onto it. There has, in any case, to be some fundamental signalling provided in order to cope with a train with ETCS equipment failure, otherwise things become very messy. (Although that seems to be getting more common these days even on the conventionally signalled lines.)

 

Jim

[phil-b259]

Hi,

 

The trains for the Corby services have been allocated, they are not 700 series units. We have been given the diagrams for services to use as part of our risk assessments, if we don't know the units, we can't complete our risk assessments.

 

 

I get what you are saying but did the GEML planners envisage the wholesale replacement of every single train in the franchise? (the invitation to tender only really called for new stock for London - Norwich). Similarly the replacement of all inner suburban EMU on SWT was not expected by the industry either.

 

Thus I don't see the conflict between your and my statements (unless you have seen the details of the various bidders proposals) - you may well know what is going to be used initially for Corby services once the wires go live because, as you say various things have to be validated etc, but that does not prevent the wining bidder for the EMT franchise (nor the DfT for that matter once their consultations are complete) deciding to do something different post 2019 as regards rolling stock provision.

[phil-b259]

 

There is no work being done South of Bedford (even if the project is called London to Corby). As far as I can tell for the moment (I don't have the very latest plans and we're not in the core team), no, it won't be transferred to Three Bridges ROC, it's being kept in the East Midlands Control Centre.

 

Simon

 

As I understand it, the MML signalling south of Bedford (other than in the St Pancras area which has been moved to Three Bridges ROC due to the St Pancras rebuild  / Thameslink merge) is currently still in West Hampstead Power box (NX panels). While the East Midlands Centre was due to take over Leicester PSB area (and thus Kettering etc.), the original West Hampstead was due to move south of the river, though this could potentially have been revised with some / all of the panels moving north instead.

[Zomboid]

I get what you are saying but did the GEML planners envisage the wholesale replacement of every single train in the franchise? (the invitation to tender only really called for new stock for London - Norwich). Similarly the replacement of all inner suburban EMU on SWT was not expected by the industry either.

 

Thus I don't see the conflict between your and my statements (unless you have seen the details of the various bidders proposals) - you may well know what is going to be used initially for Corby services once the wires go live because, as you say various things have to be validated etc, but that does not prevent the wining bidder for the EMT franchise (nor the DfT for that matter once their consultations are complete) deciding to do something different post 2019 as regards rolling stock provision.

Certain parts of NR would have sight of the bids prior to contact award, as they need to advise the DfT what infrastructure upgrades would be need to support the changes in each bid.

 

Though as orders couldn't be placed prior to franchise award, it would have to be "new trains with similar characteristics to xyz", rather than a concrete commitment to a particular train.

[RANGERS]

Good news on this for a change, the piling for the overhead has almost reached Geddington Stn site on the down side from Storefield, it stops just short of the Oakley - Geddington Rd bridge which is still under some fairly major work. The security fencing has now progressed beyond Geddington on the down side.

[jim.snowdon]

Certain parts of NR would have sight of the bids prior to contact award, as they need to advise the DfT what infrastructure upgrades would be need to support the changes in each bid.

Though as orders couldn't be placed prior to franchise award, it would have to be "new trains with similar characteristics to xyz", rather than a concrete commitment to a particular train.

Railway signalling is designed round two key factors, the maximum line speed, which is defined by the infrastructure, and the braking distances for the trains, the limits for which are defined by a Railway Group Standard. How rapidly the trains can accelerate and what speed they actually run at, are not important in this context; signalling is all about the ability of the trains to stop between passing the first cautionary signal and before reaching the stop signal to which it refers.

 

Jim

[phil-b259]

Railway signalling is designed round two key factors, the maximum line speed, which is defined by the infrastructure, and the braking distances for the trains, the limits for which are defined by a Railway Group Standard. How rapidly the trains can accelerate and what speed they actually run at, are not important in this context; signalling is all about the ability of the trains to stop between passing the first cautionary signal and before reaching the stop signal to which it refers.

 

Jim

 

Actually it is important because if the signalling is based around trains with braking and acceleration characteristics of X, then trains having a better performance will clear each signal section sooner and provide more capacity, while trains with worse characteristics will suppress capacity available thus taking longer to pass through each signal section.

 

Thus even if the signalling remains unaltered, the introduction of new rolling stock can have significant benefits to the timetable - indeed raising the top speed of the 350s on the WCML from 100 to 110mph generated several extra train paths.

[Edwin_m]

This is not surprising as I don't foresee any signifficant signalling changes occurring south of Bedford. In fact unless there are issues with the condition of the current lineside assets then I would have expected the resignalling to actuallly be more of a 'recontrol*'

 

* For those that don't know, a 'recontrol' usually consists of a new interlocking but connected to the existing limeside kit - know as an 'Interfaced SSI' scheme. At Kings Cross this was done by simply mounting a load of SSI modules round the walls of the relay room and using them to feed the outgoing cables, with the old really interlocking replaced by a solid state one. Given I believe the MML uses relay based interlocking (with the exception of the St Pancras area) then a similar process could be applied.

 

P.S, Is the signalling plan still to have the MML south of Bedford move into Three Bridges ROC?

When I've heard it used, "recontrol" tends to apply to the connection of an existing and largely unmodified interlocking and trackside equipment to a new control centre, normally by diverting the TDM links between the two. 

[Edwin_m]

Certain parts of NR would have sight of the bids prior to contact award, as they need to advise the DfT what infrastructure upgrades would be need to support the changes in each bid.

 

Though as orders couldn't be placed prior to franchise award, it would have to be "new trains with similar characteristics to xyz", rather than a concrete commitment to a particular train.

No bids for the replacement franchise have been made yet, and as EMT just got an extension into 2019 they will not do so for some time. 

 

It is possible that the Thameslink (GTR) or extended EMT franchise or DfT itself has come to some arrangement to provide new or existing units for the Corby service, although if so it is surprising it hasn't been announced as there are no competition implications and it would be a bit of "good news" for DfT to put out. Possibly the 377s that are being superseded off Thameslink by the 700s? 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Edwin_m

[phil-b259]

When I've heard it used, "recontrol" tends to apply to the connection of an existing and largely unmodified interlocking and trackside equipment to a new control centre, normally by diverting the TDM links between the two. 

 

I have heard of this approch too and while it is the cheapest option, retaining a relay based interlocking does still mean that the potential for interlocking faults caused by high resistance contacts remains. This was one of the primary reasons for doing away with Kings Cross Interlocking and I believe that a similar has been done at London Victoria a couple of years ago.

 

A further variant of this is where an SSI installation has its interlocking moved to a new location with new data link connections established - The moving of the Eastbourne BR SSI interlocking to Three Bridges ROC during the Coastway resignalling scheme a few years ago being one such example.

[Zomboid]

Railway signalling is designed round two key factors, the maximum line speed, which is defined by the infrastructure, and the braking distances for the trains, the limits for which are defined by a Railway Group Standard. How rapidly the trains can accelerate and what speed they actually run at, are not important in this context; signalling is all about the ability of the trains to stop between passing the first cautionary signal and before reaching the stop signal to which it refers.

 

Jim

It's not just signals though. A huge amount of money was spent on the Southern 10 or so years ago because Desiros and Electrostars draw more power than mark 1 carriages with EE507 motors, for example. And to run Pendolinos it was considered necessary to install harmonic dampers.

 

I have no information in this case, so if it's been determined that some of the existing relatively new EMUs which are soon to become homeless will be used for Corby then that's probably a sensible use of resources.

 

Or maybe it'll be 442s in push pull with an 88

Edited July 28, 2017 by Zomboid

[jim.snowdon]

Actually it is important because if the signalling is based around trains with braking and acceleration characteristics of X, then trains having a better performance will clear each signal section sooner and provide more capacity, while trains with worse characteristics will suppress capacity available thus taking longer to pass through each signal section.

 

Thus even if the signalling remains unaltered, the introduction of new rolling stock can have significant benefits to the timetable - indeed raising the top speed of the 350s on the WCML from 100 to 110mph generated several extra train paths.

I disagree - signalling is about keeping trains separated. Train performance affects the extent to which the theoretical line capacity can be utilised. The ideal is that all trains perform at maximum realisable acceleration and speed (essentially what happens on a metro system); the reality is that the achievable line capacity is reduced by trains that are slower, notable freight trains and stopping services.

 

Jim