Midland Main Line Electrification

[Dava]

The old Midland Railway roundhouse at Wellingborough is still there, but surrounded by construction works and appears to have construction access at both ends. It was formerly used for storage by Totectors. Does anyone know what the plans for the building are, ie a new use or demolition? [few surviving MR roundhouses in original external state, so one hopes not]. There is a lot of progress on the route improvements with the new alignment at Market Harborough taking shape and the new car park where the goods yard used to be.

 

I went to a Rail Futures East Midlands meeting at leicester North GCR on Saturday, the guest speaker being Andrew Pritchard, the rail/HS2 lead for the East Midlands Councils. They are taking a strategic, long-term view on how to get the best from HS2 for the region, especially Toton Fields interchange station. His view is that they have not given up on electrification for the MML north of Kettering as the case is strong, the've just given up on getting the current Secretary of State [Grayling] to change his mind. Who knows?

 

Dava

[jamie92208]

There appears to be some political row brewing about the cancellation of the electrification.  There is an item running on the Leeds Look North Programme this morning.  The main thrust of the story is that a National Audit Office report has come out saying that the cancellation was due to a funding shortfall within the DaFT's budget.  The row is that Grayling has apparently stated that the cancellation was because it was no longer needed and other ways of improving the line were available.  He's being accused of telling porkies.   I won't comment further but it will be interesting to see what happens.

 

Jamie

[Dava]

As reported in the Guardian today:

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/29/rail-electrification-plans-cancelled-purely-for-cost-reasons-says-nao-chris-grayling

 

"it was announced that electrification of the line from Kettering to Sheffield had been abandoned on the grounds that HS2 would offer a quicker service and that the introduction of bi-mode trains had made electrification unnecessary. Bi-mode trains are still in development, and the NAO concludes they will have higher running costs and be less green than an electrified system."

 

"The leader of the Aslef rail union, Mick Whelan, said that the NAO report showed Grayling had “lied”. “The truth is that the government didn’t want to find the money and made up a story about ‘sudden improvements’ using ‘state-of-the-art bi-mode trains’,” he said. “It’s a fantasy, an exercise in smoke and mirrors, to disguise the truth, and Mr Grayling has been rumbled.”

 

Rail Future contributors have worked out that the journey times from Derby and Nottingham via Toton are unlikely to be faster on HS2 when it arrives than via MML trains on current schedules, electrification would be faster. There is no doubt that Grayling did present the alternative facts in what may be termed 'bi-mode reality'.

[david.hill64]

Also reported in the Times. It seems that the NAO really understands the capabilities of DfT and its Minister.

[pete_mcfarlane]

As reported in the Guardian today:

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/29/rail-electrification-plans-cancelled-purely-for-cost-reasons-says-nao-chris-grayling

 

"Bi-mode trains are still in development, and the NAO concludes they will have higher running costs and be less green than an electrified system."

 

Has anyone told GWR that those bi-mode trains they're using don't exist yet?

 

It is of course possible for both versions to be true (there isn't the money to do the electrification, and Grayling's HS2/bi-mode comments are valid) and that this is a manufactured argument. 

Edited March 29, 2018 by pete_mcfarlane

[Covkid]

As I understand Chris Grayling's stance was that electrification of the MML would only save one minute compared to using diesel traction. Allegedly this meant the value for money to taxpayers was not worthwhile.

 

Frankly I do not believe it, particularly if Grayling's idea of diesel trains involves bi mode HItachi IETs. 

[Dava]

Here's the NAO report: draw your own conclusions.

 

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Investigation-into-the-Department-for-Transports-decision-to-cancel-three-rail-electrification-projects.pdf

 

It's fair to say that neither Grayling, DfT, ORR or Network Rail emerge with credit from it. Cancellation of the MML electrification was not good value for money. Also, it assumes the Northern leg of HS2 will be delivered on time [by 2033] and on budget.

 

The paving Act for this HS2 section will not be passed until 2022 and construction work won't start until 2027. If economic performance and tax revenues are poor in the intervening years then the MML saga shows that a future government cannot be trusted to deliver HS2 as promised, hence cutbacks or delays in the 2022-25 period are a realistic scenario. Or do you trust the next govt, whoever they may be?

[RANGERS]

Masts have started to appear at a rapid pace on the slow lines South of Sharnbrook. These are unusual, but not unique, in being single posts located on the up side, with lattice gantries spanning both slow lines. The fast and slow are on different levels so unsuited to a single, four track span and presumably there’s insufficient clearance for posts between the fast and slow lines.

[Zomboid]

Two track cantilever structures are nothing unusual. They're also often used on curves to aid with signal sighting, though I suspect you might be right in saying that a 4 track portal wasn't going to work in that location and whether there's space for a foundation or not, it would be better to keep the 6 and 10 foots clear of OLE structures for all sorts of reasons.

[Rugd1022]

Masts have started to appear at a rapid pace on the slow lines South of Sharnbrook. These are unusual, but not unique, in being single posts located on the up side, with lattice gantries spanning both slow lines. The fast and slow are on different levels so unsuited to a single, four track span and presumably there’s insufficient clearance for posts between the fast and slow lines.

 

I've been working on the Midland this week and seeing the masts appearing is quite a shock, the view along the line where the fasts and slows are on different levels has been very pleasant up to now.

[DY444]

Has anyone told GWR that those bi-mode trains they're using don't exist yet?

 

It is of course possible for both versions to be true (there isn't the money to do the electrification, and Grayling's HS2/bi-mode comments are valid) and that this is a manufactured argument. 

 

The report didn't say that bi-modes didn't exist.  It said that bi-modes with the necessary performance to maintain Class 222 point to point times away from the wires didn't yet exist. 

[RANGERS]

The report didn't say that bi-modes didn't exist.  It said that bi-modes with the necessary performance to maintain Class 222 point to point times away from the wires didn't yet exist.

 

Not sure anyone has mentioned this to GWT yet!

[Talltim]

I think they know...

While they may or may not match HST timings they can’t match 222 timing at all

As it currently stands it’s not just the non-electrified bit, electric trains can’t match diesel between St P and Bedford as the OHE can’t support higher speeds

[ess1uk]

What another fine mess

[phil-b259]

I think they know...

While they may or may not match HST timings they can’t match 222 timing at all

As it currently stands it’s not just the non-electrified bit, electric trains can’t match diesel between St P and Bedford as the OHE can’t support higher speeds

 

Quite true.

 

The 1980s vintage OLE installed between St Pancras and Bedford was designed around the needs of 100mph 4 / 8 car EMU formations ONLY. While a certain amount of upgrading took place to facilitate the more power hungry 12 car / post privatisation units used by Thameslink, the 100mph maximum remains as there has been no need to touch that aspect of the installation for that TOC.

 

To increase the OLE to cope with sustained 125mph running will need significant investment in terms of wire tension and the ability of the headspans to tolerate the higher uplift forces 125mph running imposes. As such any bi-modes the future franchise winner may order will indeed be slower than the current 222 / HST fleet if running in electric mode south of Bedford. All of which rather calls into question of why purchase bi-modes in the first place*, although if the DfT ever regains its senses and stops this fascination of bionic duckweed as the preferred method of powering trains then it could make sense

 

*Of course given trains traditionally were expected to remain in service for 40 years then - until the DfT / HM Treasury allowed franchise bidders to replace nearly new stuff simply because the money markets happened to make it cheap to do so in the short term. This was handy because 'new trains' send a message that HM Government is 'doing something' to make their commutes better when actually its infrastructure enhancement that delivers true long term improvements, even if it does deny the opportunity for Politicians to say 'look at us, we gave you new trains so vote for us again'

Edited April 9, 2018 by phil-b259

[RANGERS]

The lack of any real investment North of Kettering ( the Corby branch aside) all points towards the need for HS2 to be the primary route for East Mids traffic to London. It might not be any quicker, it certainly won’t be any cheaper, but it is already on the way and it has capacity with a desperate need to fill it and justify the price tag. Electrification to Nottingham/ Derby would only serve to dilute that traffic volume.

 

The bi-mode idea is a mere stop-gap, and there’s no guarantees the new franchise will even accommodate that, although with their cascade potential it would be a shock if it didn’t, but with the prospect of fewer stops and reduced connectivity just to maintain timings at current levels, it’s hard to see how this can be billed as an improvement. The new franchise spec’ will be an indicator of the likely direction once it’s announced but based on what we do know, nobody can be expecting great things of it. The indication that connectivity to the north will be reduced already points towards discouraging traffic from stations south of Kettering/ Corby to anywhere north.

 

Just as the GC was the victim last time, perhaps it’s looking increasingly likely that the MML will ultimately lose its status as a primary London artery on the Inter-City map.

[phil-b259]

Just as the GC was the victim last time, perhaps it’s looking increasingly likely that the MML will ultimately lose its status as a primary London artery on the Inter-City map.

 

Not a particularly good comparison given that even in a post HS2 world the MML will still be pretty full with freight and services from stations south of Leicester and as such rationalisation / closure is not remotely on the cards. Who knows with HS2 removing a large chunk of the Derby / Sheffield - London traffic then it might be possible to restore some of those stations calls which EMT are having to remove over the next couple of years.

 

In any case Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Market Harborough did not have 'City' status nor is their population as large as true cities like Leicester or Sheffield. Looking after passengers from Leicester Derby, Sheffield, etc is what makes the MML route an 'InterCity' opperation - not the conveyance of commuters from Bedford to London which is the remit of Thameslink.

Edited April 9, 2018 by phil-b259

[lmsforever]

The suggestion to use Mk4,s between HT power cars looks to be non starter due to clearances at platforms they could work but would cost millions that Grayling obviously does not want to spend agree what a mess.

[RANGERS]

Not a particularly good comparison given that even in a post HS2 world the MML will still be pretty full with freight and services from stations south of Leicester and as such rationalisation / closure is not remotely on the cards. Who knows with HS2 removing a large chunk of the Derby / Sheffield - London traffic then it might be possible to restore some of those stations calls which EMT are having to remove over the next couple of years.

 

In any case Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Market Harborough did not have 'City' status nor is their population as large as true cities like Leicester or Sheffield. Looking after passengers from Leicester Derby, Sheffield, etc is what makes the MML route an 'InterCity' opperation - not the conveyance of commuters from Bedford to London which is the remit of Thameslink.As

Inter-City services need cities to serve and as you say, the lack of any cities amongst Luton, Bedford, Kettering and the very real possibility that cities such as Leicester, Derby and Nottingham will primarily be served by HS2 removes that status. Closure may not be on the cards, not even route rationalisation but service rationalisation, the removal of connectivity between the northern and the southern sections of the MML will be with us next month.

[phil-b259]

Inter-City services need cities to serve and as you say, the lack of any cities amongst Luton, Bedford, Kettering and the very real possibility that cities such as Leicester, Derby and Nottingham will primarily be served by HS2 removes that status. Closure may not be on the cards, not even route rationalisation but service rationalisation, the removal of connectivity between the northern and the southern sections of the MML will be with us next month.

 

This is true - but the whole reason service rationalisation has been necessary is the MML simply cannot cope with the numbers of trains people want to run on it. The increase in Thameslink services following the London Bridge works plus the need to have a separate electric service to Corby (not helped by the lack of platform space at St Pancras) have combined to be the 'straw that broke the camels back' as it were making massive timetable changes necessary to maintain the fast journey times places like Leicester, Derby, Nottingham & Sheffield demand.

 

Those in charge have had to make a decision - cause significant journey time increases to the East Midlands or cut out stops closer to London. Its not being done out of spite but on the very rational basis that the potential hardship caused to those from Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield who travel to London is grater than the hardship caused by those living closer to London who (i) use EMT rather than Thameslink or (ii) are making the journey from the East Midlands to destinations other than London.

 

Pretending its all some evil plan to annoy certain groups of travellers, or that we can somehow magic up the extra capacity to make everyone happy, or play the 'my needs are more important than others' card are simply not justified given the effort spent behind closed doors to try and minimise the pain to ALL travellers.

 

Fast forward two decades and if all those fast services from Derby, etc now use HS2 instead of the MML, then it will be possible to add back in those stops which are being removed as the longer journey times from the likes of Sheffield won't matter - just as removal of fast Liverpool and Manchester services will allow more calls at Milton Keynes on the WCML.

 

In fact assuming the relevant chords and capacity exists, then the only truly 'fast MML services necessary will be those serving Leicester (which like Coventry on the WCML) is in the wrong place for HS2 to cater for its need for fast trains to London - everything else can make as many intermediate calls (within reason) as you like.....

Edited April 9, 2018 by phil-b259

[Peter Kazmierczak]

The MML has always been a "Cinderella" line, at least since the demise of the Midland at the Grouping.

It didn't receive any HSTs until the NE/SW had received their tranche. Even then, they were cast-offs from elsewhere.....

[Edwin_m]

Inter-City services need cities to serve and as you say, the lack of any cities amongst Luton, Bedford, Kettering and the very real possibility that cities such as Leicester, Derby and Nottingham will primarily be served by HS2 removes that status. Closure may not be on the cards, not even route rationalisation but service rationalisation, the removal of connectivity between the northern and the southern sections of the MML will be with us next month.

HS2 is of no relevance to London-Leicester journeys so MML will have to retain a fast Leicester service as well as semi-fast trains serving the stations south of there.  There is also the need for services linking Leicester with Derby and Nottingham, most logically done by continuing the fast London-Leicester service northwards.  I believe this service could also carry a good proportion of the London-Derby/Nottingham passengers, freeing up space on HS2 trains for longer-distance travellers, because even with a good connection at Toton the time to the two city centres via HS2 won't be significantly shorter than via MML. 

 

HS2 removes the need for a fast MML service to Chesterfield and Sheffield but there is a good case for a slower service to link it to intermediate MML stations and also for a link to Toton.  Toton also supersedes the London park and ride function at East Midlands Parkway, which I assume would be served only by a Nottingham-Leicester stopper.  So a MML service pattern after opening of HS2 phase 2 could be something like:

• London-Leicester-Nottingham
• London-Luton/Parkway?-Bedford-Wellingboro-Kettering-Corby
• London-Luton Airport Parkway?-Kettering(connects from above)-Market Harboro-Leicester-Loughborough-Beeston-Nottingham
• London-Leicester(connects from above)-Derby
• London-Luton/Parkway?-Bedford-Wellingboro-Kettering-Corby
• London-Luton Airport Parkway?-Kettering(connects from above)-Market Harboro-Leicester-Loughborough-Toton-Alfreton-Chesterfield-Sheffield

 

I believe the cutting of the peak-time link between Bedford and Wellingborough is an temporary measure until Corby electrification is complete, after which the half-hourly Corby trains will call at Bedford and Wellingborough and probably one of the Luton stations. 

[pete_mcfarlane]

Is there still talk of running Kings Cross - Nottingham services once HS2 frees up capacity on the ECML? 

[Edwin_m]

Is there still talk of running Kings Cross - Nottingham services once HS2 frees up capacity on the ECML? 

The only place I've seen this is on another forum. 

[Suzie]

I would have thought that electrification would have been helpful for freight, not just passenger.