Jump to content
 

Midland Main Line Electrification


Recommended Posts

Even though the Sheffield-Rotherham tram-train as it stands is proposed to have DC electrification throughout, even on the Network Rail section, they are ordering dual-voltage tram-trains and probably also designing the OLE for easy conversion to 25kV if needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting question, Mike. According to the summer 1960 'The Palatine' (Manchester Central - London St Pancras) took 1hr 35mins in the up direction to reach Derby Midland. The time in the down direction was 1hr 27mins and in both directions included stops at Chinley, Miller's Dale and Matlock. In 1960 I would think that this was still a steam-hauled service using Scots, Jubilees and possibly Britannias. I will leave it to those with more expertise in motive power matters to give an estimate of what could be achieved with modern traction. Class 67 (or Eurolight) + 8 Mk3 + DVT anyone.

As an aside, I made a lot of use of the 'Project Rio' services when they were running a few years ago. These used the Hope Valley (not a high speed main line) and the the Dore south curve and reached St Pancras in, if I recall correctly, a little over three hours but at very reasonable fares. The services, despite being well used, were discontinued when most of the WCML upgrade was complete and any discussion of continuance at least as far as Leicester was dismissed due to capacity limitations on the MML. The fact that this also restored Virgin's monopoly on London services from Manchester on an expensively upgraded WCML was probably a slightly truer reflection of DT's thinking.

 

David

 

Edit: Just noticed that the 16.35 to St Pancras ran the 61 miles non-stop Manchester - Derby in 1hr 21mins and a further 2hrs 35mins to reach London. This latter part of the journey now takes one hour less.

 

Whilst The Midland Pullman actually avoided Derby station, a timing of 1h 15m would've been easily achieved by that train for a Manchester - Derby start to stop, including a stop at Cheadle Heath for Stockport.

 

The time from Manchester Picadilly to Chinley start to pass (with one stop) is probably a couple of minutes quicker than the Midland Pullman would've done From Manchester Central via Cheadle Heath.

 

The basic upshot is that if the route through the Peak had still been open, with electrification a timing of 1h 10m Manchester Picadilly - Derby non-stop or 1h 20m with stops at Stockport, Miller's Dale (for Buxton) and Matlock would've been perfectly fesible.

 

Only dreaming of course.....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I will await all the announcements with interest. As I understand it however these announcements are only for go ahead in principle and the details are not worked out at this stage. Trans Pennine Electrification was announced as Manchester Leeds, only now are they going to the next stage of the GRIP process to see where they need to put the wires to eg Scarborough, Hull and Middlesborough.. I would imagine that it will be at least 2 years before a mast is put up.

 

Just as an aside, in June 1907 the Midland Board gave the goa head for an experimatnal electrification scheme from Lancaster to Morecambe and Heysham, as a test bed for putting wires up over the peakl line from Derby to manchester for the heavy freight traffic.

 

Two enginneers, Dalzeil from the Electrical/Mechanical side and Sayers from the S & T side were goven their heads and told to get on with it. They got full board level backing and help from every other department at Derby. They first travelled to select a system, chose high voltage Overhead AC and then got the job done. 2 years from board approval the scheme was up and running having been designed from scratch. It proved to be over 99% reliable in it's first year and that included the generating station and distribution sytem as well as the trains. It would be great if the same speed and drive happenned with this but I somehow doubt it. However I will be very happy if it does go ahead quickly and I would suspect that the electric voyagers/meridians are a definite after all the hints that have been dropped over the past few months. They can then use the wires as far as Bedford before any of the others are up and energised.

 

Jamie

Edited by jamie92208
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall that the home of my Council Tax, otherwise called Lincoln, was to be linked to Kings X by diesel HST via Nottingham.

 

Presumably that is now off the agenda ?

If you mean St Pancras via Nottingham, then It's already running. Lincoln has two services a day to London, one to St Pancras via Nottingham, the other to Kings Cross via Newark.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

To me extending Crossrail to Reading is a very mixed bag - Crossrail's scheme costs will rise considerably by adding nearly 40 minutes into the cycle time for sets unless frequency is reduced and I seriously wonder if the 'new' Reading will have sufficient platform capacity.

 

 

 

On the other hand going through to Reading would reduce the number stabling and turnback facilaties required at Maidenhead and also solves problem of how to serve Maidenhead to Reading without losing the conectivity provided by the current through services. Granted Reading might need some carefull platform diagraming, but given that everything published so far suggests no more than 2tph beyond Maidenhead and even with the possably of a further 2tph to Heathrow, (something which might not be needed if Reading crossrail services went via the proposed western spur and through the airport itself rather than West Drayton), I find it hard to believe that Reading won't be able to cope. Besides is there really any need to have the unit sit in the platform at Reading for 30 minutes between trips, depending on the eventuall layout chosen could it not head off into the new depot for a 10 minute layover betwwen services?

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a little out of touch with the current railway scene so please forgive my ignorance with the following. Reading through the earlier postings that mention converting dmus into emus has me wondering if this has been done successfully before in this country. The only instance I can think of was 18100 that was converted from gas turbine into the 25Kv OLE training loco, but I do not know of any others. Can anyone enlighten me here?

 

Edited to correct number 18100.

Edited by Ohmisterporter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Logic would be that the GWML and MML both use the same design of new rolling stock. Perhaps these routes would be used as testbed for essentially a development of stock to replace the 91's which will be life expired at nearly 30 years of age by then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No there have been no other conversions of diesel traction to electric. The difference with the Meridians/Voyagers is that they have electric transmissions so the motors and much of the other traction equipment are already there. All other current DMU types have mechancial/hydraulic transmissions which would have to be replaced for conversion to electric power (or possibly have electric motors on separate axles which would increase the weight).

Edited by Edwin_m
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

No there have been no other conversions of diesel traction to electric. The difference with the Meridians/Voyagers is that they have electric transmissions so the motors and much of the other traction equipment are already there. All other current DMU types have mechancial/hydraulic transmissions which would have to be replaced for conversion to electric power (or possibly have electric motors on separate axles which would increase the weight).

 

The 165/166 series were allegedly designed to facilitate easy conversion to electric power although I think that would basically mean no more than re-using the bodyshells with a fairly complete refit otherwise. But it seems that idea doesn't fit in current plans and the Thames Valley will simply get another step backwards in comfort for passengers when it receives secondhand emus.

 

As far as Crossrail is concerned, and indeed Heathrow via the new link coming off the GW line between Iver and West Drayton, a lot depends on frequencies and, as Dutch Master has observed, turnround times. The 2009 proposal for Heathrow western connection off the GWML envisaged 4 trains per hour with an implication that all would run from Reading (although Slough could obviously be used to turnround some of them. But even if the Reading service is 2tph for LR and 2 tph for Crossrail that exceeds the platform capacity originally identified at Reading for Crossrail which is was found could only take 3tph although at that time the relief Line through platforms would still have been used by some Cross-Country trains which will not be the case in the new layout.

 

On top of that any stopping pattern is also going to have a critical impact on capacity. The 2009 study suggested the Reading LHR trains would only call at Maidenhead and Slough while the implication of Crossrail has long been that they will include stops at quite a number of stations - in fact if they extend to Reading at least one per hour would have to stop at Twyford plus an 'FGW'(?) all stations stopper west of Slough (and some of the latter already omit Taplow & Burnham stops partly for pathing reasons.

 

What is clearly needed, but no one seems to know (in the relevant TOC if nowhere else) is what service pattern is envisaged for all these various services, plus freight, which will have no option but to use the Relief Lines west of 'Airport Junction West'. I would honestly have expected work on that to have already been settled before folk, such as the Govt, start talking about all the things which are going to happen on the route. We did some very careful strategic timetable planning prior to Heathrow link work starting but if FGW sources are to be believed nothing has yet been done to properly assess the pattern of Relief Line services and turnrounds the new Reading will be able to handle (but of course NR might be keeping their cards close to their chest on the subject?).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

A platform capacity of only 3 tph?! :O You can't be serious! (but being in the rail industry myself, I know you are... :() In contrast, there are plans afoot for Amsterdam Airport station to have 24 trains per hour, per direction (!!). Admittedly, none actually terminate there

 

Thats the key point, none of the trains at Amsterdam Airport terminate there. Now assuming we have a 2tph Reading - London service, each train will sit in the platform at Reading for 30minutes at a time thus effectivley removing one of the platforms for the duration (just the same as if Amsterdam Airport had terminating trains running at 2tph). If any Heathrow service is also 2tph you lose yet another platform meaning Reading ends up with only two platforms avaleable for all through passenger and freight trains on the relief lines. Like I said earlier one solution is to send the train into a siding (or the new Redaing depot) between journeys but that does require the provision of easily accessable said sidings (i.e. they don't need shunters aceptance switches etc to use them) to be factored into the track layout. If this could be done the both crossrail and a new Heathrow service could use the same platform, alternating between them and leaving three of the four relief platforms free for through traffic.

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites

Logic would be that the GWML and MML both use the same design of new rolling stock. Perhaps these routes would be used as testbed for essentially a development of stock to replace the 91's which will be life expired at nearly 30 years of age by then.

Unfortunately, logic is often a commodity in short supply in these situations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Passenger comfort is being sacrificed in the design of new rolling stock seats to narrow and extremly hard maybe attention will be paid in a new design for the MMML but I doubt it somehow.Extensions to the north of Sheffield cost money but would provide the network that is needed a connection to Manchester is essential maybe the old route via Woodhead could be considered, I am dreaming!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I believe the announcement will include extending the GWML electricification to Swansea, and include the Cardiff valleys. The stupid thing is that it should also go to Plymouth (via Bristol and Castle Cary).

 

It is the Welsh Assembly that is looking at electrification to Swansea and the valley lines

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Thats the key point, none of the trains at Amsterdam Airport terminate there. Now assuming we have a 2tph Reading - London service, each train will sit in the platform at Reading for 30minutes at a time thus effectivley removing one of the platforms for the duration (just the same as if Amsterdam Airport had terminating trains running at 2tph). If any Heathrow service is also 2tph you lose yet another platform meaning Reading ends up with only two platforms avaleable for all through passenger and freight trains on the relief lines. Like I said earlier one solution is to send the train into a siding (or the new Redaing depot) between journeys but that does require the provision of easily accessable said sidings (i.e. they don't need shunters aceptance switches etc to use them) to be factored into the track layout. If this could be done the both crossrail and a new Heathrow service could use the same platform, alternating between them and leaving three of the four relief platforms free for through traffic.

 

Exactly so - and that comes back to a level of train planning/platform working detail which, if FGW sources are to be believed, simply doesn't seem to have happened at a practical level (or if it has nobody is saying anything about it). I don't like sounding like Cassandra (although I realise it is exactly that :O ) but we went though precisely the same thing on St Pancras when I was working in the consultancy world. The original signalling design specification for St Pancras International was based on the CTRL theoretical design capacity for international trains but it was very easy to quickly establish that the route capacity design specification exceeded the ability of the terminus to handle that number of trains (even if 2 tph from Waterloo were included) because the turnround time of a Eurostar was longer than the dwell time necessary in order to clear the platform for the following train. None of this stuff is rocket science but it is surprising to see how often it is not taken into account at the right time in the process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It is the Welsh Assembly that is looking at electrification to Swansea and the valley lines

 

Indeed, and I believe the announcement is that the negotiations have been completed and they will be part of the overall scheme. No surprises for the UK Government wanting to take credit for someone elses hard work and money...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

As MML have many of the trains serviced at Nevill Hill in Leeds it might be interesting to see if the plans include wires from Sheffield to say either Doncaster or up the Dearve Valley towards Wakefield.

 

If they were to go for the electric power car as discussed above in the 222's then the wires north of Sheffield would not be needed.

 

However we need to work out how old the stock will be when the wires are up. To suggest 91's cascaded would be impossible as they will probably be life expired then.

 

Neville Hill looks after the HST fleet - the far more numerous Meridians are maintained and serviced at Derby Etches Park, to the extent that an HST arriving at Sheffield from the South wiith no return working normally continues in traffic to Leeds and then runs onto Neville Hill, whereas Meridians usually run ECS (occasionally in service) back to Derby.

Sheffield to Moorthorpe is an obvious extension to link with the Donny-Leeds electrification. Very worried that the MML will be electrified as cheap as poss so that its just Bedford-Nottingham and Trent South-Derby-Sheffield so missing out the Erewash Valley and, as daft as many other schemes, the north side of the triangle at Trent.

It would be surprising if the side of the triangle that allows Nottingham-Derby services wasn't electrified at the same time as the rest of the route as the mainline sets ending their service day at Nottingham use it to run ECS to Derby Etches Park for servicing, and the reverse happens in the morning. Only the 153/156/158 fleet overnights at Nottingham and the depot there isn't big enough to handle mainline sets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, and I believe the announcement is that the negotiations have been completed and they will be part of the overall scheme. No surprises for the UK Government wanting to take credit for someone elses hard work and money...

 

I thought that the Welsh were complaining that they were poor and out of work. :jester:

 

Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The amount of money being talked about (£500 million) obviously doesn't include enough for new trainsw for the route. I suspect that this means that they will definitely be going down the pantograph car option for the meridians. It will be interesting to see whether or not West Coast and Cross Country buy into the deal as they both run considerable mielage under the wires. It would probabloy pay both companies as I believe the track access charges are lower and ther would be much less diesel fuel to buy. Think of the fuel saving on all the Virgin routes such as London Holyhead and the Cross countyr routes such as Edinburgh Bristol.

 

Jamie

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the MML is electrified as far as Leeds, then with Leeds-York already authorised, this will only leave Birmingham-Derby, Oxford-Coventry/Bham and Southcote Jn-Basingtoke of the Reading half of the cross-country network without some form of "juice" (and I can see a good case for electrifying the latter two for the Soton-Bham freightliner traffic).

 

Any plans to fit any Voyagers with collector shoes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...