• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

MML Electrification: progress updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hairy Bear

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
371
Location
Derbyshire
Mk 4 stock requires standard ETS electricity supply , class 43 powercars provide 415v 3phase ac for train power.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-....28ETH.29_and_Electric_Train_Supply_.28ETS.29

consequently to use class 43s withmk4 stock an alternative solution is required - which involves rewirign one or the other of the stock or the powercars

this is why the engine was required to be running on the 'surrogate DVT' class 43 when the class 91s hauled HST rakes on the ECML prior to the delivery and release to service of the mk 4 stock and DVTs

And then they would require thru wiring for the jumper cable and then a coach to rebuilt for the T/m and bikes to ride in and then you can start on rebuilding the line South of Wigston all the way to London as there out of guage. But do know what, don't bother as the current trailer cars are going to be modified to make them last until 2024 on the instructions of the dft.
Still if youv'e time on your hands at the moment and youv'e done your Christmas Shopping , can you work the Parry People movers into the equation as I' d be fascinated.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,440
And then they would require thru wiring for the jumper cable and then a coach to rebuilt for the T/m and bikes to ride in and then you can start on rebuilding the line South of Wigston all the way to London as there out of guage. But do know what, don't bother as the current trailer cars are going to be modified to make them last until 2024 on the instructions of the dft.
Still if youv'e time on your hands at the moment and youv'e done your Christmas Shopping , can you work the Parry People movers into the equation as I' d be fascinated.

I asked early in the thread whether the 125s were compatible with Mark 4 stock because they will be cascaded somewere anyway and it would have been a quick way of replacing the Mark IIIs prior to electrification. For anyone without technical knowledge it is an obvious interim solution rather than pie in the sky. It you have insider knowledge about the Mark IIIs being upgraded to meet DDA you can hardly be surprised that we don't and are speculating. If you are correct then its surprising, spending money on power doors, universal access toilets etc seems a bit of a waste if they aren't guaranteed use after 2024.
 

43074

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2012
Messages
2,253
I asked early in the thread whether the 125s were compatible with Mark 4 stock because they will be cascaded somewere anyway...

Will they? There's no reason the Mk4s that aren't remaining with VTEC won't be scrapped when the 800s enter service on the ECML, especially as Mk3s have been/are being fitted with power doors which will still make them DDA compliant whilst being cheaper to run and easier to maintain than the Mk4s. They're old and becoming more unreliable shown by an increasing number of Mk4 short formed 225 sets under VTEC so I can't see why anyone would want them frankly.
 

AndyW33

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2013
Messages
541
First of all, the DDA requirements mean that the train has to be accessible for the disabled, not every single carriage on it. For example it would be perfectly legal to fit one Universal Access Toilet in one carriage only. There are brand new EMUs entering service with one UAT per 4 or 5 car set.
Then the power doors only need to be at one position in one carriage only, not every single door position.
And the DfT has power to make derogations from the rules anyway.

In threads covering other HST operators (and future operators such as Scotrail) it has been said that there is a simplified approved upgrade, which involves modifying all the doors to make it possible to open them from inside without lowering the droplight, once the guard has operated the door release, and fitting power doors at a limited number of positions. There is already a retrofit power door design for Mk3 bodyshells in service with Chiltern.

The number of carriages needing anything other than the simplified door mod is probably only two per set (one for First and one for Standard maybe), and EMT have 12 sets, so 24 carriages. This is probably cheaper than rewiring all 24 HST power cars to supply Mk4 stock, or modifying 12 complete Mk4 sets to accept the power feed from existing HST powercars.
 
Last edited:

devinier

Member
Joined
15 Jun 2014
Messages
54
I think the 91's and mk4 coaches will be scrapped. They were designed and built for the ECML and are being replaced. If there was a case for extending their lives further then it would have been done to keep them where they are.
Modified MK3 coaches will still find work even after they are finished with on the MML, and possibly so would some HST power cars, which can be improved relatively cheaply by fitting new power units.
 
Last edited:

takno

Verified Rep - Traksy
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,574
The Mk 4s will have had a pretty solid life by the time they are replaced on the ECML. It may seem a bit brutal to scrap them when you are still running even older stock, and where the old stock needs an upgrade to meet legislation. Ultimately though they were very much built to a price and purpose, and compromises like shaping the bodyshell for tilt mean that once the 91s are redundant they are just not as good for any ongoing uses that exist. The modifications to Mk 3s aren't that huge, have broadly been done before.

Of course they could hang on to them until everybody agrees that the interiors in most new trains are a horrible horrible error and then raid them for the adequate seats, or Mr Shooter could try fitting some engines under them for a giggle
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,440
The Mk 4s will have had a pretty solid life by the time they are replaced on the ECML. It may seem a bit brutal to scrap them when you are still running even older stock, and where the old stock needs an upgrade to meet legislation. Ultimately though they were very much built to a price and purpose, and compromises like shaping the bodyshell for tilt mean that once the 91s are redundant they are just not as good for any ongoing uses that exist. The modifications to Mk 3s aren't that huge, have broadly been done before.

Of course they could hang on to them until everybody agrees that the interiors in most new trains are a horrible horrible error and then raid them for the adequate seats, or Mr Shooter could try fitting some engines under them for a giggle

I still find it difficult to believe that DfT will sanction the scrapping of 300 carriages under 30 years old while there is still a shortage of rolling stock. Reliability would be improved by scrapping the worst carriages and keeping any parts in good condition for spares, while doing a very thorough refurb of the rest. Which diesel locos can haul them (even if only shorter rakes)?
 

AndyW33

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2013
Messages
541
I still find it difficult to believe that DfT will sanction the scrapping of 300 carriages under 30 years old while there is still a shortage of rolling stock. Reliability would be improved by scrapping the worst carriages and keeping any parts in good condition for spares, while doing a very thorough refurb of the rest. Which diesel locos can haul them (even if only shorter rakes)?

It isn't up to the DfT to sanction scrapping though, is it? This stock belongs to Eversholt, and if they want to scrap vehicles as they come off lease there's nothing anyone can do about it. Obviously they won't do that if they can find another customer to lease the sets, and VTEC intend to renew the leases on 70 or so coaches for continued use. So there's around 230 coaches available for someone to lease, or to break for spares.
As others have pointed out, these coaches were built for the ECML and are only fully gauge-cleared for that route, plus Doncaster-Leeds/Bradford FS/Skipton and a limited number of regularly used diversion routes. They aren't routinely dragged by diesels on diversion because HSTs are redeployed to cover this instead. Until someone makes a serious proposal, Network Rail aren't going to incur the expense of checking if any new route can accommodate them, let alone spend money on gauge clearance.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,304
First of all, the DDA requirements mean that the train has to be accessible for the disabled, not every single carriage on it. For example it would be perfectly legal to fit one Universal Access Toilet in one carriage only. There are brand new EMUs entering service with one UAT per 4 or 5 car set.
Then the power doors only need to be at one position in one carriage only, not every single door position.
And the DfT has power to make derogations from the rules anyway.

In threads covering other HST operators (and future operators such as Scotrail) it has been said that there is a simplified approved upgrade, which involves modifying all the doors to make it possible to open them from inside without lowering the droplight, once the guard has operated the door release, and fitting power doors at a limited number of positions. There is already a retrofit power door design for Mk3 bodyshells in service with Chiltern.

The number of carriages needing anything other than the simplified door mod is probably only two per set (one for First and one for Standard maybe), and EMT have 12 sets, so 24 carriages. This is probably cheaper than rewiring all 24 HST power cars to supply Mk4 stock, or modifying 12 complete Mk4 sets to accept the power feed from existing HST powercars.

No, the power doors have to be fitted across the train. The accessibility regulations take a much, much wider view of impairment than might be obvious, which make it impossible to fulfil them by providing only a small 'accessible' area in one area of the train. For instance, the requirement for contrasting handrails and lighting in the door footwells is to serve people who may have only limited sight, but who can otherwise use the train as an unimpaired person could. It's often not possible to determine who these people are ahead of time, so it's not possible to restrict them to only using one part of the train.

The power door sets can still have swing doors but only for staff use. These are doors which aren't even painted in contrasting colours and are often located in the galley. Both Chiltern and ScotRail sets do this, as will any other conversions in future, as there is no need to change a door which can't be used by members of the public.

The cost of 'Chilternising' a Mk3 carriage appears to have gone down compared to the initial Chiltern effort, so it's now much more likely that these conversions will go ahead even if they wouldn't then be in use until 2030. Since the passenger saloons already have all the mod-cons like WiFi and power sockets really it's just a matter of the CET toilets and the doors. The plug door design that will be used by ScotRail is much simpler to implement than the Chiltern design, as the new door can basically fit into the existing aperture rather than needing the whole end of the carriage to be replaced.

While the Mk4 carriages may already be closer to being fully compliant, the costs of running them are somewhat higher and they're not already cleared for the vast majority of the GB rail network. If the cost of running Mk4s (and doing whatever conversion is necessary for the ETS supply from HST power cars) is higher than the cost of running Mk3s and doing the plug door work, then the Mk4s will end up being scrapped before their predecessors.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,440
It isn't up to the DfT to sanction scrapping though, is it? This stock belongs to Eversholt, and if they want to scrap vehicles as they come off lease there's nothing anyone can do about it. Obviously they won't do that if they can find another customer to lease the sets, and VTEC intend to renew the leases on 70 or so coaches for continued use. So there's around 230 coaches available for someone to lease, or to break for spares.
As others have pointed out, these coaches were built for the ECML and are only fully gauge-cleared for that route, plus Doncaster-Leeds/Bradford FS/Skipton and a limited number of regularly used diversion routes. They aren't routinely dragged by diesels on diversion because HSTs are redeployed to cover this instead. Until someone makes a serious proposal, Network Rail aren't going to incur the expense of checking if any new route can accommodate them, let alone spend money on gauge clearance.

DfT can control franchise specs, premiums and lengths and rolling stock transfers in such a way that they can essentially control what rolling is in use. You might be right, especially if the guage issues are very bad, but Scotrail and Mark IIIs was intially a surprise. To the average person switching from 70s carriages with slam doors to late 80s and early 90s carriages with normal doors looks like an improvement. Its a hard political sell to say that an area should have rolling stock that is already around 40 years old. For the Mark IVs to be scrapped on mass all opperators apart from VTEC need to choose new stock or Mark IIIs for new fast services. I would be surprised if they all did, especially for mid franchise service / capacity boosts. I dont know the age profile of Mark 3 stock but I would be surprised if Scot Rail were not having the youngest.

Going back to an earlier point about new stock, if the Mark IIIs are upgraded then thats likely to kill the chances of bi mode or DMU units in the next franchise, the bidders will wait for wires to reach further north and lease new EMUs. Bi modes seem to be in fashion atm but that doesn't change the higher manufacturing and track access costs. Old stock for 4 years and EMUs after is likely to be cheaper, especially since all the HSTs will be surpless to requirements once Nottingham is wired up. 110mph EMUs for Corby, 125 mph EMUs for Nottingham and Merdians until wires reach Sheffield will be enough capacity. Even with NRs failures, id be pretty gobsmacked if at least Nottingham hadnt been done by 2024.
 

Kneedown

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Messages
1,837
Location
Nottinghamshire
. 110mph EMUs for Corby, 125 mph EMUs for Nottingham and Merdians until wires reach Sheffield will be enough capacity. Even with NRs failures, id be pretty gobsmacked if at least Nottingham hadnt been done by 2024.

To be honest, IMHO, until there is a comittment to wire up the entire Erewash Valley and links to Nottingham, Attenboro and Trent, Corby to Syston, and Beighton, then there is simply no answer other than Bi-modes. The diversionary routes are essential now, and will continue to be in the future.
 

doa46231

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2016
Messages
60
Location
Milton Keynes
To be honest, IMHO, until there is a comittment to wire up the entire Erewash Valley and links to Nottingham, Attenboro and Trent, Corby to Syston, and Beighton, then there is simply no answer other than Bi-modes. The diversionary routes are essential now, and will continue to be in the future.

Since there will never be such a comittment the likelyhood is that straight DMU's will be ordered, especially as the Bedford to St P. wiring is apparently unsuitable for 125mph running.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,269
Since there will never be such a comittment the likelyhood is that straight DMU's will be ordered, especially as the Bedford to St P. wiring is apparently unsuitable for 125mph running.

If the recently reconstructed at great expense Bedford overhead wiring can't be cheaply made suitable for 125mph there is something very wrong.
Considering even the pre Thameslink upgrade equipment was very similar to the Mark 3B stuff that does 125mph on the ECML all the time.


And running at diesel at 110mph with short stretches of 125mph probably gives a worse business case than Electric at 100mph given the Sheffield market will disintegrate.
Although I expect the OHLE can be got up to 110mph without too much difficulty. Especially if they abandon this multiple pantograph craze.
 
Last edited:

Kneedown

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Messages
1,837
Location
Nottinghamshire
Since there will never be such a comittment the likelyhood is that straight DMU's will be ordered, especially as the Bedford to St P. wiring is apparently unsuitable for 125mph running.

I really can't imagine Inter City DMU's being ordered for a line, the main route of which will be electrified in the next 7 or so years. What would be the point of electrifying in the first place?
 
Last edited:

Hairy Bear

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
371
Location
Derbyshire
If the recently reconstructed at great expense Bedford overhead wiring can't be cheaply made suitable for 125mph there is something very wrong.
Considering even the pre Thameslink upgrade equipment was very similar to the Mark 3B stuff that does 125mph on the ECML all the time.


And running at diesel at 110mph with short stretches of 125mph probably gives a worse business case than Electric at 100mph given the Sheffield market will disintegrate.
Although I expect the OHLE can be got up to 110mph without too much difficulty. Especially if they abandon this multiple pantograph craze.

Yes there is something wrong, the posts are too far apart, that's why it's 100mph.
And only tiny bits of the overheads where reconstructed mainly to do with the feeders.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,269
Yes there is something wrong, the posts are too far apart, that's why it's 100mph.
And only tiny bits of the overheads where reconstructed mainly to do with the feeders.

Are the posts really more widely spaced than the 110-125mph sections of the ECML between Newcastle and Edinburgh?
 
Last edited:

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
10,464
Location
Preston Lancs
Yes there is something wrong, the posts are too far apart, that's why it's 100mph.
And only tiny bits of the overheads where reconstructed mainly to do with the feeders.

Are the posts really more widely spaced than the 110-125mph sections of the ECML between Newcastle and Edinburgh?

This is NOT OT IMHO -but we do not want to repeat GWML - I know - upgrading Paddington -Airport Jct is part of Crossrail - but - electrify north first - Kettering and Corby - then to Leicester then to Derby/Nottingham then to Sheffield - THEN and ONLY THEN -start worrying about upgrading Bed-Pan - that can wait until after 2030.
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
This is NOT OT IMHO -but we do not want to repeat GWML - I know - upgrading Paddington -Airport Jct is part of Crossrail - but - electrify north first - Kettering and Corby - then to Leicester then to Derby/Nottingham then to Sheffield - THEN and ONLY THEN -start worrying about upgrading Bed-Pan - that can wait until after 2030.
So,, electrify the north without doing the upgrades that will actually allow the trains to run more frequently from St Pancras?
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,901
Location
North
Are the posts really more widely spaced than the 110-125mph sections of the ECML between Newcastle and Edinburgh?

Very few lengths of the ECML between Newcastle and Edinburgh are quad track headspan wires. It is the movement and oscillation of these wires across four tracks in gusting wind conditions that leads to dewirement caused by the pan at speeds above 80mph.

Bedford-St Pancras is nearly all quadtrack headspans very susceptible to dewirement at speeds below 100mph. Conversion of existing masts to portal structures will allow speeds higher than 100mph.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,901
Location
North
This is NOT OT IMHO -but we do not want to repeat GWML - I know - upgrading Paddington -Airport Jct is part of Crossrail - but - electrify north first - Kettering and Corby - then to Leicester then to Derby/Nottingham then to Sheffield - THEN and ONLY THEN -start worrying about upgrading Bed-Pan - that can wait until after 2030.

Would travellers from north of Derby/Nottingham tolerate going back to a 100 mph railway for the next decade between Bedford and London? That is one third of the distance between Sheffield and St Pancras.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Would travellers from north of Derby/Nottingham tolerate going back to a 100 mph railway for the next decade between Bedford and London? That is one third of the distance between Sheffield and St Pancras.

St Pancras to Bedford is just under 50 miles. At 125mph the whole way, it'd take 24 minutes, whilst at 100 the whole way, it takes 30 minutes, so you only loose 6 minutes - and that is assuming that the whole section is currently 125 (I'm fairly sure that it isn't) - indeed it is timetabled at just over 30 minutes currently so you'd probably loose about 3 to 4 minutes from the lower speed running.
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
St Pancras to Bedford is just under 50 miles. At 125mph the whole way, it'd take 24 minutes, whilst at 100 the whole way, it takes 30 minutes, so you only loose 6 minutes - and that is assuming that the whole section is currently 125 (I'm fairly sure that it isn't) - indeed it is timetabled at just over 30 minutes currently so you'd probably loose about 3 to 4 minutes from the lower speed running.
6 minutes doesn't sound like a lot, but it could potentially reduce capacity and certainly wouldn't allow for increased service frequency. The EMT services are pretty well loaded throughout the day, so more services are certainly needed.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,897
6 minutes doesn't sound like a lot, but it could potentially reduce capacity and certainly wouldn't allow for increased service frequency. The EMT services are pretty well loaded throughout the day, so more services are certainly needed.

Conversely, it could also increase capacity if 125s are currently mixing it with 100mph trains.

I do not use that route so I have no idea if that is the case.
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
Conversely, it could also increase capacity if 125s are currently mixing it with 100mph trains.

I do not use that route so I have no idea if that is the case.
The majority of Thameslink trains on the fast lines switch to slows just before Radlett (where the first 125mph section roughly begins). I'd also imagine the faster acceleration of the Electrostars and 700s helps to negate the slower top speed too.
 

Hairy Bear

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
371
Location
Derbyshire
Plenty go over at either Radlett or we end up being behind them until Harpenden. We pace them sig to sig between 90 and 100 mph then drop right down until there over clear. Invariably they delay us for between 4 and 6 mins. Even if they go over at Radlett you will not touch 125 as it's 100 thru St.Albans . It's only 2 mins of running at 125 before you have to put the brake on away. You don't see 125 again until after Ampthill for a further few mins before braking for Bedford.
So don't be fooled by it being a 125 line all the way.
 

John Webb

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Messages
3,746
Location
St Albans
There are parts of the MML that cannot be run at 125mph due to curvature, in particular the bend through St Albans City. This was caused when the St Albans city fathers persuaded the Midland Railway to deviate from their original planned line further east of the city centre after the said city fathers had built their nice new gaol - then realised this was the first thing visitors would see on alighting from the train! The MR deviated the line after land exchanges between themselves and the city fathers, in which a corner of the gaol yard was lost to enable access to the engine shed and goods yard to be installed.
(Visitors to St Albans South signal box can see copies of maps of the time!)

Currently I think the limits are 105mph on the down fast and 100mph on the up fast.
 
Last edited:

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
Plenty go over at either Radlett or we end up being behind them until Harpenden. We pace them sig to sig between 90 and 100 mph then drop right down until there over clear. Invariably they delay us for between 4 and 6 mins. Even if they go over at Radlett you will not touch 125 as it's 100 thru St.Albans . It's only 2 mins of running at 125 before you have to put the brake on away. You don't see 125 again until after Ampthill for a further few mins before braking for Bedford.
So don't be fooled by it being a 125 line all the way.
I'm aware of that, I've used the line my entire life and you've probably driven my train a multitude of times.

My point is that the line between Carlton Road and Bedford is a very heavily used part of the route (if not then most), and as such upgrading the line further south would allow for more trains to operate from St Pancras to places further north.

What's the point of electrifying the route further north first if there's no extra trains to it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top