If MML electrification gets paused, can the installation teams move straight on to HS2 work then back to the MML?

[Peter Sarf]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/mml-electrification-progress-updates.110445

"MML wiring at risk". does anyone have a subscription to this magazine? can we get some more info on this?

It's an item on p. 13, facing the report of HS2 rescheduling on p. 12. It repeats a lot of stuff we've heard before, including the board meeting in #5987, and says sources have suggested MML electrification may be sacrificed to divert money to HS2. "Asked about the Government's commitment to the MML scheme, the DfT ... did not offer any specific commitment to the scheme. It said the Rail Network Enhancement Pipeline would be published 'in due course'."

There's also a feature on pp. 64-5, based on a presentation to the Chartered Institution of Railway Operators (date not stated). It says the Wigston limit of the current works was influenced by the spare capacity of the Braybrooke feeder. The target is to have most construction finished for April 2024 for entry into service in 2025, aligning with the introduction of the Aurora fleet.

There's a good deal about the OLE changes south of Bedford.

"Delivering new trains to operate on new or upgraded infrastructure requires Network Rail and EMR to work in partnership. One example of this is the identification of sites for automatic power changeover for the Auroras between electric and diesel modes, including at Wigston, Corby and a location dubbed London Gateway (in the Elstree area)." This seems to contradict #6045.

My bold - its on page 9 opposite page 8 in my Modern Railways (April 2023).

Yes basically its all sources suggest etc etc.

My only hope is that if MML electrification gets paused that the teams now created can move straight on to HS2 work. Then back to MML after. But that would be far to sensible !.

Mods feel free to start a new thread please if this is getting too speculative.

 

[Mikey C]

My bold - its on page 9 opposite page 8 in my Modern Railways (April 2023).

Yes basically its all sources suggest etc etc.

My only hope is that if MML electrification gets paused that the teams now created can move straight on to HS2 work. Then back to MML after. But that would be far to sensible !.

Mods feel free to start a new thread please if this is getting too speculative.

Surely any HS2 wiring would be years away though.

I can't see MML work being scaled back, it would be electorally disastrous for the Tories in the East Midlands and the "north" in general, and whereas HS2 is quite a controversial scheme, MML wiring has wide support.

 

[absolutelymilk]

My only hope is that if MML electrification gets paused that the teams now created can move straight on to HS2 work. Then back to MML after. But that would be far to sensible !.

Mods feel free to start a new thread please if this is getting too speculative.

I would be surprised if HS2 electrification starts in the next couple of years, unless it's earlier in the schedule than I'm imagining?

EDIT: Mikey C beat me to it!

 

[Peter Sarf]

Surely any HS2 wiring would be years away though.

I can't see MML work being scaled back, it would be electorally disastrous for the Tories in the East Midlands and the "north" in general, and whereas HS2 is quite a controversial scheme, MML wiring has wide support.

I would be surprised if HS2 electrification starts in the next couple of years, unless it's earlier in the schedule than I'm imagining?

EDIT: Mikey C beat me to it!

So bang goes a rolling electrification program. I hope not, but I am not surprised.

I agree (hope) that after HS2 Eastern Leg being dropped the consolation is MML electrification.

 

[snowball]

My bold - its on page 9 opposite page 8 in my Modern Railways (April 2023).

Sorry, you're right. I've no idea how I made that mistake. I've now corrected it in my original post.

Won’t the real sign of a delay be a lack of ordering the next power connection (is it Kegworth?)? They need to order that years in advance don’t they?

I'm sure it has been mentioned upthread that it has already been ordered.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Sorry, you're right. I've no idea how I made that mistake. I've now corrected it in my original post.


I'm sure it has been mentioned upthread that it has already been ordered.

I had started wondering if I was missing out on a first class edition of MR (you getting more pages) !.

 

[YourMum666]

My bold - its on page 9 opposite page 8 in my Modern Railways (April 2023).

Yes basically its all sources suggest etc etc.

My only hope is that if MML electrification gets paused that the teams now created can move straight on to HS2 work. Then back to MML after. But that would be far to sensible !.

Mods feel free to start a new thread please if this is getting too speculative.

that’s if Hs2 ever even gets an eastern leg, but relatively speaking the MML and Hs2 wiring can be done at the same time

 

[zwk500]

that’s if Hs2 ever even gets an eastern leg, but relatively speaking the MML and Hs2 wiring can be done at the same time

Technically they can, but the Treasury is playing Spreadsheet bingo and HS2 is winning the race for available borrowing at the moment.
There are practical limits on how much borrowing can be done by a sovereign government, although I have no idea if MML wiring would get close to the numbers the UK case would involve.

 

[gingertom]

Technically they can, but the Treasury is playing Spreadsheet bingo and HS2 is winning the race for available borrowing at the moment.
There are practical limits on how much borrowing can be done by a sovereign government, although I have no idea if MML wiring would get close to the numbers the UK case would involve.

There's been many mutterings that the investment HS2 wouldn't be at the expense of investment in the existing rail network. As these mutterings came from ministers they've obviously lied- should we be surprised?

 

[quantinghome]

Technically they can, but the Treasury is playing Spreadsheet bingo and HS2 is winning the race for available borrowing at the moment.
There are practical limits on how much borrowing can be done by a sovereign government, although I have no idea if MML wiring would get close to the numbers the UK case would involve.

Hardly. The treasury has taken a scythe to future phases of HS2 and people working on the Euston section are being made redundant. All rail projects are suffering from the dead hand.

Rail expenditure will be a rounding area for the UK's total borrowing requirements.

 

[zwk500]

Hardly. The treasury has taken a scythe to future phases of HS2 and people working on the Euston section are being made redundant. All rail projects are suffering from the dead hand.

Absolutely - the fact that HS2 is suffering such cuts even while swallowing funding is showing the limits of borrowing the Treasury are prepared to accept.

Rail expenditure will be a rounding area for the UK's total borrowing requirements.

Quite probably, but it's still got a budget the Treasury are choosing to keep a lid on.

 

[The Ham]

Absolutely - the fact that HS2 is suffering such cuts even while swallowing funding is showing the limits of borrowing the Treasury are prepared to accept.

Quite probably, but it's still got a budget the Treasury are choosing to keep a lid on.

The thing is with £177bn of borrowing in 2022/23 the £1.3bn required for MML electrification is less than 1%.

However, a lot of that cost would be "repaid" over time through the form of lower railway costs.

That's before you consider any uplift in rail use which may happen because of improvements to the rolling stock/timetable, which could result in growth in the economy (which could result in the amount of money borrowed Vs the economy actually being smaller than would have been the case if the money wasn't borrowed - for example the MML electrification needing to borrow £1.5bn but then the impact to the economy being +£3bn, so the loan to GDP value would be smaller than if nothing was done).

 

[zwk500]

The thing is with £177bn of borrowing in 2022/23 the £1.3bn required for MML electrification is less than 1%.

However, a lot of that cost would be "repaid" over time through the form of lower railway costs.

That's before you consider any uplift in rail use which may happen because of improvements to the rolling stock/timetable, which could result in growth in the economy (which could result in the amount of money borrowed Vs the economy actually being smaller than would have been the case if the money wasn't borrowed - for example the MML electrification needing to borrow £1.5bn but then the impact to the economy being +£3bn, so the loan to GDP value would be smaller than if nothing was done).

If it were my decision, I'd have signed the contracts for Derby and Nottingham by now. It's the DfT who need to be pointed out the folly of letting the spreadsheet determine the budgets.

 

[WesternBiker]

The thing is with £177bn of borrowing in 2022/23 the £1.3bn required for MML electrification is less than 1%.

However, a lot of that cost would be "repaid" over time through the form of lower railway costs.

That's before you consider any uplift in rail use which may happen because of improvements to the rolling stock/timetable, which could result in growth in the economy (which could result in the amount of money borrowed Vs the economy actually being smaller than would have been the case if the money wasn't borrowed - for example the MML electrification needing to borrow £1.5bn but then the impact to the economy being +£3bn, so the loan to GDP value would be smaller than if nothing was done).

That's why, across Whitehall, it's known as the "Dead Hand of the Treasury".

Another factor which should be in its favour is that rail expenditure of this sort is investment, whereas much of the borrowing at the moment is not. So it should come within the Golden Rule, of borrowing only to invest. All that seems to have gone out of the window at the moment...

 

[JamesT]

That's why, across Whitehall, it's known as the "Dead Hand of the Treasury".

Another factor which should be in its favour is that rail expenditure of this sort is investment, whereas much of the borrowing at the moment is not. So it should come within the Golden Rule, of borrowing only to invest. All that seems to have gone out of the window at the moment...

As we saw from Kwarteng's budget, the markets seem to react very badly to expectations of increased borrowing. Electrification unlike tax cuts for higher earners may have a payback, but that's in the future unlike the increased borrowing costs. So it's unsurprising that a firm grip on total expenditure is being made, whilst the opposition is making hay that the government have lost control of spending.

 

[Bald Rick]

It doesn't have to be a total block. A rail or signalling defect, or other isolated issue at say, Market Harborough, would cripple the route were it not for the Manton diversion.
The many diversionary possibilities are what gives our route the resilience that means we generally keep at least some trains running during times of disruption.

Bi-Di is better value for money against a single line defect. There are very few routes that actually use diversionary routes, and most of what exist are accidents of history.

Case in point - no diversionary capacity was maintained for HS1. If London-Paris wasn't worth diversionary capacity, why would London-Leicester?

Perhaps but that was with Diesel only and now Bi-mode Diesel trains not sure in the climate crisis thats a great idea. However thats where government doesn't seem to have, nor understands, joined up cross department policy.

Let’s assume the MML is electrified in full from Wigston to Sheffield via Derby and Nottingham. What will offer the best decarbonisation benefits and financial benefits?

1) Keeping the bi-modes on the MML, hauling around and maintaining 132 engines that will be rarely used, and buying a new fleet of bimodes for a.n.other operator as their stock becomes life expired, or,

2) buying a ‘cheap and easy’ electric only fleet for the MML (perhaps with a small traction battery), and shifting the bimodes to a.n.other operator where the bi mode facility will be actually useful all day every day. And putting a bus on for the few occasions of a total block of the electric sections.

I must stress that this is just my thoughts. But it’s pretty obvious.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Surely any HS2 wiring would be years away though.
I can't see MML work being scaled back, it would be electorally disastrous for the Tories in the East Midlands and the "north" in general, and whereas HS2 is quite a controversial scheme, MML wiring has wide support.

The HS2 wiring contract is likely to be awarded later this year - for Phase 1 and 2a (Euston/OOC-Crewe).
But work on the ground won't start for several years, and may not include any of the current NR contractors.
There is no prospect of any wiring of the eastern leg starting in less than a decade, and in any case an HS2 construction Bill would have to get through parliament first and that is a distant prospect until the Crewe-Manchester leg is authorised.

I think the Modern Railways report about possibly stopping MML wiring is about overall railway cost rather than an MML issue.
HS2, TRU and other major projects (eg ECML ETCS) are sucking up all the available capital spend for several years, and DfT/NR will be looking to row back in other areas.
We have seen now that HS2 has been trimmed back and its timescale extended, to cap the annual spend.
I'd expect a slow-down in MML spend, but not any abandonment.

The other related issue is the "getting HS2 trains to Leeds" conundrum, without any new build north of East Midlands Parkway.
Who knows what will emerge from that.

 

[Class 170101]

Let’s assume the MML is electrified in full from Wigston to Sheffield via Derby and Nottingham. What will offer the best decarbonisation benefits and financial benefits?

1) Keeping the bi-modes on the MML, hauling around and maintaining 132 engines that will be rarely used, and buying a new fleet of bimodes for a.n.other operator as their stock becomes life expired, or,

2) buying a ‘cheap and easy’ electric only fleet for the MML (perhaps with a small traction battery), and shifting the bimodes to a.n.other operator where the bi mode facility will be actually useful all day every day. And putting a bus on for the few occasions of a total block of the electric sections.

I must stress that this is just my thoughts. But it’s pretty obvious.

You forget passenger expectations though. Unless the diversionary routes are wired then Bi-modes will be necessary to keep passengers on the move unless diesel locos can be readily available for dragging electric only trains off wired routes but I don't think the skills of attaching / detchaing locos is as good now as it used to be and indeed most have to be hired in now assuming they are available at all. Passengers prefer diversions which usually means direct trains rather than buses as Transport Focus has researched many times, which in itself is good because buses aren't exactly in great supply right now. So unfortunately at the moment its got to be option 1 unless DfT policy towards electrification changes, which I fear it won't because of the (currently Conservative led) Treasury looking to save money where it can, so new trains are seen as private funding which is good but wiring is publicly funded which is bad.

 

[Skymonster]

Who cares if further MML electrification is delayed or cancelled? There’s a fleet of bi-modes on the way that are quite capable of running at line-speed on built-in Diesel engines all the way from Wigston to Sheffield. These trains are likely to be good for 30 years service. Other services north of Leicester, such as the local Leicester-Nottingham-Grimsby will remain Diesel, as well Cross Country / EMR on Notttingham-Derby, Nothern / EMR / Cross Country up to Sheffield from Nottingham / Derby and cross-country intermodal freight and stone. So electrification of the northern part of the MML is for maybe just four Intercity trains each way an hour - four trains that, as I said, can do the sections north of Leicester on Diesel - and provide much more flexibility for diversions via Manton and Erewash. So where’s the real benefit when the country is cash-strapped. Please don’t start on the climate change clap-trap - four trains an hour isn’t going to change the world. Honestly, given the rolling stock situation that is now fairly well set for the next two or three decades at least (by which time maybe HS2 will get to East Midlands Parkway), further electrification of the MML seems to be more of a vanity project than founded on logic or good economics.

 

[JonathanH]

Honestly, given the rolling stock situation that is now fairly well set for the next two or three decades at least (by which time maybe HS2 will get to East Midlands Parkway), further electrification of the MML seems to be more of a vanity project than founded on logic or good economics.

I'd imagine the logic is to try to use less diesel and reduce emissions at the point of use, rather than a vanity project, but recognise the other points you make about it not being an essential step in the introduction of the 810s.

 

[zwk500]

Who cares if further MML electrification is delayed or cancelled? There’s a fleet of bi-modes on the way that are quite capable of running at line-speed on built-in Diesel engines all the way from Wigston to Sheffield. These trains are likely to be good for 30 years service. Other services north of Leicester, such as the local Leicester-Nottingham-Grimsby will remain Diesel, as well Cross Country / EMR on Notttingham-Derby, Nothern / EMR / Cross Country up to Sheffield from Nottingham / Derby and cross-country intermodal freight and stone. So electrification of the northern part of the MML is for maybe just four Intercity trains each way an hour - four trains that, as I said, can do the sections north of Leicester on Diesel - and provide much more flexibility for diversions via Manton and Erewash. So where’s the real benefit when the country is cash-strapped. Please don’t start on the climate change clap-trap - four trains an hour isn’t going to change the world. Honestly, given the rolling stock situation that is now fairly well set for the next two or three decades at least (by which time maybe HS2 will get to East Midlands Parkway), further electrification of the MML seems to be more of a vanity project than founded on logic or good economics.

While it's not the biggest thing in the world, Electrification of the MML through to Leeds and Doncaster would also help the case for West and South Yorks local electrification (especially with TRU). Allowing EMR services to go over to full EMUs would also allow the Bi-modes to be reassigned to other routes like XC or SWR where the case for full electrification is far dodgier. If we surrender to the 'not going to change the world' then where do we start?

 

[WAO]

Who cares if further MML electrification is delayed or cancelled? There’s a fleet of bi-modes on the way that are quite capable of running at line-speed on built-in Diesel engines all the way from Wigston to Sheffield. These trains are likely to be good for 30 years service.

Yes, a bi-mode on diesel can just about match its electric drive in top speed but not in acceleration/climbing and crucially, marginal cost. That's why MML electrification figures looked so good - better than GWML. The route serves four connurbations and other significant towns. The bi-modes would be better on XC.

WAO

 

[HSTEd]

Would HS2 electrification even use any of the same equipment as MML electrification?

Surely there would be far more use of conventional construction equipment given that the line won't be open during the process.

I am skeptical that using the conventional railway electrification capability, such as it is, is a sensible plan (Even if that capability was more than a joke at the present time)

 

[Nottingham59]

a bi-mode on diesel can just about match its electric drive in top speed but not in acceleration/climbing

My understanding was that the 810s were designed with four engines per unit especially so that they would be able to match the 222 performance

 

[HSTEd]

1) Keeping the bi-modes on the MML, hauling around and maintaining 132 engines that will be rarely used, and buying a new fleet of bimodes for a.n.other operator as their stock becomes life expired, or,

If we aren't using the engines why would they be maintained?
Surely you would just isolate them, drain them of operating fluids and maybe put preservatives into the fuel and oil systems etc.

Or just pull them out and replace them with blocks of concrete or iron for ballasting reasons.

 

[Skymonster]

The bi-modes would be better on XC.

If we aren't using the engines why would they be maintained?
Surely you would just isolate them, drain them of operating fluids and maybe put preservatives into the fuel and oil systems etc.

Or just pull them out and replace them with blocks of concrete or iron for ballasting reasons.

These two quotes neatly indicate how nutty railway thinking can be right now [no offence intended to those who wrote them].

The 810s were designed and built for the MML. Only five car trains, different vehicle lengths to accommodate the platforms at St Pancras, addition engines. Move them to XC (or anywhere else) now and the recipient may well end up with a sub-optimal solution for their needs, there’d be more money spent on re-liverying / internally refurbing them, and lots of time tied up in retraining traincrew at both the donor and receiving TOC, potentially along with the need to update several depot facilities. Then there’s the suggestion above that if MML is electrified, the engines on the 810s could be isolated or turned into concrete blocks that have to be carted around day in, day out. How environmentally friendly is that? I’ll give you a clue - it isn’t.

No, the 810s were designed and specified for the MML, and that’s where they‘ll offer the most optimal solution for a good long while, operating as bi-modes. Electrifying the rest of the MML just isn’t necessary any more, at least not during the lifetime of the 810 vehicles. indeed its wasteful given a perfectly functional solution designed to do the job is [soon going to be] on hand.

So, leave the MML electrification alone now and crack on with the Eastern leg of HS2. By the time its done (the eastern leg of HS2) and the line from East Midlands Parkway to Nottingham / Derby / Sheffield is electrified by necessity of that project, the 810s will be about ready for Simms.

 

[WAO]

We should stick to argument and debate, without describing others or their views as "nutty".

The 810's as five car units will replace the Meridian 222's which are, err, Voyagers, similar to XC!

WAO