MML Electrification: could it be extended to Matlock?

[Archie810]

Moderator note: Split from

MML Electrification: progress updates

There's an article about NR's plans in Rail this week (#765 p54). It seems that work on site will start in April 2015, the contractor being Carillion Powerlines. They will be using road-rail vehicles for the work, not a high-output system. The 125mph design isn't explicitly named but seems...

www.railforums.co.uk

I asked Network Rail what the wooden pegs in the ground are for and this was their response:

So it's actually happening?

Also, pure speculation, if the electrification does get done all the way to Nottingham and Sheffield, would it be also worth doing the extra few miles on the Matlock branch so that service could be fully electric?

 

[John R]

So its actually happening?

Also pure speculation, if the electrification does get done all the way to Nottingham and Sheffield, would it be also worth doing the extra few miles on the Matlock branch so that service could be fully electric?

I don’t think that’s the interpretation I take of the DfT’s response in post 7991.

As for Matlock, I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves a bit tbh. And bear in mind that none of the Thames Valley branches are electrified, nor is Windmere, despite all of these being schemes that had government approval some time in the last decade. So I think the likelihood of it is fairly low, even once electrification gets north of Derby.

 

[bib]

Given it's got 1tph and lots of tunnels I'd expect that batteries is the only way that electric trains will ever make it to Matlock.
If they do wire Derby - Sheffield, it'll be interesting to see if they wire the passing loops and any of the turn out track towards Ambergate Station, as it splits about 1km before the station, even though the lines are only 100m apart by the time they get to Ambergate.

 

[zwk500]

Also, pure speculation, if the electrification does get done all the way to Nottingham and Sheffield, would it be also worth doing the extra few miles on the Matlock branch so that service could be fully electric?

Unfortunately probably not. For a dead-end branch batteries are likely to be a far more cost-effective solution, even if it requires a charge at Matlock.
A run-off at the junction to allow a BEMU to pan up while waiting for the signal (or an electric unit to shunt if not able to power up the batteries) is the most wire the Matlock branch is likely to see.

 

[Snow1964]

Given it's got 1tph and lots of tunnels I'd expect that batteries is the only way that electric trains will ever make it to Matlock.
If they do wire Derby - Sheffield, it'll be interesting to see if they wire the passing loops and any of the turn out track towards Ambergate Station, as it splits about 1km before the station, even though the lines are only 100m apart by the time they get to Ambergate.

Yes if planned for BEMUs there is logic in continuing the wiring bit beyond the junction, where junction is not at at station.

If junction is adjacent to a station, changeover takes place in platform.

If entering non electrified branch (junction not near station) ideally want about up to about mile wired to allow acceleration away from junction (especially if long route off wire to minimise battery usage). Generally acceleration is restricted on batteries, compared to wires.

Exiting the non electrified route then wires should extend far enough so train can raise pantograph and changeover whilst waiting for junction signal to change (if it is checked approaching main line). So only needs to be about 250-300m beyond signal. Thus a double track line might have one track wired further than other.

The ideal is don't attempt the changeover on the busier mainline tracks, and of course coasting on these and clearing junction slower might be critical for timekeeping in busy locations.

 

[duffield]

Unfortunately probably not. For a dead-end branch batteries are likely to be a far more cost-effective solution, even if it requires a charge at Matlock.
A run-off at the junction to allow a BEMU to pan up while waiting for the signal (or an electric unit to shunt if not able to power up the batteries) is the most wire the Matlock branch is likely to see.

I think a charge at Matlock would not be needed, it's only about a 16 mile round trip from Ambergate junction and from what I've read BEMUs typically have a 50 mile range even based on battery tech from about 10 years ago. The rest of the journey under the wires should be plenty to keep the batteries fully charged for the branch.

Wiring to Ambergate station for a changeover at platform (and where the token machine is) would make a lot of sense, no overbridges, tunnels or anything else tricky exists between the junction and the station, and from the point the line actually diverges even the viaduct should be easy because of the space left by the removed second track.

There is however the proposal to switch the Matlock service to go through to Cleethorpes rather than terminate at Nottingham, so that would change the calculations completely given it would mostly off the wires (80 miles each way Nottingham to Clee) and so not suitable for a BEMU, but who knows what the service pattern would be when (if) mainline electrification is complete, I'd assume it would be changed again to allow better use of the OHLE.

 

[Nottingham59]

I really think there are better places to spend money on wiring than the Matlock branch. It's only one train per hour, and despite the gradient easily short enough for battery trains in the future.

Looking more broadly, we've reached the stage that all new passenger trains should be ordered with at least a small traction battery, with options to install AC, DC, large batteries or HVO biodiesel power units as required.

And it seems to me that electrification plans should be based on the assumption that BEMUs, bimodes or trimodes will be used on the line in future. So the wiring effort should focus on mainlines with intensive high speed running and places that will be most useful for recharging batteries, rather than filling in stub branch lines.

For MML and the East Midlands, I'd propose that the most productive places for wiring are likely to be:

Recharging opportunities

• Dore to Meadowhall, including Sheffield station
• Newark Castle, fed from the ECML supply (if trains continue to reverse there)
• Nottingham station
• Wigston to Syston, including Leicester station
• Stourbridge to Tysley, including Moor St
• Lincoln
• Barnetby to Grimsby

Intensive high speed mainlines

• Birmingham - Derby
• Syston - Derby
• Derby - Dore

Other

• Dore south curve, to allow bi-mode stone trains to switch over before joining the MML on a steep up gradient.

 

[DDB]

I think there are listed footbridges on the Matlock branch as well plus it passing through pretty bits of the peak district which might get complaints about the wires that wouldn't have merit but will still take time and effort to dismiss.

Much simpler to just wire to Ambergate (also allows it to be used as a turnback siding for the main line if ever needed)

It is downhill back to the mainline as well so could coast back to the wires if the charge got a bit low!

 

[Basil Jet]

It is downhill back to the mainline as well so could coast back to the wires if the charge got a bit low!

Mostly, but there is over a mile level from Lea Wood Tunnel south portal to Whatstandwell Tunnel north portal, and it actually climbs through the latter tunnel and past Whatstandwell station (according to Ian Allan Gradient Profiles).

 

[Nottingham59]

on the plus side, I understand that the Matlock branch was built to a generous loading gauge, with most overbridges built as a single arch. So I wouldn't expect many clearance issues, especially now it's single track that can be slewed to the middle of the formation.

 

[Class 317]

Electrification to Derby would allow conversion of the Matlock branch to electric operations via BEMU'S.

The BCR of this would far exceed the BCR of putting up wires.

 

[duffield]

on the plus side, I understand that the Matlock branch was built to a generous loading gauge, with most overbridges built as a single arch. So I wouldn't expect many clearance issues, especially now it's single track that can be slewed to the middle of the formation.

To centre the track, you'd have to mangle Cromford station (listed building) by extending the platform outwards and ruining the (listed) canopy's setting, since the tunnel starts at the end of the platform.

The same applies at Matlock, the tunnel ends and the platform starts, and although the actual station building doesn't appear to be listed (the station master's house is), centring the track would mean Peak Rail (Heritage railway) losing their platform.

Anyhow, there's zero probability of wires on a branch with one train per hour; but it's perfect for BEMUs.

 

[Grimsby town]

I'd echo what others have said that battery EMUs are definitely the way forward for Matlock. They'd also work for Nottingham to Leicester (as would a conventional EMU) and Nottingham to Crewe. That should be enough lines to make it worth investing a small fleet of BEMUs. It would meaning splitting services at Nottingham as things stand but hopefully by time this is an option battery range will have increased or chargers could be installed at places like Lincoln and Cleethorpes.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Given it's got 1tph and lots of tunnels I'd expect that battery is the only way that electric trains will ever make it to Matlock.

That is most certainly my view too and without wishing to get into the old tired north vs south argument, Thames Valley Branches would be much higher priority and probably even Windermere.

 

[Bevan Price]

I suppose Matlock might eventually get electrified - but in that area, grearter priority should be for lines like:
Derby - Chesterfield
Sheffield - Wakefield & Doncaster
Derby - Birmingham - Bristol.

 

[Bald Rick]

No Chance. Perfect for batteries.