MML Electrification: is it going to be completed?

[The Ham]

Not necessarily.
Conventional electric units have to draw power at the instant that it is used, they have to do this regardless of system conditions.
A battery train can, to a reasonable degree, determine feeder conditions using the proxy of line voltage and adjust its draw of power from the system accordingly.

A system dominated by battery fitted trains could load the feeders far more heavily without risking an actual overload and trip.

However, only up to a point (and as you intimate by saying not necessarily there's some element of doubt), as if you added more trains to being battery trains they will need to be able to charge somewhere, so you'd need to be sure they could do so, even if that means in theory there's still spare capacity in the system.

For example you've got a line with 2 bimodal trains and 2 DMU's by converting all of those to battery trains there's still going to be a need for traction draw for what were the DMU's in addition to the battery charging. The loading there could be managed better by having batteries, however if you need to be sure of a certain account if charge and so an extra feeder is needed, arguably it's better to do so in a new location (more electrification) especially if that then allows other services to move over to being battery trains.

I don't know the MML, however it's not unreasonable to assume that to get the Matlock trains to be battery trains there's a fairly good case to be made to have OHLE at Derby, especially given that would also aid other services (including XC).

As such, why not just get on with the electrification of the MML as it would aid with the case for battery trains?

If it turns out that too much was done, then whilst there'll be extra cost there's still the benefit of extra resistance.

If we were discussing the electrification of the gaps between Reading and Gatwick, I could understand the talk about batteries being suitable and let's hold off, however we're taking about a line which has a lot of big gaps and creates a key bit of infrastructure to allow far more services to move to being battery trains, as such let's just get out done.

It's similar to if the discussion was about between Exeter and Plymouth, that would be key to delivering battery trains on the branch lines near there as well as reducing the length to a point where long distance services become easier to deliver as battery trains and so should be done.

Could there be savings by missing a section, quite possibly, however unless there's a few expensive bridge replacements and/or the gap is a long distance the extra reliability it provides is probably worth doing anyway.

One of the key advantages of battery trains is the fast that they can keep going if there's an issue with the supply. However, you can't rely on that being an advantage if you are squeezing every last mile out of the range of the battery trains be skimping on how much electrification you provide.

For example, a train (with a 140 mile range on batteries) it is better for that train to reach OHLE at the 110 mile mark of it's journey so if there's an issue there with the power it can still go another 30 miles to find power. Especially if the alternative is to run it to 130 miles and only have 10 miles of range left, as basically that train is making it to the next station before stopping to await the power to be restored.

 

[WAO]

Alternatively, the Traction battery used in 802027 for the Hitachi battery trail had a capacity of 555kWh and a power output over 700kW, a

So, c48 minutes on full load at 100% discharge efficiency?

20 - 80% desirable battery usage?

WAO

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Wow didn't know that, nobody ever says that in promotional vids and I haven't been there myself. Having watched a few Jago Hazzard videos I did wonder why he had so few shots of it.

Jago Hazzard has now uploaded another video on this subject . . . .

 

[stevieinselby]

However, only up to a point (and as you intimate by saying not necessarily there's some element of doubt), as if you added more trains to being battery trains they will need to be able to charge somewhere, so you'd need to be sure they could do so, even if that means in theory there's still spare capacity in the system.

For example you've got a line with 2 bimodal trains and 2 DMU's by converting all of those to battery trains there's still going to be a need for traction draw for what were the DMU's in addition to the battery charging. The loading there could be managed better by having batteries, however if you need to be sure of a certain account if charge and so an extra feeder is needed, arguably it's better to do so in a new location (more electrification) especially if that then allows other services to move over to being battery trains.

What GWR are doing at Greenford is running the charging system off batteries.
They have a battery array at Greenford that has a trickle charger from the grid, and then every 30 minutes when the train comes in, it discharges all of that power to recharge the train. This means that it draws a fairly constant load throughout the day, instead of spiking for 4 minutes out every 30, which will reduce the pressure on the grid as it keeps the peak load level lower. Obviously what works for a half-hourly branch line won't necessarily work the same for a major station serving intercity and regional trains that will have trains coming and going much more frequently, but it's interesting to see what options there are for enabling charging without necessarily needing major upgrades to the national grid infrastructure.

 

[edwin_m]

What GWR are doing at Greenford is running the charging system off batteries.
They have a battery array at Greenford that has a trickle charger from the grid, and then every 30 minutes when the train comes in, it discharges all of that power to recharge the train. This means that it draws a fairly constant load throughout the day, instead of spiking for 4 minutes out every 30, which will reduce the pressure on the grid as it keeps the peak load level lower. Obviously what works for a half-hourly branch line won't necessarily work the same for a major station serving intercity and regional trains that will have trains coming and going much more frequently, but it's interesting to see what options there are for enabling charging without necessarily needing major upgrades to the national grid infrastructure.

I believe that's basically correct, but the charger in the video is at West Ealing. I don't think there is one at Greenford.

 

[Zomboid]

The West Ealing solution is suitable for that kind of an installation, where a lightweight low powered unit gets a top-up every half hour.

For charging at a large station like Sheffield, where is likely that there's going to be one or more units on charge at any given moment you're looking at a full electrification style supply.

 

[The Ham]

What GWR are doing at Greenford is running the charging system off batteries.
They have a battery array at Greenford that has a trickle charger from the grid, and then every 30 minutes when the train comes in, it discharges all of that power to recharge the train. This means that it draws a fairly constant load throughout the day, instead of spiking for 4 minutes out every 30, which will reduce the pressure on the grid as it keeps the peak load level lower. Obviously what works for a half-hourly branch line won't necessarily work the same for a major station serving intercity and regional trains that will have trains coming and going much more frequently, but it's interesting to see what options there are for enabling charging without necessarily needing major upgrades to the national grid infrastructure.

Thanks, however that wasn't the example I was giving, with 4tph then the benefits from electrifying the line rather than having just batteries (even if some of those are static as they are at stations).

 

[Technologist]

Seems to be just us three who hold this viewpoint.
I have a feeling that the railway-battery craze is more common and extreme on this forum than amongst industry, although it's quite hard to tell as the industry does not ever speak for itself or assert a position back to government, but that's a different point. I think fundamentally it comes down to tech optimism, which is to say "we need to innovate brand new things in order to adapt to the climate crisis," vs the reality which is that we already have the solutions for railways; we just need to 'innovate' political and managerial structures that can actually deliver railway investment, not even rolling stock orders happen within the lifespan of any politician's office.

There is a famous quote “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”, the car industry didn't lead the charge for electric vehicles and the established manufacturers are now playing catch up. As recently as ~2-3 years ago the IMechE was advocating for hydrogen fuelled cars again this was due to the automotive division wanting throw FUD at EVs despite the fact that to many it was obvious EVs had won more than a decade ago.

JCB are still trying to get money for hydrogen fuelled diggers despite their arguments being based on assumptions that nobody will adapt projects to enable EV earth movers like for example bringing power to the site as the first step rather than one of the last. As an aside earth movers have terrible power to weight and a duty cycle that sees them stand around most of the time, ergo they are ideal for electrification, the fact that we can now charge batteries faster than a builder can piss is the final nail in any arguments for hydrogen there.

The lack of an industry push or voice for BEMUs is thus not a strong argument against them.

Rail does not have all the solutions already, the public get a vote too and other industries aren't going to remain stationary either. As discussed the environmental argument for rail is disappearing over time and the potential to bundle road pricing with autonomous and sharing is going to hit the efficiency argument in time, cars are already cheaper per passenger km than rail, if they become shared EVs with 1m mile service lives this difference will only become greater. As it stands today the top electric aviation companies haven't delivered anything past prototypes but have market values exceeding any rolling stock manufacturers, this tells us what the market thinks the relative values of those markets will be in the future.

Thus if rail wants to remain relevant it needs to get faster and cheaper, all new trains need to be able to accelerate at 1.3ms-2, active suspension so they can go fast comfortably on all tracks, all lines need ETCS 3/4 signalling and likely some form of spatial awareness and probably eddy current emergency braking to allow us to push speeds and frequencies. The permanent way costs need to drop, some of that will happen when we speed up trains which then drives more passengers, ETCS drives higher frequencies and thus the fixed costs get diluted.

However we will still need to get costs down further, there is massive scope to reduce the cost and maintenance of signalling, monitoring and points by going to self powered IOT systems and getting rid of fixed cables. In terms of electrification OHLE damage is a reasonably common cause of disruption so BEMUs help out here. It is also highly likely that chargers in stations will be a lot cheaper than installing new OHLE and with very fast charging battery types it is likely that services won't even have to dwell longer (this may require a new charging interface). Thus in the long term I can actually see some existing OHLE not being replaced where there is enough existing wires and station chargers to allow trains to pass that section of tracks.

The other interesting possibility would be doing away with OHLE entirely, given the rapid cost declines in power electronics I wonder if we could do clever things with high voltage third rails that are only energised under the train and don't energise if there is a ground leak, or even use wireless charging which has been demonstrated (over 90% efficient) on road vehicles. Wireless is particularly interesting as it doesn't need ugly wires and is non contact so shouldn't wear out very quickly, you would need a BEMU as it would be unlikely to supply sufficient power to allow the vehicle to accelerate but would likely be enough to sustain it at speed. Again in all these areas the tech is pretty fast moving an automotive is putting their money in.

 

[eldomtom2]

The lack of an industry push or voice for BEMUs is thus not a strong argument against them.

The idea that the industry has a financial incentive to suppress BEMUs is silly. There is a lot of money and jobs in building and maintaining BEMUs and their infrastructure.

 

[WAO]

We need to be cautious about an avalanche of new technologies.

The railway still has the low rolling resistance, high capacity, urban land use and central control advantages that it has always had.

If you can fit all that superpower/acceleration/speed in, then fit coupling locks on the straight, add retractable aerofoils to the carriage sides and then you can eliminate not just the OLE but most of the track, way and civil works completely. For arrival/touch down, you would need flange capture devices like the Hornby re-railers. The down side of this is the high energy cost if Carbon derived and intermediate stops.

Lets walk before we run.

WAO

 

[QSK19]

Oh here we go again…

Midlands Rail Hub plans for East Midlands 'put on hold'

Only schemes in the West Midlands are being taken forward.

email.railmagazine.com

The East Midlands schemes under the Midlands Rail Hub project are being “put on hold” - only the West Mids schemes are are going ahead. The East Mids Dec 2025 thread states that this is in light of recent economical developments and announcements by Reeves.

Is this a sign that another Grayling moment is coming for MMLE? Or are the East Mids schemes in the MRH project being placed on hold due to spend on MMLE (ie they can’t do MMLE and all the MRH East Mids schemes together, so MMLE is being prioritised)?

 

[Nottingham59]

Or are the East Mids schemes in the MRH project being placed on hold due to spend on MMLE (ie they can’t do MMLE and all the MRH East Mids schemes together, so MMLE is being prioritised)?

Of all the schemes they could prioritise, the MMLe is the most readily postponable - XC is probably going to get diesel 221s next and the 810s have been designed at great cost to have four diesel engines per unit to give them the same performance on diesel as AC. So there is no economic incentive to press ahead just now.

But now we have a new mayor for the East Midlands Combined Authority, than maybe there will be political backing for the East Midlands to counterbalance the clout of the West Midlands for what is essentially a political decision.

 

[Technologist]

The idea that the industry has a financial incentive to suppress BEMUs is silly. There is a lot of money and jobs in building and maintaining BEMUs and their infrastructure.

I was responding to another poster what stated that there wasn't a strong industry push, I think it is safe to say that there hasn't been a strategy document that has even noted the performance capabilities of BEMUs nor extrapolated into the potential to utilise said performance advantages to redefine railway services.

This is not a massive surprise as there isn't really a means to deliver something that transformative with the current structure of the railway. The other reason for the lack of "one voice" is that there are plenty of parts of the industry who would oppose or be indifferent to BEMUs specifically anyone in favour of electrification for a myriad of reasons.

 

[Zomboid]

I don't think anyone has identified an actual need for a super powered BEMU.

Obviously there's loads going on to bring about the use of battery trains, but that's in the context of reliably delivering (roughly) the kind of service that there is today.

I don't see why anyone involved with electrification would oppose batteries on principle. In most realistic outlooks batteries means more electrification. But exactly what form that will take is still to be determined.

 

[The Ham]

Rail does not have all the solutions already, the public get a vote too and other industries aren't going to remain stationary either. As discussed the environmental argument for rail is disappearing over time and the potential to bundle road pricing with autonomous and sharing is going to hit the efficiency argument in time, cars are already cheaper per passenger km than rail, if they become shared EVs with 1m mile service lives this difference will only become greater. As it stands today the top electric aviation companies haven't delivered anything past prototypes but have market values exceeding any rolling stock manufacturers, this tells us what the market thinks the relative values of those markets will be in the future.

Currently the per passenger km rate of EV only just edge out rail's average (including all the diesel emissions) of they average at least 1.5 people for all travel.

EV flying just can't deliver the capacity which rail can.

I don't think anyone has identified an actual need for a super powered BEMU.

Obviously there's loads going on to bring about the use of battery trains, but that's in the context of reliably delivering (roughly) the kind of service that there is today.

I don't see why anyone involved with electrification would oppose batteries on principle. In most realistic outlooks batteries means more electrification. But exactly what form that will take is still to be determined.

Battery trains are a useful tool, but certainly not for lines like MML.

 

[edwin_m]

Currently the per passenger km rate of EV only just edge out rail's average (including all the diesel emissions) of they average at least 1.5 people for all travel.

The flipside of that is that single occupancy EVs almost certainly win out on emissions over some diesel trains that are above the average. Voyagers and 222s will be close to the worst case, because their weight per seat is high and they also have high installed power to achieve good acceleration, and when not accelerating (most of the time) the engines are probably well below their most efficient operating speed.

That's a possible argument to prefer an intercity electrification like MML, rather than one that eliminates a similar number of diesel vehicle-miles operated by more humble DMUs.

I'd also point out that those emissions figures probably exclude tyre particulates, so the EV might not be as good as it first appears.

 

[The Ham]

The flipside of that is that single occupancy EVs almost certainly win out on emissions over some diesel trains that are above the average. Voyagers and 222s will be close to the worst case, because their weight per seat is high and they also have high installed power to achieve good acceleration, and when not accelerating (most of the time) the engines are probably well below their most efficient operating speed.

That's a possible argument to prefer an intercity electrification like MML, rather than one that eliminates a similar number of diesel vehicle-miles operated by more humble DMUs.

I'd also point out that those emissions figures probably exclude tyre particulates, so the EV might not be as good as it first appears.

Indeed*, however, as discussed up thread the TOC's with the worst emissions rates are all likely to see them fall (even without increasing passenger loading per train) due to changes coming in the next few years.

However, as EV's are still not yet the norm, for the vast majority of people, then travel by train is far better than going by car.

*Other than XC isn't the worst TOC on the per passenger per km emission as their trains are generally fairly busy, although they are the one TOC without anything due to happen to improve matters by much any time soon.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Appreciate I may get in trouble for posting a fact in a Speculative thread

Network Rail have applied to Nottinghamshire County Council to close the A6006 at the Rempstone Road overbridge at Normanton on Soar from October 6th 2025 to July 17th 2026.
Link to one.network, which most local authorities use to manage streetworks is here: https://one.network/?GB144338046
Network Rail had already obtained Prior Approval for the works (Rushcliffe Borough 23/02301/GDO18)

Taken together with streetworks to install an access to a site compound to facilitate the works. These works are still expected to start on 14th July
https://one.network/?GB141713634, Rushcliffe Borough 25/00164/GDO18

Of course, the arch sceptic might just argue that the bridge is knackered, but both covering letters to Rushcliffe are definitive that the works is for MMLE Syston-Trent.

 

[Yew]

Oh here we go again…

Midlands Rail Hub plans for East Midlands 'put on hold'

Only schemes in the West Midlands are being taken forward.

email.railmagazine.com

The East Midlands schemes under the Midlands Rail Hub project are being “put on hold” - only the West Mids schemes are are going ahead. The East Mids Dec 2025 thread states that this is in light of recent economical developments and announcements by Reeves.

Is this a sign that another Grayling moment is coming for MMLE? Or are the East Mids schemes in the MRH project being placed on hold due to spend on MMLE (ie they can’t do MMLE and all the MRH East Mids schemes together, so MMLE is being prioritised)?

A very poor decision, one would have thought that delivering real investment to an area with lots of reform voters would be a priority for a Labour Government.

 

[duffield]

Meanwhile, today we have the announcement linked below, and it still doesn't solve "The MML mystery".

NR appear to be ploughing ahead with further electrification by pegging out mast locations, removing lineside vegetation and most significantly performing bridge works and track lowering.

Meanwhile there has been no confirmation of further funding from the government beyond the current limit of electrification, and the MML gets no mentions at all in any infrastructure announcement.

This announcement leaves us none the wiser.

So we wait and scratch our heads.

I guess this isn't (and doesn't appear to link to) the actual "Rail pipeline" announcement, maybe that will come in the next few days?

Link:

Green light for over 50 road and rail upgrades supporting over 39,000 new homes and 42,000 jobs

Commuters and businesses to benefit from quicker journeys as more than 50 road and rail upgrades are agreed.

www.gov.uk

Quote:

Green light for over 50 road and rail upgrades supporting over 39,000 new homes and 42,000 jobs
Commuters and businesses to benefit from quicker journeys as more than 50 road and rail upgrades are agreed.

 

[Spire Sam]

A very poor decision, one would have thought that delivering real investment to an area with lots of reform voters would be a priority for a Labour Government.

It's a shame definitely, the only hope is that this makes MMLE more likely rather than less.

 

[QSK19]

Meanwhile, today we have the announcement linked below, and it still doesn't solve "The MML mystery".

NR appear to be ploughing ahead with further electrification by pegging out mast locations, removing lineside vegetation and most significantly performing bridge works and track lowering.

Meanwhile there has been no confirmation of further funding from the government beyond the current limit of electrification, and the MML gets no mentions at all in any infrastructure announcement.

This announcement leaves us none the wiser.

So we wait and scratch our heads.

I guess this isn't (and doesn't appear to link to) the actual "Rail pipeline" announcement, maybe that will come in the next few days?

As you say, we continue to scratch our heads. Mind you, it’s not like it makes us crestfallen - we are so used to disappointment that more of the same is to be expected.

From what I’ve seen, SPL’s compound at Loughborough is still intact, and, as you say, mast marking, vegetation clearance, etc, are still ongoing.

I would sum up by saying that the glimmer of hope continues, but we should expect the worst to happen at any time. Assume nothing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jul 2025 ==

A very poor decision, one would have thought that delivering real investment to an area with lots of reform voters would be a priority for a Labour Government.

To be honest, their first year has been marked by incompetence, infighting and being oblivious to public opinion to say the least. Add to that complacency and arrogance whilst hiding behind their massive majority. So, I bet they don’t give a flying you-know-what about the threat of Reform in the East Mids. Either that or they’re clueless.

So, let’s not expect anything MMLE-wise; but let’s be somewhat encouraged by seeing good progress on (apparent) prep works.

 

[Zomboid]

How much MMLE has actually been announced?

 

[QSK19]

How much MMLE has actually been announced?

Apart from NR posting updates on line upgrade works and submitting planning applications being linked to MMLE, nothing much (though I stand to be corrected by those more in the know).

 

[Zomboid]

So it's all happening on the sly?

 

[duffield]

So it's all happening on the sly?

Only semi-sly. NR are not shy about publically billing the works they're doing as "preparation for electrification", it's not as if they're trying to pass work off as replacing life expired bridges or routine renewals etc.

 

[QSK19]

Only semi-sly. NR are not shy about publically billing the works they're doing as "preparation for electrification", it's not as if they're trying to pass work off as replacing life expired bridges or routine renewals etc.

Yep, and remembering they’re a public body too. Would imagine the government (specifically DfT) are closely monitoring what they publish?

 

[InTheEastMids]

Yep, and remembering they’re a public body too. Would imagine the government (specifically DfT) are closely monitoring what they publish?

Experience of other Arms Length Bodies suggests they will need DfT approval to announce the start of delivery (edit: and Dft / Heidi Alexander will probably want to do this)

What we have seen is necessary tactical communication to prepare for and explain disruption to others, and to ensure they have appropriate permissions to do the work.

I wonder if a factor in the lack of announcements relates to the 810s. Not much point making a big song and dance about electrification when the new trains bought to use it are giving so much trouble.

 

[The exile]

Experience of other Arms Length Bodies suggests they will need DfT approval to announce the start of delivery (edit: and Dft / Heidi Alexander will probably want to do this)

What we have seen is necessary tactical communication to prepare for and explain disruption to others, and to ensure they have appropriate permissions to do the work.

I wonder if a factor in the lack of announcements relates to the 810s. Not much point making a big song and dance about electrification when the new trains bought to use it are giving so much trouble.

Or maybe it’s been decided (quite sensibly) that, unlike a new station or trains, “we’re going to electrify your line” is perceived as saying “we’re going to cause a lot of disruption for ages for something that will be better in the end, but because I’m a politician, you won’t believe me when I promise jam tomorrow” Let’s just get on with it and save the publicity for the service launch!

 

[HSTEd]

If you are cynical, you could argue that Network Rail is being instructed to do lots of cheap (or otherwise necessary) jobs that can be pretended to be part of electrification to avoid negative headlines from axing the scheme.
They could string this out for years if they wanted to.

I don't think anyone has identified an actual need for a super powered BEMU.

Well, off topic for this thread, but it would probably make a big difference on the Chat Moss or CLC stoppers and thus on the fast trains!

I don't see why anyone involved with electrification would oppose batteries on principle. In most realistic outlooks batteries means more electrification. But exactly what form that will take is still to be determined.

You could probably largely electrify rail passenger operations using available battery technologies with less additional track kilometres of electrification than that in the unapproved portion of the envisaged MML scheme.