MML Electrification: is it going to be completed?

[Aspen90]

And which unelectrified 125mph lines would these run on?

The HUGE stretch from the end of platform 1 at Loughborough to the 110mph at Hathern!

 

[Richard123]

A lot of negative conversation in here.

Despite the record high (peacetime) national debt they have inherited, we have seen substantial rail investment.

Yes, not every scheme we might have liked, but many, urban and mainline.

And as we saw previously, pauses have not all been cancellation... Some would say a measured approach is less PR but more likely to succeed.

Regarding the power supply upgrades, I ddidn't read it as any more money for ECML, simply a reference to the pretty much complete power part of the wider ECML upgrade programme. Which given the descope in Scotland probably means diesel TPEs for the foreseeable.

WCML will presumably be further funding of the 25 year long AT conversion that has been running since WCRM was curtailed due to the cost overruns back in the 2000s, and in the past decade has been funded for one or two of the descoped feeding areas each control period.

(For younger members, WCRM was Railtrack's WCML upgrade of the late 90s - mid 00s that was intended to deliver 140mph and higher capacity, promising reduced costs by using new suppliers, innovative designs and technologies, but ended up over budget and delayed, and was ultimately heavily descoped.)

Interestingly for those comparing project costs, the £9.6bn of WCRM at closure in 2008, but at 2006 prices, is around £17bn in today's money.

That's nearly 50000stkm of Danish electrification, or a bit over 6000stkm of world-leading efficient technology Network Rail wires!

Considering how little additional capacity was delivered, and how much work ended up spilling over into subsequent control periods, new railway costs don't seem quite so bad (albeit HS2 not being a great example).

 

[londonmidland]

This letter came through the post for residents living in the Wigston area.

A letter provided by Network Rail, notifying residents of upcoming engineering works on the MML.

 

[NCT]

The ultimate question has to be, do we actually need a rolling programme of electrification?

What is this rolling platform of electrification going to be for?

Battery technology that exists today could enable the complete elimination of diesel passenger operation on the railway with only a comparatively small quantity of additional electrification.
I'd wager it is likely less than the amount of track kilometres on the unapproved sections of the MML scheme, or at least not many more than that.

Running such a large scheme to have the capability for a scheme that is probably smaller than that might not be a sensible strategy.

I'm not clear that a battery train will really have substantially greater maintenance or operational costs than a conventional straight EMU. It doesn't even have significantly more moving parts.
After all electrification that doesn't exist doesn't consume maintenance resources.

If we achieve battery based electric operation, is there any pressing need to ever install more electrification?

We might need some conventional electrification later for freight if battery technology turns out to be impractical, but that seems a long shot hedge at this point.

Sounds like desperate British exceptionalism. Waiting for unproven technology to save us from what we should have done decades ago. Oh silly Europeans sinking money into electrification for we alone have got it right by waiting for batteries to come to the rescue.

Batteries are expensive and require constant replacement. Fleets of battery buses are now grounded in China, because while there was government funding for initial purchase, there is no funding stream for mid-life battery replacement. Then there's the issue of mining lithium and cobalt, and we don't even know how to quantify it (but it's there and very real).

In electrification business cases the opex saving term from running BEMUs is much reduced compared with straight EMUs. Essentially you don't get the savings in rolling stock capital costs, as the lifecycle cost of batteries is equivalent to the DMU premium over EMU. Over a certain traffic threshold paying for wires gives you a better present value than paying for batteries. I think you are right that day-to-day maintenance of BEMUs is comparable to that of straight EMUs.

There's a 'we are where we are' element that EDMUs for the route have already been ordered, so the rolling stock capital savings are already foregone. Unless a business case gets made for, say, Cross Country capacity enhancement that could absorb the Class 810s, then that cost has to stay with the MMLE business case (I'm simplifying but you get the gist).

It could be that (I'm entirely speculating) someone within DfT/Treasury quarters have worked out realistically the earliest opportunity for Class 810 to go to Cross Country is after 2030 (once the 220s come up for replacement), then MMLE and the associated straight EMU order (by which time the electrification business case can bank the rolling stock capital cost saving) don't need to be in a hurry.

That said, for the sake of a small number of years, I suspect disrupting industry continuity will prove again to be penny wise pound foolish.

The government got themselves in a bind by promising no tax rises and setting such restrictive annual fiscal rules.

 

[Brubulus]

Sounds like desperate British exceptionalism. Waiting for unproven technology to save us from what we should have done decades ago. Oh silly Europeans sinking money into electrification for we alone have got it right by waiting for batteries to come to the rescue.

Batteries are expensive and require constant replacement. Fleets of battery buses are now grounded in China, because while there was government funding for initial purchase, there is no funding stream for mid-life battery replacement. Then there's the issue of mining lithium and cobalt, and we don't even know how to quantify it (but it's there and very real).

In electrification business cases the opex saving term from running BEMUs is much reduced compared with straight EMUs. Essentially you don't get the savings in rolling stock capital costs, as the lifecycle cost of batteries is equivalent to the DMU premium over EMU. Over a certain traffic threshold paying for wires gives you a better present value than paying for batteries. I think you are right that day-to-day maintenance of BEMUs is comparable to that of straight EMUs.

There's a 'we are where we are' element that EDMUs for the route have already been ordered, so the rolling stock capital savings are already foregone. Unless a business case gets made for, say, Cross Country capacity enhancement that could absorb the Class 810s, then that cost has to stay with the MMLE business case (I'm simplifying but you get the gist).

It could be that (I'm entirely speculating) someone within DfT/Treasury quarters have worked out realistically the earliest opportunity for Class 810 to go to Cross Country is after 2030 (once the 220s come up for replacement), then MMLE and the associated straight EMU order (by which time the electrification business case can bank the rolling stock capital cost saving) don't need to be in a hurry.

That said, for the sake of a small number of years, I suspect disrupting industry continuity will prove again to be penny wise pound foolish.

The government got themselves in a bind by promising no tax rises and setting such restrictive annual fiscal rules.

The fiscal rules apply to day to day spending - MMLe would not be counted as such. This is Grayling 2.0, with a red rosette this time using the exact same argument.

However part of me suspects that as much preparation as reasonably possible will be done under the table, with the hope that it will get re-authorised at some point in the future, with all the associated costs.

 

[HSTEd]

Sounds like desperate British exceptionalism. Waiting for unproven technology to save us from what we should have done decades ago. Oh silly Europeans sinking money into electrification for we alone have got it right by waiting for batteries to come to the rescue.

The Europeans are in a rather different situation, given that they have been able to achieve electrification at costs that are a small fraction of those that Network Rail has proved capable of.

We have been spending £2.5m-4.5m per track kilometre on recent projects. Even the pro electrification literature has come to the view that we can't get much under £2m/stkm

Electrification costs in Europe are way lower than that, which fundamentally changes the economics.

Batteries are expensive and require constant replacement. Fleets of battery buses are now grounded in China, because while there was government funding for initial purchase, there is no funding stream for mid-life battery replacement. Then there's the issue of mining lithium and cobalt, and we don't even know how to quantify it (but it's there and very real).

They might be expensive in terms of individual people. not compared to the costs of railway infrastructure.
As for cobalt, the BYD batteries I use in my data examples are lithium iron phosphate chemistry and don't contain any cobalt.

Most industry obsevers suggest that the cost for BYD Blade batteries is now under $100/kWh ex works.

(Someone in my university office is doing their PhD on the impacts of cobalt mining in the DRC, its rather depressing)

In electrification business cases the opex saving term from running BEMUs is much reduced compared with straight EMUs. Essentially you don't get the savings in rolling stock capital costs, as the lifecycle cost of batteries is equivalent to the DMU premium over EMU. Over a certain traffic threshold paying for wires gives you a better present value than paying for batteries. I think you are right that day-to-day maintenance of BEMUs is comparable to that of straight EMUs.

Yes, the capital cost of batteries would conceptually overwhelm the capital cost of electrification at very high traffic levels.
The problem is that the achieved costs for electrification are now so high that I am skeptical that any non electrified line in the UK would meet them.

After all, 71% of the rolling stock fleet is already EMUs.

The programmes that have come before this one have already cleared up a big chunk of the traffic.

We have only 423 loco hauled vehicles, 2887 diesel vehicles and 1100 electrodiesel vehicles on the system after all.

 

[Brubulus]

The Europeans are in a rather different situation, given that they have been able to achieve electrification at costs that are a small fraction of those that Network Rail has proved capable of.

We have been spending £2.5m-4.5m per track kilometre on recent projects. Even the pro electrification literature has come to the view that we can't get much under £2m/stkm

Electrification costs in Europe are way lower than that, which fundamentally changes the economics.

They might be expensive in terms of individual people. not compared to the costs of railway infrastructure.
As for cobalt, the BYD batteries I use in my data examples are lithium iron phosphate chemistry and don't contain any cobalt.

Most industry obsevers suggest that the cost for BYD Blade batteries is now under $100/kWh ex works.

Yes, the capital cost of batteries would conceptually overwhelm the capital cost of electrification at very high traffic levels.
The problem is that the achieved costs for electrification are now so high that I am skeptical that any non electrified line in the UK would meet them.

After all, 71% of the rolling stock fleet is already EMUs.

The programmes that have come before this one have already cleared up a big chunk of the traffic.

We have only 423 loco hauled vehicles, 2887 diesel vehicles and 1100 electrodiesel vehicles on the system after all.

Is it just clearances that are driving the gulf in costs between the UK and Europe?

Or is it the tendency to lump in other projects and not use BR style accounting. One good thing about GBR is that it should lead to less expansive accounting around enhancements and seemingly inflated costs.

 

[NCT]

The Europeans are in a rather different situation, given that they have been able to achieve electrification at costs that are a small fraction of those that Network Rail has proved capable of.

We have been spending £2.5m-4.5m per track kilometre on recent projects. Even the pro electrification literature has come to the view that we can't get much under £2m/stkm

Electrification costs in Europe are way lower than that, which fundamentally changes the economics.

So your argument shifts to 'we've always been incompetent so we can only carry on being incompetent'.

That's squarely down to our politics. Our politics never gave the industry the space and time to develop stable long term corporate memory to deliver electrification cheaply. As soon as our people get good we lose them to Australia and the Middle East.

Competence is non-negotiable.

They might be expensive in terms of individual people. not compared to the costs of railway infrastructure.
As for cobalt, the BYD batteries I use in my data examples are lithium iron phosphate chemistry and don't contain any cobalt.

Most industry obsevers suggest that the cost for BYD Blade batteries is now under $100/kWh ex works.

Yes, the capital cost of batteries would conceptually overwhelm the capital cost of electrification at very high traffic levels.
The problem is that the achieved costs for electrification are now so high that I am skeptical that any non electrified line in the UK would meet them.

After all, 71% of the rolling stock fleet is already EMUs.

The programmes that have come before this one have already cleared up a big chunk of the traffic.

We have only 423 loco hauled vehicles, 2887 diesel vehicles and 1100 electrodiesel vehicles on the system after all.

Where the 29% of the fleet operates is where the majority of the country's car km are and where rail usage needs to double. If our regional cities are to have Utrecht's suburban rail service levels (and our regional cities NEED to develop that kind of economies to not be fiscal drags on the country), then without electrification the emissions of all those additional diesels would not be trivial, or the cost of all those additional batteries.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

On 1st August, the Greatest Gathering will open in Derby

As some work seems to be going on "invisibly", I wonder if the DfT is holding back on making an announcement so that the MML electrification - possibly with something about the actual location of the GBR HQ in the city - can be announced on that day?

 

[baz962]

We'll be carrying on like that anyway for many years even if this go-ahead had been given to move marginally further north.


Well its not surprising that the train didn't manage to attain 125mph with a single 700kW battery.
A Class 810 has four such generator units, so it would easily attain 125mph if all were replaced.

It's also only 70 ish miles from Wigston to Sheffield via Derby.
If an electrification island was provided on the slow lines in and around Sheffield station, the performance of the train would likely be acceptable.

Also, according to the sectional appendix, there is no 125mph running on the non electrified portion of the MML (ie. north of Wigston).
There are limited sections of 120mph, but much is significantly slower than that.

There is actually some 125 just north of Loughborough , literally just off the platform and in the Down direction only. But not much over 120 generally.

 

[The Ham]

So your argument shifts to 'we've always been incompetent so we can only carry on being incompetent'.

That's squarely down to our politics. Our politics never gave the industry the space and time to develop stable long term corporate memory to deliver electrification cheaply. As soon as our people get good we lose them to Australia and the Middle East.

Competence is non-negotiable.



Where the 29% of the fleet operates is where the majority of the country's car km are and where rail usage needs to double. If our regional cities are to have Utrecht's suburban rail service levels (and our regional cities NEED to develop that kind of economies to not be fiscal drags on the country), then without electrification the emissions of all those additional diesels would not be trivial, or the cost of all those additional batteries.

Indeed, batteries aren't a great solution when there's high useage, effectively where there's 4+tph (maybe 3tph if the lengths aren't that far) it makes sense to put up wires.

For all the talk of 150 mile battery trains, that means that either you've got to:
- run services on ~60 mile lines or shorter so it can get back with range to spare
- change at a point where that train is the only train to benefit

It also assumes that so the electrified lines have plenty of spare juice to allow for charging as well as running more electric trains (remembering that there's already a lot of diesel running under wires).

Even if a train can run at 120+mph from a battery that's going to impact the range when compared to running the same train maxing out at (say) 75mph.

Derby has (taking 12:00-13:00 as an example) 15 train services from it.

Even if that's across 4 different routes that's cost enough to bring 4tph as makes no difference, so it's likely worth putting the wires up.

Leicester has 5tph to London, so again is worth having wires.

Nottingham has 14 trains depending between 11:00 and 12:00 again with print the wires up.

If we're wiring them, then there comes a point, why bother with a gap just because we can?

Yes it'll mean there's "too much" but that is likely to mean that battery trains are more reliable, don't have to be so big and heavy as the range will still be good enough, and the like.

Or do those who support battery trains suggest that lines with 4tph are too lightly used to justify wires?

 

[Richard123]

Is it just clearances that are driving the gulf in costs between the UK and Europe?

Or is it the tendency to lump in other projects and not use BR style accounting. One good thing about GBR is that it should lead to less expansive accounting around enhancements and seemingly inflated costs.

There are other countries with similar clearance problems. Network Rail’s innovative voltage controlled clearances are actually copied from Denmark, which has similar constraints.

It contracted for suppliers to deliver an electrification system rather than dictating the design, allowing contractors to bring their own technology and own the integration. It hasn’t shouted about its innovations or technology either, but let the contractors get on with delivering it. Their contractors delivered “voltage controlled clearances” without fanfare in 2014 and have been using it since, alongside span lengths of 114m at typical wind speeds.

Network Rail later launched an innovation programme to investigate whether a solution already in proven use works, announcing to the world in 2021 that it had “developed” the “innovation” and applied it at Intersection Bridge. To be fair, they had invented a new name for it

Delivering at a little over one tenth Network Rail’s unit rate, even without the benefits of Network Rail’s “world leading electrification technology”.

One might wonder whether NR’s preference for developing its own unique standards and technologies, generally with a single supplier, and dictating its own innovative electrification designs, might be in some way linked to its uniquely high costs and repeated electrification project overruns?

 

[HSTEd]

So your argument shifts to 'we've always been incompetent so we can only carry on being incompetent'.

That's squarely down to our politics. Our politics never gave the industry the space and time to develop stable long term corporate memory to deliver electrification cheaply. As soon as our people get good we lose them to Australia and the Middle East.

Competence is non-negotiable.

The railway was given years and many billions of pounds to demonstrate that it could do the job on the Great Western Route Modernisation scheme.
It botched it so badly that the government was forced to pull the plug to stem the bleeding.

And that is hardly the only time it has happened.

It also assumes that so the electrified lines have plenty of spare juice to allow for charging as well as running more electric trains (remembering that there's already a lot of diesel running under wires).

Well the cost of power supply upgrades in recent years has been a small fraction of the cost of new electrification.

Or do those who support battery trains suggest that lines with 4tph are too lightly used to justify wires?

Given the large increases in capital cost of electrification at 25kV, and the climb in interest rates. Most likely 4tph is too lightly used to be economic.

 

[NCT]

The railway was given years and many billions of pounds to demonstrate that it could do the job on the Great Western Route Modernisation scheme.
It botched it so badly that the government was forced to pull the plug to stem teh bleeding.

It was given one short cycle. These things take at least a whole generation.

 

[may032]

So your argument shifts to 'we've always been incompetent so we can only carry on being incompetent'.

That's squarely down to our politics. Our politics never gave the industry the space and time to develop stable long term corporate memory to deliver electrification cheaply. As soon as our people get good we lose them to Australia and the Middle East.

Competence is non-negotiable.

We’re far more expensive for deep structural factors including - but not exclusively - high energy costs, skill-shortages and a fragmented industry structure. It‘s not simply because we didn’t give the industry enough time to learn to get cheaper.

 

[Bald Rick]

We now don't have Grantham - Newark situations on the MML.

Depends what you mean. Grantham to Newark has an hourly (roughly) service all day.

Try Bedford to Derby. Or even Wellingborough to Market Harboro.

 

[NCT]

Try Bedford to Derby. Or even Wellingborough to Market Harboro.

Half-hourly all-day with Swiss-style interchanges. Far better than skip-stopping and non-half-hourly patterns.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2025 ==

We’re far more expensive for deep structural factors including - but not exclusively - high energy costs, skill-shortages and a fragmented industry structure. It‘s not simply because we didn’t give the industry enough time to learn to get cheaper.

All part of successive governments not giving the wider industry and supply chain the time needed to develop that whole ecosystem.

 

[eldomtom2]

The railway was given years and many billions of pounds to demonstrate that it could do the job on the Great Western Route Modernisation scheme.
It botched it so badly that the government was forced to pull the plug to stem the bleeding.

But how much of that was due to external factors outside the railway's control? How can we be sure that those same external factors wouldn't rear their ugly head when it comes to implementing battery trains?

 

[PJM]

This letter came through the post for residents living in the Wigston area.

Despite the headlines things are still happening!

 

[londonmidland]

Despite the headlines things are still happening!

I wonder what ‘Preparation and follow up work’ means? Doing electrification related work under the radar I wonder? Hmm…

 

[YorkshireBear]

It was given one short cycle. These things take at least a whole generation.

Agreed, it was given one short cycle with a GO GO GO GO GO DO IT ALL NOW! Approach, which was almost setting it up to fail. Not that the industry is innocent.

 

[NCT]

Agreed, it was given one short cycle with a GO GO GO GO GO DO IT ALL NOW! Approach, which was almost setting it up to fail. Not that the industry is innocent.

The bulk of the industry (i.e. Network Rail) is ultimately accountable to politicians and that's where the buck ultimately stops.

 

[tbtc]

Living on the route, I'm frustrated (and have been frustrated before, especially when the MML effectively paid the price for Network Rail not delivering the GWML as planned)

But, whilst others are reading for superlatives to show how angry they are, can you really blame the government?

Regardless of party politics, in a decade of sluggish growth and cuts to many areas of government spending, they're still giving heavy rail over a billion pounds a month, it's not like they're slashing the total funding

Electrification made a lot of sense ten/twenty years ago, when cost appeared lower and it was a fairly binary decision (either fully electricity or continue running diesels long distance, e.g. GNER/ NXEC/ EC/VTEC running HSTs all the way from Edinburgh/Leeds to London (and not just on Inverness/ Aberdeen/ Harrogate trips)

But Westminster are now holding the cheque book in an era when costs are no longer great value for money and where alternatives exist

Around fifteen years ago I was a great cheerleader for electrification, especially with all of the EMUs freed up by Crossrail/ Thameslink. It seemed cheaper to wire lines up and squeeze another decade out of stock like 317/321s than to buy new DMUs (in the way that BR made ECML wiring affordable by treating the people of Ilkley/ North Berwick etc to 'cascaded' EMUs for a few years)

The cost of electrification has gone up significantly, and there's not a lot of midlife stock sitting spare, which pushes costs up further (e.g. I'd understood that the Valley Lines would be taking 315s at one stage, but buying brand new trains pushes costs up in the early years)

We can look at why the costs have gone up - is it across the construction industry, are Network Rail inefficient, was it Scope Creep, who's fault was it that the initial quotes were so wide of the mark etc - but I don't think we can blame the government for this

Also, given technological changes, if you can deliver the majority of the benefits (fast acceleration, zero emissions at tailpipe etc) for a minority of the cost (wiring up certain short sections, buying batteries) then of course governments will be happy with that option

Electrification is a tool, a means to an end. I backed it because it seemed the best way of getting a cleaner faster railway. But electrification isn't a goal in itself. And, until the costs come down, it's going to be a hard sell, given the cost and disruption (long closures of the line, road bridges replaced etc)

If you want to be angry, be angry at the right people

 

[WAO]

The MMLEP pause is IMHO nothing to do with costs, delays (and batteries) etc which have been reasonable for the Glendon Jn Wigston sections. Rather it is a change of emphasis to Mayor led localism with £15.7Bn transport funding allocated to nine authoriies. The EM get £2Bn alone and the WM gets £2.5Bn etc etc.

Heavy rail should get its act together and try to convince these bodies that some of their treasure is worth putting into serious rail rather than just light rail. It should use the immediate disappointment of the politicians of the Leicester/Nottingham/Derby/B'ham quadrangle to deflect a little our way.

Follow the (tsunami of) money.

WAO

Biggest ever investment in city region local transport as Chancellor vows the 'Renewal of Britain'

Working people in cities and towns from Sunderland to Solihull will benefit from the biggest investment in regional transport, as every part of the country prospers under Plan for Change.

www.gov.uk

 

[Killingworth]

At the time many were highly critical of Grayling and bi-modes. Failing a miracle they won't have fully taken over much before the end of 2027.

By that time the world will have moved on a bit more and battery technology may provide a better answer. An opportunity for the 2040s.

Electrification, be it overhead or 3rd raii, makes new track layout changes more complex and expensive. A battery driven train is going to have far less trouble with gale damaged wiring and pantograph issues.

Who knows, Britain might be able to lead the world with largely wire less trains! In 50 years time most of the wires may have been removed.

 

[NCT]

Who knows, Britain might be able to lead the world with largely wire less trains! In 50 years time most of the wires may have been removed.

Can't tell if this is satire or delusion ...

 

[Killingworth]

Can't tell if this is satire or delusion ...

Both!

The economics of much of the railway don't stack up.

I have in front of me some large booklets dated October 2018 detailing east side HS2 work and in particular electrification from Unstone Green to Sheffield (it's one of about 20 such reports - I didn't get copies of the others). Masses of environmental study, compulsory purchase, public meetings, all for nothing as 10 years later it will all need doing again for MML electrification. This is only a preliminary report. The costs for all these studies and reports are..... large.

However i see a map that seems to suggest electrification overruns to Nunnery and Dore West Junctions. BUT it doesn't go into detail of how Sheffield station can be reconfigured to handle twice as many passengers, or more and longer trains can be funneled past Nunnery or Tesco's at Archer Road.

Take away the wires and it must become easier.

 

[mchunt]

The MMLEP pause is IMHO nothing to do with costs, delays (and batteries) etc which have been reasonable for the Glendon Jn Wigston sections. Rather it is a change of emphasis to Mayor led localism with £15.7Bn transport funding allocated to nine authoriies. The EM get £2Bn alone and the WM gets £2.5Bn etc etc.

Heavy rail should get its act together and try to convince these bodies that some of their treasure is worth putting into serious rail rather than just light rail. It should use the immediate disappointment of the politicians of the Leicester/Nottingham/Derby/B'ham quadrangle to deflect a little our way.

Follow the (tsunami of) money.

WAO

Biggest ever investment in city region local transport as Chancellor vows the 'Renewal of Britain'

Working people in cities and towns from Sunderland to Solihull will benefit from the biggest investment in regional transport, as every part of the country prospers under Plan for Change.

www.gov.uk

Problem is that Leicester & Leicestershire are not participating in the East Midlands Mayoral area, so Notts & Derby have no real incentive to get the first step into Leicester station complete.

Completing to Leicester at least would allow an Emu's to run on the stopping services and a safe place for bi-modes to changeover, stopping in the middle of nowhere on a dual track section just seems to be asking for trouble.

 

[Mikey C]

All disappointing, and I do wonder if Labour will pay an electoral price. Not because electrification is the dominant issue in the East Midlands, but because it adds to the feeling that they are being ignored, when compared to Greater Manchester and Birmingham, never mind the Southeast.

Even if you don't immediately do the bits in between, electrifying Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield would at least remove diesel fumes and noise from the city centre areas, where DMU operation will become more and more anachronistic when road vehicles are moving to battery power.

 

[InTheEastMids]

The railway was given years and many billions of pounds to demonstrate that it could do the job on the Great Western Route Modernisation scheme.
It botched it so badly that the government was forced to pull the plug to stem the bleeding.

I think you're being a bit too kind to those that hold the purse-strings and sponsor these schemes. They should have known that a rapid ramp up in electrification (or any other type of activity) and reliance on insufficiently proven technology brings risk. But they looked at the cheap debt and the electoral cycle and told Network Rail to crack on. This kind of behaviour is also a key failure that's part of HS2's tales of woe.

The MMLEP pause is IMHO nothing to do with costs, delays (and batteries) etc which have been reasonable for the Glendon Jn Wigston sections.

I do wonder if Labour will pay an electoral price. Not because electrification is the dominant issue in the East Midlands,

Leics County is now Reform so the idea that Labour make themselves even less popular in favour of some of the folk now on the County Council is frankly demoralising.

To me, it feels believable that MMLE was junked at the last minute when it became clear savings from WFA/benefit reforms would not materialise, and even more needed spending on defence.
Agree with others who think that MMLE and other schemes might've survived were the Mayor of Leicester an influential Labour figure widely perceived to be positioning for a crack at the top job (Cough, Burnham, cough).

Publicly, the logic behind the Pause is alluding to a lack of integration between infrastructure and rolling stock strategies and whilst I'm quite annoyed MMLE has been the victim of this, it is true to say that
- 810s have roughly equal performance on diesel and electric, are brand new and so will probably retain diesel power until a mid-life refurbishment ~15 years after entering service (so, 2094 then?)
- 170s are being done up to last another 15 years; and perhaps more will arrive to replace 158s e.g. 171 if the GTR diesel bits go to battery operation.
- Various Midlands Connect projects around Leicester are not currently progressing
i.e. the benefits are mostly mostly carbon, and perhaps that is better spent elsewhere.

But, of course, your logic is more compelling if it's applied consistently. Few of these factors are true on Great Western
- Most importantly, there's a large fleet of 15x/16x/175 that are, or soon will be at Death's Door
- The 80x fleet that performs worse on diesel, can be batterified and over the next 5-7y thoughts will turn to mid-life refurbs
- There's a more ambitious programme of new stations and services that improve the benefits side of the BCR.

So let's see if there is progress towards conventional and discontinuous electrification in somewhere like GW...
(I'm not holding my breath).