MML Electrification: is it going to be completed?

[edwin_m]

I suppose the flipside if it was cancelled would be that, if reinstated, it wouldn't have to go right to the back of the queue.

 

[londonmidland]

Seeing all this work progress with the TRU electrification makes me wonder how long it’ll be until it’s ’our’ turn…

We’ve been shafted so many times and batteries are not a long term solution. Particularly for a mainline.

 

[QSK19]

Seeing all this work progress with the TRU electrification makes me wonder how long it’ll be until it’s ’our’ turn…

We’ve been shafted so many times and batteries are not a long term solution. Particularly for a mainline.

We’ll get to the top of the queue and then something else will come and take priority - and once again MMLE has been “paused” because of funding constraints. And once again the arguments between pro and anti MMLE factions on RF reappear

If there’s something that Failing Grayling and Snidy Heidi have taught me, it’s never, ever to believe anything that the government - of whatever colour - promises for the MML. As far as I’m concerned, it ain’t happening until the wires actually go up - prep work and appearances of SPL compounds mean naff all.

 

[Trainbike46]

Seeing all this work progress with the TRU electrification makes me wonder how long it’ll be until it’s ’our’ turn…

It won't become your turn unless people and (local) politicians make a fuss about the pause.

We’ve been shafted so many times and batteries are not a long term solution. Particularly for a mainline.

It is kind of sad how many times MMLe has been cancelled now

 

[WAO]

What is also scandalous is that analyses of the benefit of MML electrification ranked it highly, ahead of the GWML for example. The excuse given for preferring the GWML was that the HST's needed replacing. They had just been re-engined by MTU of course and were performing well. I am not impressed by the regulatory objections to them; a waiver should have been strongly sought in view of the excessive cost and distortion of strategic investment. Even after withdrawal, many are still at work both in Nigeria and Mexico as well as a number in private commercial and heritage ownership.

I imagine that the MMLe case (batteries notwithstanding) is stronger than ever, as it is now over half complete. Its further pausing just shows up the irrational, politically flawed decision making in the public sector.

WAO

 

[GraphitProjekt]

The worst part for me is how it was 100% ready to go planning long finished and designs in the final stages. Anything else you want to do requires starting a new design, and potentially new planning bureaucracy. RIA and Rail Forum have written a sad letter about it recently, but most interestingly they estimate £40-50m has been wasted immediately on the work already done that now is meaningless. Much like HS2, the cheapest thing to do is actually get on with it. All the rail projects that were sanctioned in the announcement will need at least a year longer in planning - so i assume they will simply cancel those once they get close to construction.

And the workforce is now almost fully destroyed since 2018, so any electrification work that might suddenly be authorised in the future will face a GWEP/CP5 incident. GWEP didn't learn from WCRM so we probably can't learn from it either

 

[HSTEd]

What is also scandalous is that analyses of the benefit of MML electrification ranked it highly, ahead of the GWML for example. The excuse given for preferring the GWML was that the HST's needed replacing. They had just been re-engined by MTU of course and were performing well. I am not impressed by the regulatory objections to them; a waiver should have been strongly sought in view of the excessive cost and distortion of strategic investment. Even after withdrawal, many are still at work both in Nigeria and Mexico as well as a number in private commercial and heritage ownership.

I imagine that the MMLe case (batteries notwithstanding) is stronger than ever, as it is now over half complete. Its further pausing just shows up the irrational, politically flawed decision making in the public sector.

WAO

The original "infinite benefit cost ratio" figures for the Midland Main Line scheme were based on extremely optimistic cost estimates, tied up with the HOPS train, though. This was the same time that Network Rail was claiming that 25kV installation would be cheaper than third rail renewal, after all.

I am doubtful the benefit cost ratio of the scheme as it exists now is anything like that, especially as the Network effect has been more or less killed off by the proliferation of electrodiesels.

 

[edwin_m]

What is also scandalous is that analyses of the benefit of MML electrification ranked it highly, ahead of the GWML for example. The excuse given for preferring the GWML was that the HST's needed replacing. They had just been re-engined by MTU of course and were performing well. I am not impressed by the regulatory objections to them; a waiver should have been strongly sought in view of the excessive cost and distortion of strategic investment. Even after withdrawal, many are still at work both in Nigeria and Mexico as well as a number in private commercial and heritage ownership.

I imagine that the MMLe case (batteries notwithstanding) is stronger than ever, as it is now over half complete. Its further pausing just shows up the irrational, politically flawed decision making in the public sector.

WAO

One advantage of GWML was that it displaced the GW commuter DMU fleet, whereas MML wouldn't displace a single DMU on existing timetables and only a handful if they were revised to create self-contained EMU routes. If that hadn't happened then more DMUs would have had to be ordered about 10 years ago when battery or bi-mode wasn't being considered for suburban/regional units. These would then have remained in service into the 2040s unless prematurely replaced. This was the only element that actually happened of the rolling stock cascades planned to accompany electrification.

Another factor is that GWML was never going to encompass the entire GW Intercity network, so at least a proportion of the fleet would have had to be bi-modes, and the need for commonality meant the straight electrics were variations on the same design (and became bi-modes before they entered service). MML was originally envisaged as a completely electrified network worked by straight electric units with no provision for self-powered operation, which would have been much cheaper to lease and operate at the cost of less scope for diversions and the loss of some non-core service extensions.

 

[Nottingham59]

The original "infinite benefit cost ratio" figures for the Midland Main Line scheme were based on extremely optimistic cost estimates, tied up with the HOPS train, though. This was the same time that Network Rail was claiming that 25kV installation would be cheaper than third rail renewal, after all.

I am doubtful the benefit cost ratio of the scheme as it exists now is anything like that, especially as the Network effect has been more or less killed off by the proliferation of electrodiesels.

That "infinite BCR" derived from comparing (1) electrifying the whole route and running EMUs from London to Sheffield and (2) not electrifying beyond the existing limit at Bedford and running diesel trains along the whole route. I know this because they published the actual spreadsheet that was used to make the calculation, though unfortunately I didn't keep a copy.

The Present Value of cost savings from running EMUs instead of diesel trains over the whole route were greater than the Present Value of electrifying the remaining half route from Bedford to Sheffield. They assumed the wiring south of Bedford was capable of supporting that extra load without any upgrading, as well as optimistic cost per STK for electrification. This gave a negative "cost" to government and therefore an infinite BCR.

What the spreadsheet didn't do was take account of bimodes. Bimodes could exploit the existing electrification to Bedford and would only incur the extra running fuel and maintenance costs of diesel north of Bedford. So the PV of the bimode approach was higher than the PV or the pure EMU or the pure Diesel options. One bimodes were included in the as an option, the BCR of electrifying the rest of the MML got very much worse.

 

[deltic08]

I have just been watching Green Signals latest edition including Furrer and Frey AG project man Noel Dolphin. According to him 80% of the work needed between Wigston and Leicester would have been completed by this Christmas leaving just erection of masts and wires to complete. Cost of electrification, of which wires and masts are only 30% of the overall cost, have been reduced to £3.1m/stk on MML due to a rolling programme. This has now been broken meaning increased costs in future because the team has now been broken up losing valuable experience and 2,500 jobs. It will take many months to assemble another team if there are available workers. They were on target to reduce costs on this next section to £2.7m/stk but this will now not happen. For the sake of £25m more to complete to Leicester, £30-40m has been wasted on design and infrastructure if no more MML is done soon.
Whats more, 83% of bridge lifts on the Leicester-Derby/Nottingham route are already complete and 93% of the signal moves to avoid the OHL gantry positions are complete. More wasted money to cancel now. The contract for the feeder station at Trent has already been signed so that money is already spent. Idiosy to cancel now.

 

[londonmidland]

From said video. Has been timestamped appropriately:

"Almost all of them (the engineering design challenges of putting wires up to Leicester) have been designed out. The design to Leicester is 80% finished and almost all the signal interventions between Wigston and Leicester have already been finished, or will be finished this year. So, to get to Leicester is literally just putting up masts and wires and that's the last bit of that section of the project to do. Most of the engineering challenges have been overcome. It's (the) funding which is the challenge."

We really should be wiring up to at least Leicester station, seeing as most of the challenges are/will be overcome with the current prep work. For the sake of a few miles, at least end the wires in a logical place and not in the middle of nowhere, which most people have never heard of.

 

[Grimsby town]

I have just been watching Green Signals latest edition including Furrer and Frey AG project man Noel Dolphin. According to him 80% of the work needed between Wigston and Leicester would have been completed by this Christmas leaving just erection of masts and wires to complete. Cost of electrification, of which wires and masts are only 30% of the overall cost, have been reduced to £3.1m/stk on MML due to a rolling programme. This has now been broken meaning increased costs in future because the team has now been broken up losing valuable experience and 2,500 jobs. It will take many months to assemble another team if there are available workers. They were on target to reduce costs on this next section to £2.7m/stk but this will now not happen. For the sake of £25m more to complete to Leicester, £30-40m has been wasted on design and infrastructure if no more MML is done soon.
Whats more, 83% of bridge lifts on the Leicester-Derby/Nottingham route are already complete and 93% of the signal moves to avoid the OHL gantry positions are complete. More wasted money to cancel now. The contract for the feeder station at Trent has already been signed so that money is already spent. Idiosy to cancel now.

It's a crazy decision. I understand the government's need to make hard decisions and overall the transport spend is pretty good and certainly better than in the past. Its an almost certainty that at least some of the MML will need electrifying in the future, this decisions has made that more difficult and expensive.

 

[Brubulus]

What happened to the infrastructure for Didcot-Oxford? From what I remember, most of it was dismantled, suggesting more of a cancellation than a pause. I suspect that whatever is ordered for Kegworth will likely be disposed of, which will be a massive waste.

 

[WAO]

One advantage of GWML was that it displaced the GW commuter DMU fleet,

Except that it didn't. We already had Heathrow Express and a few EMU's, plus we then had Crossrail which solved most of the Paddington suburban DMU issue. We still needed DMU's on the Oxford stoppers, Pewsey's, Basingstokes, TV branches and the Guildfords, which were not then available further West where the Turbos would have shone.

Nevertheless I fully agree with you that suburban electrification was a good idea and ought to have been done as a precursor (and practice) for IC.

Another factor is that GWML was never going to encompass the entire GW Intercity network, so at least a proportion of the fleet would have had to be bi-modes, a

Except that it didn't even get to Bristol or Swansea. The Bi-modes are very expensive and often mismatched.

What the spreadsheet didn't do was take account of bimodes. Bimodes could exploit the existing electrification to Bedford and would only incur the extra running fuel and maintenance costs of diesel north of Bedford. So the PV of the bimode approach was higher than the PV or the pure EMU or the pure Diesel options. One bimodes were included in the as an option, the BCR of electrifying the rest of the MML got very much worse.

I agree that all the 2009 costings were flawed but I contend that they still give relative values. The Diesel costs (incl lease) with Bi-modes were equally unknown as was the idea of running them at 125 mph pan-up south of Bedford. I believe that the two OLE extensions from Glendon Jn to MH and then on to Wigston show that now known mileage costs pan-up are more attractive than Diesel operation, as was the upgrade south of Bedford. We need battery not Diesel Bi-modes which require core main line electrification to avoid branch wiring..

Whats more, 83% of bridge lifts on the Leicester-Derby/Nottingham route are already complete and 93% of the signal moves to avoid the OHL gantry positions are complete. More wasted money to cancel now. The contract for the feeder station at Trent has already been signed so that money is already spent. Idiocy to cancel now.

Many thanks for this, (and to all other posters for informed debate), though it makes one want to weep.

What happened to the infrastructure for Didcot-Oxford? From what I remember, most of it was dismantled, suggesting more of a cancellation than a pause. I suspect that whatever is ordered for Kegworth will likely be disposed of, which will be a massive waste.

Many piles done, a few masts up and, amongst the Buddleia at Radley, you'll find a complete ATS! It all MIGHT be completed when the Botley Road bridge work is finished.

WAO

 

[Brubulus]

Many piles done, a few masts up and, amongst the Buddleia at Radley, you'll find a complete ATS! It all MIGHT be completed when the Botley Road bridge work is finished.

At least it wasn't dismantled. One of the few electrification schemes which stands on it's own two feet.
Is there any chance HS2 trains can lug batteries around so they can run to Sheffield and Chester?
If not that could be a catalyst for electrification but I'm sure there's a way of somehow finding space for a battery pack to ensure it doesn't happen.

 

[Trainbike46]

At least it wasn't dismantled. One of the few electrification schemes which stands on it's own two feet.
Is there any chance HS2 trains can lug batteries around so they can run to Sheffield and Chester?
If not that could be a catalyst for electrification but I'm sure there's a way of somehow finding space for a battery pack to ensure it doesn't happen.

For now, the government has "resolved" this issue by simply cancelling the Eastern leg - no need for MML electrification for HS2 if the HS2 trains don't get anywhere near Sheffield!

 

[Nottingham59]

Cost of electrification, of which wires and masts are only 30% of the overall cost, have been reduced to £3.1m/stk on MML due to a rolling programme.

£3.1M/stk is still way too high.

They were on target to reduce costs on this next section to £2.7m/stk but this will now not happen.

I should hope so. Syston to Trent is a very simple four-track railway where much of the line is on viaduct with few overbridges. They should be able to do that section for much cheaper than 13% below recently achieved costs.

 

[HSTEd]

I have just been watching Green Signals latest edition including Furrer and Frey AG project man Noel Dolphin. According to him 80% of the work needed between Wigston and Leicester would have been completed by this Christmas leaving just erection of masts and wires to complete. Cost of electrification, of which wires and masts are only 30% of the overall cost, have been reduced to £3.1m/stk on MML due to a rolling programme.

£3.1m/single track kilometre is still extremely expensive.
You probably need half of that to justify additional large scale electrification. Almost all the very high traffic density lines are already done.

And obviously that figure is being reported by someone with a vested interest in electrification continuing, so must be treated with appropriate quantities of salt.

This has now been broken meaning increased costs in future because the team has now been broken up losing valuable experience and 2,500 jobs. It will take many months to assemble another team if there are available workers. They were on target to reduce costs on this next section to £2.7m/stk but this will now not happen. For the sake of £25m more to complete to Leicester, £30-40m has been wasted on design and infrastructure if no more MML is done soon.
Whats more, 83% of bridge lifts on the Leicester-Derby/Nottingham route are already complete and 93% of the signal moves to avoid the OHL gantry positions are complete. More wasted money to cancel now. The contract for the feeder station at Trent has already been signed so that money is already spent. Idiosy to cancel now.

Has there ever been any planning on stopping at Leicester?
You can bet modifications to the design to enable that would cost a pretty penny from the contractors, so I don't think its reasonable to assume that you can just do that without bearing substantial additional costs.

And the money spent is already gone, it shouldn't have any impact on whether the project should continue or not.

 

[deltic08]

£3.1m/single track kilometre is still extremely expensive.
You probably need half of that to justify additional large scale electrification. Almost all the very high traffic density lines are already done.

And obviously that figure is being reported by someone with a vested interest in electrification continuing, so must be treated with appropriate quantities of salt.

Has there ever been any planning on stopping at Leicester?
You can bet modifications to the design to enable that would cost a pretty penny from the contractors, so I don't think its reasonable to assume that you can just do that without bearing substantial additional costs.

And the money spent is already gone, it shouldn't have any impact on whether the project should continue or not.

£2.7m/stk is the next section figure. Much cheaper than over £4m/stk previously on other schemes and considering how much has been spent already on planning, bridge lifts, signal spacing, feeder station, steelwork already ordered for the next section, vegetation clearance and pegging out, cancelling at short notice when so much has been done and spent now for nothing then it is an incompetent decision and waste of valuable resources.

 

[WAO]

£3.1m/single track kilometre is still extremely expensive.
You probably need half of that to justify additional large scale electrification. Almost all the very high traffic density lines are already done.

But is it?

I've just read East West Rail as costing £6.6Bn for 36 miles, (i.e its electrification would have been c6% of the cost!), and £18M for a single 4 car platform station, not to mention tramway costs etc etc. Also, what is the marginal cost of completing the scheme, at least to the EM, as so much as now been irrevocably spent north of Wigston?

It depends what you see as value for money even in the suspiciously sky high prices of any current railway scheme.

WAO

 

[Trainbike46]

But is it?

I've just read East West Rail as costing £6.6Bn for 36 miles, (i.e its electrification would have been c6% of the cost!), and £18M for a single 4 car platform station, not to mention tramway costs etc etc. Also, what is the marginal cost of completing the scheme, at least to the EM, as so much as now been irrevocably spent north of Wigston?

It depends what you see as value for money even in the suspiciously sky high prices of any current railway scheme.

WAO

There is absolutely a case to reduce costs further though, and Noel acknowledges that and talks about his views on how this could be done. What I found kind of shocking is that all the infrastructure work is only ~45% of the costs - the other ~55% being both train disruption payments and project management costs.

I did Chartered Management Institute project management training, and let me say this, if the content and quality of training I received is typical, I am not surprised project management is something that goes wrong so often.

 

[The exile]

But is it?

I've just read East West Rail as costing £6.6Bn for 36 miles, (i.e its electrification would have been c6% of the cost!),

EWR is probably one instance where the cost per stk would be lower (as much could have been done on the back of the rest of the work with no operations railway to worry about) - so less than 6%

 

[HSTEd]

£2.7m/stk is the next section figure. Much cheaper than over £4m/stk previously on other schemes and considering how much has been spent already on planning, bridge lifts, signal spacing, feeder station, steelwork already ordered for the next section, vegetation clearance and pegging out, cancelling at short notice when so much has been done and spent now for nothing then it is an incompetent decision and waste of valuable resources.

£2.7m/stk is the claimed next section figure.

Until the project is completed it is just an estimate. I would not blame the politicians for becoming increasingly skeptical of such claims by the railway after the debacles of recent years.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jul 2025 ==

But is it?

I've just read East West Rail as costing £6.6Bn for 36 miles, (i.e its electrification would have been c6% of the cost!), and £18M for a single 4 car platform station, not to mention tramway costs etc etc. Also, what is the marginal cost of completing the scheme, at least to the EM, as so much as now been irrevocably spent north of Wigston?

It depends what you see as value for money even in the suspiciously sky high prices of any current railway scheme.

The cold blooded answer is probably that none of these projects were particularly good value of money.
Tramways, at least, provide quite a lot of value to large numbers of passengers.

The largest value provided by an extension to East Midlands Parkway is currently a marginal reduction in diesel use. I don't think this is a particularly large benefit.
It probably has limited value for supporting battery operations because electrification at Sheffield will likely be needed in any case for other trains.

 

[deltic08]

£2.7m/stk is the claimed next section figure.

Until the project is completed it is just an estimate. I would not blame the politicians for becoming increasingly skeptical of such claims by the railway after the debacles of recent years.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jul 2025 ==

Considering Kettering to Wigston has come out at £3.1m/stk, £2.7m/stk onward to Derby/Nottingham is achievable if the rolling programme had continued. Just think how much money has been wasted in ordering steelwork already for the next phase. That money alone would have paid for 10 miles of electrification that we will not now get as it will probably be sold off for scrap at a fraction of its true cost. Wigston to Leicester at least.
Due to inflation alone we will never see £2.7m/stk again so again cancellation of MML electrification is a missed opportunity and much more expensive in the long run as mainline electrification will be needed as discontinuous electrification is not a solution for freight locos.

There is absolutely a case to reduce costs further though, and Noel acknowledges that and talks about his views on how this could be done. What I found kind of shocking is that all the infrastructure work is only ~45% of the costs - the other ~55% being both train disruption payments and project management costs.

True. Staggering that disruption and project management costs are more than infrastructure costs. This wouldn't have happened in BR days. Another downside of rail privatisation that we weren't told about.

 

[Bradford1]

With the anger from Sheffield over the past week, is it a coincidence that there's an announcement today that Sheffield will receive £20 million in government bus funding

 

[deltic08]

With the anger from Sheffield over the past week, is it a coincidence that there's an announcement today that Sheffield will receive £20 million in government bus funding

That would have paid for completion of electrification to Leicester with change left over.
I wonder how much wear there will be starting a coid engine 5 or 6 times a day on 33 810 sets approaching Leicester? Would that amount to the money saved cancelling wiring to Derby/Nottingham?
EMUs will never be able to run to Leicester in an emergency for the sake of 4 miles of OHL. I just can't get over the stupidity of stopping short of Leicester especially as it is all done except the wiring.

 

[WAO]

Until the project is completed it is just an estimate. I would not blame the politicians for becoming increasingly skeptical of such claims by the railway after the debacles of recent years.

...and tramway cost estimates are rock solid? Remember Edinburgh?

The cold blooded answer is probably that none of these projects were particularly good value of money.
Tramways, at least, provide quite a lot of value to large numbers of passengers.

... so why are S Yorks and E Mids Mayors (issued with £3.5bn worth of new trams between them) so upset at the Pause?

WAO

 

[absolutelymilk]

The largest value provided by an extension to East Midlands Parkway is currently a marginal reduction in diesel use. I don't think this is a particularly large benefit.
It probably has limited value for supporting battery operations because electrification at Sheffield will likely be needed in any case for other trains.

Wouldn't it allow the extension of EMR Connect services as well?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Wouldn't it allow the extension of EMR Connect services as well?

Which trains would be ‘extended’? All Connects run to/from Corby (other than positioning moves related to stabling at Kettering).

 

[NCT]

I have just been watching Green Signals latest edition including Furrer and Frey AG project man Noel Dolphin. According to him 80% of the work needed between Wigston and Leicester would have been completed by this Christmas leaving just erection of masts and wires to complete. Cost of electrification, of which wires and masts are only 30% of the overall cost, have been reduced to £3.1m/stk on MML due to a rolling programme. This has now been broken meaning increased costs in future because the team has now been broken up losing valuable experience and 2,500 jobs. It will take many months to assemble another team if there are available workers. They were on target to reduce costs on this next section to £2.7m/stk but this will now not happen. For the sake of £25m more to complete to Leicester, £30-40m has been wasted on design and infrastructure if no more MML is done soon.
Whats more, 83% of bridge lifts on the Leicester-Derby/Nottingham route are already complete and 93% of the signal moves to avoid the OHL gantry positions are complete. More wasted money to cancel now. The contract for the feeder station at Trent has already been signed so that money is already spent. Idiosy to cancel now.

Defies belief. All because Reeves has backed herself into a corner with her unnecessarily restrictive fiscal rules. There was hope this government would be more enlightened about revenue spend vs capital spend and took a more balanced approach to value vs cost, but alas ...

£3.1m/single track kilometre is still extremely expensive.
You probably need half of that to justify additional large scale electrification. Almost all the very high traffic density lines are already done.

And obviously that figure is being reported by someone with a vested interest in electrification continuing, so must be treated with appropriate quantities of salt.

Has there ever been any planning on stopping at Leicester?
You can bet modifications to the design to enable that would cost a pretty penny from the contractors, so I don't think its reasonable to assume that you can just do that without bearing substantial additional costs.

And the money spent is already gone, it shouldn't have any impact on whether the project should continue or not.

How do we ever have a functioning railway industry if politicians don't give it a single ounce of trust? Especially when the industry is showing demonstrative continuous improvement - now and back in 2018 where there was a credible observable trajectory towards costs coming down to sensible levels. Experience the world over shows you need a rolling programme of electrification to get costs down - and just as we are about to get there we decide to cut off the nose to spite the face.

This is typical of modern Britain. Everyone has a 'hang em and flog em' attitude to everything and everyone. The result is good people pack up and leave and Britain is left with structural mediocrity. It's the taxpayer who ultimately suffers.