MML Electrification: is it going to be completed?

[HSTEd]

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

Yes, tramway projects sometimes go wrong and end up over budget, but these projects generate benefits that can make it worth the risk.

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

Because being upset costs them nothing, and can be used to burnish their credentials of "standing up to Westminster", with an eye to their eventual reelection.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 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.

Well, we can have a discussion about why the project phasing decided to stop a few miles short of Leicester on this last tranche. But that decision was made an awful long time ago.

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.

Freight operations currently burn about 153 million litres of fuel oil per year, about 28% of total rail use.
That's about 125 kilotonnes of fuel oil for freight. A substantial portion of this is burned on electrified lines.

in the short/medium term, the best way to cut these emissions would likely be to buy a fleet of electrodiesels. Class 99s type jobs would take a big chunk out of it, especially if you can get a dual voltage capability.
A limited battery hybrid capability would be a big saving on top of that.

It's worth noting that heritage railways currently burn about 35000t of coal a year, which is a similar amount of carbon to about that tonnage of fuel oil. It wouldn't take a huge saving to make it a similar impact on the environment, which would buy the railway time for battery technology to improve.

 

[WAO]

So heavy rail doesn't generate benefits worth a risk?

Reading the EM and SY comments on the Pause shows them to very bitter indeed and anything but synthetic. The EM suffered twice as the Eastern side of Midlands Rail Hub was also stopped.

Trams for short distance and trains for longer distance are equally good ideas. Even with current budgets, there's room for both in proportion.

WAO

A Bad Day for Rail Investment in the East

TfEM ha expressed dismay at the decision to ‘pause’ indefinitely the next phase of electrification of the Midland Main Line.

www.emcouncils.gov.uk

Frustration in Sheffield as rail electrification project paused

The scheme is being halted short of Sheffield on the route to London, Department for Transport says.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[absolutelymilk]

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

Sorry, extended is the wrong word but Connect services could presumably run to Leicester following electrification. Or is there a lack of capacity at Leicester to do that?

 

[Bald Rick]

Sorry, extended is the wrong word but Connect services could presumably run to Leicester following electrification. Or is there a lack of capacity at Leicester to do that?

Lack of capacity between Kettering and Leicester.
Also, units (unless there is a proposal to split/join at Kettering).

 

[WAO]

Perhaps one could have one direct train per hour each to Corby and Leicester with a connecting shuttle from the non-served station, to maintain an advertised 30 minute departure. I don't what would be needed for the Kettering layout etc but it wouldn't need extra paths south of Kettering nor much extra stock.

North of Kettering there are two Sheffields and two Nottinghams per hour?

Just a thought, and it would need some wires....

WAO

 

[deltic08]

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 ...



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.

I agree entirely

Yes, tramway projects sometimes go wrong and end up over budget, but these projects generate benefits that can make it worth the risk.

Because being upset costs them nothing, and can be used to burnish their credentials of "standing up to Westminster", with an eye to their eventual reelection.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2025 ==


Well, we can have a discussion about why the project phasing decided to stop a few miles short of Leicester on this last tranche. But that decision was made an awful long time ago.

Then why was pegging out and lineside de vegetation notices only sent out in the last couple of months? Steelwork and probably copper wire for the next section has just been ordered only weeks ago! Why was this done to carry on beyond Leicester if the decision had already been made to stop at Wigston? That makes it even more culpable of wasting taxpayers money by those in charge of our railway decisions. Heads should roll.

It's worth noting that heritage railways currently burn about 35000t of coal a year, which is a similar amount of carbon to about that tonnage of fuel oil. It wouldn't take a huge saving to make it a similar impact on the environment, which would buy the railway time for battery technology to improve.

A heritage railway would not be a heritage railway if operated by battery. We go to a heritage railway because it is STEAM or long withdrawn diesels.

 

[londonmidland]

Steelwork and probably copper wire for the next section has just been ordered only weeks ago!

Has this been confirmed and/or reported anywhere, out of interest?

 

[deltic08]

Has this been confirmed and/or reported anywhere, out of interest?

Noel Dolphin from Furrer and Frey said it had and he should .know. I was assuming copper cable had been ordered at the same time too but this is not confirmed

 

[chris2]

Well a good thing to do in this scenario would be for people in the affected constituencies to write to their local MPs and ask them to find out whether these materials have been ordered, will be delivered and if the "pause" will mean they are wasted. It *could* be that the delivery is cancelled, or the order is put on pause as well, or the materials will be delivered and then stockpiled. Or what has happened in the past where materials have been ordered, delivered and then scrapped. This would be an awful result and I'm sure there are MPs in the area who would want to be seen to be preventing this kind of unnecessary waste.

 

[QSK19]

Well a good thing to do in this scenario would be for people in the affected constituencies to write to their local MPs and ask them to find out whether these materials have been ordered, will be delivered and if the "pause" will mean they are wasted. It *could* be that the delivery is cancelled, or the order is put on pause as well, or the materials will be delivered and then stockpiled. Or what has happened in the past where materials have been ordered, delivered and then scrapped. This would be an awful result and I'm sure there are MPs in the area who would want to be seen to be preventing this kind of unnecessary waste.

I’m very, very tempted to write to mine - not that his answer would be any more than being a very plastic one given he’s a new Labour MP who will follow whatever party dictates to him

Would it be wise to put in a FOI request too?

 

[Trainbike46]

I’m very, very tempted to write to mine - not that his answer would be any more than being a very plastic one given he’s a new Labour MP who will follow whatever party dictates to him

W

Writing is a good idea - even if he doesn't give you a useful answer, it will be registered that people in his constituency want electrification to proceed, and that may inform his position in the future.

ould it be wise to put in a FOI request too?

It can't hurt!

 

[QSK19]

Writing is a good idea - even if he doesn't give you a useful answer, it will be registered that people in his constituency want electrification to proceed, and that may inform his position in the future.

I have penned the letter and will send it off today or tomorrow. I’ve been direct in saying that I want proper answers and that, being relatively well-informed on rail stuff, I don’t want to hear generic info which I already know (eg that the new trains are bi-mode 810s). Nevertheless, I’m not expecting anything more than a copy and paste job from a template. I’ll let you all have his answer when it arrives.

Do we think that electronic or hard copy would be better? Or does it not matter given that a letter from a constituent - by whatever means - has to be responded to?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2025 ==

It can't hurt!

I’ve just submitted a FOI request to the DfT on contractually-committed MMLE prep works spend.

As you say, it can’t hurt; so let’s see what they come back with!

 

[cle]

Lack of capacity between Kettering and Leicester.
Also, units (unless there is a proposal to split/join at Kettering).

There are 4 passenger tph, and how many freight paths? And one station - it's not an incredibly complex stretch.

One thing enterting the fray here is EWR - I'm not sure on the Corby-Oxford demand end to end (!) - but having a Bedford go there could replace the second service, and add more journeys (Wellingborough/Kettering to EWR), as well as connections to London services. With the other Connect doing Leicester - and potentially speeding up a Nottingham (flighted before it?) by chopping the MH call.

 

[InTheEastMids]

There are 4 passenger tph, and how many freight paths? And one station - it's not an incredibly complex stretch

I'm sure I've seen more knowledgeable folk than me mention the distance between signals as a constraint on capacity.

Might also be the bit from Wigston into Leicester where there are also XC, East-West freight and a flat junction on the 2-track section. Plus only 4 (albeit long) platforms at Leicester

With the other Connect doing Leicester

The issue with extending Connect to Leicester arise from all time taken for all the calls. With today's timetable, a theoretical XX15 Connect to Leicester would need to wait at Kettering P3 (perhaps for up to 10 minutes) to allow the XX32 and XX35 IC to overtake. So not really any difference to changing at Kettering.

Arguably better to send an EWR extension to Leicester as new direct services mean nearly everybody wins and EWR trains won't be subject to timetabling constraints from using MML south of St Albans.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are 4 passenger tph, and how many freight paths? And one station - it's not an incredibly complex stretch.

Long signal sections, a class 6 freight, effectively two stations (Kettering and Harboro’) with the Sheffields not stopping, then the stretch north of Wigston with more passenger services and long freights.

 

[cle]

The issue with extending Connect to Leicester arise from all time taken for all the calls. With today's timetable, a theoretical XX15 Connect to Leicester would need to wait at Kettering P3 (perhaps for up to 10 minutes) to allow the XX32 and XX35 IC to overtake. So not really any difference to changing at Kettering.

Arguably better to send an EWR extension to Leicester as new direct services mean nearly everybody wins and EWR trains won't be subject to timetabling constraints from using MML south of St Albans.

Yes that could be interesting too. Leicester is a far bigger market than Corby, of course. And you might just go on to Nottingham.

 

[chris2]

I have penned the letter and will send it off today or tomorrow. I’ve been direct in saying that I want proper answers and that, being relatively well-informed on rail stuff, I don’t want to hear generic info which I already know (eg that the new trains are bi-mode 810s). Nevertheless, I’m not expecting anything more than a copy and paste job from a template. I’ll let you all have his answer when it arrives.

Do we think that electronic or hard copy would be better? Or does it not matter given that a letter from a constituent - by whatever means - has to be responded to?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2025 ==


I’ve just submitted a FOI request to the DfT on contractually-committed MMLE prep works spend.

As you say, it can’t hurt; so let’s see what they come back with!

Well done! It absolutely can’t hurt and you never know, they might come back with a good response. Email or hard copy shouldn’t matter.

 

[cle]

Long signal sections, a class 6 freight, effectively two stations (Kettering and Harboro’) with the Sheffields not stopping, then the stretch north of Wigston with more passenger services and long freights.

So, in theory, could tighter signal sections in future enable this? And a future change in stopping patterns? It's not a huge amount of traffic overall.

Appreciating not much else could get added from St Pancras (at all) - it would have to be Bedford/Universal/Stewartby EWR starters, or from EWR itself.

 

[Nottingham59]

So, in theory, could tighter signal sections in future enable this? And a future change in stopping patterns? It's not a huge amount of traffic overall.

There was an analysis of the Midland Main Line: Congested Infrastructure Capacity Analysis Report in 2015

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Midland-Main-Line-Congested-Infrastructure-Capacity-Analysis-240315.pdf

2.4 Kettering to Leicester
2.4.1 This section of the route is predominantly double track. The Slow lines at
Kettering revert to a reversible single line north of the station then diverge
towards Corby at Kettering North Jn: this section of the route is considered in
section 2.5. South of Leicester, there is a reversible Slow line between Kilby
Bridge Jn and Wigston North Jn, then the route reverts to double track until
Leicester South Jn. Use of the Wigston – Leicester section is particularly
heavy because EMT and freight services heading north or south share the
route with CrossCountry and other freight services heading east or west.

2.4.2 The primary constraint on freight capacity on this section of route is the
spacing of EMT passenger services (4 in each direction in a standard hour),
and the speed differential between them and the slower freight trains. A
typical Up direction Class 6 freight train takes 38 minutes non-stop between
Leicester South Jn and Kettering North Jn. Adding the planning headway of
4½ minutes, this margin is not available in the standard hour pattern, although
it is occasionally available at either end of the day.

Really that section needs a southbound passing loop half way between Wigston and Glendon Junction - around the site of the Braybrooke grid feeder.

 

[mr_jrt]

There was an analysis of the Midland Main Line: Congested Infrastructure Capacity Analysis Report in 2015

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Midland-Main-Line-Congested-Infrastructure-Capacity-Analysis-240315.pdf

Really that section needs a southbound passing loop half way between Wigston and Glendon Junction - around the site of the Braybrooke grid feeder.

I presume you're just trying to be subtle about the fact that's exactly where one used to be...

Georeferenced Maps viewer - Map images - National Library of Scotland

 

[Nottingham59]

I presume you're just trying to be subtle about the fact that's exactly where one used to be...

Moot now, because the alignment is blocked by electrification masts which could have been sited to accommodate a third track. (For which there are no plans, because there is no demand, evidenced by there being no daytime freight, which the Congested Infrastructure Study says are difficult to path because there is no loop....)

 

[InTheEastMids]

Moot now, because the alignment is blocked by electrification masts which could have been sited to accommodate a third track. (For which there are no plans, because there is no demand, evidenced by there being no daytime freight, which the Congested Infrastructure Study says are difficult to path because there is no loop....)

Planning documents for new bridges on that section did show provision for a third electrified track, but perhaps the cost difference was marginal anyway

Also, wondered whether electric traction undermines the case for it. Perhaps somebody knowledgeable can estimate how much quicker a 99 would be on this section than a 66 hauling a 2000+ tonne stone train. It is uphill so wonder also about how long it would take such a working to exit the loop and get to Kettering North junction.

 

[QSK19]

Well done! It absolutely can’t hurt and you never know, they might come back with a good response. Email or hard copy shouldn’t matter.

Letter has gone today, so hopefully should get a response in the next 2-3 weeks.

He’s got a lot of research to do given some of the questions require an answer to a level of detail that we use

 

[mr_jrt]

I do wonder if there would be an argument for extending the slow lines from Glendon south along the line to Leicester, perhaps to Market Harborough, with a view to providing more paths as well as enabling a station at Desborough to reopen on the slow lines (and Market Harborough to be served similarly). It has a population of about 12k, apparently, and could probably grow considerably with a rail connection to Kettering, Market Harborough and Leicester. Coming back on topic, I'm not sure even good electric acceleration would enable that.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I do wonder if there would be an argument for extending the slow lines from Glendon south along the line to Leicester, perhaps to Market Harborough, with a view to providing more paths as well as enabling a station at Desborough to reopen on the slow lines (and Market Harborough to be served similarly).

Horrendously expensive. The line from Glendon North Jcn to just over Desboro' summit was only ever two-track, so would require significant land acquisition. Never going to be justified on a cost basis for decades. The route did have goods loops on the other side of Desboro bank to a mile or so of Mkt Harboro, but they must have been removed in the 1980s.

It has a population of about 12k, apparently, and could probably grow considerably with a rail connection to Kettering, Market Harborough and Leicester. Coming back on topic, I'm not sure even good electric acceleration would enable that.

I certainly agree Desboro' has to be a candidate for future reopening if paths can be found.

....

The issue with extending Connect to Leicester arise from all time taken for all the calls. With today's timetable, a theoretical XX15 Connect to Leicester would need to wait at Kettering P3 (perhaps for up to 10 minutes) to allow the XX32 and XX35 IC to overtake. So not really any difference to changing at Kettering.

Could you run the EMR connect non-stop to Leicester ahead of the Sheffield and Nottingham?

 

[Palmerston]

I certainly agree Desboro' has to be a candidate for future reopening if paths can be found.

Desborough seems a fairly large town to be on a train line, but without a station. If HS2 East was being built, then you'd have some paths for local trains, but that's another story.

 

[mjr018]

Has this been confirmed and/or reported anywhere, out of interest?

No steelwork or copper was ordered. Only design, surveys and enabling works(inc. route clearance) were authorised.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 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.

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.

The lowest STK section is Syston to Trent and is less £2.7m/stk as it was the most developed route section noting STK rate is baselined at Q1 2019 and does not include inflation.

 

[Nottingham59]

No steelwork or copper was ordered. Only design, surveys and enabling works(inc. route clearance) were authorised.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2025 ==


The lowest STK section is Syston to Trent and is less £2.7m/stk as it was the most developed route section noting STK rate is baselined at Q1 2019 and does not include inflation.

Thank you for the information, and welcome to the forum!

 

[Bald Rick]

Could you run the EMR connect non-stop to Leicester ahead of the Sheffield and Nottingham?

Not in the current timetable, unless it also missed at least one or probably two of the stops furter south, which rather defeats the point.

The lowest STK section is Syston to Trent and is less £2.7m/stk as it was the most developed route section noting STK rate is baselined at Q1 2019 and does not include inflation.

Indeed. Being relatively simple 4 track railway, not many bridges to clear, opportunities for two track possessions, signalling largely OLE ready… all help to improve economy of scale and efficiency.

 

[deltic08]

Not in the current timetable, unless it also missed at least one or probably two of the stops furter south, which rather defeats the point.



Indeed. Being relatively simple 4 track railway, not many bridges to clear, opportunities for two track possessions, signalling largely OLE ready… all help to improve economy of scale and efficiency.

Then why was it cancelled if it was easy to do?