MML Electrification: is it going to be completed?

[Nottingham59]

So a 4600t 'Jumbo' Mendips train travelling the 55 miles or so from a (randomly selected by me) quarry near Frome to the electrified railway at Newbury would rack up 253,000 tonne miles.
That's about 6.4MWh's worth.

Possibly a bit less, as it's downhill most of the way.

 

[HSTEd]

Possibly a bit less, as it's downhill most of the way.

The gravitational potential energy for the net 36m descent between Whateley Quarry loading area (~114m ASL), which is the quarry I picked at random, and Newbury (78m ASL) would be around 400kWh.

Less about 100kWh to lift the empties back up and I guess it will make a measurable difference to the energy use, although not decisive.

Thats actually larger than I thought it would be!

 

[WAO]

Yes, and Keenor should know.

(I think the budget value of regen recovery is c30%)

WAO

 

[Bald Rick]

What would be the weight of batteries filling a loco the size of a class 99 and how long would it take to recharge them?

The weight would be whatever it can be within the axle loading desired.

The better question is how much energy storage does a battery pack have that is approx the weight of the Class 99s engine, alternator, cooler group, exhaust system and full fuel tank. At a guess this lot will be in the region of 25 tonnes; an LFP battery of that weight will have 3-4MWh on hand. Recharging - that depends! But at the very worst, they will recharge at the same rate they can discharge, which would be in the region of 5MW.

To my knowledge there are only a couple of miles of OLE at Ely and Peterborough combined between Haughley Jnc and Doncaster via Lincoln for northern terminals and non between Peterborough and Birmingham via Nuneaton. How are trains from Southampton to Birmingham, Leeds and Wakefield almost entirely under the wires? Only Reading to Didcot. Please explain.

What I said was that Tilbury / Gateway to Birmingham, Wakefield / Leeds and Teesport is largely on the wires, as these all go via London and up the WCML to Nuneaton, or ECML to Peterboro (at least).

If we go to the published traction energy metrics (from 2019) a heavy haul freight train burns about 25.27kWh per 1000 gross tonne miles.
Intermodal trains are higher at about 38kWh per 1000 gross tonne miles but intermodal trains are way lighter so I doubt they are limiting here.

Don’t forget regen, which is much more relevant for freight. Firstly they travel at much lower average speeds so they use rather less energy to overcome aerodynamic drag, ie a higher proportion of the energy expenditure is on the acceleration, which for existing haulage is almost entirely then converted to heat when braking. Secondly, and related, is that freights often do lots of starting and stopping due to pathing requirements, and therefore have the potential to recover much more of their energy through braking. Thirdly, downhill - again the energy can be recovered through regen whereas now the energy ‘invested’ in getting a freight uphill is all turned into heat on the descent.

(I think the budget value of regen recovery is c30%)

It varies. For passenger servcies it varies between 15-30% depending in the duty cycle. Long non stop stretches at hig speed recover less; slow speed frequent stops much more. I reckon that for most freight it will be higher than 30%, although my A Level physics is too ancient and rusty to work it out!

 

[Killingworth]

By chance I was looking through some old files for something totally different and came across a statement to the House by Chris Grayling on 20th July 2017. It's littered with optimistic dates and projects.

Rail update: bi-mode train technology https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/rail-update-bi-mode-train-technology

Modernising rail services and infrastructure on the Great Western Main Line, Midland Main Line and in the north.

I wish to inform the House about some important developments regarding the rail networks of the Midland Main Line, south Wales and the north of England.
Passenger numbers on the UK rail network have more than doubled since privatisation 20 years ago and our country’s railways need to adapt and change to be able to meet current and future demand. Therefore we are delivering the largest upgrade of the rail network since Victorian times, including modernising rail services and infrastructure on the Great Western Main Line, Midland Main Line and in the north.
Technology is advancing quickly, and this government is committed to using the best available technologies to improve each part of the network. New bi-mode train technology offers seamless transfer from diesel power to electric that is undetectable to passengers. The industry is also developing alternative fuel trains, using battery and hydrogen power. This means that we no longer need to electrify every line to achieve the same significant improvements to journeys, and we will only electrify lines where it delivers a genuine benefit to passengers.
These new technologies mean that we can improve journeys for passengers on the Great Western Main Line in south Wales, the Midland Main Line, and on the Lakes Line between Windermere and Oxenholme sooner than expected with state of the art trains, instead of carrying out disruptive electrification works along the whole of these routes.

Midlands​

The competition to find the next operator for the Midland Main Line is underway. Our goals for the next East Midlands franchise are to improve journeys for passengers, drive even stronger economic growth and support investment across the whole region. We want to hear from passengers and local communities about the next rail franchise to ensure it delivers the services that passengers want. I am therefore pleased to inform the House that my department is today (20 July 2017) launching a public consultation on the next franchise. The consultation, which will run for 12 weeks from today, will help to inform and develop the franchise specification for inclusion in the invitation to tender. The consultation is available online and will also include a number of local stakeholder events.
The next East Midlands franchise will help drive the Midlands Engine and improve passenger journeys by maximising the passenger benefits of the significant upgrade of the Midland Main Line, the biggest investment in the route since it was completed in 1870. The upgrade will enable reduced journey times and more seats for long distance passengers during the peaks, as well as more capacity for commuters with dedicated services with longer trains. Journeys will improve from 2020 and, once the full benefits are realised, there will be almost twice as many seats into London St Pancras in the peak compared to today.
The next operator will be required to deliver modern, fast and efficient trains. This includes a brand new fleet of bi-mode intercity trains from 2022, delivering more seats and comfort for long-distance passengers. The provision of these trains will replace plans to electrify the line north of Kettering to Sheffield and Nottingham, improving journeys sooner, without the need for wires and masts on the whole route, and causing less disruption to services. We do not intend to proceed with plans to electrify the line from Kettering to Sheffield and Nottingham, and there will be further investment to come to ensure Sheffield is HS2-ready.

Wales​

From Autumn 2017, passengers in Wales will benefit from new Intercity Express trains which will each deliver over 130 more seats, faster journey times and improved connectivity for south Wales to London with 40% more seats in the morning peak once the full fleet is in service.
These innovative new trains switch seamlessly between electric and diesel power, delivering faster journeys and more seats for passengers without disruptive work to put up wires and masts along routes where they are no longer required.
Rapid delivery of passenger benefits, minimising disruption and engineering work should always be our priority and as technology changes we must we must reconsider our approach to modernising the railways. We will only electrify lines where it provides a genuine benefit to passengers which cannot be achieved through other technologies.
As a result, we no longer need to electrify the Great Western route west of Cardiff. In addition to the new trains, Network Rail will develop further options to improve journeys for passengers in Wales. These will include, but not be limited to:

• improving journeys times and connections between Swansea and Cardiff, and south Wales, Bristol and London
• improving journeys times and connections across north Wales
• direct services from Pembroke Dock to London via Carmarthen on new, state of the art Intercity Express trains
• station improvements at Cardiff Station
• station improvements in and around Swansea including looking at the case for additional provision

I have also welcomed a proposal for Wales’ first privately funded railway station at St Mellons. My department will work with the promoters of the scheme as they develop their plans to the next stage.
The first new Intercity Express trains will enter service from this autumn and once the whole fleet is introduced and electrification to Cardiff is complete journey times between Swansea, London and other stations along the route will be approximately 15 minutes shorter.

The north​

We are investing in the Northern Powerhouse, upgrading rail services across one of the country’s largest networks to improve connections between towns and cities. Passengers in the Lake District will benefit from double the number of direct services to Manchester Airport from May 2018. From 2019, there will be brand new trains with more seats and better on-board facilities including air conditioning, toilets, free wifi and plug sockets, subject to business case.
We have listened to concerns about electrification gantries spoiling protected landscapes. Northern, the train operator, will therefore begin work to explore the possibility of deploying alternative-fuel trains on the route by 2021, improving comfort and on-board facilities for passengers whilst protecting the sensitive environment of this World Heritage Site. This trial will pilot an alternative-fuelled train, removing the need to construct intrusive wires and masts in this National Park. Journeys between Windermere and Manchester Airport will be improved sooner and with less disruption to services and local communities. This replaces plans to electrify the line between Windermere and Oxenholme.
This investment is a part of the Great North Rail Project, which will deliver more frequent trains and new direct services on the West Coast Main Line, with faster journeys and increased frequency into and through Manchester from across the north-west. It will boost access to jobs and new opportunities, growing the Northern Powerhouse by improving connections between the Lake District and the Manchester Airport international gateway.
Train operators and Network Rail will need to work as one to deliver these upgrades and introduce the new fleets in a way which ensures passengers experience better journeys as soon as possible.

Rail franchise schedule​

The government has also today published the updated Rail franchise schedule, which includes changes to the timescales for the East Midlands, Cross Country and West Midlands rail franchises. A copy of the schedule has been placed in the libraries of both Houses.
Published 20 July 2017

 

[HSTEd]

Don’t forget regen, which is much more relevant for freight. Firstly they travel at much lower average speeds so they use rather less energy to overcome aerodynamic drag, ie a higher proportion of the energy expenditure is on the acceleration, which for existing haulage is almost entirely then converted to heat when braking. Secondly, and related, is that freights often do lots of starting and stopping due to pathing requirements, and therefore have the potential to recover much more of their energy through braking. Thirdly, downhill - again the energy can be recovered through regen whereas now the energy ‘invested’ in getting a freight uphill is all turned into heat on the descent.

That figure appears ot be derived from electric freight operations, so I think regen is already baked in.

 

[Technologist]

Electro-diesels were the worst of both worlds. You buy the most expensive, heaviest, and (as it has turned out) the most riskiest high-spec electrodiesel that will cost an arm and a leg to run (electric power to carry the GUs and tanks, diesel power to carry the transformers).

For a 800 Vs 801 9 car set the diesels add 18 tonnes to a 420 tonne train so less than 5% additional weight.

The 5 car 800 is also the same weight as a 5 car class 397 EMU so the design is not particularly heavy compared to other EMU's.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jul 2025 ==

Yes, and Keenor should know.

(I think the budget value of regen recovery is c30%)

WAO

That seems very low, cars typically manage 70+%

 

[edwin_m]

That seems very low, cars typically manage 70+%

Do you have a source for that that gives the conditions under which it applies? I've also heard figures for trains in the region of 20%, but I'd expect (electric) cars not to be vastly higher. As well as unrecoverable aerodynamic losses that the train also has, a car has much greater rolling resistance so a significant part of the energy used will end up as heat in the tyres.

 

[Trainbike46]

For a 800 Vs 801 9 car set the diesels add 18 tonnes to a 420 tonne train so less than 5% additional weight.

The 5 car 800 is also the same weight as a 5 car class 397 EMU so the design is not particularly heavy compared to other EMU's.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jul 2025 ==



That seems very low, cars typically manage 70+%

Do you have a source for that that gives the conditions under which it applies? I've also heard figures for trains in the region of 20%, but I'd expect (electric) cars not to be vastly higher. As well as unrecoverable aerodynamic losses that the train also has, a car has much greater rolling resistance so a significant part of the energy used will end up as heat in the tyres.

I suspect @WAO / @Bald Rick and @Technologist are using rather different implied definitions of regen recovery.

I think Technologist refers to the percentage of the kinetic energy removed by braking that makes it back into the battery
whereas I suspect WAO and Bald Rick are referring to the energy savings achieved in a train using regenerative braking compared to a train not using it (all else being equal).

Could you confirm whether I interpreted you both correctly?

 

[Bald Rick]

Could you confirm whether I interpreted you both correctly?

Correctly.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Just caught up on last week's Green Signals episode with snippets of the transport select committee hearing with Peter Hendy. I do agree with lots of what is said about Batteries above, and that there should not be a blank cheque for NR on electrification.

But Peter Hendy's responses were awful, he avoided questions and didn't provide any real justification (no money...) or details or response to concerns around boom and bust. It doesn't fill me with any confidence we are going to have a sensible long term plan (regardless of money, there needs to be a plan, even if the plan has little money, there needs to be a strategy).

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Just caught up on last week's Green Signals episode with snippets of the transport select committee hearing with Peter Hendy. I do agree with lots of what is said about Batteries above, and that there should not be a blank cheque for NR on electrification.

But Peter Hendy's responses were awful, he avoided questions and didn't provide any real justification (no money...) or details or response to concerns around boom and bust. It doesn't fill me with any confidence we are going to have a sensible long term plan (regardless of money, there needs to be a plan, even if the plan has little money, there needs to be a strategy).

Did you expect "a sensible long term plan?" I didn't. Quite apart from running out of taxpayers' money remarkable quickly even by their standards, Labour Governments have never had a constructive attitude towards our railway system. Peter Hendy was simply doing the best he could to justify Government decisions he probably didn't like.

 

[WAO]

Yes.

A pneumatic tyre/tarmac road rolling (irreversible) resistance is 5 - 10 times that of steel wheel on steel rail.

Compare HP/t for road and rail vehicles. That's why trains, whether diesel, OLE or battery, are such a good idea.

I read Hendy's comments as; MMLe was also a good idea for when we have some money.

The EMids, WMids and SYorks together have more than £6.1Bn in the pot for transport, so not Heidi's or Rachel's fault.

WAO

 

[Mag_seven]

I appreciate this is a speculative thread but we appear to be straying away from the topic of possible future MML electrification completion. If anyone wants to discuss anything else such as battery operated trains then please start a new thread or find an appropriate existing one such as:

Battery EMU infrastructure

Battery powered/assisted traction appears to be increasingly advocated for the DMU replacement programmes that are going to be coming up over the next decade. DMUs are currently outbased overnight at various locations that don’t have refuelling facilities. In terms of the new trains with battery...

www.railforums.co.uk

or

Why I believe battery powered trains aren’t the answer

Most such disruption you see involves OHLE and third rail losing power for extended periods. Having batteries means you can at least get every train to a place where it can be quickly and safely evacuated, e.g. any station platform. Even if the entire signalling system has collapsed as well...

www.railforums.co.uk

thanks

 

[MarkyT]

Yes.

A pneumatic tyre/tarmac road rolling (irreversible) resistance is 5 - 10 times that of steel wheel on steel rail.

Compare HP/t for road and rail vehicles. That's why trains, whether diesel, OLE or battery, are such a good idea.

In general yes, though passenger rail vehicles are usually significantly heavier than buses carrying the same number of passengers. For closely spaced stations, accelerating that mass repeatedly on a local service can be very energy intensive per pass/km, only to burn it off again in the brake pads and discs when stopping at the next station, all especially inefficient if the train is very lightly loaded. Being able to use regen to capture braking energy in an onboard battery for reuse should make a big difference on such routes, but overall weight reduction is also highly desirable for new trains. That doesn't conflict fundamentally with use of batteries but is likely to influence how much capacity onboard is optimum for particular service characteristics, and the charging strategies and infrastructure used. It might be better overall to divide a long unwired section with an intermediate electrified island, fed from a local DNO using the RSS concept, to allow a smaller, lighter battery pack to be used. For long distance trains with wide stop spacing, the equations are rather different as much of the inertia is conserved for long periods, so car weight is less critical, though long gradients will still be an issue.

I read Hendy's comments as; MMLe was also a good idea for when we have some money.

I also think it needs to follow major remodelling at Leicester and Sheffield, where old signalling needs to be replaced. The best flexible strategy is condition-based renewals of the track and signalling elements, topped up with some enhancement money to prepare for electrification and deliver long-held aspirations for additional capacity such as widening the southern approaches to both, but also probably offering some layout simplification opportunities, particularly at Sheffield station. Once all such schemes have been agreed (with future electrification in mind), then is the time for wiring, with a clear layout and service specification, and probably by then some fleet renewal justification for local services, using the major hub wiring for charging in discontinuous battery operations over surrounding networks.

I argue that, in terms of 'readiness', GWML deferred elements at Oxford and Chippenham-Bristol are far more advanced than the northern stretches of MML with signalling all renewed and much structure clearance work complete. MML has recent resignalling around Nottingham and Derby, all to electrification-friendly standards, but a lot of work still outstanding in the Leicester and Sheffield areas. I'd like NR to finish Botley Road bridge and the station works before recommencing electrification work at Oxford however! Note that wiring at Oxford will likely be an important charging location for future EWR battery trains. As a major charging hub, Bristol area wiring will likely be useful for local battery services radiating from the city.

When the tap gets turned on again, unless there has been major progress with Leicester and Sheffield in the meantime, it is likely more efficient to divert resources to complete the deferred GWML elements first, as most enabling infrastructure work required is already complete, so they are now more straightforward and less likely to suffer cost and timescale overruns. There's no doubt that bi-modes have allowed this kind of stop-go flexible strategy, but they are only a temporary relief, as the diesels must go, eventually.

 

[Killingworth]

I also think it needs to follow major remodelling at Leicester and Sheffield, where old signalling needs to be replaced. The best flexible strategy is condition-based renewals of the track and signalling elements, topped up with some enhancement money to prepare for electrification and deliver long-held aspirations for additional capacity such as widening the southern approaches to both, but also probably offering some layout simplification opportunities, particularly at Sheffield station. Once all such schemes have been agreed (with future electrification in mind), then is the time for wiring, with a clear layout and service specification, and probably by then some fleet renewal justification for local services, using the major hub wiring for charging in discontinuous battery operations over surrounding networks.

I argue that, in terms of 'readiness', GWML deferred elements at Oxford and Chippenham-Bristol are far more advanced than the northern stretches of MML with signalling all renewed and much structure clearance work complete. MML has recent resignalling around Nottingham and Derby, all to electrification-friendly standards, but a lot of work still outstanding in the Leicester and Sheffield areas. I'd like NR to finish Botley Road bridge and the station works before recommencing electrification work at Oxford however! Note that wiring at Oxford will likely be an important charging location for future EWR battery trains. As a major charging hub, Bristol area wiring will likely be useful for local battery services radiating from the city.

When the tap gets turned on again, unless there has been major progress with Leicester and Sheffield in the meantime, it is likely more efficient to divert resources to complete the deferred GWML elements first, as most enabling infrastructure work required is already complete, so they are now more straightforward and less likely to suffer cost and timescale overruns. There's no doubt that bi-modes have allowed this kind of stop-go flexible strategy, but they are only a temporary relief, as the diesels must go, eventually.

Many have suggested restoring 4 tracks from Dore into Sheffield. The amended HS2 diversion into Sheffield was planning only 3 tracks until it got knocked on the head, all that work wasted.

If you follow Dan Coffey's cab ride video from about 54 minutes you'll see even that will/would be difficult due to all that's been changed by the lineside since the 1960s. Removed bridges would need rebuilding and lots more, see;

That's big money before the wiring is put in. (Resignalling of existing tracks from Dore towards Sheffield was completed 12-18 months ago.)

Within the last 3 months preliminary survey work was happening at Dore - surveying to see the points needed for a comprehensive survey down the Sheaf Valley. A momentum seemed to be building - sadly, yet again, it wasn't!

So much work keeps being wasted with all these pauses.

 

[MarkyT]

Many have suggested restoring 4 tracks from Dore into Sheffield. The amended HS2 diversion into Sheffield was planning only 3 tracks until it got knocked on the head, all that work wasted.

Three should be a great improvement on the two there now, especially with some bi-di to weave trains around each other at alternative junctions to avoid conflicts.

If you follow Dan Coffey's cab ride video from about 54 minutes you'll see even that will/would be difficult due to all that's been changed by the lineside since the 1960s. Removed bridges would need rebuilding and lots more, see;

I'll take a look at that later on a big screen. I like his videos.

That's big money before the wiring is put in. (Resignalling of existing tracks from Dore towards Sheffield was completed 12-18 months ago.)

The Dore area appears to have been transferred to an Alstom Smartlock 400 (processor-based) interlocking called HOPE VALLEY CIXL03 in that scheme, but the Sheffield station area still uses the 1973 free-wired relay interlocking under the old panel operating floor, albeit recontrolled from York ROC, Sheffield Outer workstation, since 2016 (info from British power signalling register). https://bpsr.org.uk/

Within the last 3 months preliminary survey work was happening at Dore - surveying to see the points needed for a comprehensive survey down the Sheaf Valley. A momentum seemed to be building - sadly, yet again, it wasn't!

So much work keeps being wasted with all these pauses.

The preliminary survey data shouldn't be wasted. It could help inform future schemes, though the detailed work was yet to be done. The outline design for HS2 Sheffield area might also be resurrected and tweaked to new requirements when the time comes. Capacity uplift and resilience upgrades will likely appear largely the same, whether the additional trains are coming from HS2 or MML, though platform length requirements may differ.

The new factor is that rolling stock replacement contracts are not driving the whole programme. With bimodes in operation, any element of northern MML wiring might be completed in any order as long as a local grid feeder is available. Gaps are not a problem.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

I argue that, in terms of 'readiness', GWML deferred elements at Oxford and Chippenham-Bristol are far more advanced than the northern stretches of MML with signalling all renewed and much structure clearance work complete. MML has recent resignalling around Nottingham and Derby, all to electrification-friendly standards, but a lot of work still outstanding in the Leicester and Sheffield areas. I'd like NR to finish Botley Road bridge and the station works before recommencing electrification work at Oxford however! Note that wiring at Oxford will likely be an important charging location for future EWR battery trains. As a major charging hub, Bristol area wiring will likely be useful for local battery services radiating from the city.

When the tap gets turned on again, unless there has been major progress with Leicester and Sheffield in the meantime,

I disagree, it's been several years since electrification design was taking place on GWEP extensions, i presume it was finished but you'd need to go over the design again with up-to-date surveys - i don't think it'd be a particularly major job, but rushing or ignoring that need could very well cause expensive and embarrassing unforseens during construction which is most of the story around the original GWEP troubles.

I agree that Sheffield is nowhere near ready to wires, design work would not have been finished yet although planning was with the Chesterfield GSP having some presence on the site quite recently. The Leicester area, however, is ready for construction that much we know from the Noel Dolphin interview

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I disagree, it's been several years since electrification design was taking place on GWEP extensions, i presume it was finished but you'd need to go over the design again with up-to-date surveys - i don't think it'd be a particularly major job, but rushing or ignoring that need could very well cause expensive and embarrassing unforseens during construction which is most of the story around the original GWEP troubles.

Absolutely! 100% agree

 

[MarkyT]

I disagree, it's been several years since electrification design was taking place on GWEP extensions, i presume it was finished but you'd need to go over the design again with up-to-date surveys - i don't think it'd be a particularly major job, but rushing or ignoring that need could very well cause expensive and embarrassing unforseens during construction which is most of the story around the original GWEP troubles.

But it will be very much remaining overbridges and wiring only, no junction remodelling, resignalling etc. Surveys in unchanged areas will likely still be valid.

I agree that Sheffield is nowhere near ready to wires, design work would not have been finished yet although planning was with the Chesterfield GSP having some presence on the site quite recently. The Leicester area, however, is ready for construction that much we know from the Noel Dolphin interview

Does that readiness include full agreement and aligned funding for 4 tracking in from Wigston? Or will the wiring project have to pay for all that or at least enablng works for its future completion. Would they even know what they are enabling for yet? The signalling is over 40 years old now, and while the big gantries were designed with wiring clearance in mind, it's likely they won't be in the right places for the future signalling, and as happened at Newport with some nearly new gantries that needed replacing, they are probably not entirely to modern standards anyway. There may be other incompatibilities between the current signalling and electrification, forcing a resignalling or at least major changes to trackside equipment which would be difficult and not cost effective for such an old installation. If a large resignalling was required it should probably be ETCS with all the new trains being either already fitted or 'ready'. That tail then wags the dog on converting all the sections to the south... Then, if the current layout is electrified 'as is', it will be major additional work and disruption again to do the layout alterations under the wires.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Then, if the current layout is electrified 'as is', it will be major additional work and disruption again to do the layout alterations under the wires.

As far as I understand it, this is what was going to happen.

Electrify now with minimum necessary modifications (Noel Dolphin mentioned all signal moves have been done relating to the current electrification design, immunisation was already done around Wigston since RS1), remodel the whole area later on if-and-when Leicester remodelling is allowed past the pearly gates. This is indeed an inefficient and silly way of doing things but reflects the fact that MMLe was way more close to happening (read: being funded) than Leicester remodelling even though they should obviously be done with respect to each other and in the other order. But that would require something called a "plan" at the "policy level", which is what a proper country would do.

Ultimately I think it's a understandable and the right move that they pushed ahead with electrification without remodelling for Leicester not because it makes sense but because if/when the remodelling happens they would have to put the OLE back in place, but if OLE waits for remodelling first - nothing will get done for even more decades. Don't let the bare minimum be the enemy of the shoddy excuse.

Is there a silver lining here that no MMLe allows Leicester remodelling to happen easier/the correct way round? I'll believe that when I goddam see it.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Electrify now with minimum necessary modifications (Noel Dolphin mentioned all signal moves have been done relating to the current electrification design, immunisation was already done around Wigston since RS1), remodel the whole area later on if-and-when Leicester remodelling is allowed past the pearly gates.

The issue with Syston-Wigston capacity upgrade is (I think) that it only becomes a burning issue if at least one, and perhaps all of (i) Ely Capacity, (ii) Midlands Rail Hub East and (iii) Nottingham-Coventry get funded and then Leicester is the weak link in terms of capacity. None of these are funded, so it doesn't seem to have been just kicked into the long grass, but booted hard through the long grass, into the river, washed out to sea and lost in the endless blue ocean.

Alternatively, one way to get it funded might be to deconstruct the city of Leicester brick-by-brick, and transport it to somewhere that isn't the East Midlands. Rebuild it nearer London or the M62, install an ambitious mayor that the PM sees as a rival, and you never know, the money might suddenly be found.

Getting back on topic, I think the scenario* where the most of MML gets physical electrification is
(i) Noel Dolphin is right and Network Rail cannot weasel out of a big substation next to EM Parkway.
(ii) the need to recharge battery trains at/around the main EM stations becomes real (Given the 170 fleet, this is closer to 2040 than 2030 and much could change in the interim).
(iii) With a situation where the demand is in the 3 cities, the supply is at EM Parkway, the the most straightforward and flexible idea is to just wire the entire MML outwards from EM Parkway to Nottingham, Derby and Wigston South
(iv) something similar happens around Chesterfield/Sheffield.
(v) Govt decides to realise benefits of HS2 by serving Derby/Sheffield via HS2 and Burton, meaning more or less continuous electrification from the HS2 junction to Sheffield

*Note a scenario, not a forecast.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Yeah Leicester remodelling seems very dead. I don't really know what midlands rail hub east is but i think it's been formally binned is the recent announcements, in favour of its west mids counterpart. Ely Remodelling seems a bit better as some lame looking consultation documents were floated recently and local industry/political groups have been continually pressing it for years along with Haughley Junction right at the eastern end of the F2N corridor. I've heard that Ely Remodelling has a strong BCR of £4.89 returned for every £1 invested, and I think that's a low-ball. Put this in opposition to the many local road schemes approved recently which have BCRs sometimes sub 1. Transport funding is, at best, partially about "no-money" disease and mostly about securing local politics by way of road schemes, nothing to do with economics let alone "stratergy"

 

[Dr Hoo]

The ending of any realistic hope of restoring the Ivanhoe (Leicester-Burton) line to passenger service is another cancelled reason for re-modelling the Leicester area.

 

[KevinBrum12]

Did you expect "a sensible long term plan?" I didn't. Quite apart from running out of taxpayers' money remarkable quickly even by their standards, Labour Governments have never had a constructive attitude towards our railway system. Peter Hendy was simply doing the best he could to justify Government decisions he probably didn't like.

Being a cynic with memories of the Cross City electrification in the West Midlands (authorised by one Cecil Parkinson), MML electrification might get progressed further northwards if "events" lead to a couple of high profile by-elections along the corridor with the money suddenly being found.

 

[Harpo]

My biggest issue with the ‘pause’ is the inevitable loss (yet again) of electrification expertise. While England faffed about and mismanaged OHLE, Scotland showed how to deliver it.

It will be a very false economy.

 

[Bald Rick]

My biggest issue with the ‘pause’ is the inevitable loss (yet again) of electrification expertise. While England faffed about and mismanaged OHLE, Scotland showed how to deliver it.

The MML work has largely been delivered by the Scots.

 

[Mikey C]

I don't understand why the MML work couldn't have been slowed, rather than stopped altogether, if money was tight, so you don't lose all the expertise and momentum.

 

[QSK19]

I don't understand why the MML work couldn't have been slowed, rather than stopped altogether, if money was tight, so you don't lose all the expertise and momentum.

They’re just extremely short-sighted and don’t think in the long term. Outright cancellation (which is what this “pause” actually is - do they think we’re dimwits?!) minimises spend, so looks good for budgets.

Also, they can create a budget problem for the next government (provided that (hopefully!) they get kicked out at the next election). By letting all that expertise go to waste and the cost of having to find all that talent again, they can accuse the next government of overspending on MMLe.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't understand why the MML work couldn't have been slowed, rather than stopped altogether, if money was tight, so you don't lose all the expertise and momentum.

If cancellation has actually occurred due to batteries and/or electrodiesels wrecking the economics, as I suspect, then slowing the work doesn't really gain anything.