MML Electrification: is it going to be completed?

[Dr Hoo]

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.

We keep hearing about the Scottish ‘rolling programme’ but I struggle to see it these days. Between 2014 and 2019 there was widespread electrification in the Central Belt - fair enough. But since then there seems to have only been a few relatively small and local schemes. Barrhead (without the Larkfield Chord) and currently East Kilbride. I’ll be generous and add the Carstairs re-modelling. Some mast bases on the new Leven line and a start on steelwork towards Dalmeny. Great, but is it really keeping the teams from the teenies working at full pace?

 

[Trainbike46]

We keep hearing about the Scottish ‘rolling programme’ but I struggle to see it these days. Between 2014 and 2019 there was widespread electrification in the Central Belt - fair enough. But since then there seems to have only been a few relatively small and local schemes. Barrhead (without the Larkfield Chord) and currently East Kilbride. I’ll be generous and add the Carstairs re-modelling. Some mast bases on the new Leven line and a start on steelwork towards Dalmeny. Great, but is it really keeping the teams from the teenies working at full pace?

The Scottish rolling programme is slow, undeniably, but it currently and recently consisted of:
- Barrhead Electrification
- East Kilbride Electrification
- Power upgrades around Edinburgh
- Electrification up to the Forth Bridge
- Some Electrification around Dundee
- Some Electrification in Fife

For some of these it's mostly design work so far, or work to get feeder stations in place. For others, there is preparation (e.g. Leven branch), or actual electrification on the ground (e.g. East Kilbride recently). There is certainly less staff involved than there was during EGIP.

 

[tbtc]

We keep hearing about the Scottish ‘rolling programme’ but I struggle to see it these days. Between 2014 and 2019 there was widespread electrification in the Central Belt - fair enough. But since then there seems to have only been a few relatively small and local schemes. Barrhead (without the Larkfield Chord) and currently East Kilbride. I’ll be generous and add the Carstairs re-modelling. Some mast bases on the new Leven line and a start on steelwork towards Dalmeny. Great, but is it really keeping the teams from the teenies working at full pace?

There was certainly a good plan under Salmond with a lot of the legwork done for projects that were only fully delivered after he'd stood down

Recently though... nah... Hence the nonsense of continuing to run the electrified East Kilbride branch with DMUs. The flagship Falkirk High service reduced in frequency but money found for under 22s (and pensioners) to have free travel on long distance coach services

Scotland gets lauded for things that England is criticised for

Electrification to Dalmeney is praised because it'll allow bi-modes to use electricity at the city end without the hassle/ expense/ closures needed to wire the full route... they might wire other sections at a later date when money allows... but isn't that rather similar to the plans for the MML?

As I've said before, if we've got to the point where full electrification has become significantly more expensive than the decreasing costs of batteries then we need to take that info consideration. When the facts change, I change my mind.

Electrification is one means to an end. Electrification can be a great tool, but it's not the only tool and it's certainly not a goal in it's own right. People buy hammers to do a specific job, the objective isn't too collect hammers.

For me the main problem with partial MML wiring (other than the stock problems when longest 222s get pinched for a speculative OAO) is that the logical priorities to wire would be big urban areas like Leicester/ Nottingham/ Derby/ Sheffield (improved air quality where it's needed most, trains can charge whilst sat at stations, better acceleration from a standing start) but wiring these 'as is' locks those cities into a generation(s) of strained capacity... But waiting for such big stations to be expensively remodelled to wire them means one bigger costlier project at the time, making it easier for politicians to refuse to fund

Wiring in the countryside is less of a priority, where trains are already travelling at line speed and the air quality is better, but those bits don't constrain future capacity in the same way

 

[Railwaysceptic]

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.

Can't argue with that! (As Michael Parkinson used to say in a TV advert after he'd retired from the BBC)

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Electrification is one means to an end. Electrification can be a great tool, but it's not the only tool and it's certainly not a goal in it's own right. People buy hammers to do a specific job, the objective isn't too collect hammers.

...logical priorities to wire would be big urban areas like Leicester/ Nottingham/ Derby/ Sheffield (improved air quality where it's needed most, trains can charge whilst sat at stations, better acceleration from a standing start)...Wiring in the countryside is less of a priority, where trains are already travelling at line speed and the air quality is better, but those bits don't constrain future capacity in the same way

It really depends on what the job actually is. I think the long arm of climate policy (or rather, the interpretation thereof) has well and truly muddied the waters with railway electrification. What I mean is that if you assess NetZero (or whatever) compliance based on tailpipe emissions then you'll find that railways still majorly out-compete road haulage even if every train was diesel. So why would any politician put serious money into slightly increasing an already highly efficient system (in terms of carbon emitted for every passenger/tonne mile)? Framing OLE as a means to improve climate resillience/netzero is completely doomed to fail because it makes no sense under its own terms. Instead we must wonder why anyone anywhere in the world chose to electrify their railways at any time between 1900 and 2010 because very little of that would have been about air quality or climate policy.

Let's say there was no climate change to think about and no NetZero policies - BUT, improved batteries still existed. In this hypothetical, I don't think many railways would be that interested in switching to battery operation since it offers mostly downsides compared to diesel - unless conventional electrification was so widespread that you could charge underwires to go on minor/short branchlines.

The point of this hypothetical is to suggest that battery trains only exists because the policy approach to decarbonising transport has been put on backwards. It sees an exhaust pipe as the most important and only thing to get rid of. Let me be clear, this is a virtuous aim. Air quality, particulate matter, greenhouse gasses are a big deal for sure. However this approach forgets the "sustainable" bit. Climate Policy should not aim itself myopically at deleting as many ICE engines as possible - but at shifting general mode share away from majority cars and onto at least 50% public or active transport. This is a huge topic that also would need changes made to land/housing policy, urban development etc.

But it also needs railways to suddenly be able to carry way more goods and passengers than it can at the moment. The first thing for this would be a new network of high-speed lines but we all know about that. Also in there is the need to improve and invest in the existing network. Alongside grade separated junctions, extra tracks, resignalling, re-gauging and so on, is conventional electrification. This is because electrification provides many whole life savings across decades in terms of availability, reliability and upfront cost of rolling stock and maintenance of P-Way as well as overall energy efficiency. Although it is technically feasible to get the timetable benefits of conventional electrifiactoin with batteries, this is at the expense of bad reliability and complex/bespoke rolling stock and infrastructure. And we haven't even gotten to the crazy amount of risky and expensive innovation to become able to run a railway that is majority battery powered on mainline freight and express routes (which is what everyone here keeps proposing like it would be simply to put in place). This is innovation in operational procedures at the most general sense, not the technical feasibility of powering a train with a battery. You could power a train with hydrogen cells but it wouldn't be a good idea!

 

[Trainbike46]

Electrification to Dalmeney is praised because it'll allow bi-modes to use electricity at the city end without the hassle/ expense/ closures needed to wire the full route... they might wire other sections at a later date when money allows... but isn't that rather similar to the plans for the MML?

It's not at all similar: for the MML, the route was promised to be electrified in full, and this was cancelled TWICE. Pause is simply westminster-speak for cancelled.

Whereas in Scotland, a traction decarbonisation strategy was developed to consider the options for removing diesel traction from the network, and for Fife, this suggested partial electrification and BEMUs was the initial plan, with possible full electrification in the future (very long term future). They are now working on part of the electrification designed for that plan, the haymarket to Dalmeny electrification.

Clearly, commiting to a plan for full electrification twice, and then cancelling it twice, is rather different than planning partial electrification and delivering partial electrification (but more slowly than planned).

What Scotland should have done better is the rolling stock procurement; new EMUs and BEMUs should have been ordered by now, both to avoid the EMU shortage that means some turns on East Kilbride will remain diesel for a while, to replace the ageing 318s/320s, and to make a start on introducing BEMU services. However, I think it is important to separate failures of infrastructure projects from failures in train procurement.

For me the main problem with partial MML wiring (other than the stock problems when longest 222s get pinched for a speculative OAO) is that the logical priorities to wire would be big urban areas like Leicester/ Nottingham/ Derby/ Sheffield (improved air quality where it's needed most, trains can charge whilst sat at stations, better acceleration from a standing start) but wiring these 'as is' locks those cities into a generation(s) of strained capacity... But waiting for such big stations to be expensively remodelled to wire them means one bigger costlier project at the time, making it easier for politicians to refuse to fund

I'd be all for a strategy for the MML where the focus is on electrifying the bits that support BEMU operations. But that isn't what Westminster is doing; they're cancelling a well-developed phase of the project, and not putting anything else in place. This cancellation makes things like BEMUs around Sheffield less likely, not more likely.

 

[QSK19]

It's not at all similar: for the MML, the route was promised to be electrified in full, and this was cancelled TWICE. Pause is simply westminster-speak for cancelled.

Absolutely spot on. They must think we’re dimwits if they believe they can hoodwink us. Disgraceful to use the MML as a political plaything.

Going forward, never, ever believe it’s actually happening until the masts and wires go up. Even an announcement by the government should be taken with a pinch of salt - wait until actual construction happens.

 

[Killingworth]

Absolutely spot on. They must think we’re dimwits if they believe they can hoodwink us. Disgraceful to use the MML as a political plaything.

Going forward, never, ever believe it’s actually happening until the masts and wires go up. Even an announcement by the government should be taken with a pinch of salt - wait until actual construction happens.

Leaving aside HS2 East side originally via Meadowhall* to Leeds and beyond, then to Sheffield on a spur through Chesterfield, all now abandoned. That alteration added significant costs to an already massive budget that is now sucking the life out of countless other smaller improvements nationwide, including this one.

*George Stephenson must be looking down with wry amusement. His 1840 North Midland Railway from Derby to Leeds also by-passed Sheffield running from Chesterfield via Rotherham, the old road. It took another 30 years to get the new road built into Sheffield.

 

[NCT]

The M18 route was cheaper than Meadowhall and served Sheffield better.

 

[Technologist]

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?

Correct, I was quoting only the efficiency of regen when the brake is engaged. Total recovered energy in typical driving for EVs is similar to a train as cars tend to stop or slow far more frequently than trains.

 

[Nottingham59]

Correct, I was quoting only the efficiency of regen when the brake is engaged. Total recovered energy in typical driving for EVs is similar to a train as cars tend to stop or slow far more frequently than trains.

It depends if the freight train braking is predictable, say for a speed restriction over a viaduct, where the locomotive brakes can be used to gradually shed speed, well in advance of the speed restriction.

For situations where the train is running at line speed, say on the WCML, and the braking is initiated with a double yellow signal because the train is being put in a passing loop, then the driver will have to use the waggon brakes to stop in time with no way to capture that kinetic energy.

 

[edwin_m]

It depends if the freight train braking is predictable, say for a speed restriction over a viaduct, where the locomotive brakes can be used to gradually shed speed, well in advance of the speed restriction.

Doing so also increases its journey time, which might make the difference on whether it ends up sitting in a loop to be overtaken by a following passenger train. This negates some of the capacity benefit of electric freight haulage.

Regenerative braking on freight will recover a the largest proportion of energy in descending long gradients, when the locomotive brake on its own can be enough to keep the speed under control and the wagon brakes are available for extra stopping power should adverse signals be encountered.

 

[deltic08]

It depends if the freight train braking is predictable, say for a speed restriction over a viaduct, where the locomotive brakes can be used to gradually shed speed, well in advance of the speed restriction.

For situations where the train is running at line speed, say on the WCML, and the braking is initiated with a double yellow signal because the train is being put in a passing loop, then the driver will have to use the waggon brakes to stop in time with no way to capture that kinetic energy.

Is it possible to use regen braking at maximum effect and then add train braking simultaniously to bring the train to a standstill?

 

[eldomtom2]

Is it possible to use regen braking at maximum effect and then add train braking simultaniously to bring the train to a standstill?

Yes. Many trains have dynamic and air brakes controlled using the same handle.

 

[Harpo]

Is it possible to use regen braking at maximum effect and then add train braking simultaniously to bring the train to a standstill?

AC locos as far back as class 86 (possibly earlier too) bought speed down from 100mph to almost single digits using rheo (i.e. electric) braking on the loco and air/vacuum on the train blending automatically to straight air on the loco as it came to a stand.

 

[deltic08]

AC locos as far back as class 86 (possibly earlier too) bought speed down from 100mph to almost single digits using rheo (i.e. electric) braking on the loco and air/vacuum on the train blending automatically to straight air on the loco as it came to a stand.

Thank you both. So wouldn't it be better to feed this back into overhead lines for other trains use than to feed it back into solo batteries?

 

[edwin_m]

Thank you both. So wouldn't it be better to feed this back into overhead lines for other trains use than to feed it back into solo batteries?

If overhead lines are provided, then probably yes. Where they aren't then batteries are better than dumping it as heat in the braking resistors.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

some people mention this idea of batteries at railway feeder stations to help smooth demand, so it could charge those too if there weren't any other trains in the section

 

[Technologist]

Doing so also increases its journey time, which might make the difference on whether it ends up sitting in a loop to be overtaken by a following passenger train. This negates some of the capacity benefit of electric freight haulage.

Regenerative braking on freight will recover a the largest proportion of energy in descending long gradients, when the locomotive brake on its own can be enough to keep the speed under control and the wagon brakes are available for extra stopping power should adverse signals be encountered.

In the fullness of time it will be interesting to see if we can move freight to a BEMU position as well. The actual motor and battery you would need to fit to each wagon would be pretty tiny, something akin to the BYD Seagull (55KW) per rigid section would give you a better power to weight than a 5000KW electric locomotive at the front.

Looking at Greenbriers finical results the average cost of a wagon is $90,000 so fitting a drive train off a $20,000 car isn't going to break the bank, it also then leads you to lots of advantages around putting trains together as all vehicles are self propelled and if you up the power a bit ($500-1000 per wagon) then you can have freight trains that accelerate like passenger trains.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thank you both. So wouldn't it be better to feed this back into overhead lines for other trains use than to feed it back into solo batteries?

Better to put into whichever needs it. Returning it to the OLE is only useful of there is something else drawing power in the same feeding section.

 

[Mag_seven]

Can we stick to discussing MML Electrification in this thread please.

Discussion about other electrification schemes such as the rolling programme in Scotland should be in a different thread.

 

[WAO]

Quote from Select Committee:

DfT director general for rail services Alex Hynes was also on the panel and added: “Those sections for the North were lower value for money,..."

Southern prejudice at its best!

Midland Main Line electrification pause down to lack of funds and bi-mode trains, Hendy says | New Civil Engineer

The MML runs from St. Pancras to Sheffield, servicing many cities in the Midlands. Its electrification has been ongoing for some years, having started at

www.newcivilengineer.com

 

[londonmidland]

DfT director general for rail services Alex Hynes was also on the panel and added: “Those sections for the North were lower value for money,..."

So in other words, because it doesn’t directly involve London - or should I say because this part of the line is already electrified and upgraded - the rest of the line doesn’t matter.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Quote from Select Committee:

DfT director general for rail services Alex Hynes was also on the panel and added: “Those sections for the North were lower value for money,..."

Southern prejudice at its best!

Midland Main Line electrification pause down to lack of funds and bi-mode trains, Hendy says | New Civil Engineer

The MML runs from St. Pancras to Sheffield, servicing many cities in the Midlands. Its electrification has been ongoing for some years, having started at

www.newcivilengineer.com

Presumably there are 6tph each way that can benefit south of Kettering, 4tph south of Trent and 2tph on the legs to Nottingham and Derby/Sheffield? Well over 50% of the distance has been completed. Are ‘diminishing returns’ a factor beyond Wigston?

 

[WAO]

... and 4tph under the new wires south of Wigston.

I agree with you as far as Trent but the distances on to the two EM Cities are quite short (about 38 route miles in total from Leicester).

Even wiring to Leicester would be something.

WAO

 

[Nottingham59]

DfT director general for rail services Alex Hynes was also on the panel and added: “Those sections for the North were lower value for money,..."

Southern prejudice at its best!

It might just be a true statement, of course.

There are investments in the rail network in the north that would deliver far greater benefits per million pounds spent than electrifying the whole of the MML.

 

[Bald Rick]

DfT director general for rail services Alex Hynes was also on the panel and added: “Those sections for the North were lower value for money,..."

Southern prejudice at its best!

Let’s not forget that Alex Hynes is a confirmed Northerner, as anyone who has heard him speak will confirm.

 

[WAO]

I believe that it is factually true from an accounting perspective, because of the depressed regional economies and lower incomes compared say to Crossrail users. That's why Boris (of famous memory) talked of "levelling up". The establishment didn't like (paying for) it so got rid of him on easy pretext.

Better northern rail investments - trams at £50M/mile? NPH?

The tram bonanza (killing MMLe) is (IMHO) an attempt to get Labour's regional party heads back to supporting Starmer.

WAO

 

[Harpo]

That's why Boris……………The establishment didn't like (paying for) it so got rid of him on easy pretext.

Levelling up wasn’t even a flea bite in the clusterduck of buffoonery that did for Boris.

As has often been said of HS2, perhaps big projects need to work towards London instead of away from it and recognise benefits other than purely financial ones as the first priority. A bit less ‘capital’ in our capital expenditure.

 

[slowroad]

I believe that it is factually true from an accounting perspective, because of the depressed regional economies and lower incomes compared say to Crossrail users. That's why Boris (of famous memory) talked of "levelling up". The establishment didn't like (paying for) it so got rid of him on easy pretext.

Better northern rail investments - trams at £50M/mile? NPH?

The tram bonanza (killing MMLe) is (IMHO) an attempt to get Labour's regional party heads back to supporting Starmer.

WAO

Not so. National average values are used to value time, so if anything this is a “bias” against benefits that accrue in areas which actually have higher incomes. Productivity improvements consequent upon transport improvements are incorporated in the wider benefits - if there are greater opportunities in the “north” this should in principle be taken into account. It is also acceptable to give a higher weight to benefit a that accrue to people with relatively low incomes, though this is not often done. Overall, there is no reason to suppose the appraisal system is biased against the north, though the political decision making process may be.