MML Electrification: is it going to be completed?

[InTheEastMids]

Overall, there is no reason to suppose the appraisal system is biased against the north

However, we have, over 3-4 decades, led to the UK that we have, which is basically a 2nd world economy propped up by London, and why Levelling Up became a thing
The real issue for the East Mids now is that whilst the issue has been recognised, the focus is on the larger regional cities like Leeds and Manchester.

An article published on Monday on New Civil Engineer article (First article free, then £) appeared, setting out more pushback on the MMLE decision. Although the opposition seems quite minor (and perhaps driven more by Anti-A38, than pro-MMLE sentiment).

Campaign demands A38 Derby scheme funds be redirected to Midland Main Line electrification | 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

The basic idea from the campaigners is to take the money planned for the A38 Derby Junctions Upgrade (est £250m in 2019£) and divert it to MMLE. However that does assume that the A38 scheme is also funded. Whilst it has planning approval, I don't think the Full Business Case is complete so I don't think it is HMT Approved . So the big commitment and new debt is a few years away still, whereas the MMLE would have been spending in 25/26. I suspect this matters.

Trying to understand the status of the A38 scheme, I also saw this absolutely glorious sentence in BBC coverage from last year. Does it sound familiar?
"Public consultations about improving the A38 in Derby began in 2001, but the plans have been repeatedly paused and redesigned."

A38 Derby junctions: Judge backs government over campaigners

Environmental campaigners who oppose the plans say they will continue their fight.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[slowroad]

However, we have, over 3-4 decades, led to the UK that we have, which is basically a 2nd world economy propped up by London, and why Levelling Up became a thing
The real issue for the East Mids now is that whilst the issue has been recognised, the focus is on the larger regional cities like Leeds and Manchester.

An article published on Monday on New Civil Engineer article (First article free, then £) appeared, setting out more pushback on the MMLE decision. Although the opposition seems quite minor (and perhaps driven more by Anti-A38, than pro-MMLE sentiment).

Campaign demands A38 Derby scheme funds be redirected to Midland Main Line electrification | 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

The basic idea from the campaigners is to take the money planned for the A38 Derby Junctions Upgrade (est £250m in 2019£) and divert it to MMLE. However that does assume that the A38 scheme is also funded. Whilst it has planning approval, I don't think the Full Business Case is complete so I don't think it is HMT Approved . So the big commitment and new debt is a few years away still, whereas the MMLE would have been spending in 25/26. I suspect this matters.

Trying to understand the status of the A38 scheme, I also saw this absolutely glorious sentence in BBC coverage from last year. Does it sound familiar?
"Public consultations about improving the A38 in Derby began in 2001, but the plans have been repeatedly paused and redesigned."

A38 Derby junctions: Judge backs government over campaigners

Environmental campaigners who oppose the plans say they will continue their fight.

www.bbc.co.uk

AFAIU further electrification of the MML would offer relatively limited benefits, in contrast to the A38 junctions (the views of the campaign group can be dismissed; their whole objective is to favour public over private transport).

 

[tbtc]

There's still no compelling argument why (in an era of increasingly expensive electrification and increasingly cheaper battery technology) we absolutely must wire the full MML, just understandable frustration at seemingly broken promises and some anti-London sentiment

If we can have fast accelerating 'zero tailpipe' emission trains on the MML cheaper and sooner then does it really matter what the power source is?

Overhead wires are great but not at any price/ timeframe/ disruption

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

The idea that Johnson had any actual plan to actually 'level up' left behind towns and cities is... optimistic at best

He sold people a tale they wanted to hear, with limited details, they fell for it, the Tories won a lot of "red wall" seats as Corbyn's Labour was routed.

Nobody comes out of that particularly well, but I can't believe anyone thinks that Johnson was offed because he had a genuine radical plan to equaliser living standards/ job prospects etc

(it's not at if he had any master plan for Brexit either, he's a salesman rather than a deliverer)

You're unhappy that money is getting spent on local trams for local people, rather than wiring the MML? Sure, why can't we have both etc.

But imagine the furore if any government took money from locally devolved budgets for light rail and spent it all on improving the train line to London instead - there'd be just as many complaints about how 'this is only happening because these trains benefit MPs heading to London rather than revitalising post-industrial towns' etc

 

[Trainbike46]

There's still no compelling argument why (in an era of increasingly expensive electrification and increasingly cheaper battery technology) we absolutely must wire the full MML, just understandable frustration at seemingly broken promises and some anti-London sentiment

If we can have fast accelerating 'zero tailpipe' emission trains on the MML cheaper and sooner then does it really matter what the power source is?

A compelling argument for partial electrification certainly could be made, but that is emphatically not what the government is doing - the government is cancelling what was planned without any replacement.

A BEMU solution would require at least some electrification - likely at the further ends (e.g. Sheffield, Nottingham). That's now not happening; as I stated earlier, the government decision makes both EMUs and BEMUs on the MML and around Nottingham/Sheffield/etc. less likely, not more likely.

The idea that Johnson had any actual plan to actually 'level up' left behind towns and cities is... optimistic at best

He sold people a tale they wanted to hear, with limited details, they fell for it, the Tories won a lot of "red wall" seats as Corbyn's Labour was routed.

Nobody comes out of that particularly well, but I can't believe anyone thinks that Johnson was offed because he had a genuine radical plan to equaliser living standards/ job prospects etc

Johnson never had a plan for levelling up, I think that is entirely clear. What is also clear is that Johnson was offed because he embarrassed the wrong people.

 

[Killingworth]

A big part of the funding for all electrification schemes isn't the actual wiring. It's the need to refresh, and in some places totally rebuild, infrastructure that goes back to the Victorian era. We have a railway that's suffered over 100 years of alterations, removals and a few modern additions. Drainage and signalling may need replacement, tracks slewed, junctions and platforms reconfigured.

Getting major long term benefits needs more than bimodes travelling a few more miles beneath live wires. They're something of a red herring.

 

[QSK19]

Here’s something that I would be tempted to stake a quid on at the bookies… no MMLE expansion before 2075. That’s how pessimistic I have become - 50 years from now, every other line equal to the MML in status will have been done, the MML being missed out due to:
- When it finally gets to the top of the list each time, it loses out through money being spent or mismanaged elsewhere;
- The dream that battery technology will negate any electrification. I feel that so many eggs are going into the hope of converting the 810s into battery-electric bi-modes (my own feeling, not based on any documented evidence) that the determination will be that wires aren’t needed.

I hope I am proved wrong, but I think my imaginary bet may come out a winner.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2025 ==

The idea that Johnson had any actual plan to actually 'level up' left behind towns and cities is... optimistic at best
He sold people a tale they wanted to hear, with limited details, they fell for it, the Tories won a lot of "red wall" seats as Corbyn's Labour was routed.

Without wanting to stray too much into politics, it’s hardly like Labour have done any better in their disgraceful 13 months in government.

Their salvation railways-wise may be the successful launch and operation of GBR, but even this is flawed - for a government that so hellbent on its eco credentials, diesel trains rolling into the home city of GBR is embarrassing!

I can imagine the launch being at the OLE section of either Alstom or Etches Park. 810 pulls in pan up, selling a falsehood that Derby has been electrified.

 

[eldomtom2]

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.

Didn't Labour make a lot of noise about changing how BCRs are calculated because of a perceived problem that supposedly led to a bias towards London?

 

[deltic08]

A big part of the funding for all electrification schemes isn't the actual wiring. It's the need to refresh, and in some places totally rebuild, infrastructure that goes back to the Victorian era. We have a railway that's suffered over 100 years of alterations, removals and a few modern additions. Drainage and signalling may need replacement, tracks slewed, junctions and platforms reconfigured.

Getting major long term benefits needs more than bimodes travelling a few more miles beneath live wires. They're something of a red herring.

but the phases to Trent Jnc are 80% complete and just require wiring that has been brought down to the lowest cost per single track kilometre since GWML electrification. Half the cost I understand at £2.7m/stk. Not taking advantage of the work already done is complete waste of millions of money already spent and not having another 30 miles of electrification to show for it.

 

[WAO]

The idea that Johnson had any actual plan to actually 'level up' left behind towns and cities is... optimistic at best.

He had ideas rather than plans - like funding elderly care beyond a cap, paid for by extra NI. COVID (and Truss) intervened before he could be tested.

He sold people a tale they wanted to hear, with limited details, they fell for it, the Tories won a lot of "red wall" seats as Corbyn's Labour was routed.

Yes, he was an effective politician, like Trump, and he got votes, like Farage will. (not my recommendation).

You're unhappy that money is getting spent on local trams for local people, rather than wiring the MML? Sure, why can't we have both etc.

I'm unhappy that £6.1Bn has been allocated to Sheffield, Nottingham and B'ham for trams, when the mere 38 miles for the next step of MMLe, at only perhaps, c£10M/route mile, is binned.

I agree we could have both, just by trimming the trams a little.

But imagine the furore if any government took money from locally devolved budgets for light rail and spent it all on improving the train line to London instead - there'd be just as many complaints about how 'this is only happening because these trains benefit MPs heading to London rather than revitalising post-industrial towns' etc

You don't revitalise towns by making them look inwards. The money isn't a local budget it's a Govt grant.

WAO

 

[duffield]

AFAIU further electrification of the MML would offer relatively limited benefits, in contrast to the A38 junctions (the views of the campaign group can be dismissed; their whole objective is to favour public over private transport).

I disagree that it (completing MML electrification) offers limited benefits. Here is my non-exhaustive list:

• The obvious, standard benefits (air pollution reduction, decarbonisation, cheaper to run etc.)
• Allows cascading of the Bi-modes 810s to (say) Cross Country
• Facilitates BEMUs on the Matlock branch with no extra infrastructure**
• Facilitates BEMUs from Nottingham to Birmingham with no extra infrastructure**
• Facilitates BEMUs from Nottingham to Crewe with no extra infrastructure**
• Allows the forthcoming (from December) isolated Nottingham to Leicester stopping service to run with any old used EMUs
• With Sheffield station done, a small extra infill from Sheffield to Moorthorpe gives continuous electrification from Derby to York for use by Cross Country (e.g. with the 810s) and some further EMU use e.g. Sheffield to Leeds via Wakefield Westgate and facilitates other BEMU schemes.

** Splitting of some through services to the east of Nottingham required.


Its wider benefits seem to have been entirely ignored in favour of a narrow view based on just the MML intercity service alone.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

If we can have fast accelerating 'zero tailpipe' emission trains on the MML cheaper and sooner then does it really matter what the power source is?

Electrification is a strategic benefit to the railway measurable at a large (time and geography) scale. As in, the benefits of real electrification are measured in the decades after completion. Using batteries to remove tailpipe emissions, while achieving direct emissions goals, does nothing for actual sustainability over diesel engines: trains are just as expensive/complex in procurement/maintenance, requires intensive extraction of finite resources for the production of batteries, and the major one: energy efficiency is still the same.

Electrification also has the benefit of being a known and well understand technology in terms of operational procedures and methods. Any of the battery solutions suggested here would need a risky, expensive and time consuming development phase to actually be put into practice. This is especially true for a mixed traffic railway like MML that handles high volumes of freight and variation between intercity and local services. Freight and Intercity interact with many other areas so the boundaries of "decarbonising" MML with battery/discontinuous undergoes a lot of scope creep. There is exactly one discontinuous system in use (Core Valley Lines), which is a system designed to support exactly 1 type of traffic.

Battery solutions also make rolling stock highly specific to an area of infrastructure (and vice versa) crippling the concept of fleet cascades. And the discontinuous electrification aspect make them generally less reliable as the infrastructure must have even higher availability in a way that isn't required with diesels. This means what little electrification is deemed necessary for a discontinuous system is itself more expensive and bespoke and among one project, the costs are not as well spread out.

A big part of the funding for all electrification schemes isn't the actual wiring. It's the need to refresh, and in some places totally rebuild, infrastructure that goes back to the Victorian era. We have a railway that's suffered over 100 years of alterations, removals and a few modern additions. Drainage and signalling may need replacement, tracks slewed, junctions and platforms reconfigured.

Getting major long term benefits needs more than bimodes travelling a few more miles beneath live wires. They're something of a red herring.

For MML RS3 there is more detail on this. Referring to STK cost, 20% is OLE and distribution assets, 25% is structure rebuilds, 55% is contract handling including paying TOCs for long possessions. (These are noel dolphin numbers) Hopefully that latter detail does not exist in GBR. But "contract handling" in general should be something that is actually possible to cut down on. Obviously different projects will have different spreads if there are particularly difficult clearances involved that go wrong in construction. But I imagine the proportions don't majorly change from this.

Without wanting to stray too much into politics, it’s hardly like Labour have done any better in their disgraceful 13 months in government.

Oddly enough, if you consider Tony Blair's era. Tories have a significantly better track record in at least sometimes investing in something. Tories are also responsible for some of the worst moves (cancelling HS2, privatisation) but also a lot of genuinely good progress made in the last few years notably in actual electrification. Labour just tends to let it fester in stagnation

 

[HSTEd]

Electrification is a strategic benefit to the railway measurable at a large (time and geography) scale. As in, the benefits of real electrification are measured in the decades after completion. Using batteries to remove tailpipe emissions, while achieving direct emissions goals, does nothing for actual sustainability over diesel engines: trains are just as expensive/complex in procurement/maintenance, requires intensive extraction of finite resources for the production of batteries, and the major one: energy efficiency is still the same.

Of the dominant components in the likely modern battery technology (lithium iron phosphate), only lithium is in meaningfully constrained supply.
And the lithium in a battery pack is largely recyclable.

Its not as if overhead electrification doesn't require similar mining, where do you think the worn copper and silver from overhead contact wires goes?
At least the battery remains in one unit that can be shipped to disposal and recycling rather than being scattered to the literal wind.

The energy efficiency and complexity of a battery train are much closer to an electric train than to a diesel one.
A battery train needs one additional moving part, a cooling pump, compared to an electric one.

Electrification also has the benefit of being a known and well understand technology in terms of operational procedures and methods. Any of the battery solutions suggested here would need a risky, expensive and time consuming development phase to actually be put into practice.

Well Electrification is a well understood technology that is well understood to be extremely expensive. Even the proposed rates for Wigston-East Midlands are way too high to be sustainable over much of the railway.
They'd have to fall by half to two thirds before large scale continuous electrification beyond that which exists could be justified.

There is some risk in the deployment of battery trains to be sure, but it is a pretty minor risk given there is lots of experience in electric trains and lithium batteries. Indeed extensive experience of battery trains in other parts of the world does exist.
It is highly unlikely to fail.

This is especially true for a mixed traffic railway like MML that handles high volumes of freight and variation between intercity and local services. Freight and Intercity interact with many other areas so the boundaries of "decarbonising" MML with battery/discontinuous undergoes a lot of scope creep.

The majority of intercity traffic on the MML is simply Sheffield/Nottingham to London and back. It's not really "integrated".
And XC will likely be on diesel for a significant period yet.

As for freight, freight is highly unlikely to use electric traction whatever happens, so it doesn't really affect much.
They will just use the Class 66 or Class 70 like they always have.

attery solutions also make rolling stock highly specific to an area of infrastructure (and vice versa) crippling the concept of fleet cascades.

Does it?
A battery train can do anything an EMU can do, and a battery train can do anything a battery train with less range can do.

And the discontinuous electrification aspect make them generally less reliable as the infrastructure must have even higher availability in a way that isn't required with diesels. This means what little electrification is deemed necessary for a discontinuous system is itself more expensive and bespoke and among one project, the costs are not as well spread out.

On the other hand, electrification that does not exist cannot fail.

A discontinuous electrification scheme also fails more gracefully than a conventional one, because even if it fails to the point that service cannot continue it is unlikely to strand trains in the middle of nowhere.

For MML RS3 there is more detail on this. Referring to STK cost, 20% is OLE and distribution assets, 25% is structure rebuilds, 55% is contract handling including paying TOCs for long possessions. (These are noel dolphin numbers) Hopefully that latter detail does not exist in GBR. But "contract handling" in general should be something that is actually possible to cut down on. Obviously different projects will have different spreads if there are particularly difficult clearances involved that go wrong in construction. But I imagine the proportions don't majorly change from this.

Whether in GBR or not, the costs of long possessions have to be paid by someone.
Trains will be cancelled, buses will cost money and ticket revenue will be lost.

You can't just make it vanish into thin air to make the electrification figures look better.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’ll state at the outset that I very much want the MML fully electrified, and behond Sheffiled to Moorthorpe snd Doncaster. However there are some generic comments that I cannot let pass…

Using batteries to remove tailpipe emissions, while achieving direct emissions goals, does nothing for actual sustainability over diesel engines: trains are just as expensive/complex in procurement/maintenance,

Battery trains are far from as expensive and complex in procurement and especially maintenance as diesel trains. The additional maintenance requirement of a battery EMU over a regular EMU is essentially nil.

requires intensive extraction of finite resources for the production of batteries, and the major one: energy efficiency is still the same.

1) extraction of the finite resource for a few tonnes of battery per train, vs the extraction of finite resource for foundations, masts, registration arms, the overhead line itself, lineside distribution equipment which collectively is over a hundred tonnes per single track kilometre, plus all the finite resources for the associated works ... which uses the most finite resources?

2) energy efficiency is likely to be slightly better for battery trains, as while the system loses are slightly larger, there is much more scope for regen and more efficient power deployment.

Any of the battery solutions suggested here would need a risky, expensive and time consuming development phase to actually be put into practice.

But they are already developed, and being put in practice all over eurooe including in this country.

Battery solutions also make rolling stock highly specific to an area of infrastructure (and vice versa) crippling the concept of fleet cascades.

Not at all. It enables more flexibility.

55% is contract handling including paying TOCs for long possessions. (These are noel dolphin numbers)

‘Contract handling’ includes all manner of things. Project management. Contract management. Procurement. Risk. Mobilisation. Preliminaries. Testing and commissioning. ‘Clients costs’ (which include possession costs, as well as compensation to operators).

 

[eldomtom2]

But they are already developed, and being put in practice all over eurooe including in this country.

This is true, but we haven't yet seen battery EMUs suitable for use on something like MML express services ordered yet. Of course that definitely doesn't mean they're impossible, but so far railway companies have been ordering tri-modes instead - see Lumo's recent order for instance.

 

[Yew]

I think the DfT have forgotten the point of the government, the goal is not to run the most cost-effective railway, it is to deliver the most economic growth. Electrifying lines in deprived areas has wider macroeconomic impacts, creating jobs during construction, then, reducing journey times and increasing reliability afterwards. It is a clear signifier that the government is committed to redeveloping the deindustrialised areas in the midlands, and that the government is on the same page as businesses that might be looking to set up shop in the area.

By focusing on narrow ROI calculations, the government is missing the point and pursuing a local optimum, as opposed to optimising at a national scale across the whole economy. If we want businesses to establish themselves in the midlands, the government needs to put its hand in its pocket, and take the initiative.

 

[WAO]

‘Contract handling’ includes all manner of things. Project management. Contract management. Procurement. Risk. Mobilisation. Preliminaries. Testing and commissioning. ‘Clients costs’ (which include possession costs, as well as compensation to operators).

If you buy in all these activities at consultancy rates then your costs will be much higher than if they were mostly internal costs incurred by an employed team on a rolling program, even a modest one. You also need staff to supervise and check a consultancy contract, increasing the headcount. Even if you do outsource, you need to be able to define work scope very accurately or be faced with high variations costs. The "pegs" were an instance of this lesson being learned.

Also compensation to a profit seeking TOC will be much higher than merely a questionable loss of revenue at a quiet time when passengers mostly travel earlier or later than the previously advertised possession.

When the Egyptians built a pyramid, they had the good sense to build it flat side down. We, by contrast, in creating pyramidical management structures prefer the flat side at the top. When cost instability looms, we merely sharpen the point.

WAO

 

[Technologist]

I think the DfT have forgotten the point of the government, the goal is not to run the most cost-effective railway, it is to deliver the most economic growth. Electrifying lines in deprived areas has wider macroeconomic impacts, creating jobs during construction, then, reducing journey times and increasing reliability afterwards. It is a clear signifier that the government is committed to redeveloping the deindustrialised areas in the midlands, and that the government is on the same page as businesses that might be looking to set up shop in the area.

By focusing on narrow ROI calculations, the government is missing the point and pursuing a local optimum, as opposed to optimising at a national scale across the whole economy. If we want businesses to establish themselves in the midlands, the government needs to put its hand in its pocket, and take the initiative.

The general point is reasonable, however the more specific point is that battery trains fundamentally undermine the need for electrification and are straight up better trains than EMUs. Thus the better answer would be to get GBR to plan the network around what battery train could do not what manufacturers currently offer. Then put the investment into making sure that the UK leads on BEMU rolling stock, chargers and modifying railways to take account of the massive acceleration that BEMUs can provide.

 

[WAO]

Do you include HS2 stock?

WAO

 

[Bald Rick]

This is true, but we haven't yet seen battery EMUs suitable for use on something like MML express services ordered yet.

Sort of, but we have seen very little in the way of any new trains ordered in the last 5 years. What we have seen, though, is the TPE 802 battery trial which by all accounts was very successful.

If you buy in all these activities at consultancy rates then your costs will be much higher than if they were mostly internal costs incurred by an employed team on a rolling program, even a modest one.

Of course, but not all those activities are bought in.

 

[eldomtom2]

Sort of, but we have seen very little in the way of any new trains ordered in the last 5 years.

Yes, but I'm also talking about what's happening in other countries as well. I can't think of any intercity BEMUs outside of the UK.

What we have seen, though, is the TPE 802 battery trial which by all accounts was very successful.

That was a tri-mode trial though, wasn't it? Tri-mode multiple units for intercity use I'd definitely consider proven, and we're seeing that with orders of tri-modes for LNER and Lumo; it's battery EMUs with no diesel capability I'm less certain about.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, but I'm also talking about what's happening in other countries as well. I can't think of any intercity BEMUs outside of the UK.

That was a tri-mode trial though, wasn't it? Tri-mode multiple units for intercity use I'd definitely consider proven, and we're seeing that with orders of tri-modes for LNER and Lumo; it's battery EMUs with no diesel capability I'm less certain about.

It was trialled as battery only as part of the trial (as well as tri mode).

The point about Intercity BEMUs doesnt really matter though - electrons don’t know or care what market segment the train they are energising is working on.