Definitely Not MML Electrification progress updates: A6006 bridge reconstruction

[InTheEastMids]

Network Rail have publicly set out the plan to close the A6006 at Normanton on Soar to allow demolition and replacement of Kirk Hill Bridge

The letter from Network Rail has no reference to the "E word" because apparently it's been about freight clearances all along. The 10 year, 279 page "MML Electrification progress updates" thread was a kind of fever dream and the planning application for this work that said it was for electrification was all down to a clerical error by the lad on work experience.

The image below is a screenshot from the letter sent to local stakeholders. To summarise.
- Work starts on site on 29th September
- The road closes completely on 6th October
- Bridge demolition at Christmas
- Construction during 2026
- All works complete and road reopened by 1st September 2026.



11 months does seem like a very long time to do the work.

Edited - improved clarity about the text contained in the image.

 

[edwin_m]

To be fair, it probably provides clearance for both electrification and larger container gauges. And with it happening on this timescale the contract would have been signed (with penalties for cancellation) before the programme itself was stopped.

However, larger gauge freight (not all freight as implied by the text) can't run unless all other bridges on the section have similarly larger clearances. If any remain with no enlargement in hand then the immediate benefit is zero.

 

[DarloRich]

i don't understand what the issue is? A bridge is being rebuilt?

 

[John R]

i don't understand what the issue is? A bridge is being rebuilt?

Reading the OP the planning application said it was for electrification, but despite the “pausing” of that project it is still going ahead.

Good if NR is managing to get a bit more critical pre-wiring work done somehow.

 

[DarloRich]

Good if NR is managing to get a bit more critical pre-wiring work done somehow.

exactly!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Reading the OP the planning application said it was for electrification, but despite the “pausing” of that project it is still going ahead.

Good if NR is managing to get a bit more critical pre-wiring work done somehow.

Indeed. As far as I am concerned, good steady progress and very welcome.

 

[BurtonM]

11 months, half of which will be contractors being paid to do nothing no doubt. It's faster than a bridge replacement over a motorway, but it's still ridiculously long.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Good if NR is managing to get a bit more critical pre-wiring work done somehow

And with it happening on this timescale the contract would have been signed

Yes, agree with Edwin_m, the thing that tickled me was that it seems pretty obvious that this bridge replacement had got past the point of no return when MMLE was stopped, but would rather concoct a new rationale than admit what everybody basically knows to be true (not saying freight clearance is not a benefit, but it was not the main benefit sought, and would be interested to know if this is the intervention that suddenly unlocks more freight potential)

Also agree with the point that anything that makes future enhancements easier is probably a good thing. Not sure the timing is brilliant for the locals as there's also been disruption from replacement of the River Soar bridge at Zouch about a mile down the road.

Network Rail had also managed to get the locals annoyed with their plan to reconstruct the nearby Marle Pit Hill overbridge a bit further north. From the look of correspondence, the LPA were probably going to reject it. However, Network Rail have withdrawn this application as you might expect for a scheme that was less mature at the point MMLE was paused.

 

[DelW]

11 months, half of which will be contractors being paid to do nothing no doubt. It's faster than a bridge replacement over a motorway, but it's still ridiculously long.

Since you evidently have access to the detailed scope of works, and have expertise in programming bridge reconstruction works, perhaps you could specify exactly how the programme could be shortened?

Or perhaps the professional engineers who have produced the programme understand it better than you do?

 

[InOban]

Almost certainly the extended time is because there are utilities under the road which need to be diverted and then reinstated

 

[John R]

I recall an enhancement to the layout on the Harrogate side of York station was cancelled at a few days notice recently, on government instruction. At the time it was noted that the contract penalties at that stage probably meant little or no cost saving over having the work done. So hopefully NR has since made the point that once a contract is let, it’s not at all sensible to stop work which will result in large penalty payments.

 

[skyhigh]

I recall an enhancement to the layout on the Harrogate side of York station was cancelled at a few days notice recently, on government instruction.

Work had already started too - in particular clearance, new OHLE stantions and there is some new pointwork line side, all part of the project as far as I know. Haven't seen any movement but it just shows that even if work has started there's no guarantee a project will continue.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Work had already started too - in particular clearance, new OHLE stantions and there is some new pointwork line side, all part of the project as far as I know. Haven't seen any movement but it just shows that even if work has started there's no guarantee a project will continue.

So short that the disruptive weekend possession was cancelled but LNER couldn't revert the timetable back. Cabins for the possession were being set up at the time.

Materials new just lying there with vegetation growing round them.

 

[DarloRich]

11 months, half of which will be contractors being paid to do nothing no doubt. It's faster than a bridge replacement over a motorway, but it's still ridiculously long.

Whilst I am sure you know best perhaps you could help the rest of us by expanding on what should be done better or quicker?

 

[nwales58]

Of course any civils job can be done faster and cheaper. E.g. awful memories here of Maesdu bridge in Llandudno: 6 month closure (the maximum acceptable to residents and councillors) and £1.5m budget, outturn was 9 months and £4m. Who could have predicted there were so many unmapped utilities?

So be grateful if the project has been carefully planned then starts and ends on schedule.

 

[kevjs]

I see that a number of nearby roads are also to be closed to prevent rat-running through the nearby villages, and another benefit has been added to the list - the ability to run a tamping machine (the wordings implies just the once, but I assume that once you've enough height for electrification that's a permanent benefit?)

Minimal disruption to passengers during Rushcliffe bridge replacement - but roads closed for 9 months | West Bridgford Wire

Network Rail will soon begin major reconstruction work at Kirk Hill bridge in Sutton Bonington – with minimal disruption to train services. Featured

westbridgfordwire.com

The project will see the structure demolished and replaced with a new bridge which offers a range of benefits. These include:

• removing the risk of a speed restriction owing to track quality. The bridge removal means our tamping machine can run through the area, compacting the ballast beneath railway sleepers to keep the line straight and provide a stable and smooth ride
• providing enough space for freight trains on this section of the railway – lowering freight journey times and helping to reduce congestion by taking lorries off the road
• giving enough space between trains and the bridge for additional equipment, should the Midland Main Line electrification project be reinstated.

Work at Kirk Hill bridge is set to begin on Saturday 27 September, when the A6006 Rempstone Road will have a single-lane closure and traffic lights in place. A full road closure – on both approaches to the bridge – will be needed from Monday 6 October until July 2026, with a diversion in place.*

The demolition of the existing bridge will take place on Thursday 25 December. This will not disrupt passengers as trains do not run in this area on Christmas Day or Boxing Day.

The new bridge construction is planned to begin in mid-February 2026 and expected to take about four weeks. This work will be done entirely during overnight weekend shifts – meaning minimal disruption for passengers.

From mid-March 2026 to the project’s target completion date in September 2026, we will be carrying out parapet installation, bridge deck and abutment work, meeting highway and utility requirements, and taking down the temporary work compound to reinstate the site.

Katie Oliver, Network Rail lead portfolio manager, said: “This upgrade at Kirk Hill bridge will help future-proof the railway in Sutton Bonington, improving reliability for passengers and supporting freight growth.

“We’ve planned the work carefully to minimise disruption, and we’re grateful to the local community for their patience while we deliver these improvements.”

*Diversion routes must be the same type of road as the road being closed, which means some additional nearby road closures to avoid them being used as shortcuts. Therefore, the following will also be closed from Monday 6 October 2025 to Friday 17 July 2026:

• Landcroft Lane, Sutton Bonington (east of the University of Nottingham site for about a quarter of a mile)
• Hungary Lane, Sutton Bonington (junction with Main Street, near the rail bridge)
• Butt Lane, Sutton Bonington (both sides of the rail bridge)
• Brickyard Lane, Normanton on Soar (junction of Brickyard Lane and Travell’s Hill)
• Dark Lane, West Leake (junction of Dark Lane and Main Street)

 

[edwin_m]

Minimal disruption to passengers during Rushcliffe bridge replacement - but roads closed for 9 months | West Bridgford Wire

Network Rail will soon begin major reconstruction work at Kirk Hill bridge in Sutton Bonington – with minimal disruption to train services. Featured

westbridgfordwire.com

The same link includes:

• giving enough space between trains and the bridge for additional equipment, should the Midland Main Line electrification project be reinstated.

This must come from a NR press release, so they are at least now acknowledging that angle.

 

[InTheEastMids]

This must come from a NR press release, so they are at least now acknowledging that angle.

My view is that this has happened because Network Rail tried at first to do a "full 1984" and pretend that it had never been about electrification, but got some challenge from stakeholders and members of the public with memories stretching as far back as April 2025.

On the related point, there do seem to be continuing rumblings about transport spending in the Midlands and obviously MMLE was the big East Midlands scheme that was cancelled. So, here we are. The South East is getting Lower Thames Crossing! The West Midlands is getting HS2 and Midlands Rail Hub (West)! The East Midlands is getting the A6006 Kirk Hill Bridge Replacement Scheme!

 

[Senex]

My view is that this has happened because Network Rail tried at first to do a "full 1984" and pretend that it had never been about electrification, but got some challenge from stakeholders and members of the public with memories stretching as far back as April 2025.

On the related point, there do seem to be continuing rumblings about transport spending in the Midlands and obviously MMLE was the big East Midlands scheme that was cancelled. So, here we are. The South East is getting Lower Thames Crossing! The West Midlands is getting HS2 and Midlands Rail Hub (West)! The East Midlands is getting the A6006 Kirk Hill Bridge Replacement Scheme!

What do you expect? The East Midlands just doesn't seem to have any political clout, no matter which lot are having their turn in power.

 

[RGM654]

I see that a number of nearby roads are also to be closed to prevent rat-running through the nearby villages, and another benefit has been added to the list - the ability to run a tamping machine (the wordings implies just the once, but I assume that once you've enough height for electrification that's a permanent benefit?)

Minimal disruption to passengers during Rushcliffe bridge replacement - but roads closed for 9 months | West Bridgford Wire

Network Rail will soon begin major reconstruction work at Kirk Hill bridge in Sutton Bonington – with minimal disruption to train services. Featured

westbridgfordwire.com

Are they really saying that limited clearance under the old bridge has prevented use of a tamping machine? If it has, surely the same would apply to hundreds of bridges all over the country.

 

[hwl]

My view is that this has happened because Network Rail tried at first to do a "full 1984" and pretend that it had never been about electrification, but got some challenge from stakeholders and members of the public with memories stretching as far back as April 2025.

On the related point, there do seem to be continuing rumblings about transport spending in the Midlands and obviously MMLE was the big East Midlands scheme that was cancelled. So, here we are. The South East is getting Lower Thames Crossing! The West Midlands is getting HS2 and Midlands Rail Hub (West)! The East Midlands is getting the A6006 Kirk Hill Bridge Replacement Scheme!

The reality is that several department were done over at the last minute in the spending review because Sizewell C didn't meet the classification as a "sustainability project" for private sector investment purposes for fund managers hence the government needed to find £7.5bn for Sizewell C (ealry stage keep the ball rolling which makes it easier to get private sector funding for the rest and sell some of the ealry costs to the private sector if there aren't overruns later in construction) in hurry after Easter...
LTC will be mostly private sector funded with tolls, the government is picking up the early costs directly such as land purchasing, utilities diversion and early civils for the non tunnel sections but the rest of those bits will be private sector.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Are they really saying that limited clearance under the old bridge has prevented use of a tamping machine? If it has, surely the same would apply to hundreds of bridges all over the country.

As a general statement many bridges have had ‘tight’ clearances ever since continuous welded rail and deeper concrete sleepers with shoulder ballast became a thing, as far back as the 1960s. So formations often ‘dip’ under bridges anyway.

Track maintenance operations, whether tamping, stone blowing or whatever tend to ‘lift’ the track unless things are carefully controlled. Hence datum plates, absolute track geometry and so forth.

So the opportunity to get a bit more scope for ‘normal’ tamping operations is very handy.

[This is very much a lay person view. I am NOT a permanent way engineer!]

 

[hwl]

It is worth pointing out that this section of route (between Syston and Trent Jns) is currently only W8.
See old map below:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Enhanced-W10-loading-gauge-map-of-the-network.pdf

the key to the map is interesting yellow (which includes between Syston and Trent Jns) = "Proposed W10Gauge Route under development - outcome including date to be determined"

Hence it is likely that W10 with and without electrification was assessed.

W10 on this section would be useful to help with some ECML timetabling issues and also help reduce the number of items needing doing for electrification at a later date (reducing the delivery time and cost when reassessed in the future).

 

[InTheEastMids]

Hence it is likely that W10 with and without electrification was assessed.

W10 on this section would be useful to help with some ECML timetabling issues and also help reduce the number of items needing doing for electrification at a later date (reducing the delivery time and cost when reassessed in the future).

100% behind the idea of increasing freight. This is a 4-track section and I think the slow lines only have the freight and hourly Leicester-Lincoln stopper?

My question is whether this bridge is the sole structure that is standing in the way of this clearance.

e.g. NR applied for consent to demolish and rebuild Marle Pit Hill bridge (next road north) for MMLE, but have now withdrawn the application.
So is this bridge OK for W10? If so, great.
If not, then trying to justify the A6006 works on the basis of gauge clearance is a tad hollow.

 

[hwl]

100% behind the idea of increasing freight. This is a 4-track section and I think the slow lines only have the freight and hourly Leicester-Lincoln stopper?

My question is whether this bridge is the sole structure that is standing in the way of this clearance.

e.g. NR applied for consent to demolish and rebuild Marle Pit Hill bridge (next road north) for MMLE, but have now withdrawn the application.
So is this bridge OK for W10? If so, great.
If not, then trying to justify the A6006 works on the basis of gauge clearance is a tad hollow.

The art of salami slicing - if it gets it down to just 1 outstanding structure after this one...

 

[The exile]

We’re always asking why electrification schemes are so much more expensive here than elsewhere. Here’s one classic way to get the “paper cost” down - do as much work as you can under other budget headings….

 

[swt_passenger]

We’re always asking why electrification schemes are so much more expensive here than elsewhere. Here’s one classic way to get the “paper cost” down - do as much work as you can under other budget headings….

That’s exactly what they did on the ECML, apparently a lot of bridges in Northumberland were modified to increase clearances for 125 mph HST running, because the track had to be properly ballasted, and cant increased. So they generally allowed for future wiring as well.

 

[cle]

The subversive devil on my shoulder did love the dogged 'creep' of the MML electrification north. Of course, it can't in reality be a surprise or a hoodwink - but it's fun to imagine. And if prep work continues under the guide of road improvements or freight projects - great.

And indeed if certain things become operationally critical - not in the name of the electrification scheme Westminster, honest! - but for freight and maintenance and other ambiguous opex-y things - then maybe pieces like Leicester station might just quietly get done.

 

[QueensCurve]

We’re always asking why electrification schemes are so much more expensive here than elsewhere. Here’s one classic way to get the “paper cost” down - do as much work as you can under other budget headings….

Something similar happened with Weaver - Glasgow. My understanding is that when HMG refused to authorise it, the resignalling of Preston and Carlisle had to go ahead anyway. Hence those costs dropped out of the electrification project.

 

[Class 170101]

(but I assume that once you've enough height for electrification that's a permanent benefit?)

Assuming the Electrification standards don't change in the meantime. (Just ask Scotland)