Midland mainline

[45039]

Why or why has the midland mainline been the one to lose AGAIN with the electrification plans does anybody in goverment see the benefits it would have ?
Especially if they wired through to donny and also SHEF-LDS how many units would that free up?.
We here (barnsley) get 4 units each way every hour 3 to leeds and 1 to huddersfield everyone apart from the HUDDS could go to EMU even the NOTTS-LDS.
I get the reason why its because we are up north yes they are wiring LIV-MAN but come on thats not a big deal .
The midland mainline and edinburgh-glasgow queen street are more intensley used us at sheffield are like normal the last to suffer.

 

[37401]

hi pal just a quick note Midland Main Line is the line Midland Mainline is the now defunt(ish) TOC

now as for what your saying im sure once the GWML has been AC-ed then the MML will get it too

 

[devon_metro]

The north already has two electrified lines, its only fair that the west gets some investment for once.

 

[SouthEastern-465]

hi pal just a quick note Midland Main Line is the line Midland Mainline is the now defunt(ish) TOC

now as for what your saying im sure once the GWML has been AC-ed then the MML will get it too

I know about that but that Is actually the name of the line,
like FGW there route Is the Great Western Mainline.

Back on subject,I think It Is a bit stupid to electrify the rest of the GWML,ECML,etc.. and leave out the MML,stupid ah:roll:
Regards

 

[Oswyntail]

The north already has two electrified lines, its only fair that the west gets some investment for once.

I think the business cases favoured MML, but politics favour the west.

 

[scandal]

I think there are two factors at work here, politics and how much each line has electrified.

Considering as I've previously suggested that Labour faced a hammering in the 2009 EU elections in Wales, the Labour government no doubt wanted to show that it had not abandoned Wales and no doubt saw votes in investment in electrification and thereby reduced journey times to London and Bristol. An interesting fact the Lord Adonis made as well is that Wales does not have a single section of electrified railway and so I can see this winning votes, indeed the Welsh Assembley have recently been asking for wiring of the Valley Lines.

Considering the GWML is only electrified currently to Airport Junction it is by far, of the main lines, the one lagging behind, it is only fair it is given the money to catch up. The MML Is already electrified to Beford, requiring an extra 100 or so miles to be wired to Sheffield and Nottingham, the point is that MML services are quite contained and the electrification would only change the main express services to wired, not the local trains since Thameslink already benefitted in the 1980s. The Great Western scheme however of course allows the London suburban services to be switched over to electric services as well as the intercity services no doubt giving to the publics eyes a bigger benefit and no doubt politically, the stock also freed up by electrification in the thames valley allows stock to be placed in the Bristol and South West area, where as the freeing of HSTs and Meridians (from MML electrification) would only benefit OA and Cross County which GW would do anyway with their IC train switchover when wired.

However, having looked at Marginal seats there are higher marginal seats on the MML such as Broxtowe, Amber Valley, Derbyshire South, Erewash, Loughborough and Leicestershire North West however considering these majoritys are about 5,000 (which we have seen the conservatives easily wipe out) I suspect these are already earmarked to be lost and there is nothing they can do. The core voters in the Welsh Valleys I epect are far more important to keep for Labour.

I would be very interested to see what happens under the Conservatives considering the members for Witney, Woodspring and Maidenhead are all in the Shadow Cabinet and their constituants are most likely to benefit from this scheme!

 

[me123]

I'm, frankly, shocked at the proposals. I think electrification to the West is a great idea; GWML is obviously a priority and can in turn trigger a lot of further work down that way should there be the will to do so in the future, and finally getting wires into Wales is good for the country.

I think, also, that the Midland Main Line is a key route that should be electrified, as the OP suggested, with links on to Leeds and Doncaster.

However, I look at the Chat Moss electrification with confusion. Why is the North benefiting from only a small project like this? Why are ministers not electrifying Transpennine routes, which is IMO a much better option? I think it would a good investment, because:

• The line links many of the North's major cities; a huge economic positive for the region
• Resultant journey time decreases would be good for the whole region, especially if further work was undertaken to increase line speeds
• A lot of the route (including large parts of the WCML and ECML) is already electrified, reducing costs
• Consequently, you won't have as many diesel trains under the wires (provided, of course, that EMUs were provided)
• It would free up a lot of local DMUs for use elsewhere by further purchase of EMUs for local services
• Electrification of some corridors will pave the way for further projects, for example York-Leeds enhances XC electrification, Hope Valley does the same for the Liverpool to Norwich route

In my head, I have envisaged that Class 380s or similar units would replace the 185s. Some may question this, considering 185s are new trains, but I think they could be put to good use elsewhere, for example in the South West, Wales or even for Northern. They're definitely not for the scrap heap just yet. There could also be similar rolling stock orders for local services, which would of course free up DMUs to tackle overcrowding elsewhere on the network. In combination with full MML electrification (including up to Leeds), the benefits are increased.

I think if this were to go ahead, the benefits would be seen across the North and, indeed, even elsewhere if the DMU cascade were to go ahead. Of course, the Transpennine route doesn't link to London, so of course it's not going to happen I'm not grudging the GWML their wires, of course they deserve it and I applaud the decision to electrify the core route to the South West and Wales. But I do feel that the North, as usual, is missing out on a huge opportunity. I don't want to take anything away from the people who live on the Chat Moss, but it is the secondary route between Manchester and Liverpool, and I think TP electrification would bring greater benefits for more people.

And no, I don't know where the money would come from

PS: For the Opening Poster, transport is now devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so decisions on this will not come from Lord Adonis or whoever is in Westminster. Transport Scotland have plans to electrify a lot of routes in the future, including Glasgow Queen Street-Edinburgh. The short term plan is Glasgow-Edinburgh, and would allow for future expansion as far as Stirling, Alloa and Dunblane in the foreseeable future. The benefits of this scheme are massive and widespread. This is the kind of scheme that I would envisage for the Transpennine route.

 

[Teaboy1]

I believe the GWML is long overdue for electrification ! Correct me if I'm wrong but did'nt we once have electric trains between Sheffield and Manchester? Would have bee so easy now to convert to 21kV and then push on with Liverpool > Manchester with the whole job??
What a waste of a route ...Woodhead......more like Dick Head now.....just goes to prove how wrong it is to close railways!!

 

[coral reef]

The proposals seem perfectly sensible to me. Even if politics didn't exist this would be the order I did everything in.

GWML desperately needs it, and both mainline and London commuter services get the benefit. And it ties-in neatly with HST expiration.

Liverpool-Manchester is long overdue, and the bit they've chosen to do allows Manc-Scotland long distance to be electric, whilst being short enough to be a useful test-program of the engineering knowledge needed for a rolling programme.

These two projects have obvious immediate benefits, but other possible routes require a few other synergies to happen to make total sense, which outs them down in the list.

I would electrify MML first to Sheffield, but I wouldn't go all the way to Leeds and Doncaster until I'm busy doing the rest of the XC route. Which means it can't be too far behind completion of the GWML all the way Penzance, as I would prefer not to populate the entire country with bi-mode trains, so electrification to be done sensibly puts the northern end of MML about a decade behind the first bit to Sheffield. Besides, there will still be a few diesel trains about at that time to operate the few direct Leeds-Sheffield-London services, up until total transfer to electric later on.

NR intend to have 2 high-output OHLE trains, one in the north and one in the south, working constantly. So rather than worrying about Sheffield-Leeds prematurely (i.e. before XC can go fully electric) I would be sending my crews to do trans-penine immediately after MML to Sheffield. I might even do T-P first. Then MML to Leeds might make sense all in one go towards the end of the next decade.

It can't all be done at the same time otherwise prices will rocket and once its complete there'll be a crash in the industry and loads of people out of jobs.

 

[37401]

I know about that but that Is actually the name of the line,
like FGW there route Is the Great Western Mainline.

Back on subject,I think It Is a bit stupid to electrify the rest of the GWML,ECML,etc.. and leave out the MML,stupid ah:roll:
Regards

what about the XC? thats a bigger Mainline, also I dont think its stupid the DfT would have gone on benifits/Passenger numbers/profit the GWML (which is much bigger and has a much larger passenger usage) would benifit more from electification than the MML, correct me if im wrong but the MML is 110mph STP-SHEFFIELD avoiding the 125 bit towards Nottingham so i doubt it`ll go much faster, the GWML on the other hand is much faster out of london so would benifit more from faster AC powered units/Locos.

one last thing how do you know they have left out the MML? that may be on the cards in 5 years time



also the MML was not aimed at you and when talking about the line you split the Mainline into Main Line hence ML, FGW is a usless example i said it because MML has 2 meanings the FGW has nowt to do with the price of fish

 

[The Planner]

125 towards Nottingham ?? where ??

 

[charley_17/7]

GWML got chosen because it was dead easy to tag it along to Crossrail methinks!

Also if you look at the DfT documentation @ http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdf you will see that MML is already under further, closer, review to be wired next after these initial schemes, along with Liverpool - Preston and Manchester - Preston.

 

[asylumxl]

I think the priority on the MML should be expanding the number of lines. The 3rd line at Kettering has expanded possibilities a lot, allowing trains to overtake. Having only 2 linses it is just plain silly, and creates huge delays if something goes wrong.

While the MML is my local mainline and would like it electrified someday, I have to say, the 222s have plenty of life in them yet, and electrification shouldn't be the priority.

 

[tbtc]

I think the priority on the MML should be expanding the number of lines. The 3rd line at Kettering has expanded possibilities a lot, allowing trains to overtake. Having only 2 linses it is just plain silly, and creates huge delays if something goes wrong.

While the MML is my local mainline and would like it electrified someday, I have to say, the 222s have plenty of life in them yet, and electrification shouldn't be the priority.

You make good points. If we could eliminate the bottle necks between East Midlands Parkway and Bedford, and maybe give the Corby branch and "local stations" between Leicester and Bedford to Thameslink, then things would be a lot better.

The frustrating thing is that the MML is a geographically better case for electrification, as it's fairly self contained (whereas the GWML has London trains terminating at Torbay/ Newquay/ Weston/ Fishguard etc). Plus, with it being close to the wires of the ECML and WCML, it'd only take a little extension to plug some gaps.

 

[37401]

125 towards Nottingham ?? where ??

just going on what i heard on that bit I saw a vid between Derby-Nottingham titled "the only 125 part of the MML"

 

[daccer]

I think that many are assuming that a rolling electrification programme is now a done deal. From my bitter experience of past Govt's we shouldnt assume anything when it comes to the railways.

Some Salient points.

we are almost inevitably going to have a change of Govt next year. We will then lose the most pro-rail Transport Secretary of recent times, who is to say his replacement wont be pro-road as the majority of his predecessors have been.

There is a massive public deficit hole which has to be addressed at some time. The easiest thing to cut are the large scale capital investments as you get an immediate effect on public finances rather than the slow incremental cutting of services which takes time to filter through.

With large scale electrification comes the need for new fleets - these again suck up Cape Ex with the vast majority now going to foreign companies as our own train building base is all but gone.

The Tories are already hedging their bets by not committing fully to any of the current projects that Labour have started or are planning for. However it will be almost impossible to abandon Crossrail and the spending plans in CP4 as so much has already been spent. This means that savings can only be made in CP5. Im pretty sure that much of CP5's spending would have been concerned with electrification and HS2 - both must be at risk.

Rail is still a long way down people's priority lists. The Tories will inevitably spend their first couple of years claiming that the cuts they are making are residual problems left over from Labour. We might end up back in the days of managed decline or zero growth rather than the rail boom we have seen in the last decade riding on the back of the economic well being of the country.

Things are going to get tighter for the TOC's. Premiums wont be as large going forward which will mean the Govt will have to find more of the cake. This they will be unwilling to do and so the money will tend to go to keeping what we have rather than thoughts of large scale expansion.

The argument for rail expansion and investment is a compelling one even in times of economic strife (pass nos.are still growing even in a recession!). However political expediency is a given in the UK and without a Lord Adonis to fight rail's corner we are going to see a slowing down in rail development - electrification will be the main thing to suffer I am sure. It will get done eventually but isnt it just our way to make everything so ruddy difficult and time consuming (it only took 100 or so years to finally build the Tunnel after all!). For the MML to be wired up - dont hold ur breath!!

 

[johnb]

I think that many are assuming that a rolling electrification programme is now a done deal. From my bitter experience of past Govt's we shouldnt assume anything when it comes to the railways.

Some Salient points.

we are almost inevitably going to have a change of Govt next year. We will then lose the most pro-rail Transport Secretary of recent times, who is to say his replacement wont be pro-road as the majority of his predecessors have been.

Although note that Adonis is a GOAT, not a Labour hack - there's a possibility that the other lot will keep him on.

There is a massive public deficit hole which has to be addressed at some time. The easiest thing to cut are the large scale capital investments as you get an immediate effect on public finances rather than the slow incremental cutting of services which takes time to filter through.

Yes, although AIUI this is Network Rail spending rather than government spending.

With large scale electrification comes the need for new fleets - these again suck up Cape Ex with the vast majority now going to foreign companies as our own train building base is all but gone.

This is the one area where you're badly wrong: the reason to electrify the GWML *now* is that:
1) the HSTs need replacing. Private finance is available for electric trains, but not for diesel trains (because the banks don't think they're sufficiently future-proof).
2) the Thameslink Project and Crossrail (both of which require new high-performance trains to provide the right frequencies) will free up a bunch of 319s and 315s that still have some life left in them.

The Tories are already hedging their bets by not committing fully to any of the current projects that Labour have started or are planning for. However it will be almost impossible to abandon Crossrail and the spending plans in CP4 as so much has already been spent. This means that savings can only be made in CP5. Im pretty sure that much of CP5's spending would have been concerned with electrification and HS2 - both must be at risk.

I suspect you're right about HS2. But electrification isn't a "wider social benefits" play, it's a "direct cost-cutting" play.

Rail is still a long way down people's priority lists. The Tories will inevitably spend their first couple of years claiming that the cuts they are making are residual problems left over from Labour. We might end up back in the days of managed decline or zero growth rather than the rail boom we have seen in the last decade riding on the back of the economic well being of the country.

Possible, although I suspect that levels of road congestion will mean we don't see anything like the kind of decline that happened from 1950-1985.

For the MML to be wired up - dont hold ur breath!!

If IEP removes the need for 100%-diesel workings on the ECML, GWML and WCML, then there should be enough 22xes and 180s left to cover Cross Country and the MML - so you might be right.

 

[Kneedown]

The north already has two electrified lines, its only fair that the west gets some investment for once.

For once? Wasn't it the first to get the HST and introduce 125mph running?
On the other hand what major investment has the MML had?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The proposals seem perfectly sensible to me. Even if politics didn't exist this would be the order I did everything in.

GWML desperately needs it,

GWMR= 125mph running on fairly level terrain.
MML= 110mph running (with many much lower speed restrictions) over terrain with many gradients, some very steep.

It's a no brainer that the MML desperately needs it more as the benefits would be far greater.

 

[The Planner]

But surely the HST and 125mph on the GWML was 1976 ?? so the best part of 35 years ago ?? Id hardly call that recent investment myself.

 

[devon_metro]

GWMR= 125mph running on fairly level terrain.
MML= 110mph running (with many much lower speed restrictions) over terrain with many gradients, some very steep.

Looking at it that way, its a no brainer that the 110mph railway to the north is clearly less important than the 125mph ECML and WCML which are only 1 change away in many cases, so it makes more sense to electrify the only mainline to such important destinations as Bristol and Cardiff, and all of the commuter communities along the M4.

 

[tbtc]

If IEP removes the need for 100%-diesel workings on the ECML, GWML and WCML, then there should be enough 22xes and 180s left to cover Cross Country and the MML - so you might be right.

Sadly, that looks like the future. The GWML gets nice long electric trains, same as the ECML and WCML, whilst the MML gets four/ five coach DMUs.

Whilst I'd like to believe in "rolling electrification", I can see them deciding not to do the MML (and fill in the crosscountry gaps) because Voyagers etc aren't "life expired", meaning we'll be stuck with the 22xs

 

[Aictos]

But surely the HST and 125mph on the GWML was 1976 ?? so the best part of 35 years ago ?? Id hardly call that recent investment myself.

Yeah but the GWML is capable of 125mph running, the MML should be capable of the same but is still restricted to 110mph, if it got the investment then we could have 125mph running on the line which would be a far better use of resources.

 

[tbtc]

Looking at it that way, its a no brainer that the 110mph railway to the north is clearly less important than the 125mph ECML and WCML which are only 1 change away in many cases, so it makes more sense to electrify the only mainline to such important destinations as Bristol and Cardiff, and all of the commuter communities along the M4.

In fact, the reverse is true.

1. The MML would benefit from electrification much more than the GWML, since the GWML is already fast/ straight/ flat, there's less of an "uplift" from electrification

2. Since the MML is close to other electrified lines, there's lots of scope for short extensions of wiring, such as Sheffield - Swinton - Moorthorpe/ Doncaster, meaning some DMU routes that run partly under the wires could be made electric.

 

[The Planner]

the MML should be capable of the same but is still restricted to 110mph, if it got the investment then we could have 125mph running on the line which would be a far better use of resources.

Parts of it is, and increasing it has/is being looked at extensively, however, the time savings from getting it up to 125 aren't as brilliant as you may think.

 

[devon_metro]

In fact, the reverse is true.

1. The MML would benefit from electrification much more than the GWML, since the GWML is already fast/ straight/ flat, there's less of an "uplift" from electrification

2. Since the MML is close to other electrified lines, there's lots of scope for short extensions of wiring, such as Sheffield - Swinton - Moorthorpe/ Doncaster, meaning some DMU routes that run partly under the wires could be made electric.

The GWML has far many more services departing London per hour, so naturally, more people will benefit from electrification. Most of the Thames valley commuter services will be electric.

 

[coral reef]

GWMR= 125mph running on fairly level terrain.
MML= 110mph running (with many much lower speed restrictions) over terrain with many gradients, some very steep.

It's a no brainer that the MML desperately needs it more as the benefits would be far greater.

Its not a no brainer. The level of traffic to be electrified on the MML is far lower. Commuter services are already electric, and there are no imminent works scheduled for the MML that can tie in with an electrification project in the immediate future. The GWML needs resignalling. The HSTs need replacing. The track needs renewing. These things were always scheduled to take place at the same time, it is practically begging to be electrified as part of the process.

 

[jopsuk]

The GWML has far many more services departing London per hour, so naturally, more people will benefit from electrification. Most of the Thames valley commuter services will be electric.

Aye- I did find it a bit odd, though pleasant, the other week that London-Oxford, a journey of about the same length and time as London-Cambridge (not to mention the same ticket price), is run by HSTs whilst Cambridge is AC Networkers. Yes, the HST (even high-capacity refurbed) is more comfortable, but using on them a commuter, shuttle style service seems madness. Maybe the resignalling will even allow for an "Oxford Flyer" service?

 

[johnb]

Suburban (ie high-density) IEPs are planned for both London-Cambridge and London-Oxford.

 

[SouthEastern-465]

what about the XC? thats a bigger Mainline, also I dont think its stupid the DfT would have gone on benifits/Passenger numbers/profit the GWML (which is much bigger and has a much larger passenger usage) would benifit more from electification than the MML, correct me if im wrong but the MML is 110mph STP-SHEFFIELD avoiding the 125 bit towards Nottingham so i doubt it`ll go much faster, the GWML on the other hand is much faster out of london so would benifit more from faster AC powered units/Locos.

one last thing how do you know they have left out the MML? that may be on the cards in 5 years time



also the MML was not aimed at you and when talking about the line you split the Mainline into Main Line hence ML, FGW is a usless example i said it because MML has 2 meanings the FGW has nowt to do with the price of fish

I was only saying,now calm down :roll:

Anyway I heard that the MML might be electrified but,theres a slim chance of It.

 

[Kneedown]

Its not a no brainer.

It is!

The level of traffic to be electrified on the MML is far lower.

5 or 6 long distance diesel departures an hour is a pretty significant amount.

and there are no imminent works scheduled for the MML that can tie in with an electrification project in the immediate future.

What about the track improvements currently taking place, and the next step to increase linespeeds to 125 in places and ease out some of the sharper curves? Thats pretty significant even if it doesn't go far enough!

The GWML needs resignalling.

Happening already on the MML.

The HSTs need replacing .

Just as they do on the MML

The track needs renewing .

As it does on the MML, and far more desperately!

These things were always scheduled to take place at the same time, it is practically begging to be electrified as part of the process.

And if improving and reconstituting track, increasing linespeeds, easing curves and resignalling is begging electrification to take place at the same time then i don't know what is!