MML Electrification: progress updates

[Killingworth]

Is cutting a third off costs/quotes realistic ?. Is it going to lead to silly bids that turn sour half way through construction, de-scoping or lead to poor quality.

It means no bells or whistles, no hanging little extras for future contingencies onto the basic project. A cheap job that means those desirable extras will cost 5 times as much in a few years time when it all has to be done again for new track and platform configurations to accommodate passenger and freight growth. Might I be thinking of around Sheffield? You bet.

Hopefully my cynicism is misplaced.

 

[Nottingham59]

From Syston to Leicester. It was four track before no?
I thought the plan was for four track Syston-Wigston and the debate was whether Wigston need grade separation

They're only going to do the existing tracks. The "information for participants" documents gives Wigston South to Syston North junction as Track length = 17km; stk = 48.8km.

(Google says its 15km to walk from Wigston S to Syston N, so I'm not sure where the extra 2km track length comes from. Maybe they're going to do the Wigston triangle?)

Anyway, counting two tracks all the way (34km); four, maybe five, tracks through Leicester station (+3km) and the third line around the Wigston curve (+1km) leaves 10km left, which I guess is a third track between Leicester and Syston South (+7km) plus 4 tacks between Syston south and north (+2km)?

That doesn't leave any scope for extended runouts, even. Can anyone say if they're electrifying the Kilby Bridge siding South of Wigston?

 

[Peter Sarf]

It means no bells or whistles, no hanging little extras for future contingencies onto the basic project. A cheap job that means those desirable extras will cost 5 times as much in a few years time when it all has to be done again for new track and platform configurations to accommodate passenger and freight growth. Might I be thinking of around Sheffield? You bet.

Hopefully my cynicism is misplaced.

I suppose, sadly, it is a case of getting something done now rather than getting hung up on the (near !) future. There are some very valid forward looking points but I suppose we have to remind ourselves of the fate of HS2 (which was getting very future proofed) where it now seems Euston is going to strangle any future additions to HS2 - enough said (plenty of threads).

 

[Nottingham59]

Is cutting a third off costs/quotes realistic ?. Is it going to lead to silly bids that turn sour half way through construction, de-scoping or lead to poor quality.

Not with the proposed procurement process. From the published tender documentation, NR seem to be making the usual public sector mistake of loading all the costs and risks onto the suppliers, and they only mechanism to reduce prices is price competition at time of contract setting. Nothing about reducing costs in their supply chain.

As far as I can see, there's no guaranteed volumes for any bidder. They're expecting five suppliers to go through the hugely costly process of working out how much to bid. They propose to have three suppliers on the framework, a "primary" supplier and two "reserves". That sort of reserve capability costs money; who do they expect to pay for it? There's no commitment to jointly work to reduce costs over the five year delivery window. No guaranteed volume, even if a supplier wins the bid. If the next minister has a thing about batteries, then the contract can be cancelled without penalty. Guess who pays the cost of that risk.

They propose to call off work at times and dates to suit themselves, and the supplier has to be flexible. That sort of flexibility costs too. And that cost ends up in the prices set at the beginning.

Maybe there's more in the strategy brief, which I can't view. But from the wording of the documents I can see, NR have learnt nothing from other industries, like logistics and retail, that have spent the past 30 years learning how to strip costs out of their supply chains.

Sorry. Rant over.

 

[BrianW]

Not with the proposed procurement process. From the published tender documentation, NR seem to be making the usual public sector mistake of loading all the costs and risks onto the suppliers, and they only mechanism to reduce prices is price competition at time of contract setting. Nothing about reducing costs in their supply chain.

As far as I can see, there's no guaranteed volumes for any bidder. They're expecting five suppliers to go through the hugely costly process of working out how much to bid. They propose to have three suppliers on the framework, a "primary" supplier and two "reserves". That sort of reserve capability costs money; who do they expect to pay for it? There's no commitment to jointly work to reduce costs over the five year delivery window. No guaranteed volume, even if a supplier wins the bid. If the next minister has a thing about batteries, then the contract can be cancelled without penalty. Guess who pays the cost of that risk.

They propose to call off work at times and dates to suit themselves, and the supplier has to be flexible. That sort of flexibility costs too. And that cost ends up in the prices set at the beginning.

Maybe there's more in the strategy brief, which I can't view. But from the wording of the documents I can see, NR have learnt nothing from other industries, like logistics and retail, that have spent the past 30 years learning how to strip costs out of their supply chains.

Sorry. Rant over.

Agreeing. Every additional, or missing, word in a tender document affects tender price and clarity of risk. At least the 'rail industry' should have some idea of what it is being asked for. My surmise is 'political interference'- 'yes, Minister'.

 

[21C101]

The shorter headspans are known as 'steady spans' and provide extra registration support at the midspan - albeit only for the contact and not for the catenary.

That part of Beds is rather exposed on the whole, with Ampthill Tunnels being the sole exception. The wind loads are rather high!
IIRC the ECML has similar between Hatfield & Welwyn GC.

I'm in that part of the worid and can see about 30 miles east from my upstairs window, almost to Royston. Basically the next decent set of hills in that direction is the Urals.

 

[Bald Rick]

That doesn't leave any scope for extended runouts, even. Can anyone say if they're electrifying the Kilby Bridge siding South of Wigston?

If you mean the Up & Down Slow between Kilby Bridge and Wigston South Junctions, then yes that is being electrified. If you go out that way you’ll notice the APCO Balises already in situ (before the wires!)

 

[21C101]

Is the proposal to reinstate a third and fourth track from Wigston to Leicester and a fourth track from there to Syston still a credible proposal.

Ditto the grade separation at Wigston.

(With HS2 to Trent canned the intercities through leicester won't now reduce in a few years)

If so whats the point of electrifying north of Wigston only to rip it down again in a few years, given the EMR intercities will be bi mode (it seems a lot of short term effort to divert some of the East Midlands Connect services to Leicester or make a ludicrous Thameslink extension)

 

[38Cto15E]

I remember when they were planning the Leicester Gap signalling project. They couldn't afford 4 aspect signals so had to settle for 3 aspect between Sharnbrrok and Loughborough.
It is incredible in this day and age how a major city such as Sheffield has no electification and not the quickest service in the timetable to the capital city.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Is the proposal to reinstate a third and fourth track from Wigston to Leicester and a fourth track from there to Syston still a credible proposal.

Ditto the grade separation at Wigston.

In principle the formation (trackbed) including through the Knighton former goods lines tunnel exists for four tracks all the way.

When Leicester-Syston was singled, at various locations the best of the pair of existing goods lines was selected to stay with the other lifted and slews to join the sections up. Depending what has been done at any subsequent renewals, adding a fourth track might mean reversing that process by slewing the existing single line and moving S&T equipment to make the space to lay a fourth alongside.

As for grade separation, in the proposal for reinstating 4 tracks that I have seen, south of Leicester, the current fast lines would become the Nuneaton lines and the two tracks on the former goods lines formation would become the Kettering lines. The junctions between them would be ladders of crossovers, on the flat, at Knighton and Leicester South, but there would be no conflict at Wigston North.

 

[PJM]

The completed bridge Station Road, Great Glen, with new traffic lights.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Just to point out that the directors of the Midland Railway told the contractor who had tendered the lowest bid for the construction of their Leicester - Hitchin line to further reduce his price. That's why there's Sharnbrook and Desborough summits and a corkscrew route.
History is repeating itself, and it does seem that the MML is always improved on the cheap, and it leaves a legacy.

 

[21C101]

Just to point out that the directors of the Midland Railway told the contractor who had tendered the lowest bid for the construction of their Leicester - Hitchin line to further reduce his price. That's why there's Sharnbrook and Desborough summits and a corkscrew route.
History is repeating itself, and it does seem that the MML is always improved on the cheap, and it leaves a legacy.

Presumably, but for World War 1, it would have been four tracked between Glendon and Wigston too.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Presumably, but for World War 1, it would have been four tracked between Glendon and Wigston too.

What's intriguing - because it's not well documented - is finding out when 4 tracking was done. For instance, it was only by reference to an accident report about a tunnel collapse that I realised the ex M.R. route Birmingham - Bristol was 4 tracked around Kings Norton in the middle 1930s. So it wasn't necessarily halted by WW1.

Another reason I wonder about the L.M.S. - era widening of Midland routes was why they (there might have only been the one I just mentioned) were carried out but the Armitage bottleneck on the LNWR wasn't - obviously now done.

I also wonder what the motive was for cash-strapped B.R. to single routes - 2 > 1 or 4 > 3, (slow lines) . As has been pointed it, the track retained was that in the better condition with slews (quite often sharp!) connecting the two alignments. Quite often, one line was still bull-head and the other flat-bottom and I wonder whether the objective was that track renewal had become essential and was avoided by singling, rather than any perceived benefit of singling per se.

Seems like all the 4 track from Sharnbrook to Syston will eventually be re-instated. Who would have thought that in the 1970s, when the coal traffic disappeared?

 

[adamedwards]

As for grade separation, in the proposal for reinstating 4 tracks that I have seen, south of Leicester, the current fast lines would become the Nuneaton lines and the two tracks on the former goods lines formation would become the Kettering lines. The junctions between them would be ladders of crossovers, on the flat, at Knighton and Leicester South, but there would be no conflict at Wigston North.

If that's the plan, does it then make sense to build the flyover junction at Syston (instead of Wigston) with the line from Peterborough flying over the new east side fast lines to Sheffield? I can then see the following advantages:

• Easing of the curve off the Peterborough Line over the flyover to the new slow lines on the west side of the formation.
• Using the flyover to swap the slow lines back over to the east side of the formation northwards to Trent Junction.

London to Sheffield trains would then use the eastern island platform at Leicester in both directions, which does mean a loss of cross platform connectivity, traded off against keeping the lines separate to improve reliability.

I'm sure someone will point out an engineering issue I have not allowed for with my crayons!

 

[Bald Rick]

If that's the plan, does it then make sense to build the flyover junction at Syston (instead of Wigston) with the line from Peterborough flying over the new east side fast lines to Sheffield? I can then see the following advantages:

• Easing of the curve off the Peterborough Line over the flyover to the new slow lines on the west side of the formation.
• Using the flyover to swap the slow lines back over to the east side of the formation northwards to Trent Junction.

London to Sheffield trains would then use the eastern island platform at Leicester in both directions, which does mean a loss of cross platform connectivity, traded off against keeping the lines separate to improve reliability.

I'm sure someone will point out an engineering issue I have not allowed for with my crayons!

I think that was looked at as an option.

However none of it is going to happen now - the wires will go up long before any grade separation.

 

[edwin_m]

If that's the plan, does it then make sense to build the flyover junction at Syston (instead of Wigston) with the line from Peterborough flying over the new east side fast lines to Sheffield? I can then see the following advantages:

• Easing of the curve off the Peterborough Line over the flyover to the new slow lines on the west side of the formation.
• Using the flyover to swap the slow lines back over to the east side of the formation northwards to Trent Junction.

London to Sheffield trains would then use the eastern island platform at Leicester in both directions, which does mean a loss of cross platform connectivity, traded off against keeping the lines separate to improve reliability.

I'm sure someone will point out an engineering issue I have not allowed for with my crayons!

It would be very difficult unless the Melton Road overbridge was closed, and possibly the ones to the north and south too. At Wigston there would have been enough length for the Nuneaton line to ramp up within the triangle, then drop down further north on the east side where any land take would be industrial rather than residential.

It's would also have been better to have the slow lines to the east, as they could link to the freight bypass tracks east of the station, with only a short platform needed for CrossCountry.

 

[BrianW]

It would be very difficult unless the Melton Road overbridge was closed, and possibly the ones to the north and south too. At Wigston there would have been enough length for the Nuneaton line to ramp up within the triangle, then drop down further north on the east side where any land take would be industrial rather than residential.

It's would also have been better to have the slow lines to the east, as they could link to the freight bypass tracks east of the station, with only a short platform needed for CrossCountry.

Please forgive me if I'm talking rubbish. I note this thread started in 2015 and is now at #6,737 so I may will have missed something. I just can't picture lines around there being busy enough to warrant grade separation.

 

[Nottingham59]

Please forgive me if I'm talking rubbish. I note this thread started in 2015 and is now at #6,737 so I may will have missed something. I just can't picture lines around there being busy enough to warrant grade separation.

There has been a lot of talk in the past about upgrading the Felixstowe to Nuneaton route to carry very many more intermodals avoiding London. And using the four track MML as a freight "superhighway" taking aggregates to London avoiding Birmingham. Plus Midland Connect with higher frequencies Leicester-Birmingham. If they all happen, then there would be much more traffic in Leicester. But a lot needs to be done at Ely and elsewhere for that to happen.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

I just can't picture lines around there being busy enough to warrant grade separation.

There are separate aspirations to run i) more freight, ii) additional services from Birmingham to Leicester, iii) a new half hourly service from Coventry to Nottingham and iv) a new half hourly service from Bedford to Leeds. Each of those would create additional conflicting moves on the current layout at at Wigston North. Some of them would also create additional conflicting moves on the existing slow lines at Syston and between Syston and Leicester North.

Who knows which, if any, will eventually need to be provided for. As @Nottingham59 says, all would be dependant on infrastructure elsewhere. And as @Bald Rick suggests, it still be the current layout between Wigston and Syston when the time comes to electrify it.

Having said that, if it can be done at minimal to no cost it would be worth spacing the new ole masts on the existing fast lines to accommodate the crossovers which would be required at Knighton and Leicester South if the four tracking is ever needed.

 

[Verulamius]

There are separate aspirations to run i) more freight, ii) additional services from Birmingham to Leicester, iii) a new half hourly service from Coventry to Nottingham and iv) a new half hourly service from Bedford to Leeds. Each of those would create additional conflicting moves on the current layout at at Wigston North. Some of them would also create additional conflicting moves on the existing slow lines at Syston and between Syston and Leicester North.

Who knows which, if any, will eventually need to be provided for. As @Nottingham59 says, all would be dependant on infrastructure elsewhere. And as @Bald Rick suggests, it still be the current layout between Wigston and Syston when the time comes to electrify it.

Having said that, if it can be done at minimal to no cost it would be worth spacing the new ole masts on the existing fast lines to accommodate the crossovers which would be required at Knighton and Leicester South if the four tracking is ever needed.

Following the cancellation of HS2 north of Birmingham indicative schemes alternatively proposed include Birmingham to Leicester services at 4tph and approval of the Ely North scheme.

This would suggest more trains to Leicester than before.

I think that this links up with Scenario 2 in the 2020 Leicester Area Strategic Advice document published by Network Rail.

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/regional-long-term-planning/Eastern/Leicester%2520Area%2520Strategic%2520Advice%25202021.pdf

This only suggests four tracking between Wigston and Leicester with potentially an extra platform at Leicester. No flyover required.

I think the key assumptions will be around freight growth.

 

[Nottingham59]

Well let's just hope they don't put OHLE masts in the ground in locations that would prevent four tracking in the future.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Well let's just hope they don't put OHLE masts in the ground in locations that would prevent four tracking in the future.

It may be difficult to avoid completely, particularly in the area of London Road, so four tracking may need the odd mast to be moved.

And as I mentioned upthread, the singling of the former goods lines to become the up/down slow between Leicester North and Syston resulted in an alignment and placement of signals and cabinets which would not allow the fourth track to be simply located alongside. You'd probably electrify the existing up/down slow line with single track cantilevers, but if it ever came to adding a fourth track, a lot of those would find themselves in the way of realigning the existing track or the new fourth track.

Could you justify the cost of installing portals or twin track cantilevers just to make passive provision for something that may never happen? Alternatively could you justify the cost of realigning the up/down slow and relocating signals before you electrify it? Or do you just accept that by saving any of that additional cost on the current MML scheme you may be making the cost of four tracking Leicester North to Syston so expensive in future there will never be any justification for it?

 

[Nottingham59]

Could you justify the cost of installing portals or twin track cantilevers just to make passive provision for something that may never happen?

No. But you could make a best estimate of where any additional tracks might go, and avoid blocking those locations where possible.

I did notice, for instance, that the TTCs near Braybrooke now occupy the space that a southbound passing loop would go. Which is a pity, as a loop like that is needed if you ever want to put 60mph Nuneaton-MML freights through there to avoid Leicester.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well let's just hope they don't put OHLE masts in the ground in locations that would prevent four tracking in the future.

OLE masts wont prevent four tracking, wherever they go. See Cambridge South.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Of course at the time we singled the Leicester North to Syston goods, we could have made one good track in terms of the condition of what was there, but rather than slewing, repositioned the "other" track physically, to keep one of the tracks' alignment, foreseeing the possibility that one day the "other" trackbed would be needed again.

The extra cost of doing that, compared to the cost, one way or another, which has been added to electrifying then redoubling the slows in the future, would have been peanuts. But it was peanuts which BR did not have at the time.

As for Braybrooke, I'm scratching my head now to recall if we took out the up goods between Little Bowden and Desborough North as part of that 1980's Leicester PSB scheme. If it had remained, even if shortened to a freight loop, it would probably have survived the 2013 resignalling as well and been electrified now.

 

[Bald Rick]

I did notice, for instance, that the TTCs near Braybrooke now occupy the space that a southbound passing loop would go. Which is a pity, as a loop like that is needed if you ever want to put 60mph Nuneaton-MML freights through there to avoid Leicester.

There arent any 60moh freights from Nuneaton to MML south, except overnight.

It would have been a pity to spend extra cash now to make provison for a loop that is very unlikely to ever be needed.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

F2N or F2MN as it is now more commonly referred to will be a key driver of improvements mooted above.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

It would have been a pity to spend extra cash now to make provision for a loop that is very unlikely to ever be needed.

That is the reasoning. But it's the same reasoning we applied when we took out the 4th track between Syston and Wigston and lots of other "luxury items" in the way we did. Now I often hear the 1980s resignalling schemes at Leicester and W. Hampstead and other places described as short-sighted.

 

[PJM]

Cracking on! North Bridge SPC 3 7 Newton Lane , Newton Harcourt.




South.


I can also confirm that Wistow Road bridge has now been demolished.