MML Electrification: progress updates

[Richard123]

The ECML is power limited north of Newcastle, specifically around Berwick, in the current timetable. That‘s why TPE still run on diesel, so it’s almost certain a theoretical bimode XC service would also have to do the same.

(Work on the new SFC feeder station at Marshall Meadows appears to have started but then been deferred until some unknown date, but it’s probably better to keep that discussion in the ECML thread.)

From the lecture linked before and GRALISTAIR's updates it seems Marshall Meadows FS is pretty much the only work left on ECML north. Lots of capacity added Doncaster-York, (it talked abour electric freight and HS2 services), and OK to Newcastle.

But work at Marshall Meadows FS seems to have stopped during the Covid "will demand ever return" period, I recall magazine articles discussing upgrades no longer needed here as GBR would reduce the number of train services to Scotland ("overprovision of capacity for the demand").

To be fair at that time, passenger numbers were ~9% of pre-Covid, but the trains I get on now seem pretty full all day. Lumo have stated they want to run 10 cars but are unable due to power constraints.

 

[swt_passenger]

From the lecture linked before and GRALISTAIR's updates it seems Marshall Meadows FS is pretty much the only work left on ECML north. Lots of capacity added Doncaster-York, (it talked abour electric freight and HS2 services), and OK to Newcastle.

But work at Marshall Meadows FS seems to have stopped during the Covid "will demand ever return" period, I recall magazine articles discussing upgrades no longer needed here as GBR would reduce the number of train services to Scotland ("overprovision of capacity for the demand").

To be fair at that time, passenger numbers were ~9% of pre-Covid, but the trains I get on now seem pretty full all day. Lumo have stated they want to run 10 cars but are unable due to power constraints.

Thanks but I was aware of that from taking part in the discussions in the ECML thread.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

But bimodes can deliver a major reduction in carbon emissions. Sure, you have to upgrade the power supply, but that's far cheaper than electrifying a whole new line.

Take Cross Country as an example. If they were to convert to bimodes then around half of XC's route miles would be under the wires. That's a lot of carbon reduction from today at relatively little cost.

The effect is even more pronounced on say an overnight intermodal from Gateway to Mossend, switching from a diesel 66 to a bimode class 99.

i think it's easy to underestimate the complexity involved in upgrading electrification though. The negotiations for new grid connections are quite laborious and retrofitting a line with an auto-transformer system could easily spiral into an "eye-waterring costs" moment. I just feel like bimodes have been used as a policy excuse to not have to get involved with expensive and complicated infrastructure upgrades. It "looks" like you can utilise existing electrification better by renewing the fleet (which you would need to do anyway) - but it's simply not true. XC cannot simply renew their fleet and use the wires, they need a several billion pound project to upgrade supplies on the wcml and a part 2 for the ECML upgrade. Projects of which I have not heard the existence of.

 

[Trainbike46]

i think it's easy to underestimate the complexity involved in upgrading electrification though. The negotiations for new grid connections are quite laborious and retrofitting a line with an auto-transformer system could easily spiral into an "eye-waterring costs" moment. I just feel like bimodes have been used as a policy excuse to not have to get involved with expensive and complicated infrastructure upgrades. It "looks" like you can utilise existing electrification better by renewing the fleet (which you would need to do anyway) - but it's simply not true. XC cannot simply renew their fleet and use the wires, they need a several billion pound project to upgrade supplies on the wcml and a part 2 for the ECML upgrade. Projects of which I have not heard the existence of.

it depends on whether there is space for more electric services, or not.

For example, south of Crewe Avanti was able to replace all their diesel voyager runs with electric 805/807s without any power upgrades, but north of Crewe power upgrades are necessary.

If XC started using bimodes, there would likely be sections that need (further) power supply upgrades, but similarly there will likely be sections that are okay as-is. However, it is clear that there is a need for power supply upgrades where the supply is limiting, because diesel is on the way out, and there will be more (B)EMUs coming.

Bringing this back to the MML electrification, is there space for more services to start using it, for example bimode XC services, or BEMUs on the local services?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Bringing this back to the MML electrification, is there space for more services to start using it, for example bimode XC services, or BEMUs on the local services?

Well one would assume that Braybrooke GF has been designed with plenty of capacity. The next one to be built and installed ( apparently grid connections applied for) is Kegworth. Again it surely would be utter stupidity to not have designed it with plenty of capacity. Finally, there will a GF at or around the Chesterfield area. Above comments apply.

 

[Meerkat]

Well one would I assume that Braybrooke GF has been designed with plenty of capacity. The next one to be built and installed ( apparently grid connections applied for) is Kegworth. Again it surely would be utter stupidity to not have designed it with plenty of capacity. Finally, there will a GF at or around the Chesterfield area. Above comments apply.

But it would be cheaper for the initial project if you can build the site without fully equipping it - have parts of the compound fitted for but not with extra transformers etc.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

But it would be cheaper for the initial project if you can build the site without fully equipping it - have parts of the compound fitted for but not with extra transformers etc.

I don’t disagree but extremely short term thinking imho.

 

[Nottingham59]

Well one would assume that Braybrooke GF has been designed with plenty of capacity.

I understand Braybrooke has 80MVA in each side. That's massive. Around a dozen 10-car 810s all at full power simultaneously.

But it would be cheaper for the initial project if you can build the site without fully equipping it - have parts of the compound fitted for but not with extra transformers etc.

I tend to agree. With the only traction being bimode 810s, they don't need the redundancy of 2 separate circuits at places like Braybrooke. The redundancy is already there in the form of the 810 diesel engines.

 

[Meerkat]

I don’t disagree but extremely short term thinking imho.

Not unreasonable that each project pays its way, and overspecifying leads to cancellations.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Not unreasonable that each project pays its way, and overspecifying leads to cancellations.

Again, I don’t disagree but I personally find it frustrating.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

I understand Braybrooke has 80MVA in each side. That's massive. Around a dozen 10-car 810s all at full power simultaneously.


I tend to agree. With the only traction being bimode 810s, they don't need the redundancy of 2 separate circuits at places like Braybrooke. The redundancy is already there in the form of the 810 diesel engines.

There might be some electric freight on MML in the near future though. Also I thought 2 circuits for a FS is standard practice? Like one feed for each direction away from the FS

 

[Nottingham59]

There might be some electric freight on MML in the near future though.

Not past Braybrooke though. They can't timetable it in between the 4tph passenger expresses.

Also I thought 2 circuits for a FS is standard practice? Like one feed for each direction away from the FS

Yes, it is. That reduces the overall phase imbalance. But since they're taking the feed off a 1000MW+ 400kV grid circuit, I would expect the phase imbalance to be well within tolerances.

 

[edwin_m]

Not past Braybrooke though. They can't timetable it in between the 4tph passenger expresses.

It's possible that the improved performance of electric freight would allow them to do so. If it doesn't, then Braybrooke could still be feeding electric freight around Leicester if Felixstowe-Nuneaton is ever electrified.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I understand Braybrooke has 80MVA in each side. That's massive. Around a dozen 10-car 810s all at full power simultaneously.

Thats the continuous rating as well will have an overload duty of 20-30% for a couple of hours as well so more than sufficient for MML and the other routes that converge on Leicester should they ever get around to electrifying them.

I tend to agree. With the only traction being bimode 810s, they don't need the redundancy of 2 separate circuits at places like Braybrooke. The redundancy is already there in the form of the 810 diesel engines.

Interesting concept and probably workable if you knew about it in advance otherwise you might run into range issues before refuelling was needed..

 

[zwk500]

Interesting concept and probably workable if you knew about it in advance otherwise you might run into range issues before refuelling was needed..

Even for an emergency situation, you'd have the range to get to a sensible place (i.e. a main station) to park the train up and then work out what range you had left, which is better than being stuck on the hotel batteries in the middle of a field.

In an ideal world, you'd replace the gensets with decent range batteries as 1. it eliminates fuel and fuel handling problems, and 2. the batteries can be recharged while using the available OLE.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Not past Braybrooke though. They can't timetable it in between the 4tph passenger expresses.

There's quite a few non-passenger workings in both directions during the day, even in peak times. For instance, most days there's an empty stone train that heads North between the 1605 STP-Nottingham and 1632 STP-Sheffield and in the below example took about 22 minutes from Kettering North to Kilby Bridge (an EMR IC service does this in about 12 minutes)

e.g. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:H21836/2024-10-23/detailed

However I don't think there are any southbound heavy freights (e.g. stone from Peaks/Bardon - London) during the day - assuming the below working is representative, then a fully laden southbound is about 29 minutes in the other direction, which I think is the point you're making.

It's possible that the improved performance of electric freight would allow them to do so.

Possible, but the IC service pattern that freight fits around are different in the two directions.

The 4 Northbound IC services pass Kettering North Jnc around XX18, XX24, XX48 and XX55, meaning there are 24 minute gaps between trains to feed into, and as long as a freight train can get to Kilby Bridge before being caught, then it's OK. Evidently 22 minutes is fast enough.

However, the Southbound IC services pass Kilby Bridge at XX08, XX18, XX37 and XX50. Here the biggest gap to aim for is about 18 minutes - i.e. 6 minutes less than Northbound. So would matching the down timing of 22 minutes be enough here? I'm not sure.

 

[59CosG95]

There's quite a few non-passenger workings in both directions during the day, even in peak times. For instance, most days there's an empty stone train that heads North between the 1605 STP-Nottingham and 1632 STP-Sheffield and in the below example took about 22 minutes from Kettering North to Kilby Bridge (an EMR IC service does this in about 12 minutes)

e.g. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:H21836/2024-10-23/detailed

However I don't think there are any southbound heavy freights (e.g. stone from Peaks/Bardon - London) during the day - assuming the below working is representative, then a fully laden southbound is about 29 minutes in the other direction, which I think is the point you're making.


Possible, but the IC service pattern that freight fits around are different in the two directions.

The 4 Northbound IC services pass Kettering North Jnc around XX18, XX24, XX48 and XX55, meaning there are 24 minute gaps between trains to feed into, and as long as a freight train can get to Kilby Bridge before being caught, then it's OK. Evidently 22 minutes is fast enough.

However, the Southbound IC services pass Kilby Bridge at XX08, XX18, XX37 and XX50. Here the biggest gap to aim for is about 18 minutes - i.e. 6 minutes less than Northbound. So would matching the down timing of 22 minutes be enough here? I'm not sure.

I think there's some room between Braybrooke ATFS & the Bridleway Bridge (SPC3-35AA) for a potential third track (e.g. an Up Loop) which could help to give freight some breathing room while heading southbound.

 

[Merle Haggard]

There's quite a few non-passenger workings in both directions during the day, even in peak times. For instance, most days there's an empty stone train that heads North between the 1605 STP-Nottingham and 1632 STP-Sheffield and in the below example took about 22 minutes from Kettering North to Kilby Bridge (an EMR IC service does this in about 12 minutes)

e.g. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:H21836/2024-10-23/detailed

However I don't think there are any southbound heavy freights (e.g. stone from Peaks/Bardon - London) during the day - assuming the below working is representative, then a fully laden southbound is about 29 minutes in the other direction, which I think is the point you're making.


Possible, but the IC service pattern that freight fits around are different in the two directions.

The 4 Northbound IC services pass Kettering North Jnc around XX18, XX24, XX48 and XX55, meaning there are 24 minute gaps between trains to feed into, and as long as a freight train can get to Kilby Bridge before being caught, then it's OK. Evidently 22 minutes is fast enough.

However, the Southbound IC services pass Kilby Bridge at XX08, XX18, XX37 and XX50. Here the biggest gap to aim for is about 18 minutes - i.e. 6 minutes less than Northbound. So would matching the down timing of 22 minutes be enough here? I'm not sure.

I suggest that one of the big constraints is Desborough summit. I think that the climb is about the same as the better known Sharnbroook one.
It's effect is certainly noticeable on Down 222s starting away from Kettering.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I think there's some room between Braybrooke ATFS & the Bridleway Bridge (SPC3-35AA) for a potential third track (e.g. an Up Loop) which could help to give freight some breathing room while heading southbound.

In the old days, it was 3 tracks (2U, 1D) from Little Bowden to Desborough with a down loop at Desborough and a down-side siding at Little Bowden.
Both the newish Bridleway Bridge and the newly rebuilt bridge near the substation have space for 3 tracks (or at least the plans said they would)

However, I guess the point is that it's quite a lot of investment, it will probably always be cheaper to just run the southbound stone trains overnight.

 

[Meerkat]

I tend to agree. With the only traction being bimode 810s, they don't need the redundancy of 2 separate circuits at places like Braybrooke. The redundancy is already there in the form of the 810 diesel engines

You wouldn’t want diesel to be the redundancy once any services were totally electrified would you -
I‘m no mechanic but having diesels rarely used, and fuel sat in the tanks for ages isn’t wise is it, even before considering the unnecessary weight lugged about?

 

[zwk500]

You wouldn’t want diesel to be the redundancy once any services were totally electrified would you -
I‘m no mechanic but having diesels rarely used, and fuel sat in the tanks for ages isn’t wise is it, even before considering the unnecessary weight lugged about?

There's an appreciable cost saving to be made in not needing any fuel handling at depots as well, especially with today's environmental regulations.
However, AIUI the whole concept of the IET's power design was that the Gensets could be swapped out for batteries in future, and on something like the MML a battery set capable of 1 diversion wouldn't be unfeasible. As long as you kept the set on the wires for long enough after the divert to recharge, you'd be able to run a very flexible service. The two diversionary routes are Kettering-Leicester and Trent JNs - Chesterfield, neither of which are outrageously long.

 

[Meerkat]

The two diversionary routes are Kettering-Leicester and Trent JNs - Chesterfield, neither of which are outrageously long.

And presumably notably slower than the main line.

 

[edwin_m]

I suggest that one of the big constraints is Desborough summit. I think that the climb is about the same as the better known Sharnbroook one.
It's effect is certainly noticeable on Down 222s starting away from Kettering.

According to the Ian Allan gradients book, Desborough is 4 miles mostly at 1 in 132 or 133, and Sharnbrook is 3 miles at 1 in 120 with some lesser gradients on the approach. However, the former Goods lines over Sharnbrook are less severely graded (but not in the book) and their existence also means a slow freight can take as long as it likes to get over the summit without affecting passenger trains.

Braybrook is about half way up the climb to Desborough, so not the best place for a loop, as a heavy freight starting from rest will struggle to pick up speed until it gets to the summit.

 

[Meerkat]

In the old days, it was 3 tracks (2U, 1D) from Little Bowden to Desborough with a down loop at Desborough and a down-side siding at Little Bowden.
Both the newish Bridleway Bridge and the newly rebuilt bridge near the substation have space for 3 tracks (or at least the plans said they would)

However, I guess the point is that it's quite a lot of investment, it will probably always be cheaper to just run the southbound stone trains overnight.

They go round via Corby don’t they?

 

[59CosG95]

There's an appreciable cost saving to be made in not needing any fuel handling at depots as well, especially with today's environmental regulations.
However, AIUI the whole concept of the IET's power design was that the Gensets could be swapped out for batteries in future, and on something like the MML a battery set capable of 1 diversion wouldn't be unfeasible. As long as you kept the set on the wires for long enough after the divert to recharge, you'd be able to run a very flexible service. The two diversionary routes are Kettering-Leicester and Trent JNs - Chesterfield, neither of which are outrageously long.

Of course, assuming wires link Leicester & Peterborough, the gap for the former would be smaller still.

 

[zwk500]

Of course, assuming wires link Leicester & Peterborough, the gap for the former would be smaller still.

I may be being pessimistic, but as Leicester-Peterborough hasn't yet justified Colour-light TCB singalling I can't see the case for investing in OLE until the network effect is too strong to overlook. It'll need either ETCS before OLE on that route is viable, IMO. Sadly.

 

[Nottingham59]

However, the Southbound IC services pass Kilby Bridge at XX08, XX18, XX37 and XX50. Here the biggest gap to aim for is about 18 minutes - i.e. 6 minutes less than Northbound. So would matching the down timing of 22 minutes be enough here? I'm not sure.

The analysis done when the MML was declared congested infrastructure said not. Northbound freights can loop at Kilby Bridge junction, but loaded aggregate freights from the Bardon quarries etc, have nowhere to hide southbound. So they have to go via Corby adding to the congestion in Leicester.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Midland-Main-Line-Congested-Infrastructure-Capacity-Analysis-240315.pdf

the combination of the passenger service
pattern, speed differentials between passenger and freight services, and the
long double-track section with no passing facility between Kettering North Jn
and Kilby Bridge Jn, taken together are a contributory cause of the
congestion.

The obvious place to put a southbound freight loop is between Market Harborough and Desborough, where the alignment used to carry three tracks. But as far as I can see, much of that track bed is now occupied by the masts of twin-track cantilevers which are now blocking that option. Sigh.

 

[Trainbike46]

The analysis done when the MML was declared congested infrastructure said not. Northbound freights can loop at Kilby Bridge junction, but loaded aggregate freights from the Bardon quarries etc, have nowhere to hide southbound. So they have to go via Corby adding to the congestion in Leicester.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Midland-Main-Line-Congested-Infrastructure-Capacity-Analysis-240315.pdf

The obvious place to put a southbound freight loop is between Market Harborough and Desborough, where the alignment used to carry three tracks. But as far as I can see, much of that track bed is now occupied by the masts of twin-track cantilevers which are now blocking that option. Sigh.

Could you not have a third track on the other side of the TTC, and attach the overheads to the same TTC column?

 

[Nottingham59]

Could you not have a third track on the other side of the TTC, and attach the overheads to the same TTC column?

That would make sense. But from what I can see they didn't position the masts, at least those near Braybrooke, to allow for this sensible future option. But I may be wrong. I can only go on the photographs that others have posted on this thread.

 

[dosxuk]

OHLE masts can be moved. If you're going to be reinstating a third line, you're going to be doing a significant amount of work, moving a few masts so they're in the optimal locations for the new layout would be a minor part of the overall works.

Frankly, if we were designing new schemes taking into account all possible future improvements, nothing would ever get built. Sure, if there's an obvious improvement that is already in the works, it needs to be taken into account, but it's silly to do this with every idea the enthusiast community comes up with, when they have little to no industry support, or any sort of feasibility study done to work out what works would be needed or how it would be used.

It's like the person the other day who thought that the biggest issues with a Dublin - London route is the difference in gauge...