MML Electrification: progress updates

[LNW-GW Joint]

I know everyone loves an EU rant, but wasn't this actually the Office of National Statistics? Given the compliance we see elsewhere this amounted to another good old UK gold plating exercise as far as I could see...

Indeed it was the ONS which "nationalised" NR by declaring it part of the public sector.
DfT is now the financial controller of NR but otherwise has made few outward organisational changes, either in NR or its shadow ORR.
But it has torn up NR's credit card, and it can only borrow from the government.

The EU doesn't insist on formal separation of TOC and infrastructure, the requirement is just an accounting mechanism to secure a transparent platform for new TOC entrants (access charges etc).
DB, SNCF, FS etc are all managing to exist as single government-owned bodies within the EU rules, though they have to have Chinese walls between operator and infrastructure functions.

The new TGV lines in France are part-owned by banks, with a revenue-sharing mechanism to pay for them (ie like PFI).

 

[yorksrob]

In the mid / late 90s there was less justification for the electrification of either the GWML or the MML.

The GWML was running new (1991) rolling stock on all of its suburban services from Reading / Newbury and Oxford. Further west the Sprinters weren't much older. That left the HSTs as the oldest stock on the GWML and nowhere near life-expired.

In the case of the MML - people seem to be forgetting quite what a cinderella line that was north of Bedford. BR were running slowish trains with various stopping patterns. It was Midland Mainline who took the initiative and introduced additional 'stopping' services and sped up the longer-distance services. OK the Turbostars perhaps weren't the right stock for that, but it was available and proved the point that the demand was there for those services - hence the Meridians were ordered.

BR had little interest in electrifying the MML to Leicester and beyond.

You may well be correct in that as the MML had a splendid fleet of non-life expired HST's (as it does today), it might not have been their next priority for electrification. Infact, infill projects and electrification may have been the order of the day. I believe the fifteen year hiatus in electrification wouldn't have happened and the expertise wouldn't have been lost, so that when it came to electrify the MML, not only would electrification have been further advanced generally in the country, but a later MML scheme would have been more cost effective and easier to implement.

 

[Bald Rick]

Fact: the MML north of Bedford was next in line for electrification in the mid 80s, taking the cascaded 87s and MkIIIs from the WCML when the APTs were brought in. Obviously that didn't happen, as the ECML jumped the queue as a direct result of Sectorisation in 1982.

Another fact: the 'engineers' in NR do not 'report to themselves':

The route engineers (who own and maintain the assets) report to the Route Managing Director, who are ultimately accountable to the CEO for all aspects of their routes' performance.

The project engineers (who change the assets) report via the chain of command to the MD of Investment Projects, who reports to the CEO. Indeed there is a Chief Engineer in Investment Projects; an exceptional engineer (and jolly nice she is too).

The HQ engineers (who own the asset policies) report to the Group director of safety, technical and engineering, who reports to the CEO.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I know everyone loves an EU rant, but wasn't this actually the Office of National Statistics? Given the compliance we see elsewhere this amounted to another good old UK gold plating exercise as far as I could see...

I actually hate an EU rant.... I wasn't actually blaming them for anything or trying to cause a rant, but i was definitely under the impression it was them who gave the nudge to, you can't call them private if you basically fund them.

I must have got mixed up.... I thought it was an ONS decision based on EU rules?

Happy to learn otherwise.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Fact: the MML north of Bedford was next in line for electrification in the mid 80s, taking the cascaded 87s and MkIIIs from the WCML when the APTs were brought in. Obviously that didn't happen, as the ECML jumped the queue as a direct result of Sectorisation in 1982.

Absolutely correct and I am determined to find a source to back that up. I am also pretty certain that until privatization intervened, the MML was next after the ECML was complete but Johnnie Major or his SoS for transport said no more yet.

 

[HSTEd]

As I understand it MML got HSTs because someone at InterCity noticed that they improved patronage even without major time accelerations.

Which is one of the reasons they have the youngest sets.

 

[DarloRich]

Indeed it was the ONS which "nationalised" NR by declaring it part of the public sector.
DfT is now the financial controller of NR but otherwise has made few outward organisational changes, either in NR or its shadow ORR.
But it has torn up NR's credit card, and it can only borrow from the government.

NR doesnt "borrow" from the government. NR is given a sum of money by the government to deliver on its commitments via the control period determination. If that runs out there is no more.

 

[Bald Rick]

Absolutely correct and I am determined to find a source to back that up. I am also pretty certain that until privatization intervened, the MML was next after the ECML was complete but Johnnie Major or his SoS for transport said no more yet.

It's in various editions of Modern Railways from the early 80s. The change from MML to ECML was done fairly quickly. Nevertheless the MML was still in the planners thoughts in the mid 80s, as the Leicester resignalling of c1987 was done with all the signalling 'immunised' to AC electrification and the signals put in the right place so that the OLE would fit

Not sure that it was definitely next after the ECML for that long though; that is not my recollection, and by then the HSTs were working their magic. Non passenger traffic was dropping off dramatically on the MML (and ECML*)and the case would have been difficult to make on a passenger service of 3 trains every 2 hours**

All investment stopped in c1991 as a result of the recession and BR running out of cash. All that kept going was investment already contracted (eg Cross City Electrification, Kings Lynn electrification), and anything related to the Channel Tunnel. Nothing to do with privatisation.

* don't forget that approx half the fleet of Class 90s was actually bought to operate freight and parcels / paper traffic on the ECML.

** and let us not forget that the ECML electrification was originally proposed only to Newcastle. Edinburgh services would be diesel hauled from there onwards. However after the proposal was sent to DfT for authority, some very quick sums by the Intercity planners showed that the savings in journey time of avoiding the loco change and quicker electric trains would realise a quite significant income. as railways go, it is just about as simple to electrify as they come, so was cheap as chips. An revised submission resulted in the whole lot being done.

 

[Senex]

It's in various editions of Modern Railways from the early 80s. The change from MML to ECML was done fairly quickly. Nevertheless the MML was still in the planners thoughts in the mid 80s, as the Leicester resignalling of c1987 was done with all the signalling 'immunised' to AC electrification and the signals put in the right place so that the OLE would fit.

I'd very much recommend people going back to read those editions of MR -- the arguments about electrification at the time were very interesting.

Not sure that it was definitely next after the ECML for that long though; that is not my recollection, and by then the HSTs were working their magic. Non passenger traffic was dropping off dramatically on the MML (and ECML*)and the case would have been difficult to make on a passenger service of 3 trains every 2 hours.

The re-deployment of some of the HST fleet to the Midland was very much a Cyril Bleasdale decision when he became the first Sector Director of InterCity. It had always been said that the MML was simply not suited to HSTs (though ideal for electric traction) because of its inability to allow sustained high-speed running. Bleasdale argued that the commercial case for a vast improvement of the offer to passengers trumped the speed case that the HSTs should stay on Brunel's billiards table. And he was proved right within a very short space of time!

As for the ECML electrification, we should never forget Don Heath's part in ensuring that that scheme really did all get done and all get completed within a reasonable time-scale, and to budget (even allowing for all the scoping problems not realised at the time that have come up later).

 

[Taunton]

As I recall it, the redeployment of the HSTs to the MML was done principally with some of the units initially allocated to the NE-SW, which had been done pretty much from an operating perspective rather than taking revenue, and thus overall benefit, into consideration.

Although there wasn't much scope for 125mph running, the HST power to both accelerate and climb gradients at line speed still gave a considerable advantage over what was there previously - there were some Class 47s in use, but much of the pre-HST service was still being run with Peaks.

I do recall the prototype APT being run the 100 miles from St Pancras to Leicester in 1 hour, hitherto unknown, and it being stated that tilting was the only way to achieve this - nowadays an HST can be scheduled in the same time, and the infrastructure is pretty much just as it was.

 

[yorksrob]

All investment stopped in c1991 as a result of the recession and BR running out of cash. All that kept going was investment already contracted (eg Cross City Electrification, Kings Lynn electrification), and anything related to the Channel Tunnel. Nothing to do with privatisation.

One also has to account for the subsequent fifteen years of non-electrification. I've seen nothing to suggest that had BR remained, once the recession had ended and revenues recovered, they wouldn't have recommenced electrification as before.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I'd very much recommend people going back to read those editions of MR -- the arguments about electrification at the time were very interesting.



The re-deployment of some of the HST fleet to the Midland was very much a Cyril Bleasdale decision when he became the first Sector Director of InterCity. It had always been said that the MML was simply not suited to HSTs (though ideal for electric traction) because of its inability to allow sustained high-speed running. Bleasdale argued that the commercial case for a vast improvement of the offer to passengers trumped the speed case that the HSTs should stay on Brunel's billiards table. And he was proved right within a very short space of time!

As for the ECML electrification, we should never forget Don Heath's part in ensuring that that scheme really did all get done and all get completed within a reasonable time-scale, and to budget (even allowing for all the scoping problems not realised at the time that have come up later).

Very well put - a carefully selected group of management trainees of my era were tasked with a quick excercise on a minimalistic electrification scheme beyond Bedford to the planned "Wonderworld" at Corby. This they did in outline scope - using the existing 317 fleet which had plenty of off peak capacity and options to squeeze the fleet in the peak. This went down quite well and was well received by the Regional Management. Really basic scheme with station costs at Corby of about £30K at 1980 prices. Unfortunately the tough times from 1981 , plus some subjective trashing by even then well organised commuter groups and MP's at Kettering and Wellingborough did not assist , as they claimed (as now) , they were entitled to Inter City type stock for their fares.

 

[A0]

Very well put - a carefully selected group of management trainees of my era were tasked with a quick excercise on a minimalistic electrification scheme beyond Bedford to the planned "Wonderworld" at Corby. This they did in outline scope - using the existing 317 fleet which had plenty of off peak capacity and options to squeeze the fleet in the peak. This went down quite well and was well received by the Regional Management. Really basic scheme with station costs at Corby of about £30K at 1980 prices. Unfortunately the tough times from 1981 , plus some subjective trashing by even then well organised commuter groups and MP's at Kettering and Wellingborough did not assist , as they claimed (as now) , they were entitled to Inter City type stock for their fares.

To be fair - Wellingborough and Kettering passengers have something of a point regarding the fares - example using an 'Anytime travelcard' as a baseline:

Kettering - £ 108.50
Wellingborough - £ 103.00
Bedford - £ 48.30

Northampton - £ 64.60
Huntingdon - £ 54.00

It's pretty difficult to justify that travelling from Wellingborough is £50 more than from Bedford - which will be the legitimate challenge if electrification basically brings commuter type EMUs to the route.

The fares should probably more in line with Northampton or Huntingdon both of which have services using exclusively commuter EMUs.

 

[IanXC]

I must have got mixed up.... I thought it was an ONS decision based on EU rules?

Happy to learn otherwise.

It was indeed, however it was one of those good old fashion British overly strict, uncompromising implementations of the EU rules.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

To be fair - Wellingborough and Kettering passengers have something of a point regarding the fares - example using an 'Anytime travelcard' as a baseline:

Kettering - £ 108.50
Wellingborough - £ 103.00
Bedford - £ 48.30

Northampton - £ 64.60
Huntingdon - £ 54.00

It's pretty difficult to justify that travelling from Wellingborough is £50 more than from Bedford - which will be the legitimate challenge if electrification basically brings commuter type EMUs to the route.

The fares should probably more in line with Northampton or Huntingdon both of which have services using exclusively commuter EMUs.

That is an eye-watering jump from Bedford prices to Wellingborough. (the latter still apparently deemed an affordable place to buy in and commute - even at those prices)

This could be interesting ...

 

[snowball]

Press release

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds...-as-network-rail-prepares-for-bridge-upgrade/

Ford End Road lane closure planned as Network Rail prepares for bridge upgrade

Network Rail will carry out preparation work on Ford End Road bridge in Bedford ahead of it being upgraded as part of the Midland Main Line improvement programme.

The preparation work will begin on Tuesday, 11 July and will be completed on Thursday, 13 July. It will see small areas of the bridge excavated in order take samples of the material used in its construction. This is vital work as the results will inform the design and construction process of the upgrade which will follow.

Due to the nature of the work, a single lane road closure will be in place throughout the project. Traffic lights will be in place from 07:30 on 11 July until 19:00 on 13 July and road users are advised to allow extra time for their journey. Pedestrian access via the adjacent footbridge will be maintained throughout the work.

Luke McInerney, project manager at Network Rail, said: “We appreciate that there is never a good time to have a lane closure on a busy bridge like this. We have worked closely with the Highways team at the council to secure the access we need to carry out this important work whilst limiting the disruption to traffic and maintaining a safe distance for passing vehicles. I would like to thank road users in advance for their patience whilst the work takes place.”

The accompanying picture shows that most of the tracks under the bridge are already wired. The picture shows an insubstantial parapet. Comparison with Google Streetview shows that this belongs to a footway added outside the original parapet:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.1...142.68678&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656

 

[A0]

That is an eye-watering jump from Bedford prices to Wellingborough. (the latter still apparently deemed an affordable place to buy in and commute - even at those prices)

This could be interesting ...

Quite agree - I have been known to 'ticket split' the journey as it's cheaper to buy a Wellingborough - Bedford return and Bedford London return.

I genuinely can't see any justification for the massive jump after Bedford - and it's not even distance related - hence the posting of Northampton and Huntingdon prices which are a similar distance / time to London.

 

[A0]

Press release

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds...-as-network-rail-prepares-for-bridge-upgrade/



The accompanying picture shows that most of the tracks under the bridge are already wired. The picture shows an insubstantial parapet. Comparison with Google Streetview shows that this belongs to a footway added outside the original parapet:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.1...142.68678&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656

It's the two lines on the west side (which are the fasts) that aren't wired - somewhere on Youtube (other video sites are available) there is a cab view video into Bedford - from memory those two lines go through part of the bridge which isn't wired and a combination of the track alignment and profile of the bridge means there's less clearance there than under the other parts where the OHL wired lines go.

 

[LowLevel]

Quite agree - I have been known to 'ticket split' the journey as it's cheaper to buy a Wellingborough - Bedford return and Bedford London return.

I genuinely can't see any justification for the massive jump after Bedford - and it's not even distance related - hence the posting of Northampton and Huntingdon prices which are a similar distance / time to London.

It is, I suppose, partly down to the captive market and partly down to the historic divide between Intercity and NSE - things have improved on LM with the 350s but up until a few years ago from Kettering and Wellingborough you'd get an Intercity spec train with full catering facilities often running fast, whereas from Northampton you'd get, bar the odd Virgin peak service, an outer suburban 321 without any air conditioning or catering, and from Huntingdon a DOO 317 or 365 with next to no facilities at all on board.

Which route to use with the corresponding pricing and facilities is of course up to the traveller - the 10 car MML 222 services are still rather leaving London (though do improve markedly after Luton/Bedford).

 

[InTheEastMids]

I genuinely can't see any justification for the massive jump after Bedford - and it's not even distance related - hence the posting of Northampton and Huntingdon prices which are a similar distance / time to London.

You're comparing routes where there are two operators, to a route where there is a monopoly...

However, worth us all remembering that taking this argument further is probably a tad off topic for "MML Electrification"

 

[A0]

You're comparing routes where there are two operators, to a route where there is a monopoly...

However, worth us all remembering that taking this argument further is probably a tad off topic for "MML Electrification"

Not sure I agree with your first point - both Northampton and Huntingdon are only served by one operator, so are technically in a monopoly position (notwithstanding the once a day Virgin train for driver familiarisation to Northampton).

The comment another poster made about the old 'Inter City / NSE split' is more like it - but when Corby etc are wired, if the only services are suburban EMUs which are comparable to the 350s on the Northampton line or the 365/387s on the GN line, there are going to be quite genuine complaints about the fares against the standard of service provided.

 

[IanXC]

Not sure I agree with your first point - both Northampton and Huntingdon are only served by one operator, so are technically in a monopoly position (notwithstanding the once a day Virgin train for driver familiarisation to Northampton).

The comment another poster made about the old 'Inter City / NSE split' is more like it - but when Corby etc are wired, if the only services are suburban EMUs which are comparable to the 350s on the Northampton line or the 365/387s on the GN line, there are going to be quite genuine complaints about the fares against the standard of service provided.

"If"

I suspect a good option, and one which might avoid such complaints, would be 379s which of course will be available!

 

[edwin_m]

"If"

I suspect a good option, and one which might avoid such complaints, would be 379s which of course will be available!

379 certainly seems a sensible option, with a similar spec to the 350 on the similar Northampton route. However it's open to question whether there is any sense in the rolling stock market! I read somewhere that lease charges for the 379s were rather high, so I would guess they will leave it open in the franchise spec so the 379 owners have to compete against anything anyone else wants to offer.

 

[ainsworth74]

I read somewhere that lease charges for the 379s were rather high, so I would guess they will leave it open in the franchise spec so the 379 owners have to compete against anything anyone else wants to offer.

But given the glut of EMU's that are about to be on the market with no home that will surely drive down lease charges quite dramatically?

 

[A0]

"If"

I suspect a good option, and one which might avoid such complaints, would be 379s which of course will be available!

Not to your average passenger to whom a 379 is indistinguishable from any of the other Electrostar EMUs and not dissimilar to a Desiro.

So Wellingborough & Kettering commuters will be reasonably asking why their fares are 40% higher than Northampton or Huntingdon for an equivalent service.

Put 395s on the Corby's and that would prevent any complaints.....

 

[IanXC]

379 certainly seems a sensible option, with a similar spec to the 350 on the similar Northampton route.

I'm not sure it would be helpful to significantly downgrade the spec!

 

[HSTEd]

NEtwork Rail has no money to spend because the Treasury decrees it.

The treasury let it spend what it needed to do when it didn't have to include it in the public spending figures, but now that it does, it must not recieve any money.

All so the Chancellor can make the public finances look nicer.

 

[deltic08]

NEtwork Rail has no money to spend because the Treasury decrees it.

The treasury let it spend what it needed to do when it didn't have to include it in the public spending figures, but now that it does, it must not recieve any money.

All so the Chancellor can make the public finances look nicer.

No, it is so the Chancellor can spend an additional £5b annually on new roads instead of upgrading local rail routes that have seen 200% growth since the mid 1990s and now heaving in the peaks.

York-Harrogate resignalling and partial track redualling has just been put back 10 years to 2029 in favour of life extension of manual signalling. This will delay introduction of desperately needed additional paths between York and Knaresborough and journey time improvements between York and Harrogate. All for the sake of a measly £27m.

In 2012 Justine Greening promised Leeds 5% additional peak time seats with completion of trans Pennine electrification in 2018. This was at a time when growth in Leeds City Region was 9% annually. Stupid announcement or what? No wonder we no longer trust anything that comes from a politicians mouth.
Trans Pennine electrification will not have even started by 2018.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Very well put - a carefully selected group of management trainees of my era were tasked with a quick excercise on a minimalistic electrification scheme beyond Bedford to the planned "Wonderworld" at Corby. This they did in outline scope - using the existing 317 fleet which had plenty of off peak capacity and options to squeeze the fleet in the peak. This went down quite well and was well received by the Regional Management. Really basic scheme with station costs at Corby of about £30K at 1980 prices. Unfortunately the tough times from 1981 , plus some subjective trashing by even then well organised commuter groups and MP's at Kettering and Wellingborough did not assist , as they claimed (as now) , they were entitled to Inter City type stock for their fares.

Yes, but didn't these same lobby groups suggest that BR would "do-a-Gloucester-Eastgate" on Wellingborough as part of the deal. And Wellinboroughonians objected to the thought, ie the station would be doungraded to suburban status, change at Kettering to proceed north thereof? (and is anyone surprised?)

 

[deltic08]

Yes, but didn't these same lobby groups suggest that BR would "do-a-Gloucester-Eastgate" on Wellingborough as part of the deal. And Wellinboroughonians objected to the thought, ie the station would be doungraded to suburban status, change at Kettering to proceed north thereof? (and is anyone surprised?)

As someone who regularly used Gloucester Eastgate 60 years ago, what is a "Gloucester Eastgate"?