MML Electrification: progress updates

[Senex]

So there are billions of pounds available to build a railway of which the main purpose is to create additional capacity, first at the southern end of the WCML to serve the needs of London commuters and then later to do the same for the ECML, but nothing other than noisy plastic bi-modes of unproven performance to offer improvements to users of the MML before 2032. How typical!

 

[jfowkes]

I'm a bit confused by the talk of HS2 somehow making the MML defunct.

If HS2 is taking all the high speed, long distance services off the MML, that will/should/could increase the number of stopping services on the MML? Isn't that one of the main benefits of high speed rail, it's essentially very expensive grade separation?

I'm in favour of it in principle, but not if it's going to reduce the quality of semi-fast and local services!

 

[thenorthern]

How will the line be superseded when the closest HS2 gets to anywhere in the East Midlands is Toton? Other than those suburbs around Toton no where else has any real benefit. The A52 is a nightmare during the rush hour, especially around J25.

I know that but as the Government will see it they are introducing faster trains to the East Midlands.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I'm a bit confused by the talk of HS2 somehow making the MML defunct.

If HS2 is taking all the high speed, long distance services off the MML, that will/should/could increase the number of stopping services on the MML? Isn't that one of the main benefits of high speed rail, it's essentially very expensive grade separation?

I'm in favour of it in principle, but not if it's going to reduce the quality of semi-fast and local services!

To Sheffield yes but in my opinion not to the East Midlands.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, they're real weasel words. I wonder what the improvement of times for off-peak fast services will be -- i.e. London - Leicester - Derby - Chesterfield - Sheffield. I rather doubt that even if the civil engineering at Market Harborough, Leicester, and Derby all gets done it will be more than 5 or 6 minutes.

Given that an 80x on diesel has less power:weight than a Meridian I really can't see where 20min is going to come from, especially for the faster trains that don't stop on the to-be-electrified section.

 

[Senex]

In what way will bi-modes be any improvement on 222s? I haven't heard any suggestion they will offer greater comfort / more leg room etc, and they surely can't offer a better performance, especially if they are limited to 100 under the wires south of Bedford.

 

[38Cto15E]

Why didn't the government announce the MML electification cancellation before the election?

 

[43074]

In what way will bi-modes be any improvement on 222s? I haven't heard any suggestion they will offer greater comfort / more leg room etc, and they surely can't offer a better performance, especially if they are limited to 100 under the wires south of Bedford.

They won't be, and EMT had realised that to the extent that they were pushing for new diesels. I'm not surprised about the cancellation of the project, but I'm disappointed that bi-modes are the replacement, they are no substitute. In terms of journey times there's some pretty drastic reduction that could happen (e.g. the 05:30 and 06:00 from Sheffield take 2 hours 37 and 2 hours 39 respectively), to save 20 mins you'd be looking at the 2 hour 20 mark which isn't particularly hard to achieve anyway.

 

[Jordeh]

To Sheffield yes but in my opinion not to the East Midlands.

I'm usually very pro-HS2 but I'm inclined to agree with you here.

HS2 is going to bring a negligible benefit for those visiting Nottingham and Derby city centres seeing as they'll have to change at East Midlands Hub. Therefore it seems a lot will continue using MML services anyway.

There is of course minimal benefit for Leicester too (except for those travelling northwards).

This announcement is a real shame, I just hope their predictions of technological advancements rendering it unnecessary are true. I am sceptical though.

 

[Kettledrum]

So Chris Graying says: "The next East Midlands franchise will help drive the Midlands Engine and improve passenger journeys by maximising the passenger benefits of the significant upgrade of the Midland Main Line, the biggest investment in the route since it was completed in 1870. The upgrade will enable reduced journey times and more seats for long distance passengers during the peaks, as well as more capacity for commuters with dedicated services with longer trains. Journeys will improve from 2020 and, once the full benefits are realised, there will be almost twice as many seats into London St Pancras in the peak compared to today."

I must have missed what the significant upgrade of the Midland Main Line is.

I also must have missed how the extra seats are to be delivered in practice. I suspect it's squeezing more seats into existing sized trains which is surely bad news for customers. It can't be more trains, because how will they fit in the platforms at St Pancras. Do the bi-modes enable additional seats because seats can be nearer the drivers cab - so less space for diesel engines? Will journey times be reduced by missing out existing stops?

What a bad announcement - all spin, and no detail. That's because the detail is very bad news.

 

[ag51ruk]

So Chris Graying says: "The next East Midlands franchise will help drive the Midlands Engine and improve passenger journeys by maximising the passenger benefits of the significant upgrade of the Midland Main Line, the biggest investment in the route since it was completed in 1870. The upgrade will enable reduced journey times and more seats for long distance passengers during the peaks, as well as more capacity for commuters with dedicated services with longer trains. Journeys will improve from 2020 and, once the full benefits are realised, there will be almost twice as many seats into London St Pancras in the peak compared to today."

I must have missed what the significant upgrade of the Midland Main Line is.

I also must have missed how the extra seats are to be delivered in practice. I suspect it's squeezing more seats into existing sized trains which is surely bad news for customers. It can't be more trains, because how will they fit in the platforms at St Pancras. Do the bi-modes enable additional seats because seats can be nearer the drivers cab - so less space for diesel engines? Will journey times be reduced by missing out existing stops?

What a bad announcement - all spin, and no detail. That's because the detail is very bad news.

The full consultation document does mention 12 coach trains for Corby, I didn't think they would fit in the platforms at St Pancras? So does that mean Thameslink...

"Introduce higher capacity trains, up to 12 carriages long, on dedicated commuter services."

 

[edwin_m]

The full consultation document does mention 12 coach trains for Corby, I didn't think they would fit in the platforms at St Pancras? So does that mean Thameslink...

"Introduce higher capacity trains, up to 12 carriages long, on dedicated commuter services."

That's probably 12 by 20m.

 

[edwin_m]

They won't be, and EMT had realised that to the extent that they were pushing for new diesels. I'm not surprised about the cancellation of the project, but I'm disappointed that bi-modes are the replacement, they are no substitute. In terms of journey times there's some pretty drastic reduction that could happen (e.g. the 05:30 and 06:00 from Sheffield take 2 hours 37 and 2 hours 39 respectively), to save 20 mins you'd be looking at the 2 hour 20 mark which isn't particularly hard to achieve anyway.

Why would diesels be any better? There is no current design of 125mph DMU so you'd probably just end up with the 80x minus a few tonnes of transformer. I don't believe the floor is raised in the end coaches so could be a big re-design to include diesels in them.

Also it's unlikely that the ROSCOs would finance a new DMU, as it's quite likely it wouldn't be able to work for a full lifetime despite today's announcements. If nothing else it's quite possible it would be banned from covered stations within a few decades due to pollution concerns.

 

[Chester1]

I also must have missed how the extra seats are to be delivered in practice. I suspect it's squeezing more seats into existing sized trains which is surely bad news for customers. It can't be more trains, because how will they fit in the platforms at St Pancras. Do the bi-modes enable additional seats because seats can be nearer the drivers cab - so less space for diesel engines? Will journey times be reduced by missing out existing stops?

What a bad announcement - all spin, and no detail. That's because the detail is very bad news.

There are a range of options to boost capacity. Replacing the HSTs with multiple units will free up space taken up by locos. Reforming the Meridians and lengthening any platforms necessary to make sure that that they are all run doubled up as 5+5 or 5+4 i.e. no 7 car sets. Then buying bi modes to counter balance the reduction in the number of Meridian sets in use. These two measures would add about 15% more capacity without reducing leg room. There is also the option of switching Corby services to Thameslink which would free up platform capacity for 2 extra inter city services per hour. A reduced service pattern south of Kettering would force people to switch from inter city trains to Corby or Thameslink services freeing up seats for long distance passengers.

 

[deltic08]

If I am not mistaken all these schemes were started under Labour by Lord Adonis.

OK, I am mistaken.

 

[TheBigD]

Deleted

 

[tbtc]

I'm a bit confused by the talk of HS2 somehow making the MML defunct

I don't think HS2 will make the MML remotely defunct, and I don't think that HS2 is to blame for the cancellation of electrification.

HS2 is just one line - it was never intended to solve everything and there will be plenty of markets unserved by it.

It'd be naive to expect a two track railway to cater to providing a direct link between London and the centre of every major conurbation. But people like to use arguments like "what will HS2 do for London to Leicester journeys" as a stick to beat it with.

The original plans for HS2 would have seen it compliment the MML, catering for a different market (Toton and Meadowhall, instead of central Derby/ Nottingham/ Sheffield), competing with the M1. By giving a "fast" service between London and the East Midlands/ South Yorkshire you've got scope for more MML services to stop at underserved station (e.g. Loughborough) or for new stations on the MML (e.g. Clay Cross), since there may be less focus on headline "fast" services on the existing network.

I think that "we cancelled MML electrification because HS2 will deliver some benefits to the region in twenty years time" is as disingenuous an excuse as "we cancelled Windermere electrification because we suddenly remembered how ugly masts would look in the Lake District" - the slippery words of dishonest politicians eager to find some justification for cutting back due to the Network Rail over-spend.

To be mildly optimistic for a moment (whilst I'm pro-electrification, I've got to accept that when the facts change, we need to change our minds)...

... we now have a chance to order MML stock that maximises platform space at St Pancras...

...we now have a chance to cascade 125mph Bombardier DMUs to Cross Country...

...we now have a chance to order sufficient new trains to accommodate desired extensions (e.g. beyond Sheffield) or enough to extend the "InterCity" level of service to some of the ex-CentralTrains services...

... we now have a chance to build a proper timetable between London and Leicester that gives Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield at least one relatively fast London service per hour whilst trying to keep the two services from running within a few minutes of each other and providing the local stations south of Leicester with a fairly clock face timetable (not an easy circle to square!)...

...we now have a chance to marry the need for long London trains with something short enough to stop at short platforms (e.g. Loughborough).

It's certainly not the result that I would have wanted, but at least this gives us a fresh sheet of paper on which we can try to design a sensible MML (rather than the awkward timetable we currently have where insertion of the Corby service messed up a fairly sensible timetable that Midland Mainline had introduced).

 

[TheBigD]

Deleted

 

[cle]

The current plan is for 24 trains per hour through the Thameslink core in the peaks... It won't be possible to squeeze in extra Corby services... There are no 700s going spare so extending the current Bedford trains through to Corby won't be an option, nether mind the greatly extended journey times from Wellingborough and Kettering...

Corby will be an EMU shuttle to/from St Pancras strengthened to 12 cars in the peaks...

In the peaks aren't there some Thameslinks which are fast to Leagrave? Surely these could be extended to become the Corby-s? Given the through journeys, e.g. to/from Farringdon or London Bridge, a slightly longer but direct ride might net out better than the long walk to the tube from the St P MML platforms.

 

[Mikey C]

I'm actually shocked by this announcement. Pushing MML electrification out into the future I might have expected, but cancelling it altogether is extraordinary.

Electorally this could be a disaster for the Tories in the East Midlands and the North, after all the effort by Cameron and Osborne to at least look as if they cared about rebalancing the country's growth away from the south east, I can't imagine Tory backbenchers will take this news well

 

[Kneedown]

Looks like diesel traction into Nottingham is the future.
I bet the proposed £20 daily charge for taking a diesel car into the city doesn't get cancelled though!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

In the peaks aren't there some Thameslinks which are fast to Leagrave? Surely these could be extended to become the Corby-s? Given the through journeys, e.g. to/from Farringdon or London Bridge, a slightly longer but direct ride might net out better than the long walk to the tube from the St P MML platforms.

No - everything calls at St Albans - with some limited calls north of the city.

Many years ago there was a solitary peak (4 car) , which was first stop Flitwck.

 

[richieb1971]

Will Bedford still be a terminus?

Will the gauging be increased to the same as the WCML?

 

[furnessvale]

Given that the infrastructure already in place to Bedford isn't suitable for trains running faster than 100 mph what is the point in bi-mode trains?

Elimination of diesel fumes from London?

 

[DarloRich]

I don't think HS2 will make the MML remotely defunct, and I don't think that HS2 is to blame for the cancellation of electrification.

HS2 is just one line - it was never intended to solve everything and there will be plenty of markets unserved by it.

It'd be naive to expect a two track railway to cater to providing a direct link between London and the centre of every major conurbation. But people like to use arguments like "what will HS2 do for London to Leicester journeys" as a stick to beat it with.

The original plans for HS2 would have seen it compliment the MML, catering for a different market (Toton and Meadowhall, instead of central Derby/ Nottingham/ Sheffield), competing with the M1. By giving a "fast" service between London and the East Midlands/ South Yorkshire you've got scope for more MML services to stop at underserved station (e.g. Loughborough) or for new stations on the MML (e.g. Clay Cross), since there may be less focus on headline "fast" services on the existing network.

I think that "we cancelled MML electrification because HS2 will deliver some benefits to the region in twenty years time" is as disingenuous an excuse as "we cancelled Windermere electrification because we suddenly remembered how ugly masts would look in the Lake District" - the slippery words of dishonest politicians eager to find some justification for cutting back due to the Network Rail over-spend.

To be mildly optimistic for a moment (whilst I'm pro-electrification, I've got to accept that when the facts change, we need to change our minds)...

... we now have a chance to order MML stock that maximises platform space at St Pancras...

...we now have a chance to cascade 125mph Bombardier DMUs to Cross Country...

...we now have a chance to order sufficient new trains to accommodate desired extensions (e.g. beyond Sheffield) or enough to extend the "InterCity" level of service to some of the ex-CentralTrains services...

... we now have a chance to build a proper timetable between London and Leicester that gives Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield at least one relatively fast London service per hour whilst trying to keep the two services from running within a few minutes of each other and providing the local stations south of Leicester with a fairly clock face timetable (not an easy circle to square!)...

...we now have a chance to marry the need for long London trains with something short enough to stop at short platforms (e.g. Loughborough).

It's certainly not the result that I would have wanted, but at least this gives us a fresh sheet of paper on which we can try to design a sensible MML (rather than the awkward timetable we currently have where insertion of the Corby service messed up a fairly sensible timetable that Midland Mainline had introduced).

I think this is an eminently sensible post. Whilst I am extremely disappointed personally that the government decided to cut this scheme we now have to try and make the best of it.

IF (and a big IF) the bi modes turn out to be able to deliver the promised service frequency and speed improvements is that not a decent runners up prize?

 

[Senex]

Elimination of diesel fumes from London?

At the cost of slower times for Sheffield services from leaving St Pancras to passing Bedford? Wouldn't that be yet more London-centric thinking?

 

[furnessvale]

At the cost of slower times for Sheffield services from leaving St Pancras to passing Bedford? Wouldn't that be yet more London-centric thinking?

Yes. I'm not agreeing with the move, simply stating one potential benefit.

 

[Senex]

I think this is an eminently sensible post. Whilst I am extremely disappointed personally that the government decided to cut this scheme we now have to try and make the best of it.

IF (and a big IF) the bi modes turn out to be able to deliver the promised service frequency and speed improvements is that not a decent runners up prize?

I hope the local authorities of the East Midland counties and South Yorkshire will fight against it as strongly as they can and not just sit back once more and make the best of it. In electrification terms Sheffield has been dealt with very badly indeed since the first suggestions of schemes in the early 1980s (when the Leicester MAS scheme was immunised in preparation for an envisaged electrification).

I'm glad to see your big "IF" against the bi-modes — it's hard to see on what we know so far that bi-modes running at a maximum of 100 on diesel will not be slower point-to-point than the present 222s on a line which does now have quite significant stretches of 125 and 110 speeds, though if there are enough of them they can certainly deliver increased frequency. And the only improvements to lower speeds that we know are definitely on the cards are Market Harborough, Leicester, and Derby (and even the Leicester one is uncertain still). In terms of comfort the bi-modes are unlikely to bring an improvement, as in recent years each new generation of trains seems to have involved a step backwards in passenger comfort, and in terms of the environment they will continue the very high levels of noise we know in all stations served by diesel trains where those trains stand for some time, not to speak of emissions. Some of us must bitterly regret the day that a certain gentleman in DfT had the idea of bi-modes ....

 

[edwin_m]

At the cost of slower times for Sheffield services from leaving St Pancras to passing Bedford? Wouldn't that be yet more London-centric thinking?

What we don't know is whether the OLE south of Bedford is being upgraded, which would allow the bi-modes to use electric power all the way from London to Kettering. The logical answer would be to use some of the money saved to do this, then again there's not a lot of logic in this announcement...

 

[LLivery]

It's amazing how many times people put forward cynical theories years in advance, told that they're hogwash, only for it to come true in the end anyway.

It always happens. Its amazing how many people believe anything on face value even when the person saying it has broken more promises than doctors have seen broken bones.

Kettering & Corby, Nottingham & Sheffield. Supposedly one electrification project but moved world's apart once HS2 raised its ugly head.

HS2 was always going to destroy the case for electrification to Nottingham and Sheffield. If nothing else, the government will need people to use HS2. And just like they still try and force people to pay the premium for HS1, it seems like they only know one way of doing things.

I'm still not convinced Nottingham/Derby will be affected by HS2, unless they force people to use it. Like you say, they did that with Kent. As someone who spends a lot of time in Nottingham (well West Bridgford), theres no chance I'm getting a tram from Nottingham station all the way to Totton to get to London.

Cue the Thameslinkification of Kettering and Corby. People keep saying it's not going to happen, but I reckon it will. Kettering will still have some Midland Mainline fasts, but I predict Corby will go Thameslink only, with interchange at Kettering for anything more. It's an obvious way of signalling the spread of the commuter belt ever further.

Anything we're missing? Don't think so. No one talks about Leicester anymore anyway!!

I agree, and I've always thought it would happen. It should be remembered Peterborough is further north than the three Northants stations. Great Northern does Peterborough - Kings Cross in around 1hr 20/30. Thameslink does Bedford to St Pancras in 1 hour. Corby is 30ish mins from Bedford. There has always been commuters from Northamptonshire but we are seeing this increase. The whole Stanton Cross development (3000 homes) is aimed at families and the commuter market.

Of course increased journey times aren't good but that didn't stop it happening to the Trent Valley. I can't see Kettering and Wellingborough only having 2tph for much longer. If Corby became Thameslink I'd like to 3 (even 4) tph. This would be 2tph Thameslink Corby, 1tph EMT Nottingham semi-fast and 1tph EWR Oxford to Leicester (or even Peterborough/Cambridge). But I know even that is wishful.