MML Electrification: progress updates

[43074]

If the 2 track section is such a bottle neck some of the paths should go via Corby. Its a wasted line.

Quite a bit of the freight is from London to the various Leicestershire quarries (Croft near Hinckley, or Bardon Hill on the Coalville line) so there still needs to be capacity for this on the 2 track section. Diverting passenger services away from Leicester would be a waste of time, journey times would be too slow and there simply isn't the demand in Melton/Oakham etc to make them viable. Much of the freight which could be diverted already goes via Corby anyway.

 

[LLivery]

Here's a thought. Maybe the battery tech used on GA's 379s could be used to run an hourly service through to Oakham and Melton?

 

[nw1]

Is there a demand for 6 full length trainloads of passengers per hour to Leicester?

Very good question, there does seem to be a philosophy on the current railway of running off-peak services to saturation and thus leaving little room for manoeuvre if things go wrong - rather than lessening off peak services a little and lengthening the trains to provide the same, or perhaps greater, number of seats.

While I'm not a regular user of the line, I'd have said if there is a huge off peak demand, why not increase train length rather than filling up the railway with huge numbers of off-peak services and adding to congestion? 6 an hour London to Leicester off peak seems OTT, particularly given you've got Thameslink to deal with.

Two fast (i.e non-stop) and two 'slow' (i.e. Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering etc) an hour to Leicester, on an even-interval 30-min service for each, would have been adequate I'd have thought: indeed what was wrong with the old system of the 'fasts' overtaking the 'slows' with connections available at Leicester (thus providing one direct train and one with-change an hour to each of Sheffield and Nottingham)? That old timetable always seemed very 'neat' compared to the rather messy current timetable; the only issue that springs to mind was that a 170, or even a 4-or-5-car 222, was too short. Have the fasts as 10-to-12-car and the slows as 8-car and I'd have thought that would do.


Meanwhile the natural place for the Corbys seems to be part of Thameslink, or at least would be if Thameslink ran reliably...

 

[DanTrain]

Two fast (i.e non-stop) and two 'slow' (i.e. Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering etc) an hour to Leicester, on an even-interval 30-min service for each, would have been adequate I'd have thought: indeed what was wrong with the old system of the 'fasts' overtaking the 'slows' with connections available at Leicester (thus providing one direct train and one with-change an hour to each of Sheffield and Nottingham)? That old timetable always seemed very 'neat' compared to the rather messy current timetable; the only issue that springs to mind was that a 170, or even a 4-or-5-car 222, was too short. Have the fasts as 10-to-12-car and the slows as 8-car and I'd have thought that would do.

Does anyone know if there's a reason why EMT don't/can't run 11 and 12 car units. I'd have thought that a 7+4 or 7+4 unit would seem like a good solution, particuarly on Sundays when Sheffield is 1tph (or during the Derby works). Is there an operational reason why this can't hapen, or is it to do with platform lengths?

 

[Hairy Bear]

Restricted to 10 cars, max 240m in overall length due to platform lengths.

 

[DanTrain]

Restricted to 10 cars, max 240m in overall length due to platform lengths.

Oh ok thanks, I wondered if that might be the case. In which case, 7 cars seems like an odd length to have?

 

[59CosG95]

Oh ok thanks, I wondered if that might be the case. In which case, 7 cars seems like an odd length to have?

The 7-car units were initially 9-cars (222001-222007), but donated 2 cars each to strengthen the 4-car fleet of 222/0s (222008-222022) to 5-cars. 222007 is the anomaly here, as it was reduced to a 5-car unit from a 9-car one.

 

[tbtc]

If the 2 track section is such a bottle neck some of the paths should go via Corby. Its a wasted line.

It's a line not used much by passenger trains, but that doesn't mean we should start filling it with such just to justify it.

At the moment, it takes over an hour and a half for a regular EMT service to do Derby - Corby - Kettering (e.g. http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C67069/2018/10/10/advanced).

Running Derby - Leicester - Kettering takes around fifty minutes (e.g. http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C69924/2018/10/10/advanced), almost half the time of the Corby diversion.

Plus the Derby - Corby - Kettering service (whilst being overtaken by a few other trains between East Midlands Parkway and Kettering) avoids the city of Leicester, so diverting longer distance trains via Corby is significantly slower and manages not to serve the biggest intermediate place on the line.

Maybe there's a market for some Corby - Loughborough - Derby/Nottingham services, but I'd see those as being shuttles run by Sprinters rather than delaying long distance services with that diversion.

Two fast (i.e non-stop) and two 'slow' (i.e. Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering etc) an hour to Leicester, on an even-interval 30-min service for each, would have been adequate I'd have thought: indeed what was wrong with the old system of the 'fasts' overtaking the 'slows' with connections available at Leicester (thus providing one direct train and one with-change an hour to each of Sheffield and Nottingham)? That old timetable always seemed very 'neat' compared to the rather messy current timetable; the only issue that springs to mind was that a 170, or even a 4-or-5-car 222, was too short

If the MML only served one of Derby/ Nottingham (e.g. if Derby was served by a rebuilt GCR or Nottingham served by ECML services turning off at Grantham) then I could get behind the idea of two fasts and two slow from London to Leicester. It'd be nice and neat.

But now that both Derby and Nottingham have two relatively fast London services per hour, to return them to the days of just one fast service (with a second service so slow that it is almost overtaken en route), which I'd see as very unpopular.

Other cities a comparable distance from London (to Derby/ Nottingham/ Sheffield) have a fairly uniform London service (Norwich, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol etc), rather than one ultra-fast service and one stopper.

EMT's biggest success on the MML seems to be the smoothing out of the times for long distance services, even if that means slowing down the "fast" train slightly to give more like a half hourly service (when the second Sheffield service started, it often left at xx:35, just eight minutes after the traditional departure for London).

If you could amend the timetable to permit six Leicester services per hour then that would permit all longer distance services to be non stop as far as Leicester, allowing faster journeys for passengers who are on the train longest.

Personally, I don't think that demand from any station south of Leicester is significant enough for through services to places north of Leicester to be necessary - fine if operationally practical but there's demand spread between six stations (Airport, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Ketting, Market Harborough) and it's not practical (for longer distance trains) to serve them all.

But, Thameslink is the bigger priority, which is why we have such awkwardly timed MML services for passengers travelling north of Bedford.

 

[cle]

To be clear, I wasn’t saying those service should or could start tomorrow. I was thinking longer term, and after all the various works are done (hopefully with more to come).

Also hoping rail patronage will continue to grow (and that the country heals a bit and the economy recovers) - and so future demand might be higher. Some competition from London to Manchester and Leeds I think would be interesting too, it works for Birmingham, and that is where the south of Leicester demand might come.

Luton I thought maybe as a southern railhead, as Watford once was, and as a big town with similar demos to lots of northern towns in terms of VFR demand. But not essential, and split somewhat with the airport these days, which is a better park & ride, and has the people mover coming.

Bedford was again forward-looking, thinking about EWR. Note that there was also talk at one point of EWR trains heading up the MML, which would count as tph to Leicester...

 

[richieb1971]

All freight could go via Corby. It's a longer way round but not by much. I would rather see stp to Leicester shuttle trains than all trains going further north. Half of them yes.

 

[cle]

The Thameslink stopping pattern could be looked at too, to try and introduce new classes for a 2tph Corby super fast, and today’s Bedfords follow behind. If everything is based on 15 mins, then have two Bedford fasts at the other corners of the clock.

Also, if Brent Cross is built like OOC is to Crossrail, you could turn trains there and thus anything running north of there would never need to call at Kentish Town or Cricklewood. West Hampstead up for debate. St Albans or Luton could could alternate with Bedford for the now semis.

And then we have more capacity for further north, even if shuttles to Leicester.

 

[yorksrob]

I must admit, I'm not convinced why a glorified outer-suburban service like Thameslink is such a priority, to the detriment of everything else. Do they even need that many stoppers to Bedford ?

 

[Kettledrum]

But now that both Derby and Nottingham have two relatively fast London services per hour, to return them to the days of just one fast service (with a second service so slow that it is almost overtaken en route), which I'd see as very unpopular.

Other cities a comparable distance from London (to Derby/ Nottingham/ Sheffield) have a fairly uniform London service (Norwich, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol etc), rather than one ultra-fast service and one stopper.

In peak times, no destination north of Leicester has a service that you could really call fast at all.

Many journeys from Nottingham and derby in the peak have an average speed of around 70 mph. This is much lower than the WCML and ECML.

 

[richieb1971]

If the average is 70mph there must be a bottleneck somewhere?

 

[43074]

...
And then we have more capacity for further north, even if shuttles to Leicester.

So strangling the busiest section of the route in favour of the quietest? Elstree, St Albans, Harpenden, the Luton stations and Bedford all have in excess of 3 million users per year, the only stations North of Bedford which do are Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield, and even then Derby is roughly equivalent to Harpenden and the others have a fairly good local or interurban network which helps the figures. The need for capacity is at the Southern end of the route, it isn't ideal that it's to the detriment of longer distance journey times but it's the right thing to do from an economics/people moving point of view. 6tph North of Bedford is about right, it allows fast trains to the places which require them, and the potential for catering for the commuter market to Northamptonshire; as has been said 6tph to Leicester is neither required or going to happen.

 

[Kettledrum]

If the average is 70mph there must be a bottleneck somewhere?

Possibly - but I think it's the high number of stops on the way.

There are 2 peak services from Nottingham that get you into London before 9am.

06.31 - this arrives at 08.24 covering the 126 miles in 113 minutes at an average of 67mph. It stops 6 times in between Nottingham and St Pancras.

06.52 - this arrives at 08.41 covering the 126 miles in 109 minutes, at an average of 69mph. It also stops 6 times in between.

Off peak is slightly faster, but not much. Derby to London is slightly faster, but again not by much.

 

[59CosG95]

https://flic.kr/p/NdHX4y
This shot by "davelindsell" on Flickr shows recent piling progress around Irchester on the Fasts...

 

[AM9]

The Thameslink stopping pattern could be looked at too, to try and introduce new classes for a 2tph Corby super fast, and today’s Bedfords follow behind. If everything is based on 15 mins, then have two Bedford fasts at the other corners of the clock.

Also, if Brent Cross is built like OOC is to Crossrail, you could turn trains there and thus anything running north of there would never need to call at Kentish Town or Cricklewood. West Hampstead up for debate. St Albans or Luton could could alternate with Bedford for the now semis.

And then we have more capacity for further north, even if shuttles to Leicester.

Just what do you mean by "West Hampstead up for debate" ?

 

[cle]

So strangling the busiest section of the route in favour of the quietest? Elstree, St Albans, Harpenden, the Luton stations and Bedford all have in excess of 3 million users per year, the only stations North of Bedford which do are Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield, and even then Derby is roughly equivalent to Harpenden and the others have a fairly good local or interurban network which helps the figures. The need for capacity is at the Southern end of the route, it isn't ideal that it's to the detriment of longer distance journey times but it's the right thing to do from an economics/people moving point of view. 6tph North of Bedford is about right, it allows fast trains to the places which require them, and the potential for catering for the commuter market to Northamptonshire; as has been said 6tph to Leicester is neither required or going to happen.

I wasn’t suggesting less services, just a review of the stopping patterns which Brent Cross could enable... which in turn might address some of the capacity issues (eg more short turns, overtaking at BX so less on the fasts) and thus the MML. I completely agree that the Thameslink route is a lot more important than the MML intercity route by usage.

West Hampstead up for debate - if frequency was good enough then possibly less Bedford trains would need to call, especially on the fast lines - again, if it benefitted capacity. I know the demand is there but competitive journeys to St Albans and Luton might be possible with the Brent Cross working/slow lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

I must admit, I'm not convinced why a glorified outer-suburban service like Thameslink is such a priority, to the detriment of everything else. Do they even need that many stoppers to Bedford ?

Presumably because it carries more passengers, and generates more revenue, than all the rest of the MML put together.

I do agree, though, that there needs to be a better resolution to the EMT peak timings issue sou5h of
Bedford. There is one out there, it just needs to happen.

 

[59CosG95]

Sorry it's been a little late, but here's the latest update on the wiring.
MML Wiring Progressometer 11.0 (as of 23rd of August 2018)
Mileages are from St. Pancras.

Bedford (49m 65ch) - Wellingborough (65m 09ch)

• Work to raise Ford End Rd bridge is now complete.
• About 4 piles now in on the Down side south of Bromham Rd Bridge, Bedford. These piles stretch northwards from Bromham Rd as far as the eye can see, towards the Great Ouse Bridge.
• 8-9 piles are now in on the Up side north of Bromham Rd Bridge; none are fully down yet.
• Two masts are up on the Up side, immediately south of the Great Ouse Box Girder Bridge (nr Bedford North Jct); one of them has a boom, the other doesn't.
• At Bromham, between the A6 (Great Ouse Way) & Lower Farm Rd (https://goo.gl/maps/rSPFrDAZQ362), 13 Twin Track Cantilevers/TTCs (with booms) are up over the Slow Lines, and about 6/7 over the Fast Lines. This includes the Box Girder bridge over the river Great Ouse.
• At least 9 boomed and dressed (aka. bedanglied)TTC masts have now gone up north of Lower Farm Rd, adjacent to the Down Fast.
• Nothing up yet around Pavenham.
• At Oakley, on the site of the old station (just south of Station Rd Bridge), all visible piles over both lines now carry TC booms. Plenty of TTC uprights (all boomed) are up to the south of Oakley station; their extent is not yet known. Between Station Rd & Highfield Rd bridges, all TTCS over the Slows and Fasts are now boomed.
• Another upright has gone up to the north of Highfield Rd bridge, adjacent to the Down Fast.
• 2 piles are in just south of Oakley Viaduct (https://goo.gl/maps/r5oXUSSPSAo); one next to the DF, another next to the US. These seem to have been in for a while.
• Lots of TTCs also up over both pairs of lines around Milton Ernest (between Radwell Rd & East End; https://goo.gl/maps/V5afGGQEZiE2).
• Between Radwell Rd & New Rd, a TTC mast has been placed between the Up Fast & Down Slow, as the embankment adjacent to the Up Slow had to be replaced with a gabion retaining wall.
• About 6 TTCs are up immediately to the north of Radwell Viaduct, over the Slow lines (https://goo.gl/maps/r5oXUSSPSAo); 3 more TTCs are up accompanying them over the Fast lines (positioned between the pairs of lines). Another 2 are now up over the Slows south of the viaduct. Masts for 2 portal booms are up at the southern end of the viaduct; the portal for the Fast lines has gained its boom.
• Roughly 3 or 4 piles (now with boomless TTC masts) are in next to the Down Fast, and another 4 (3 of which have boomed TTC masts) next to the Up Slow just north of Moor End Lane, Radwell (https://goo.gl/maps/cmgWsgyYAo62). South of Moor End Lane (but north of the next bridge to the south), about 5 TTC masts are up (2 of which have booms) adjacent to the Up Slow, with a similar number in adjacent to the Down Fast. South of that bridge, another 2 piles have masts (possibly w/ booms).
• 2 parallel piles are in place (no masts) adjacent to the Fast lines at Radwell; possibly for a portal frame?
• Almost all masts are now up over the Slow lines, from just north of Park Ln, Sharnbrook (https://goo.gl/maps/df2As431FDr) to Sharnbrook Rd overbridge (southern end of Souldrop bank); the 4-tracking here is not yet complete as signals "WH378" and “LR 8” sit right in the path of the restored Up Slow. Some TTCs have now gone up on the Fasts between these bridges too.
• 3 masts (1 with a TTC boom) are now in next to the future Down Slow at Souldrop, at the southern end of the bank (nr Sharnbrook Rd overbridge).
• Between Wymington (https://goo.gl/maps/apZ6wwj9StR2) and Wellingboro', intensive 4-tracking is underway, with the reversible Slow Line now reopened. Near the Google Maps link posted for Wymington, the car park used for the 4-tracking works is due to house a National Grid substation for the electrification; the concrete base has now been laid for the substation. Link to application to Beds Council: http://www.publicaccess.bedford.gov...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ONBIS8CUMMJ00
• In the Wymington area at this stage; piles are mostly in on the Fasts, with around 3 STC masts up adjacent to the Up Fast. On the Slows, a number of STCs and TTCs have gone up, with at least two twin track portals also up.
• Mast-wise, not much up around Kangaroo Spinney (https://goo.gl/maps/K8C8gkgvNaD2) or Irchester (https://goo.gl/maps/SxEfjQV71Ly) at this point.
• 2 piles now in between the Up Fast & Down Slow north of Station Rd Bridge, Irchester; 9 piles have also gone in adjacent to the Down Fast on this stretc.
• Station Rd Bridge, Irchester (see above link) is closed from 9/4 to 22/11 to allow reconstruction for OLE; the replacement deck over the Relief Lines is now complete.

Wellingborough (65m 09ch) - Kettering (72m 01ch)

• Extensive 4-tracking laid (except at points where existing infrastructure has to be moved).
• Finedon Rd Bridge is closed from 22/3 to 28/9 to allow reconstruction for OLE.
• At least 6 TTC masts (with booms) are now in position between Finedon Rd Bridge and the curve to the south of Harrowden Junction. These are mainly on the Down side; work has yet to commence on the Up side equivalents.
• TTCs stretch north from Harrowden Junction over the Fast lines as far as the eye can see; only about 5 remain to go up from there to Finedon Station Road.
• Finedon Station Road now has at least 12 TTC masts on each side up to the south. Circa 10 TTCs are up over the Slow lines to the north.
• Burton Latimer (south of the Weetabix factory) now has a number of TTCs up over the Slow lines to the south, to join the 2 TTCs up to the north of it (over the Fasts).

Kettering (72m 01ch) - Glendon Jct (74m 00ch) - Corby (79m 40ch)

• At Glendon Jct/Kettering North Jct, all piles on the Slow side have now grown TTCs with booms; at least 5 are now bedanglied ("dressed"). A few signal gantries from the BR days have been (or are due to be) removed. Unclear of progress with piling/masts on the Main line north of Glendon Junction.
• 2nd track now in operation, and linespeed raised to 90mph where it was previously 60mph.
• Largest piling gap around here is between the A14 & A43 bridges.
• A handful of masts (~10) are now up in the Great Oakley area, halfway between Glendon Jct & Corby. All are single track cantilevers.

North of Glendon Jct (74m 00ch)

• Braybrooke Substation approved. To be located here: (https://goo.gl/maps/fuy1uZeDjdQ2).
• The extent of wiring towards Market Harboro' has been all but decided to reach the station itself.

Any updates would be greatly appreciated.

 

[londonmidland]

Even at this time (23:00) you can see the capacity issues at Leicester so adding more trains per hour is going to cause a few problems.

Bearing in mind there were major delays on the MML in the St Albans area around 1700.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Potentially a bit of 2+2=5 in this post, but this letter was recently sent out to Market Harborough "railway Neighbours". Seems to be the first comms relating to *electrification*, rather than the station/linespeed project or more routine works.

The letter mentions preparation for installation of fibre optic comms between substations through Market Harborough... Implying a further substation will be built North of Braybrooke.

The reference on the letter ("SPC3 80...") presumably refers to distances from London within the scope of works. 80 miles is just South of Braybrooke. 86 miles is East Langton (North of Harborough).

Coincidentally, a planning document for the Irchester substation indeed shows a proposed substation at East Langton (see attached screen shot).

From this, it seems plausible to think that NR intend to electrify as far as East Langton.

 

[jfowkes]

That is so tantalisingly close to Leicester.

Though actually (getting my crayons out), wiring to Wigston then Nuneaton and then doing Bedford-Bletchley would give the WCML an extra diversionary route...

 

[snowball]

Or maybe they're still using a map and a letter heading that haven't been updated since Kettering to Sheffied wiring was canceled.

 

[38Cto15E]

Including 'Breybrook'

 

[InTheEastMids]

Or maybe they're still using a map and a letter heading that haven't been updated since Kettering to Sheffied wiring was canceled.

Definitely agree that the timing of the Irchester document shows what was planned before cancellation. My point was that if the was a limited extension of the wires, NR would simply revert to the pre-July 2017 plan.

As I say, it's the first letter sent to Market Harborough (ie North of the Braybrooke substation) that refers specifically to electrification. All the others reference the other works in the area such as the linespeed project.

So for your hypothesis to be true, I think you'd have to believe either:
(A) that the letter has been sent to all the neighbours between MP80 and 86 because of work at the south end of the stretch near Braybrooke (mp80-81) - this feels the more likely alternative explanation
And/or
(B) that NR are so great at planning that this letter was drafted before July 2017, but simultaneously so useless that whilst the dates are presumably accurate, the rest of the detail (scope etc) is obsolete nonsense

 

[59CosG95]

https://flic.kr/p/NuS8uw SPS has started to go up on some of the TTCs near Oakley.

 

[InTheEastMids]

https://flic.kr/p/NuS8uw SPS has started to go up on some of the TTCs near Oakley.

I went down to London on Friday - This is what I think is new from my last trip and the last Progressometer.

There's now piling on the Corby route , as far as the eye can see around the curve away from Glendon Junction. Somebody needs to take their life in their hands and plan a day out in Corby to see how work is progressing.

There's some piles gone in next to the slow line South of the A43 Corby Road bridge and also a few piles gone in at the South end of Kettering yard, around the bridge by The Headlands. So the gap between the A14 and A43 bridges either side of Kettering is slowly starting to be filled.

There seems to be some ground clearance happening on the East side of Wellingborough station, which is important because extension/construction of P3 (100m) and P4 (non-existent) to take 12 car EMUs is presumably central to the business case for wiring the slow lines at all.

Still seems to be a big gap in electrification activity between Wellingborough N Yard and Irchester

There's a lot of steelwork gone up on the slow lines on the embankment at the North End of the Wymington loop.

Since I last used the line, it does seem like most of the effort has been on steelwork South of Wellingborough, but it's gone beyond the point where I can count masts. It doesn't feel like much progress has been made on 4-tracking over the summer.

 

[59CosG95]

I went down to London on Friday - This is what I think is new from my last trip and the last Progressometer.

There's now piling on the Corby route , as far as the eye can see around the curve away from Glendon Junction. Somebody needs to take their life in their hands and plan a day out in Corby to see how work is progressing.

There's some piles gone in next to the slow line South of the A43 Corby Road bridge and also a few piles gone in at the South end of Kettering yard, around the bridge by The Headlands. So the gap between the A14 and A43 bridges either side of Kettering is slowly starting to be filled.

There seems to be some ground clearance happening on the East side of Wellingborough station, which is important because extension/construction of P3 (100m) and P4 (non-existent) to take 12 car EMUs is presumably central to the business case for wiring the slow lines at all.

Still seems to be a big gap in electrification activity between Wellingborough N Yard and Irchester

There's a lot of steelwork gone up on the slow lines on the embankment at the North End of the Wymington loop.

Since I last used the line, it does seem like most of the effort has been on steelwork South of Wellingborough, but it's gone beyond the point where I can count masts. It doesn't feel like much progress has been made on 4-tracking over the summer.

AFAIK, some masts have already gone up around Great Oakley (between Corby & Glendon Jct); that seems to be the only evidence of wiring work there so far until you mentioned the piling around Glendon.

I also recall there being large quantities of steelwork over the Slows at the northern end of the Wymington Deviation, and some at the southern end of Kettering (though probably not as close to the A43 as that!)

Half the reason why the 4-tracking's seeming to be behind time is to do with signalling structures (whether individual posts or gantries) being in the way of the proposed new alignments; examples of this are at Harrowden Jct & Sharnbrook Jct. The Slow Line on the Wymington Deviation also "switches sides" in the Souldrop area, such that it's on the Down side at one point and the Up side further north. Why they're so reluctant to sort the signals out now is a mystery to me; perhaps they want to get it done around the time that the Derby Blockade's resignalling day occurs, killing 2 birds with 1 stone.