MML Electrification: progress updates

[Wagonshop]

I understand that the Kettering to South of Wigston bit went live a while ago, not seen any news of it being used or test trains.
When will it be used on a regular basis.

 

[Edvid]

OLE testing took place in September and the ORR should authorise its use sometime next year.

However, regular use of it (as in a majority of Class 810s being ready for passenger service) probably won't happen before 2026. The inaugural Class 810 service is likely about a year away, for that matter.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Anyone think full MML electrification will only happen when the class 810 Bi-Modes are coming up to the end of their life ?.
Optimistically the 810s would get moved on to another partially electrified route earlier thus hastening full electrification.
A bit like Cardiff to Swansea has not happened - yet.

Sadly yes!

 

[InTheEastMids]

OLE testing took place in September and the ORR should authorise its use sometime next year

Just curious as to what authorisation entails, why the ORR need to do it - ie are NR not allowed/capable of assuring the works?

 

[Edvid]

Just curious as to what authorisation entails, why the ORR need to do it - ie are NR not allowed/capable of assuring the works?

As far as I understand Regulation 13, Network Rail have to clarify with the ORR (as safety regulator) whether or not a subsystem renewal/upgrade needs authorisation. In their view, new electrification schemes typically do.

The April 2021 authorisation letter for L2C infrastructure may offer a guide as to how the K2W equivalent will look.

 

[Wagonshop]

Fail to understand why any business would spend a large amount on a project then not use it, could have a started year later.

 

[edwin_m]

Fail to understand why any business would spend a large amount on a project then not use it, could have a started year later.

Public sector funding often works on a "use it or lose it" basis. But even a private sector body might phase a project over time, for example to reduce risk by ensuring that not everything is "critical path" or to smooth out the use of resources.

Also, I think when this work was planned and agreed there may have been an expectation that the 810s might be able to make use of it fairly soon after completion. This has since slipped back.

 

[Spartacus]

Fail to understand why any business would spend a large amount on a project then not use it, could have a started year later.

It'd then cost most due to inflation, while your resources might be employed elsewhere by that point, raising costs further. The 810's delivery date has kept slipping too.

 

[Nottingham59]

Fail to understand why any business would spend a large amount on a project then not use it, could have a started year later.

The railway is not a business. The only incentive on the participants is to maximise government spending - either directly through increased subsidy or indirectly through:

• pointless and expensive planning rules (e.g. excessive environmental reports, repeated consultations for new builds; £100M bat tunnels on HS2)
• politicians unable to decide what they want and changing specifications after design (e.g. HS2)
• unnecessary operational requirements (such as the "24/7" railway, or allowing freight to occupy timetable paths without using them);
• over-specified and wasteful "standards" for operations and infrastructure (e.g. grandiose station designs on HS2; OHLE on GWML designed to carry 140mph trains with multiple caternaries)

There is no incentive to bring assets into productive use quickly.

 

[Mikey C]

Surely this is all down to the horrendous lateness of the 810s. At least it means we shouldn't have 810s running in diesel mode under the wires in the southern section, as I assume the speed upgrades will now be finished before the 810s enter service?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The railway is not a business. The only incentive on the participants is to maximise government spending - either directly through increased subsidy or indirectly through:

• pointless and expensive planning rules (e.g. excessive environmental reports, repeated consultations for new builds; £100M bat tunnels on HS2)
• politicians unable to decide what they want and changing specifications after design (e.g. HS2)
• unnecessary operational requirements (such as the "24/7" railway, or allowing freight to occupy timetable paths without using them);
• over-specified and wasteful "standards" for operations and infrastructure (e.g. grandiose station designs on HS2; OHLE on GWML designed to carry 140mph trains with multiple caternaries)

There is no incentive to bring assets into productive use quickly.

So cynical but oh so sadly true imho.

 

[edwin_m]

The railway is not a business. The only incentive on the participants is to maximise government spending - either directly through increased subsidy or indirectly through:

• pointless and expensive planning rules (e.g. excessive environmental reports, repeated consultations for new builds; £100M bat tunnels on HS2)
• politicians unable to decide what they want and changing specifications after design (e.g. HS2)
• unnecessary operational requirements (such as the "24/7" railway, or allowing freight to occupy timetable paths without using them);
• over-specified and wasteful "standards" for operations and infrastructure (e.g. grandiose station designs on HS2; OHLE on GWML designed to carry 140mph trains with multiple caternaries)

There is no incentive to bring assets into productive use quickly.

A lot of this is down to the politicians not the rail industry.

• Environmental and planning legislation is set by the government.
• Self-evidently not the railway's fault.
• Partly government's responsibility, for example freight operators' right to paths is controlled by the regulator working to the government's remit.
• This one is largely down to the railway.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

It's all fun and games accusing things of being "over-engineered" until 20 years down the line it turns into an expensive and unreliable system that can't support future growth. GWML electrification is not "over-specified", it's built to last because railways have a future not just a cost/benefit ratio. HS2 stations are not "grandiose", we deserve to have actually nice railway stations for once (take a look at the last 10 or so new stations to have opened, they are barren wastelands). I'm sure the Victorians could have saved a penny or two if they only ever built timber frame garden sheds only accounting for the tiny ridership of the time, but no - we are thankful that they overbuilt their stations because we've gotten a lot of value out of them for multiple decades.
Also environmental and ecological mitigation is not pointless, catering to the wealthiest nimbies in the country might be.
If we want the price tag of construction to be more reasonable you'll need politicians to actually commit to long term industrial strategies (including education) and then leave the professionals alone to actually carry those plans out instead of letting ministers have unmitigated power to muddle with projects and cancel them on whims.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Dec 2024 ==

Surely you can just replace the generators with batteries and abandon the difficult bits.

I don't know if we should just accept discontinuous electrification as a new norm. It doesn't work for freight at all and negates many of the important benefits of electrification. We also have a lot of new(er) innovations in electrification technology that can accommodate those difficult bits

 

[jfowkes]

It's all fun and games accusing things of being "over-engineered" until 20 years down the line it turns into an expensive and unreliable system that can't support future growth. GWML electrification is not "over-specified", it's built to last because railways have a future not just a cost/benefit ratio. HS2 stations are not "grandiose", we deserve to have actually nice railway stations for once (take a look at the last 10 or so new stations to have opened, they are barren wastelands).

Just this.
Look at how many people complain about stations looking like grey concrete boxes. Look at all the threads about capacity being constrained by platform availability.
Reducing capital costs at the expense of future growth or increased revenue expenditure is almost always a bad idea.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Just this.
Look at how many people complain about stations looking like grey concrete boxes. Look at all the threads about capacity being constrained by platform availability.
Reducing capital costs at the expense of future growth or increased revenue expenditure is almost always a bad idea.

Plainly put, reducing capital expenditure just tends to increase operational costs in one way or another and so more money is waisted in the long run. And people don't tend to think about the increased cost (monetary or otherwise) of continuing to Not invest in infrastructure especially when we keep trying to run more services than the railway at present can handle. I'm not sure these people are actually genuinely concerned with the spending of too much money but are locked into the belief that railways should, at most, be a bare minimum product since they don't view them to be a serious mode of transport because something better might be just around the corner - in other words, maintaining the status quo.

 

[Nottingham59]

A lot of this is down to the politicians not the rail industry.

Yes, totally agree. The government (DfT, Rail ministers and Treasury collectively) are institutionally unable to manage their supply chain to minimise costs.

The Treasury seems unable to conceive of a procurement model except for short-term stop-start contracting based on confrontation with suppliers; and politicians are oblivious to the cost implications of making changes to specifications or delivery schedules once a design is finalised.

Could go on, but any further discussion belongs in another thread.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

-------- be a bare minimum product since they don't view them to be a serious mode of transport because something better might be just around the corner - in other words, maintaining the status quo.

aka Bionic Duckweed

 

[Bald Rick]

aka Bionic Duckweed

Well, yes, and Uncle Roger had a very valid point about that at the time….but guess what…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr71vpz4ypo#:~:text=“Within%20just%20two%20weeks%20we,General%20Assembly%20in%20New%20York.

In 2018, Barbados’ Prime Minister Mia Mottley declared sargassum a national emergency.

Now, a pioneering group of Caribbean scientists and environmentalists hope to turn the tide on the problem by transforming the troublesome algae into a lucrative biofuel.

 

[AM9]

I'm sure the Victorians could have saved a penny or two if they only ever built timber frame garden sheds only accounting for the tiny ridership of the time, but no - we are thankful that they overbuilt their stations because we've gotten a lot of value out of them for multiple decades.

Just look at the hundreds of miles of urban cuttings lined with good engineers blues. How many times would the walls have been renewed over the last 150 years if the victorian engineers decided that flettons (or their non-LBC equivalents) were good enough for three trains per hour?

 

[chris2]

It's all fun and games accusing things of being "over-engineered" until 20 years down the line it turns into an expensive and unreliable system that can't support future growth. GWML electrification is not "over-specified", it's built to last because railways have a future not just a cost/benefit ratio. HS2 stations are not "grandiose", we deserve to have actually nice railway stations for once (take a look at the last 10 or so new stations to have opened, they are barren wastelands). I'm sure the Victorians could have saved a penny or two if they only ever built timber frame garden sheds only accounting for the tiny ridership of the time, but no - we are thankful that they overbuilt their stations because we've gotten a lot of value out of them for multiple decades.
Also environmental and ecological mitigation is not pointless, catering to the wealthiest nimbies in the country might be.
If we want the price tag of construction to be more reasonable you'll need politicians to actually commit to long term industrial strategies (including education) and then leave the professionals alone to actually carry those plans out instead of letting ministers have unmitigated power to muddle with projects and cancel them on whims.

Well said.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

One thing I love about this forum (well rail related matters anyway) is we get both sides of the story.

 

[D Mylchreest]

The railway is not a business. The only incentive on the participants is to maximise government spending - either directly through increased subsidy or indirectly through:

• pointless and expensive planning rules (e.g. excessive environmental reports, repeated consultations for new builds; £100M bat tunnels on HS2)
• politicians unable to decide what they want and changing specifications after design (e.g. HS2)
• unnecessary operational requirements (such as the "24/7" railway, or allowing freight to occupy timetable paths without using them);
• over-specified and wasteful "standards" for operations and infrastructure (e.g. grandiose station designs on HS2; OHLE on GWML designed to carry 140mph trains with multiple caternaries)

There is no incentive to bring assets into productive use quickly.

Wow! Couldn't agree more. One of the effects of de-nationalising the railway was to put the needs of its new owners before those of the taxpayer/traveller. This has changed the ethos of the railway beyond belief to the point where it has become the grossly expensive, self serving and inefficient behemoth it is today.

 

[Richard Scott]

Wow! Couldn't agree more. One of the effects of de-nationalising the railway was to put the needs of its new owners before those of the taxpayer/traveller. This has changed the ethos of the railway beyond belief to the point where it has become the grossly expensive, self serving and inefficient behemoth it is today.

Unfortunately don't really think it was any better when it was nationalised.
Since privatisation many methods of working that were acceptable then are not now so change has also been forced by updating legislation and working practices. This means current projects are subject to this and cannot be completed as quickly as they were in BR times? Also, as we're seeing, they are trying to future proof and not have to upgrade as we're finding with inadequate supplies on ECML and WCML?

 

[absolutelymilk]

Wow! Couldn't agree more. One of the effects of de-nationalising the railway was to put the needs of its new owners before those of the taxpayer/traveller. This has changed the ethos of the railway beyond belief to the point where it has become the grossly expensive, self serving and inefficient behemoth it is today.

I'm not sure that you can look at the railway investing in 140mph infrastructure when it doesn't need to or running trains 24/7 and complain that it's putting its own needs before travellers!

 

[Nottingham59]

GWML electrification is not "over-specified", it's built to last because railways have a future not just a cost/benefit ratio.

GWML was specified to support 140mph trains with three catenaries in contact with the wire. With an untested, unproven, and in the end unachievable time constraint. Those decisions probably doubled the cost of the whole enterprise.

They would have been better off spending the money on proper ground surveys before setting off merrily driving mast piles into the signalling cables. If you prefer, I'd settle for "badly specified".

 

[GRALISTAIR]

To get back on topic, although I would like the pace to be faster with MML electrification and upgrade, it does seem the job is being done reasonably properly with reasonable future proofing.

 

[Nottingham59]

To get back on topic, although I would like the pace to be faster with MML electrification and upgrade, it does seem the job is being done reasonably properly with reasonable future proofing.

They seem to be, but we still have no information about the costs

 

[GRALISTAIR]

They seem to be, but we still have no information about the costs

Last I saw (I will try and post a link later if I can find it) the project was on time and on budget.

 

[Cowley]

I feel like we’ve been here before but just to repeat what @Mag_seven said earlier in the thread:

This thread is for the provision of MML Electrification Updates.

If anyone wants to discuss anything else then please start a new thread in the relevant section.

Thank you!

 

[Edvid]

Closure of the A6006 bridge near Sutton Bonington for MMLE works (previously planned to start last month) is deferred until May 2025. This is in connection with wall repair works on Marle Pit Hill that will precede it, as explained by the local parish.

Marle Pit Hill - Wall repair and road closures​

After a five-year wait, Network Rail has confirmed funding for the wall replacement on Marle Pit Hill. The wall is in urgent need of repair and this work needs to be carried out before any further work on the bridge for the upcoming electrification of the Midland Mainline. Therefore, Marle Pit Hill will be completely closed on the following days:

Monday, January 20th, from 8 pm until Friday, January 24th, at 6 am (for investigation work for the future electrification of the Midland Mainline).
Monday, January 27th, until Friday, April 18th. (for the wall replacement).

[Part of Landcroft Lane and Hungary Lane will also close to prevent rat runs]

The Parish Council is aware of the impact on residents and businesses, but Network Rail and VIA [East Midlands] have no alternative but to close the road for the rebuilding. This closure must be completed before the end of April 2025 to allow work on the electrification and a new bridge on the A6006 near the Hathernware Industrial Estate to commence in May 2025. More information about this next project will be provided when available.

The Parish Council will be in constant contact with Network Rail and the contractors until the rebuilding is complete. Residents with concerns should contact the Clerk to the Council at clerk@suttonboningtonparishcouncil.org.uk.
Posted: Sun, 8 Dec 2024