MML Electrification

[edwin_m]

There is no decision on whether MML will use IEP or something else. I guess if the various diversionary routes aren't electrified then a bi-mode IEP becomes more of a possibility. So the Doncaster depot would be chosen purely for ECML use, although it is near enough to Sheffield to serve MML too if it has the capacity or can be expanded.

The tram train vehicles are equipped to operate off 25kV as well as 750Vdc, and I believe 25kV equipment is being used on the shared section through Rotherham but only energised at the lower voltage. Hence it would be quite easy to convert the tram-train section to 25kV if needed.

 

[swt_passenger]

My understanding is that Doncaster was chosen as a location within sensible ECS of principally York and Leeds, but also of other East Coast origins such as Hull, Lincoln, Harrogate and Skipton (and potentially Cleethorpes and Scarborough).

You have to differentiate between 'the depot', and overnight stabling for cleaning and tanking. There's absolutely no reason to think that an IEP depot at Doncaster means most trains return to Doncaster overnight.

Many modern 'builder maintained' fleets exist, such as SWT's Desiros, where there is only one depot allocation (ie Northam), but the trains only visit now and again. Similarly, all Voyagers belong to Central Rivers depot, but don't all stable there by any means.

This is also the case with the new Thameslink depots at Hornsey and Three Bridges - although they both have a certain amount of stabling capacity as well, they are not going to be the only places trains are stabled.

 

[tbtc]

Surely the 'Old Road' via Barrow Hill is an integral part of the MML though? Not only does most of the freight to/from the south run that way, but also quite a few passenger services too (not to mention ECS.) Seems to me something of a false economy not to do it at the same time - especially given the volume of freight and the electrification of the central spine down to Southampton.

Very little freight is going to be converted to electric in CP5 (as the wires won't go north of Sheffield and won't serve places like the cement works at Hope).

Freight will be an issue come CP6 when we may see the gaps filled in to allow freight from the docks at Hull/ Immingham to access the electric spine (via Doncaster and Swinton), which is when diversionary routes would come in to play.

The point is that there's almost a thousand miles of electrification to be done in CP5, so no time to do every diversionary route or branch - there are plenty of lines which will have a great business case for CP6 electrification (though the "old road" doesn't see a frequent passenger service so may not be high up that list - unless the line beyond Woodhouse to Retford etc is also done?).

When I went on the service it was full all the way from leicester so a 2 car 170 will be not much use as people will be left behind

A three coach 170 (of which XC have a few) has roughly as many seats as a four coach 222 (of which EMT have a few), so there may not be much of a difference in capacity).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The other anomoly is why a IEP Depot is being built in Doncaster - at present this is 30 miles at least (Leeds) from journeys end on the East Coast route so a lot of ecs mileage must be envisaged unless this is then to be a base to provide IEP stock for Sheffield services?

At the moment a few of Heaton's DMUs are stabled overnight in Sheffield (a 250 mile round trip from their "home" depot) - these things happen - they only go back to Tyneside for maintenance.

Doncaster makes a lot of sense for IEP - especially given the number of complaints that we see on here about lack of evening services out of Leeds (which is partly because virtually all local stock is stabled in Leeds overnight). A base in Doncaster may see more Leeds - Wakefield - Doncaster services in the evening (assuming that trains aren't stabled at Neville Hill still).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There are many aspects of this scheme that will only become clearer over time. It is already envisaged that wires will not reach Sheffield until 2020 - CP6.
If the electric spine is going to provide sufficient capacity for freight the four tracks north of Bedford that were present in the 60's will possibly require re-instating. The double track section south of Leicester to Kettering together with traffic going east west through Wigston Junction will be a bottleneck in time.
The diversion routes Corby to Syston, Trent to Clay Cross & the old road Chesterfield to Rotherham (with connection to Sheffield via Woodhouse) will hopefully be announced in due course
The Electric Spine as it stands is a dead end! - yes the next stage hopefully is to electrify in CP6 to Doncaster/Moorthorpe - the teams are likely to be in this area to continue this work. The Tram Train project will not interfere intially if the Rotherham Masborough route only is electrified, this being the intercity route.
The other anomoly is why a IEP Depot is being built in Doncaster - at present this is 30 miles at least (Leeds) from journeys end on the East Coast route so a lot of ecs mileage must be envisaged unless this is then to be a base to provide IEP stock for Sheffield services?

Time will tell - the volume of work announced already could not be completed in CP5 so a rolling scheme no doubt will emerge.

You are right about the electric spine project unfolding slowly. I'm not sure it has yet been though through properly.
If you have a team electrifying the TP route around Leeds, why would you not get it to follow that with work on the MML scheme south of Sheffield (and the fill-in routes later)?
The current plan seems to be to start at Bedford and work north, leaving Sheffield till last.
The train plan and future franchising setup for MML, E-W and West Mids-Thames Valley after wiring is also unknown.
The DC-AC conversion is still a complete mystery, with local SWT/NR disinterest, and no support from the freight guys.
Too many unanswered questions. I wouldn't be surprised if NR pushes to defer the conversion, and concentrate on the work north of Basingstoke.

Doubling the old MML 4-track sections is pointless unless the traffic flows have been thought through (ie a proper business plan!).
I would say the only nailed on upgrade would be Wigston-Syston because of the clash between the MML and the fast-growing Nuneaton-Felixstowe freight traffic.
And I think it would be wrong to wire long and lightly-used diversionary routes when you would get a better return from wiring much busier
routes elsewhere.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Must say i am starting to question this conversion policy... sure build new stuff 25kV AC but do we need to convert it. The disruption is surely going to be huge!

The spine is a good idea but will take 2 maybe 3 control periods to have any noticeable impact.

 

[snowball]

Must say i am starting to question this conversion policy... sure build new stuff 25kV AC but do we need to convert it. The disruption is surely going to be huge!

Isn't the point about conversion that it would be done where and when the DC equipment needed to be replaced?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Isn't the point about conversion that it would be done where and when the DC equipment needed to be replaced?

Yes electrifying a diesel line is disruptive, electrifying, then changover then remove all DC stuff i imagine is even more disruptive. More so than plain old renewal.

 

[AndyLandy]

Yes electrifying a diesel line is disruptive, electrifying, then changover then remove all DC stuff i imagine is even more disruptive. More so than plain old renewal.

I thought the biggest motivator for replacing 3rd rail DC with overhead AC was that it would actually be cheaper than replacing the 3rd rail kit. Perhaps there will be more disruption, but the long-term benefits of having a standardised electrification system across the railway is significant.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I thought the biggest motivator for replacing 3rd rail DC with overhead AC was that it would actually be cheaper than replacing the 3rd rail kit. Perhaps there will be more disruption, but the long-term benefits of having a standardised electrification system across the railway is significant.

Sorry I think I explained myself poorly, I am questioning the speed at which NR are being asked to do it, and within CP5. I think it should be CP6 with extensive planning and once the other major schemes have disappeared and we are left in CP6 with regional schemes and in-fills. Ie no GWML or MML sized schemes alongside it. I think to deliver by 2020 is ambitious and dangerous.

 

[AndyLandy]

Sorry I think I explained myself poorly, I am questioning the speed at which NR are being asked to do it, and within CP5. I think it should be CP6 with extensive planning and once the other major schemes have disappeared and we are left in CP6 with regional schemes and in-fills. Ie no GWML or MML sized schemes alongside it. I think to deliver by 2020 is ambitious and dangerous.

That makes more sense. I share your concerns there. The "electric spine" seems like a dream too far right now. The only problem is if some of the existing 3rd rail kit becomes life-expired before CP6, which I believe is true of the Southampton-Basingstoke stretch. Do we replace it with more 3rd rail, even though it's not as cost-effective, and we'll have to rip it out again soon? Or do we bite the bullet and throw up the knitting?

 

[snowball]

I think the electric spine and the Basingstoke conversion will be quietly allowed to slip quite a lot, both for financial reasons and because the preparatory work hasn't yet been done, but with a bit of luck this pressure relief will make it possible to do the MML on schedule.

 

[Wyvern]

THey still have a lot of work upgrading lines to W10. Besides the ERewash Line there's Peterborough to Crewe.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Sorry I think I explained myself poorly, I am questioning the speed at which NR are being asked to do it, and within CP5. I think it should be CP6 with extensive planning and once the other major schemes have disappeared and we are left in CP6 with regional schemes and in-fills. Ie no GWML or MML sized schemes alongside it. I think to deliver by 2020 is ambitious and dangerous.

I thought the reason for Reading-Basingstoke conversion was a a test bed for future conversions so any issues with a conversion programme for busier routes such as BML can be be identified and accounted for?

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought the reason for Reading-Basingstoke conversion was a a test bed for future conversions so any issues with a conversion programme for busier routes such as BML can be be identified and accounted for?

Reading - Basingstoke isn't a conversion, as it's not currently electrified. Do you mean Basingstoke to Southampton?

If you do, that's got an engineer's line reference of BML, i.e. Bournemouth Main Line.

What people normally refer to colloquially as the BML (Brighton Main Line) is actually VTB (Victoria to Brighton)

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Reading - Basingstoke isn't a conversion, as it's not currently electrified. Do you mean Basingstoke to Southampton?

If you do, that's got an engineer's line reference of BML, i.e. Bournemouth Main Line.

What people normally refer to colloquially as the BML (Brighton Main Line) is actually VTB (Victoria to Brighton)

Apologies I did mean Basingstoke to Southampton. And yes I was referring to BML as the Brighton Main Line as a possible conversion in the future once lessons are learned from the Basingstoke to Southampton conversion.

 

[IanXC]

You have to differentiate between 'the depot', and overnight stabling for cleaning and tanking. There's absolutely no reason to think that an IEP depot at Doncaster means most trains return to Doncaster overnight.

Indeed I don't think I said they would did I? The latest planning application suggests that less stabling will take place at Ten Pound Walk than was previously planned:

By way of context, the Doncaster depot is still needed to provide the ongoing engineering support for the maintenance of the new Intercity Express Programme train sets for a period of at least 27 years. However, the revised DfT fleet plan means that less stabling is now required. Also, one of the original diesel train types is no longer included and therefore the diesel power car maintenance shed is no longer required.

http://planning.doncaster.gov.uk/on...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=LZOWV5FX05H00

 

[YorkshireBear]

I thought the reason for Reading-Basingstoke conversion was a a test bed for future conversions so any issues with a conversion programme for busier routes such as BML can be be identified and accounted for?

Yes but i think rushing it will reduce the usefulness of the test case. It still needs thorough and detailed planning.

 

[AndyLandy]

Yup - the basic pattern at the moment is

2x London - Leicester - Derby - Sheffield
2x London - Leicester - Nottingham
1x London - Corby

OK, am I right in understanding that the core electrification will run:
St Pancras--Kettering--East Midlands Parkway--Sheffield, with spurs from Kettering to Corby and E.M. Parkway to Nottingham?

Is the Derby--Nottingham section going to get wired? I don't know the area, but presumably it's little more than a chord, if both destinations are wired from E.M. Parkway?

On a slightly different tack, Wikipedia states that EMT have 27 Meridian sets and 24 HST power cars (which I read as 12 HST sets), so at the current time, there are 39 Intercity train sets.

So, are there enough IC225s to even run the MML Intercity services? Even if you curtail all the extensions and just operate the core route?

 

[Eagle]

Is the Derby--Nottingham section going to get wired? I don't know the area, but presumably it's little more than a chord, if both destinations are wired from E.M. Parkway?

Almost certainly. As you say, it's only one chord and it's a "might as well" bit to do.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Almost certainly. As you say, it's only one chord and it's a "might as well" bit to do.

Well of course it would be required to get trains from Nottingham to Etches Park for over night maintenance.

 

[D365]

OK, am I right in understanding that the core electrification will run:
St Pancras--Kettering--East Midlands Parkway--Sheffield, with spurs from Kettering to Corby and E.M. Parkway to Nottingham?

I believe so.

Is the Derby--Nottingham section going to get wired? I don't know the area, but presumably it's little more than a chord, if both destinations are wired from E.M. Parkway?

Not planned but would make sense as said.

On a slightly different tack, Wikipedia states that EMT have 27 Meridian sets and 24 HST power cars (which I read as 12 HST sets), so at the current time, there are 39 Intercity train sets.

So, are there enough IC225s to even run the MML Intercity services? Even if you curtail all the extensions and just operate the core route?

31 IC225s of which there are typically 28 available, I believe. So enough to replace the HSTs and just over 2/3 of the Meridians, more if you discount the 4x /1 4-car ex-HT units which are used on the Corby branch - these may well be replaced by a '377/8' o.e.

 

[RichmondCommu]

31 IC225s of which there are typically 28 available, I believe. So enough to replace the HSTs and just over 2/3 of the Meridians, more if you discount the 4x /1 4-car ex-HT units which are used on the Corby branch - these may well be replaced by a '377/8' o.e.

Given all the curves on the route a train that tilts would be the best solution but sadly it's unlikely to happen!

 

[D365]

Given all the curves on the route a train that tilts would be the best solution but sadly it's unlikely to happen!

Well, IC225 was built for tilt, but it's almost guaranteed that this will not be retrofitted, just as it is unlikely to reach 140mph in regular service

 

[Peter Mugridge]

So, are there enough IC225s to even run the MML Intercity services? Even if you curtail all the extensions and just operate the core route?

Tighter turnarounds and reduced journey times ( the current line speed improvements combined with the greater acceleration of electric stock ) should just about make it work?

 

[38Cto15E]

I know that a line has to be drawn somewhere, but surely the Erewash between Trent and Clay Cross should be electrified.
Sheffield has always been a poor relation to neighbouring Doncaster in journey times to London.
A hourly Sheffield, Chesterfield and Leicester fast service via the Erewash would make journey times better for passengers from that area.

 

[tbtc]

Wikipedia states that EMT have 27 Meridian sets and 24 HST power cars (which I read as 12 HST sets), so at the current time, there are 39 Intercity train sets.

So, are there enough IC225s to even run the MML Intercity services? Even if you curtail all the extensions and just operate the core route?

Take out the Corby services (three units, plus a spare? - given them some EMUs) and I reckon it would - given the number of doubled up 222s (i.e. 4+4).

As a "back of the envelope" calculation, if you said that a round trip from London to Nottingham/ Sheffield took five hours, then twenty sets would cover the four services an hour with scope for peak extras/ maintenance.

 

[cle]

Could additional services be squeezed by modifying Thameslink stopping patterns (to have a new faster pair, no Harpenden, Leagrave etc), merging Corby into that and then having an extra fast or two heading north?

 

[joeykins82]

I believe that the plan is already broadly similar to that. Bedford-Corby will be wired first, a couple of years before Nottingham and Sheffield lines are completed, and proposals I saw (I think in this thread or another one somewhere here) were that Corby would get a 2tph service calling at Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford, Luton (town & airport parkway), St Albans and St Pancras.

 

[Wyvern]

I know that a line has to be drawn somewhere, but surely the Erewash between Trent and Clay Cross should be electrified.
Sheffield has always been a poor relation to neighbouring Doncaster in journey times to London.
A hourly Sheffield, Chesterfield and Leicester fast service via the Erewash would make journey times better for passengers from that area.

Wouldnt that be covered by HS2?

 

[cle]

I believe that the plan is already broadly similar to that. Bedford-Corby will be wired first, a couple of years before Nottingham and Sheffield lines are completed, and proposals I saw (I think in this thread or another one somewhere here) were that Corby would get a 2tph service calling at Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford, Luton (town & airport parkway), St Albans and St Pancras.

Will that be running through to Brighton? Would help with St Pancras platforms.

Sounds like a reasonable stopping pattern, and the current regular Bedford Thameslink service could follow shortly behind - or maybe add West Hampstead in to slow it down a tad.

I'm assuming Kettering and Wellingborough receive the odd fast stop in the peaks too.

Hopefully these tweaks would allow 5tph to run via Leicester.