Rolling stock - what if the MML had been electrified?

[Bletchleyite]

If the route was fully electrified, one wonders if a service of 350/1-type units running in 8 and 12 car formations would provide a better match. Though then we’d probable be reading complaints about 1/3 2/3 door positions.

With a row or two removed from each coach (as they are very high density compared to the 222s) and First Class changed to 2+1, the 730/2 would probably be a perfect drop-in for any 110mph electrified mainline, to be honest. And I personally find that 24m vehicles with doors at quarters (rather than thirds) do still retain an InterCity like feel, at least to me. The feel is not dissimilar to the Class 444 despite the door positions.

One does wonder a little how the cost of the custom Hitachi fleet would compare with the cost of wires plus a fleet of off the shelf Class 730/2s over the full lifetime of each. They are 110mph rather than 125mph units, but that wouldn't make much difference I expect.

Or could electrification to Leicester and an extra platform at Kettering for a split/join twice an hour without getting in the way of anything else, with 4 cars to Corby and 8 to Leicester, make better use of the EMU fleet? Or even drop Corby to hourly with peak extras if demand is that low, with the other one going to Leicester, with pick up/set down restrictions added to the diesels?

 

[Dr Hoo]

So, how do Class 350s manage with regular diversions via Manton, Castle Donington, the Erewash Valley and Barrow Hill.

(And, yes, another ‘let’s worsen services to Corby despite it having record population and patronage’ thread. That’s two running at the moment, thanks to Rushden Parkway!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, how do Class 350s manage with regular diversions via Manton, Castle Donington, the Erewash Valley and Barrow Hill.

It wouldn't actually be 350s, it would be a new build of EMUs of some sort. They could be fitted with batteries.

 

[Trainbike46]

With a row or two removed from each coach (as they are very high density compared to the 222s) and First Class changed to 2+1, the 730/2 would probably be a perfect drop-in for any 110mph electrified mainline, to be honest. And I personally find that 24m vehicles with doors at quarters (rather than thirds) do still retain an InterCity like feel, at least to me. The feel is not dissimilar to the Class 444 despite the door positions.

Wouldn't they have gone for 125-mph stock, so likely an electric only 80x/810, or an electric-only high-speed offering from another manufacturer (e.g. 397-like, a FLIRT/SMILE hybrid, or whatever Alstom/Bombardier or Siemens would have offered)

One does wonder a little how the cost of the custom Hitachi fleet would compare with the cost of wires plus a fleet of off the shelf Class 730/2s over the full lifetime of each. They are 110mph rather than 125mph units, but that wouldn't make much difference I expect.

It seems unlikely that both a slower top-speed and a longer journey time would have been acceptable. As the 222s are fast accellerating already, that is what running at 110mph instead of 125 mph would have meant. So, no, I don't think that is likely. A new, 125mph EMU is what would have been ordered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wouldn't they have gone for 125-mph stock, so likely an electric only 80x/810, or an electric-only high-speed offering from another manufacturer (e.g. 397-like, a FLIRT/SMILE hybrid, or whatever Alstom/Bombardier or Siemens would have offered)

It seems unlikely that both a slower top-speed and a longer journey time would have been acceptable. As the 222s are fast accellerating already, that is what running at 110mph instead of 125 mph would have meant. So, no, I don't think that is likely. A new, 125mph EMU is what would have been ordered.

The advantage of 730/2s would be the gangway. I'd be interested to know what journey time differences there would be in practice; the difference between 110mph 80x timings and Pendolino timings on the WCML don't seem to be huge.

 

[cactustwirly]

With a row or two removed from each coach (as they are very high density compared to the 222s) and First Class changed to 2+1, the 730/2 would probably be a perfect drop-in for any 110mph electrified mainline, to be honest. And I personally find that 24m vehicles with doors at quarters (rather than thirds) do still retain an InterCity like feel, at least to me. The feel is not dissimilar to the Class 444 despite the door positions.

One does wonder a little how the cost of the custom Hitachi fleet would compare with the cost of wires plus a fleet of off the shelf Class 730/2s over the full lifetime of each. They are 110mph rather than 125mph units, but that wouldn't make much difference I expect.

Or could electrification to Leicester and an extra platform at Kettering for a split/join twice an hour without getting in the way of anything else, with 4 cars to Corby and 8 to Leicester, make better use of the EMU fleet? Or even drop Corby to hourly with peak extras if demand is that low, with the other one going to Leicester, with pick up/set down restrictions added to the diesels?

MML is 125mph needs full InterCity stock

Would imagine it would have had a class 397 or 80x

730/2 would be an awful train for the job, suspension is too uncomfortable for long distance journeys plus the walkthrough gangways are like a metro train not an intercity ambiance

 

[Bletchleyite]

MML is 125mph needs full InterCity stock

Would imagine it would have had a class 397 or 80x

There isn't much difference in ambiance between a 397 and a 730/2 to be honest, aside from the First Class area and the tight legroom. But then I am a fan of doors at quarters layouts as the optimal balance of accessibility and InterCity "feel".

730/2 would be an awful train for the job, suspension is too uncomfortable for long distance journeys plus the walkthrough gangways are like a metro train not an intercity ambiance

The 730/2 rides very well compared to the utter cart that is the 397. I quite like the 397 generally but the ride is absolutely appalling, in some ways worse than a Pacer which was at least smooth on welded rail.

You can put glass doors across the walk through gangways as the InterCity FLIRTs do, though to be honest I find them a benefit, much easier to walk through the train looking for a seat with luggage. The vestibules break up the "long tube" feel to a sufficient extent for me.

 

[Topological]

With a row or two removed from each coach (as they are very high density compared to the 222s) and First Class changed to 2+1, the 730/2 would probably be a perfect drop-in for any 110mph electrified mainline, to be honest. And I personally find that 24m vehicles with doors at quarters (rather than thirds) do still retain an InterCity like feel, at least to me. The feel is not dissimilar to the Class 444 despite the door positions.

One does wonder a little how the cost of the custom Hitachi fleet would compare with the cost of wires plus a fleet of off the shelf Class 730/2s over the full lifetime of each. They are 110mph rather than 125mph units, but that wouldn't make much difference I expect.

Or could electrification to Leicester and an extra platform at Kettering for a split/join twice an hour without getting in the way of anything else, with 4 cars to Corby and 8 to Leicester, make better use of the EMU fleet? Or even drop Corby to hourly with peak extras if demand is that low, with the other one going to Leicester, with pick up/set down restrictions added to the diesels?

Something like the 745 on Liverpool Street to Norwich would have been ideal.

However, I agree that the 730/2 would be fine. London to Sheffield is only just over 2 hours.

I dont know if there is a platform that could produce two types of unit. One for the stoppers (1 per hour to Nottinham and Sheffield) and one for the fasts (likewise 1 per hour). Ideally, one of the two could handle life away from the wires to go up the Erewash, or via Manton (at a push, that can be bustituted if needed). If the platform was successful the bi-mode version would then be very suitable for CrossCountry duties in a follow-on order.

I suspect that pragmatism would haver overriden any notion of "intercity" and that 110 would be fine.

 

[InTheEastMids]

One does wonder a little how the cost of the custom Hitachi fleet would compare with the cost of wires plus a fleet of off the shelf Class 730/2s over the full lifetime of each.

Don't think standard 730s would have passed the quality threshold on the tender, stakeholders might've hit the roof, as (unlike LNWR), this'd have been instead of traditional IC trains (all major LNWR destinations are also served by Avanti). 110mph would've been problematic, so soon after quite a lot of money had just been spent on a programme of line speed enhancements on the MML.

Wouldn't they have gone for 125-mph stock, so likely an electric only 80x/810, or an electric-only high-speed offering from another manufacturer (e.g. 397-like, a FLIRT/SMILE hybrid, or whatever Alstom/Bombardier or Siemens would have offered)

I think the serious runners would have been Hitachi, Bombardier and CAF.
Don't think level boarding was a big enough issue to put Stadler in the running (shame!) and Siemens appeared to be AWOL at this point.

I wonder if re-engineering costs to meet the 24m requirement might have been problematic for Hitachi's commercial proposal? (With hindsight, it has been!)
CAF presumably would have been the cheap & cheerful choice.

Bombardier at the time were very busy with 701s and 730s. However was it around 2018/19 that the gap in their order book would have been a growing concern to them?
I think the politics around Bombardier would've sent the order to Derby, but given the quality requirements I expect we'd have got a new 125mph Aventra derivative with a 397-like interior.

EMU are cheaper than bimode so I thought about whether any any more train sets would have been ordered.
Personally, I think not, as I suspect the franchise process would have encouraged any savings to go to DfT as premium, rather than invested in growth.

They could be fitted with batteries.

We say that in 2025. I am not sure anybody would have proposed significant battery range in 2019, the costs were much higher and the technology less proven.
I think the Melton/Erewash diversionary routes would have been replaced by buses. Most of the Melton diversions have been for electrification anyway, and the regular trains are just there to preserve crew knowledge for the diversions.

A big gain from full electrification might've been the flexibility to use refurbished 360s into the East Midlands in a similar way that GWR uses 387s to Cardiff.

 

[cactustwirly]

Something like the 745 on Liverpool Street to Norwich would have been ideal.

However, I agree that the 730/2 would be fine. London to Sheffield is only just over 2 hours.

I dont know if there is a platform that could produce two types of unit. One for the stoppers (1 per hour to Nottinham and Sheffield) and one for the fasts (likewise 1 per hour). Ideally, one of the two could handle life away from the wires to go up the Erewash, or via Manton (at a push, that can be bustituted if needed). If the platform was successful the bi-mode version would then be very suitable for CrossCountry duties in a follow-on order.

I suspect that pragmatism would haver overriden any notion of "intercity" and that 110 would be fine.

If 110mph was fine, why was millions spent 10 years ago to upgrade the line to 125mph, plus extra upgrades like at Market Harborough to slew and straighten the track by rebuilding the station?

 

[Nottingham59]

If 110mph was fine, why was millions spent 10 years ago to upgrade the line to 125mph,

You tell me. The amount of 125mph running on the MML is surprisingly limited. 110mph would have been fine for the whole line, and reducing the speed differential between the fastest and slowest trains would have make integrating the MML timetable with Thameslink much easier.

plus extra upgrades like at Market Harborough to slew and straighten the track by rebuilding the station?

Market Harborough is still only 85mph, according to openrailwaymap.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The argument that any or all of the diversions ‘could be covered by replacement buses’ if all or part of the fleet were EMU-only is planning for failure The joy with the MML is that it is all four-track or has diversions and hitherto all stock except the Class 360s can go anywhere relevant. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been diverted ad hoc because of flooding, tree down, trespass, failed train or whatever. (Yes, I know that not all crews sign all diversions but have been impressed by the number who do. Anyway, this is something that a more passenger-focussed GBR could do more of in terms of routes and traction types, including routine ‘refresher’ diagrams.)

 

[Nottingham59]

If the route was fully electrified, one wonders if a service of 350/1-type units running in 8 and 12 car formations would provide a better match. Though then we’d probable be reading complaints about 1/3 2/3 door positions.

If the MML had been fully electrified, the natural fit would have been to take spare Pendolinos from the WCML which would have been released by HS2 phase 1 coming into operation.

125mph running is not feasible on most parts of the MML without tilt, because it is highly curved, just like the WCML.

 

[BlueLeanie]

At what time point are we talking about when we are saying "If the MML had been electrified".

If it was, say around 1980, we'd probably have had a 110mph electric version of the Hst using the same jigs and Mk3s running long distance services. Then something along the lines of a Class 315 running stopper services.

 

[cactustwirly]

You tell me. The amount of 125mph running on the MML is surprisingly limited. 110mph would have been fine for the whole line, and reducing the speed differential between the fastest and slowest trains would have make integrating the MML timetable with Thameslink much easier.



Market Harborough is still only 85mph, according to openrailwaymap.

It's not insignificant, most of Leicester to East Midlands Parkway is 120mph, and sections like Wellingborough to Bedford, Bedford to Luton and Radlett to St Alban's.

I believe there are sections upgraded to 115mph.

Market Harborough was much lower, it was a significant rebuild, so must have had a big financial benefit in order to be authorised.

I would be interested to see the pre 2015 journey times compared to now

 

[Topological]

It would be interesting to know what improvements are from 125 and what are because of the Meridians.

The xx:25 HST to Sheffield used to form the x1:36 from Leicester - so the journey time was 1 hour 10ish given dwell at Leicester. The 21:02 tonight is scheduled to do the journey in 1 hour 2 minutes.

I stopped using the MML regularly before the Meridian enabled timetable came in. My feeling is that the meridians had already brought in a faster timetable well before 2015.

 

[cactustwirly]

It would be interesting to know what improvements are from 125 and what are because of the Meridians.

The xx:25 HST to Sheffield used to form the x1:36 from Leicester - so the journey time was 1 hour 10ish given dwell at Leicester. The 21:02 tonight is scheduled to do the journey in 1 hour 2 minutes.

I stopped using the MML regularly before the Meridian enabled timetable came in. My feeling is that the meridians had already brought in a faster timetable well before 2015.

That's Sheffield to Leicester which has limited 125mph
Most of the improvements are south of Leicester

 

[Topological]

That's Sheffield to Leicester which has limited 125mph
Most of the improvements are south of Leicester

The times I have quoted are Northbound. I could understand that you are getting confused with what used to be the xx27 south from Sheffield. I think they moved to xx24 at some point, but I cant remember them having ever been xx25. London to Nottingham HST was xx55 from St Pancras.

The 36 minutes past HST to Sheffield was my way of getting back to uni. It made the connection with the 10 past Transpennine at Sheffield. I knew it left London at 25 past from the times I had occasion to go to London from Leicester. Also, I used to like to get advance firsts from Manchester to London and then London to Leicester.

It is just timing from the early 2000s because that is when I did that journey.

The "Today" time I gave is based on this one: 2102 London St Pancras to Sheffield

 

[cactustwirly]

The times I have quoted are Northbound. I could understand that you are getting confused with what used to be the xx27 south from Sheffield. I think they moved to xx24 at some point, but I cant remember them having ever been xx25. London to Nottingham HST was xx55 from St Pancras.

The 36 minutes past HST to Sheffield was my way of getting back to uni. It made the connection with the 10 past Transpennine at Sheffield. I knew it left London at 25 past from the times I had occasion to go to London from Leicester. Also, I used to like to get advance firsts from Manchester to London and then London to Leicester.

It is just timing from the early 2000s because that is when I did that journey.

The "Today" time I gave is based on this one: 2102 London St Pancras to Sheffield

I remember the HST was xx15 from St Pancras.
Did St Pancras to Leicester in 1hr 10 with a stop in Market Harborough

 

[Topological]

I remember the HST was xx15 from St Pancras.
Did St Pancras to Leicester in 1hr 10 with a stop in Market Harborough

Finally found a timetable, 2014: MML times 2014

xx15 was the HST as you say
xx55 was a non-stop Meridian, scheduled into Leicester at x1:02, so there had been a speed uplift of about 2 minutes at that point.

 

[InTheEastMids]

If the MML had been fully electrified, the natural fit would have been to take spare Pendolinos from the WCML which would have been released by HS2 phase 1 coming into operation.

Kind of curious about when HS2 is opening in your alternative timeline and when these 390s would become available!

Market Harborough was much lower, it was a significant rebuild, so must have had a big financial benefit in order to be authorised

Not Forgetting that the rebuild achieved 4 different benefits that could be stacked against the total cost. The speed improvement. Platforms at the right height and length for 240m trains. Accessibility improvements including footbridge with lifts and a significantly larger car park enabling revenue growth.

Think the speed limit before was more like 60mph

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If the MML had been electrified in the 1970s more class 87s plus Mark 3s.
If 1980s, probably the same.

 

[mike57]

I think any MML 'timeline' would be mixed up with the ECML and even the WCML. Think back to the early 80's, the ECML had HST's and once the Selby diversion opened journey times to places as far as Newcastle were broadly similar to today, with some limited stop services even quicker than todays best journeys (Yes, Leeds I am pointing at you ). At this time the MML was still a 90mph railway terminating in a very run down St Pancras, and really felt like a poor offering. HST's were then introduced on the MML and speed limits were gradually tweaked with various minor improvements. Journey times improved.

So would MML electrification have come before ECML, I cant see any scenario where that would have happened, could/should it have followed on from ECML electrification, yes, but thats politics not common sense. Had it followed on then my own theory would be that it would have been 87's, Mk3s and DVTs cascaded from the WCML, with a new build of Mk4's or similar with new electric locos for the WCML, as I believe the Mk4 body shell was the shape it was to allow limited tilting. In which case the MML would be a 110mph railway, which is what I believe it was anyway when the HSTs were introduced. The MML would continue to get cast offs from the ECML and WCML as thats the way BR worked.

So where would that leave us today, no need to build 222's, and if an EMU was required a 110mph AC version similar to the class 442 would probably have appeared. Assuming the Balkanisation of the railways had not happened one could imagine refurbished Mk4s and regeared 91's would be still in service on the MML. Having all three northward main lines electrified would probably have driven the IEP program in a different direction, as the GWR routes would probably still be diesel, and you would then end up with two different solutions.

110mph MU's would probably be used on the semifast MML services, with cascaded 'Inter City' units from the WCML and ECML being the norm into the future.

The funny thing is I think journey times would not be dissimilar, and the passenger experience would be similar or even better than today.

 

[zwk500]

MML is 125mph needs full InterCity stock

That's Sheffield to Leicester which has limited 125mph
Most of the improvements are south of Leicester

Looking at the sectional appendix, the furthest north 125mph is still south of East Mids Parkway. 120mph continues through to Ratcliffe Jn. There is a short section of 115mph on the Down just before Spondon, but otherwise nothing north of Trent junctions exceeds 110mph.

125mph itself is also fairly limited between London and Trent Jns, with 120mph much more common. Given the theoretical maximum benefit of 125mph vs 110mph over 120miles is 7m51s, and the actual amount of >110mph running is a fraction of that 120miles, I think 110mph units could compensate for the lower top speed if they had sufficient improvement at the bottom end performance.

 

[Snow1964]

I dont know if there is a platform that could produce two types of unit. One for the stoppers (1 per hour to Nottinham and Sheffield) and one for the fasts (likewise 1 per hour). Ideally, one of the two could handle life away from the wires to go up the Erewash, or via Manton (at a push, that can be bustituted if needed). If the platform was successful the bi-mode version would then be very suitable for CrossCountry duties in a follow-on order.

Both the 450 and 444 used two different body shells on same platform, with common electrical equipment, cabs, bogies etc. One type suitable for stoppers, and one more express style.

The previous generation the 442s were designed to be hauled by locos when on diversion (neither route via Fareham, or via Laverstock, Salisbury was electrified when they were introduced).

So yes it's possible, on pure EMUs, not bi-modes

 

[InTheEastMids]

I dont know if there is a platform that could produce two types of unit. One for the stoppers (1 per hour to Nottinham and Sheffield)

Can't see a benefit of 2 micro fleets beyond perhaps slightly reduced dwell times on some services.
Can see a number of ways doing this would increase capital and operating costs.

Engineering 2 different sub-fleets means higher unit cost (£)
Bigger spares inventory (£)

Less efficient platform usage as the inbound "stopper" unit has a longer dwell to work the next outbound "stopper" service, rather than the next service.
Longer dwells -> reduced fleet utilisation* -> a larger fleet for a given timetable (£)

Harder to recover from disruption if you have to keep keep stopper trains on stopper services (£ e.g. increased Delay Repay)
(so it would go in the bin at the slightest disruption)
Inconsistent customer experience

I suspect 2 small fleets would be harder to find new homes for if/when the time comes -> risk -> higher leasing charges (£)
Much more effective to Ryanair it and have a single homogenous fleet.

*One thing people harking back to the "good old days" of MML IC services on this site often overlook is how inefficient the fleet utilisation must've been when EMT were running around 5 different units (4,5&7-car 222s, HSTs with 6 and 8 carriages). Didn't the hourly Nottingham HST have a turnaround time of 1h 10 minute at one end or the other?

Both the 450 and 444 used two different body shells on same platform, with common electrical equipment, cabs, bogies etc.

Hence my view that if the order had gone to Bombardier, it'd have been an Aventra with 125mph capability, a pointier front and end doors.
Wasn't this kind of flexibility part of the selling point of Aventra?

 

[Topological]

Can't see a benefit of 2 micro fleets beyond perhaps slightly reduced dwell times on some services.
Can see a number of ways doing this would increase capital and operating costs.

Engineering 2 different sub-fleets means higher unit cost (£)
Bigger spares inventory (£)

Less efficient platform usage as the inbound "stopper" unit has a longer dwell to work the next outbound "stopper" service, rather than the next service.
Longer dwells -> reduced fleet utilisation* -> a larger fleet for a given timetable (£)

Harder to recover from disruption if you have to keep keep stopper trains on stopper services (£ e.g. increased Delay Repay)
(so it would go in the bin at the slightest disruption)
Inconsistent customer experience

I suspect 2 small fleets would be harder to find new homes for if/when the time comes -> risk -> higher leasing charges (£)
Much more effective to Ryanair it and have a single homogenous fleet.

*One thing people harking back to the "good old days" of MML IC services on this site often overlook is how inefficient the fleet utilisation must've been when EMT were running around 5 different units (4,5&7-car 222s, HSTs with 6 and 8 carriages). Didn't the hourly Nottingham HST have a turnaround time of 1h 10 minute at one end or the other?


Hence my view that if the order had gone to Bombardier, it'd have been an Aventra with 125mph capability, a pointier front and end doors.
Wasn't this kind of flexibility part of the selling point of Aventra?

That was why I said a single platform rather than two different platforms. The two versions would probably be subclasses, though I do not know enough about the technical side to know when two different subclasses should actually have different class numbers.

I would go for a 110 maximum and not worry about things like pointy ends or doors at the end of carriages. The suggestion for two types of train on the same platform were more to appease those who seem to think doors at the ends are some form of panacea.

As a regular user of the Marches, I know only too well what happens when a microfleet of "Intercity" stock is introduced into the mix. At least the proposed MML would have been new and hopefully more reliable than the 67s and Mk4s. I would not wish that on my former home mainline.

 

[InTheEastMids]

The two versions would probably be subclasses

OK in which case we'd quickly get to the situation LNWR have had where 5-abreast 350 ended up used interchangeably with other 350 fleets, utterly defeating the point of having 2 different configurations.

I would go for a 110 maximum and not worry about things like pointy ends or doors at the end of carriages.

I think this would be politically unacceptable. Imagine you're Secretary of State for Transport. You have to ring the MPs and other politicians along the route that their service was being "upgraded" from 125 mph intercity trains to 110mph commuter trains. How do you think that will go?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think this would be politically unacceptable. Imagine you're Secretary of State for Transport. You have to ring the MPs and other politicians along the route that their service was being "upgraded" from 125 mph intercity trains to 110mph commuter trains. How do you think that will go?

I have not heard an awful lot of negative publicity about the 80x on the WCML only running at 110. I've heard lots about shiny new trains.

What people care about is overcrowding and price, by and large.

By the way, go and try the "first class" area in a 730/2 and tell me that wouldn't be one of the nicest Standard Classes on the railway, give or take that some people don't like the shape of Sophia seats (they don't have the metal bar issue as they have a very thick base cushion). I'm not suggesting using commuter-spec interiors, but I am suggesting it's certainly to the standard of the likes of the Class 444, and to be honest I still think that is the nicest long distance interior in the UK at present and possibly the nicest it's had in a long time.

 

[Trainbike46]

I have not heard an awful lot of negative publicity about the 80x on the WCML only running at 110. I've heard lots about shiny new trains.

What people care about is overcrowding and price, by and large.

It probably helps that the 80x:
- Are due to run at 125mph in the future, at least in some places
- are a massive improvement over the voyagers in many ways (more trains, more seats per train, better comfort, lower emissions)
- Are being used to increase services on the Liverpool route

If they were replacing the pendolinos, instead of replacing the voyagers and being extra, I think the response would have been different.