MML Electrification: progress updates

[Bald Rick]

Who is the authorising body for this request? Is it solely a National Grid decision?

I think so.

 

[Mikey C]

Yes, and having looked at my map it makes a lot of sense if true.
1) Nice and steady incremental electrification.
2) A bit less diesel mileage
3) Gets it past the treasury
4) Keeps teams occupied while (one assumes Leicester area remodeling takes place)
5) Well, well, well within the power capability of the Braybrooke Grid feeder

<speculation on> I hope when they do to Leicester they do to Glen Parva Jct while they are at with a nice overlap to make easier to eventually go to Nuneaton </speculation off>

Is design work on this far advanced enough so that the teams can continue onto Wigston as soon as the work to Market Harborough is complete, without any pause?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

we will learn how committed the DfT is to extending the wires when the feeder stations north of Braybrook get authorised and contracts let. The long lead time tasks.

AIUI, the application for a connection to the National Grid for Kegworth has been made.

Absolutely fantastic news.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Who is the authorising body for this request? Is it solely a National Grid decision?

AIUI, the application for a connection to the National Grid for Kegworth has been made.

Here is NG Electricty Transmission's process for new connections:

Customer Connections | National Grid Electricity Transmission

Find out about the customer connections process to the high voltage grid in England and Wales

www.nationalgrid.com

It seems like we are at Step 3 of the process - NGET will design the connection and make a connection offer to NR
The way to think about it is that the NGET connection will basically be the 25 kV busbar on the LV side of their 400/25 kV transformers inside the substation compound, therefore NGET are responsible for planning and delivery of the substation.

Based on Braybrooke, the first real detail about the substation was local consultation in summer 2017 leading to the full planning application in late 2017 for the wires to go live in 2023.
(I think this 6 year lead time was longer than normal because Grayling, and possibly some Covid delays, but that is speculation on my part)

 

[PJM]

The piles that @PJM pictured from the Little Bowden footbridge (which connects Braybrooke Road and Glebe Road if you're not local) have now received the galvanised plates that I guess masts will shortly be bolted to.

Seems like plenty is going on during this set of (mostly) overnight works (dates and times of work near Harborough are in the picture posted by @Trainben in #4687)

Ditto , north of platform 2

 

[Bald Rick]

Absolutely fantastic news.

application doesn’t mean paid for, of course.

 

[59CosG95]

Is design work on this far advanced enough so that the teams can continue onto Wigston as soon as the work to Market Harborough is complete, without any pause?

I certainly can't speak for the details on hammering piles in, or structure locations, but I'm sure work to investigate the proposed sectioning sites at East Langton & South Wigston in advance of the installation of those sites' required equipment will begin soon if it hasn't already.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

application doesn’t mean paid for, of course.

I understand but I am a "glass is half full" person so still a step in the right direction. With all the hoo-hah about IRP etc. I am very confident it will happen. Now if an application was made for Chesterfield area ------ well.....

View attachment 108354View attachment 108355Ditto , north of platform 2

Great shots - thanks for posting.

 

[Bald Rick]

I understand but I am a "glass is half full" person so still a step in the right direction. With all the hoo-hah about IRP etc. I am very confident it will happen.

I’m certain it will happen.

 

[Flying Phil]

There is more work going on along the line but it was great to see that the masts have almost reached Market Harborough Station (- there are significant gaps though, particularly through Desborough)

This from the Station approach road ie about 100 yards South of the platforms.

This from Braybrooke Road about 1/2 mile South of the Station

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Thanks for posting.

off topic but a bridge bash on that low bridge would be disruptive.

 

[edwin_m]

View attachment 108441
This from Braybrooke Road about 1/2 mile South of the Station

By the look of those supports they are going for traditional single track cantilevers, unlike the double track cantilevers used even on double track sections further south.

off topic but a bridge bash on that low bridge would be disruptive.

Is nine signs of various types some kind of record for one side of one bridge?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Is nine signs of various types some kind of record for one side of one bridge?

On topic - at least one new sign will surely go on -Danger Overhead Live wires or similar.

 

[Elecman]

On topic - at least one new sign will surely go on -Danger Overhead Live wires or similar.

Not required on a bridge

 

[Trainben]

These pics were taken just north of Braybrooke Road this afternoon about 1.30pm, sorry about the picture quality. I got right up close to the wagon just after taking these pics, from where the skateboard park is situated, they appeared to look like double track cantilevers on it, although I could be incorrect as not too experienced in this area.

 

[59CosG95]

These pics were taken just north of Braybrooke Road this afternoon about 1.30pm, sorry about the picture quality. I got right up close to the wagon just after taking these pics, from where the skateboard park is situated, they appeared to look like double track cantilevers on it, although I could be incorrect as not too experienced in this area.

Yeah, that wagonload looks like a mix of STCs and TTCs (Twin Track Cantilevers - which will eventually gain a boom).
Double Cantilever masts are different; while they typically only do one track, they support 2 wire runs and are found at crossovers and overlaps.
(TTCs can also do this, but can support up to 4 wire runs over 2 tracks when used in this way.)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Not required on a bridge

So since I have seen signs on bridges it must only have signs when a bridge goes OVER an electrified railway but not like this when an electrified railway goes over a road? Am I correct?

 

[Trainben]

Yeah, that wagonload looks like a mix of STCs and TTCs (Twin Track Cantilevers - which will eventually gain a boom).
Double Cantilever masts are different; while they typically only do one track, they support 2 wire runs and are found at crossovers and overlaps.
(TTCs can also do this, but can support up to 4 wire runs over 2 tracks when used in this way.)hanks 59CosG95 ...

Thanks for the technical info 59CosG95.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks for posting.

off topic but a bridge bash on that low bridge would be disruptive.

It used to be, but not so much now. One of the most bashed in the country. Being masonry (and assessed suitable) I’m fairly sure the line can be run at caution until assessed by a competent person. Ie trains can move, so are delayed maybe 5-10 minutes.

 

[ABB125]

It used to be, but not so much now. One of the most bashed in the country. Being masonry (and assessed suitable) I’m fairly sure the line can be run at caution until assessed by a competent person. Ie trains can move, so are delayed maybe 5-10 minutes.

Why are masonry bridges permitted to be used at low speed (with the implication that others (steel?) can't)? Is it because each brick carries only a tiny amount of the overall load, so knocking out a few doesn't really matter? Or, I'm told that Victorian era bridges (which I'm guessing this one is because it's masonry) are far stronger than they need to be, because back then they didn't really know how strong the bridges needed to be so "bigger = better"; thus, if it's knocked, it still has sufficient load-bearing capacity, compared with a modern bridge designed to be "just enough"?

 

[Bald Rick]

Why are masonry bridges permitted to be used at low speed (with the implication that others (steel?) can't)? Is it because each brick carries only a tiny amount of the overall load, so knocking out a few doesn't really matter? Or, I'm told that Victorian era bridges (which I'm guessing this one is because it's masonry) are far stronger than they need to be, because back then they didn't really know how strong the bridges needed to be so "bigger = better"; thus, if it's knocked, it still has sufficient load-bearing capacity, compared with a modern bridge designed to be "just enough"?

Essentially, metal bridges need some flexibility to deal with expansion, and therefore can be dislodged (complete) or bend more easily than masonry.

 

[ABB125]

Essentially, metal bridges need some flexibility to deal with expansion, and therefore can be dislodged (complete) or bend more easily than masonry.

Ok, thanks!

 

[PJM]

Looking north from the footbridge at Little Bowdon/Glebe Road towards Market Harborough station today.

and looking south.

 

[59CosG95]

View attachment 108500

Looking north from the footbridge at Little Bowdon/Glebe Road towards Market Harborough station today.View attachment 108502View attachment 108501

and looking south.

Thanks very much @PJM! I can make out a 5th TTC mast in the first 2 pictures, clearly planted on the Up side, in the distance.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Thanks very much @PJM! I can make out a 5th TTC mast in the first 2 pictures, clearly planted on the Up side, in the distance.

Yes, that one is by ATS Tyres, just North of Kettering Road

A couple of extra STC masts have gone in on the up side adjacent to Braybrooke Road, at the location photographed by @Flying Phil in post #4840

 

[PJM]

Thanks very much @PJM! I can make out a 5th TTC mast in the first 2 pictures, clearly planted on the Up side, in the distance.

Yes it is more visible from Bellfields Lane I will try and get a shot of it later, there are also more masts up north and south of the statiom.

 

[Flying Phil]

PJM and I must have nearly met!

As said just now, the mast by the low bridge now has a cantilever arm attached.

 

[snowball]

Why are masonry bridges permitted to be used at low speed (with the implication that others (steel?) can't)? Is it because each brick carries only a tiny amount of the overall load, so knocking out a few doesn't really matter? Or, I'm told that Victorian era bridges (which I'm guessing this one is because it's masonry) are far stronger than they need to be, because back then they didn't really know how strong the bridges needed to be so "bigger = better"; thus, if it's knocked, it still has sufficient load-bearing capacity, compared with a modern bridge designed to be "just enough"?

In an arched bridge the forces are compressive. Brick, stone and concrete are very good at carrying compressive loads. Arched bridges can last for centuries with minimal maintenance but are not suitable for longer spans.

Steel is good at both compressive and tensile loads but you wouldn't make an arched bridge out of solid steel - it would be too heavy, too expensive and not an economical use of the material.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Why are masonry bridges permitted to be used at low speed (with the implication that others (steel?) can't)? Is it because each brick carries only a tiny amount of the overall load, so knocking out a few doesn't really matter? Or, I'm told that Victorian era bridges (which I'm guessing this one is because it's masonry) are far stronger than they need to be, because back then they didn't really know how strong the bridges needed to be so "bigger = better"; thus, if it's knocked, it still has sufficient load-bearing capacity, compared with a modern bridge designed to be "just enough"?

In an arched bridge the forces are compressive. Brick, stone and concrete are very good at carrying compressive loads. Arched bridges can last for centuries with minimal maintenance but are not suitable for longer spans.

Steel is good at both compressive and tensile loads but you wouldn't make an arched bridge out of solid steel - it would be too heavy, too expensive and not an economical use of the material.

Correct. Stone, brick, concrete are ceramics and thus the inter and intra molecular forces are ionic and the materials do not expand and contract nearly as much as metals such as steel. Metals such as steel have inter and intra molecular forces that use metallic bonding and thus have more ductility and expansion contraction and heat/electric conductivity. To get the best of both worlds, materials such as steel reinforced concrete are used. In an arch bridge, the design is such that a snowball says, the forces are all in compression which ceramics are fantastic at handling.

 

[edwin_m]

Masonry arches tend to be massively over-engineered because once you've put enough material in for them to stand up they will support just about any load that might fit on top (as long as the abutments don't move and there is maintenance to protect against water ingress etc). Steel and reinforced concrete bridges have to be "designed" based on structural calculations, so the designer will only use enough material to support the stated loads with a safety factor. Therefore if the load increases above that expected, or the material deteriorates or is damaged such as in a bridge strike, the steel or concrete bridge is much less likely to withstand it.