MML Electrification: progress updates

[PJM]

In the meantime there are now piles through Desborough!
View attachment 131365View attachment 131366View attachment 131367View attachment 131368


Also there are masts and cantilevers from the new Braybrooke bridge to the new Feeder station, but still a 1/4 mile gap North to MH.

Brilliant! Almost there! Thanks for the shots.

 

[38Cto15E]

I cannot ever see the Corby to Syston section ever being electrified, 5 tunnels and the Harringworth/Welland Valley viaduct with not many trains each day, just not good value for money.
Last Sunday there were several rail mounted vehicles at Kettering North Jct with large cable reels on them, it looked like some knitting was going up towards Glendon and Rushton.

 

[59CosG95]

Last Sunday there were several rail mounted vehicles at Kettering North Jct with large cable reels on them, it looked like some knitting was going up towards Glendon and Rushton.

Knitting did go up!

The first pic in this LinkedIn post shows wiring work at the overlap by Kettering Nth Jn TSC, innthe cutting where the Corby lines diverge from the main line.

Capital Delivery Eastern on LinkedIn: Midland Mainline Electrification Electrification of the route between…

Midland Mainline Electrification Electrification of the route between Kettering and Wigston made significant progress over the weekend, after the MPP Midlands…

www.linkedin.com

 

[adrock1976]

EMR Bi modes will not be cascaded anywhere until Syston to Corby, Erewash route from both Trent and Nottingham , via both Radford and Toton, Beighton, and Sheet Stores to Derby via Stenson are electrified, and there are no current proposals to do any of those diversions.

Regarding Syston - Corby, is (or was) the section Syston - Manton Junction part of the Felixstowe - Nuneaton project?

 

[snowball]

Regarding Syston - Corby, is (or was) the section Syston - Manton Junction part of the Felixstowe - Nuneaton project?

I don't know anything about the contents of any any specific project but you couldn't do F-N unless Syston to Manton was part of it (or had been done already).

 

[zwk500]

I don't know anything about the contents of any any specific project but you couldn't do F-N unless Syston to Manton was part of it (or had been done already).

AIUI F2N was a Gauge clearance project and not related to electrification at all.

 

[snowball]

AIUI F2N was a Gauge clearance project and not related to electrification at all.

The route is also very commonly talked about as a necessary future electrification project.

 

[59CosG95]

The route is also very commonly talked about as a necessary future electrification project.

Absolutely - although the route between Corby & Manton would need a serious cash injection if it were also electrified as part of that project.

 

[QSK19]

Will Derby as the HQ for GBR make a difference to the MML Electrification?

As others have said, it would be ridiculous to have selected an area which is going to be served by electric-capable trains & earmarked for electrification under the IRP only to then not electrify at least up to that area. It would also be unwise politically seeing as the Tories will be fighting to retain every single vote in the Midlands in order to mitigate as much as possible the widely-predicted bloodbath at the next election.

MML electrification has been on then off the table at quite a few times over the years.

This is the thing that annoys me more than anything else. We have been promised electrification repeatedly, which delights us and makes us think that the Government are finally serious about it; yet then they pull the Failing Grayling trick and renege on it. Why can’t the DfT just be honest and rule out electrification along the whole of the MML? Whilst it would be extremely disappointing (and would hurt the Government in the short term), at least we would definitely know where we stand.

This flip-flopping is frustrating and surely can’t be good politically when, as I have said before, the Tories need to fight for every vote in the Midlands.

 

[Mikey C]

As others have said, it would be ridiculous to have selected an area which is going to be served by electric-capable trains & earmarked for electrification under the IRP only to then not electrify at least up to that area. It would also be unwise politically seeing as the Tories will be fighting to retain every single vote in the Midlands in order to mitigate as much as possible the widely-predicted bloodbath at the next election.


This is the thing that annoys me more than anything else. We have been promised electrification repeatedly, which delights us and makes us think that the Government are finally serious about it; yet then they pull the Failing Grayling trick and renege on it. Why can’t the DfT just be honest and rule out electrification along the whole of the MML? Whilst it would be extremely disappointing (and would hurt the Government in the short term), at least we would definitely know where we stand.

This flip-flopping is frustrating and surely can’t be good politically when, as I have said before, the Tories need to fight for every vote in the Midlands.

There's no PROOF though that the current plans are under threat. At the moment it's all speculation.

 

[QSK19]

If the HQ of G

There's no PROOF though that the current plans are under threat. At the moment it's all speculation.

Indeed, and this is the lesson I have taken from all this - believe nothing until it actually happens or we have concrete confirmation that it’s happening/not happening!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

AIUI F2N was a Gauge clearance project and not related to electrification at all.

F2N was/is about capacity and gauge clearance, but electrification was also part fo the end goal.

The route is also very commonly talked about as a necessary future electrification project.

Absolutely - although the route between Corby & Manton would need a serious cash injection if it were also electrified as part of that project.

Correct. In fact the freight sector and others were absolutely mystified that The Electric Spine project at the time was being prioritized over F2N or sometimes called F2MN. Long been calls for it to be electrified in addition to Nuneaton to Birmingham especially Lawley St.

 

[Kneedown]

You are making the courageous assumption that the diversionary routes in use today would still be in use ‘tomorrow’ for EMR intercity services in the event that the MML was electrified throughout.

I can't see any reason why the diversions wouldn't be in use in the future? These diversions are the reason our trains generally keep running during times of disruption or engineering work.

 

[John R]

I can't see any reason why the diversions wouldn't be in use in the future? These diversions are the reason our trains generally keep running during times of disruption or engineering work.

Cost. Electrifying a route purely to facilitate diversions is unlikely to come high on anyone's list of priorities.

 

[Bald Rick]

F2N was/is about capacity and gauge clearance, but electrification was also part fo the end goal.

The F2N gauge clearance project never had electrification as the end goal. If bridges needed reconstruction they were done the electrification clearances, (like all over bridge reconstruction jobs, where practical) but there weren’t many of them.

I can't see any reason why the diversions wouldn't be in use in the future? These diversions are the reason our trains generally keep running during times of disruption or engineering work.

if the service was provided by pure electric trains, then it is safe to say they wouldn’t be running on the diversionary route.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The F2N gauge clearance project never had electrification as the end goal. If bridges needed reconstruction they were done the electrification clearances, (like all over bridge reconstruction jobs, where practical) but there weren’t many of them.

I worded badly - should have been electrification has been/mooted/discussed/documents etc produced on more than one occasion.

 

[zwk500]

I worded badly - should have been electrification has been/mooted/discussed/documents etc produced on more than one occasion.

Sometimes it feels like there's a fundamental misunderstanding about Strategy documents. They are produced to be presented, and nothing more. The appearance of a strategy paper such as the Electric Spine does not mean anything unless specific projects actually get progressed through to design and funding stages.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Sometimes it feels like there's a fundamental misunderstanding about Strategy documents. They are produced to be presented, and nothing more. The appearance of a strategy paper such as the Electric Spine does not mean anything unless specific projects actually get progressed through to design and funding stages.

I hear what you are saying but Electric Spine was announced in Parliament - it went beyond a strategy document iirc.

I know Wikipedia is not always the most reliable source, but a good article is heavily referenced so a reader can check things for themselves.

Electric Spine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The "Electric Spine" was the name for part of a, now largely cancelled, rolling programme of railway electrification projects in England initially estimated to cost £800 million, but later thought to cost close to £3 billion. The aim was to form 25 kV AC overhead-wire electrified links northward from the Port of Southampton to major cities in northern and central England and a dry port container terminal in the Midlands. The government wanted efficient electric-hauled freight trains to compete with road haulage.

In 2012, the spine was set to be completed within Network Rail's Control Period 5 (CP5, 2014–2019). This was not the case, because various works were delayed, suspended for several months, moved into Control Period 6 (CP6, starting in 2019), and then scrapped altogether (despite various preliminary work, like bridge replacement, having been conducted).

Other works associated with the project were to have included gauge clearance for large shipping containers and electrified connections to adjacent electrified routes, depots and freight facilities.

The north–south axis of the link leads to the spine name.

 

[Bald Rick]

I hear what you are saying but Electric Spine was announced in Parliament - it went beyond a strategy document iirc.

No, it was never more than a strategy document, indeed little more than lines on a map. I reasonably sure no feasibility work was ever completed. It was certainly a surprise in that High Level Output Statement - the Strategy people had “where’s that come from?” looks on their faces!

That wiki entry is a rather revisionist view of history.

 

[Trainbike46]

F2N was/is about capacity and gauge clearance, but electrification was also part fo the end goal.


Correct. In fact the freight sector and others were absolutely mystified that The Electric Spine project at the time was being prioritized over F2N or sometimes called F2MN. Long been calls for it to be electrified in addition to Nuneaton to Birmingham especially Lawley St.

Gauge clearance, depending on how it is done, could aid a future electrification project by dealing with low bridges and tunnels, and of course if the signalling got improved (did it? I don't actually know), that may have made it compatible with electrification too.

The F2N gauge clearance project never had electrification as the end goal. If bridges needed reconstruction they were done the electrification clearances, (like all over bridge reconstruction jobs, where practical) but there weren’t many of them.

So slightly easier, but not a massive amount. Though this probably means we now have a very good idea which bridges would need upgrading for electrification, from the work done for gauge clearance.

 

[Kneedown]

Cost. Electrifying a route purely to facilitate diversions is unlikely to come high on anyone's list of priorities.

Exactly. Which is why I said the 810's won't be going anywhere.

 

[swt_passenger]

Gauge clearance, depending on how it is done, could aid a future electrification project by dealing with low bridges and tunnels, and of course if the signalling got improved (did it? I don't actually know), that may have made it compatible with electrification too.

So slightly easier, but not a massive amount. Though this probably means we now have a very good idea which bridges would need upgrading for electrification, from the work done for gauge clearance.

The various recent gauge clearance projects for freight have generally been only about making the corners of containers fit through existing bridges or tunnels, which were mainly arch shaped. A freight project will not raise the height clearance at rolling stock centreline as a matter of course, because the biggest freight container gauge, ie W12, is only a few cm higher than standard locomotive gauge, W6.

 

[Kneedown]

if the service was provided by pure electric trains, then it is safe to say they wouldn’t be running on the diversionary route.

Even before the original "pause" in MML electrification the plan was for bi-mode units due to the various essential diversionary routes. Pure electric had never been on the table north of Kettering/Corby for this reason. That's not to say that when the wires finally reach Sheffield, a generator or two won't be removed, or derated, but the fleet most certainly will not be cascaded in favour of pure electric. Bi modes on the MML will be here to stay for the foreseeable.

 

[zwk500]

The various recent gauge clearance projects for freight have generally been only about making the corners of containers fit through existing bridges or tunnels, which were mainly arch shaped. A freight project will not raise the height clearance at rolling stock centreline as a matter of course, because the biggest freight container gauge, ie W12, is only a few cm higher than standard locomotive gauge, W6.

If you're knocking the bridge down and rebuilding it anyway, it's normal practice to build it with electrification clearance unless there's a very good reason not to. Even if it wouldn't be necessary to raise the centreline for the primary goal of freight clearance. It just means that if a bridge is clear for W12 but not for electrification it wouldn't be touched as part of the former project.

 

[59CosG95]

The MMLE Map has updated again with dates for April.

From 0700 to 1700, Mon-Fri, enabling works for East Langton & South Wigston substations will be taking place (indeed, they already seem to have commenced at East Langton).

 

[Verulamius]

Even before the original "pause" in MML electrification the plan was for bi-mode units due to the various essential diversionary routes. Pure electric had never been on the table north of Kettering/Corby for this reason. That's not to say that when the wires finally reach Sheffield, a generator or two won't be removed, or derated, but the fleet most certainly will not be cascaded in favour of pure electric. Bi modes on the MML will be here to stay for the foreseeable.

When Sheffield is electrified, is the plan to also electrify the "old road" via Barrow Hill as a few services regularly divert around that way?

 

[zwk500]

When Sheffield is electrified, is the plan to also electrify the "old road" via Barrow Hill as a few services regularly divert around that way?

Not under the current plans. No diversionary routes at all, but AIUI the third side of Trent triangle (the north one) is to be wired to allow direct Derby-Nottingham moves. But no Melton Mowbray, no Erewash, and no Barrow Hill.

 

[TheBigD]

Gauge clearance, depending on how it is done, could aid a future electrification project by dealing with low bridges and tunnels, and of course if the signalling got improved (did it? I don't actually know), that may have made it compatible with electrification too.

Don't think that they were part of the F2N upgrade, but there has been a number of signalling schemes on that route over the last decade or so.

Late 2000s Nuneaton to Wigston resignalled and addition signals installed reducing headway.

2011/2 Soham box closed and replaced with a number of auto signals that have reduced the headway between Bury and Chippenham Jn.

The semaphores on the March to Peterborough are now scheduled to be replaced with colour lights in November this year but that date has slipped a couple of times already.

Around 2015/6 (I think) there was a scheme which would have reduced the double blocking of Ely North Jn for certain movements but that wasn't considered value for money and wasn't continued.

 

[3RDGEN]

Not under the current plans. No diversionary routes at all, but AIUI the third side of Trent triangle (the north one) is to be wired to allow direct Derby-Nottingham moves. But no Melton Mowbray, no Erewash, and no Barrow Hill.

With a full bi-mode fleet it's not an issue, just drop the pan and go forward on diesel if/when required.

 

[zwk500]

With a full bi-mode fleet it's not an issue, just drop the pan and go forward on diesel if/when required.

Indeed. Bi-modes are a double-edged sword in that regard: they simultaneously increase the case for rolling electrification of higher-traffic lines but worsen the case for wiring diversionary or rarely used lines.