MML Electrification: progress updates

[Grumbler]

Or the fact you'd have to lower the whole station to get under London Road...
I can see this being a sticking point and have said it for years.

The news report suggested Market Harborough would be 2023.
By that time, it may well be decided extending it to Sheffield/Nottingham will be on the cards.
Unfortunately I can also see Bi-modes being procured by then too, which means if and when the OHL is extended, the MML may get yet another new set of (pure electric) trains.

I wonder if joined up thinking would then transfer the what-would-be ex-MML bi-modes to Cross Country.

Not a problem with Stadler FLIRT bi-modes which can changed to straight electric by removing the "power pack".

 

[hwl]

I think single track cantilevers are still preferred on double track sections - see the western part of GWML and the various northwestern schemes. However MML appears to be treated as four-track even in the Wymington area where the pairs of tracks diverge.

Mast type choice very much depends where the drainage in the cess is.
If it is fairly close to the track then you end up going for TTC which (can) have foundations further away from the track or on the side with no drains. If the drains are further away from the tracks then a simple single track cantilever can be used.

 

[hwl]

Or the fact you'd have to lower the whole station to get under London Road...
I can see this being a sticking point and have said it for years.

The news report suggested Market Harborough would be 2023.
By that time, it may well be decided extending it to Sheffield/Nottingham will be on the cards.
Unfortunately I can also see Bi-modes being procured by then too, which means if and when the OHL is extended, the MML may get yet another new set of (pure electric) trains.

I wonder if joined up thinking would then transfer the what-would-be ex-MML bi-modes to Cross Country.

HS2 has done the survey work for Clay Cross - Sheffield (2033 opening) and will be paying so the question is then what else makes sense.
Bi-modes would be retained for Erewash diversions.

 

[swt_passenger]

Let’s look at that parliamentary statement wording:

“...At Outline Business Case stage in March 2018 this was determined to be the best value for money option for making the power supply connection. In line with normal practice, this will be tested again when the overall Midland Main Line programme Key Output 1a, of which Market Harborough electrification is a constituent part, is assessed at Full Business Case stage.”

What do they actually mean by the bit about will be tested again? Is that BCR tested again? Decision yet to be finally made?

 

[edwin_m]

Let’s look at that parliamentary statement wording:

“...At Outline Business Case stage in March 2018 this was determined to be the best value for money option for making the power supply connection. In line with normal practice, this will be tested again when the overall Midland Main Line programme Key Output 1a, of which Market Harborough electrification is a constituent part, is assessed at Full Business Case stage.”

What do they actually mean by the bit about will be tested again? Is that BCR tested again? Decision yet to be finally made?

Yes. The design will be better developed so the costs will hopefully be more accurate, and it's possible the benefits will also have changed.

 

[Grumbler]

might have noticed I'm Scottish
Yes the A6 bridge does look challenging if it's too low for clearance. Conductor bar and roof insulation maybe? I'm sure though that the highly paid civil engineering consultants will come up with a plan.

Wasn't this problem solved on the Paisley Canal Line by just having the trains coast through?

 

[hwl]

Yes. The design will be better developed so the costs will hopefully be more accurate, and it's possible the benefits will also have changed.

That is when the surprising stuff could come out, an extra 40-60 miles a day on electric for Bi-mode could make the refuel intervals longer and the fuelling logistic easier for example

 

[eastwestdivide]

Wasn't this problem solved on the Paisley Canal Line by just having the trains coast through?

Trouble with Leicester is building up enough momentum: the bridge in question is hard by the S end of the platforms, and southbound trains pulling away are very soon on a rising gradient (anyone know just where the gradient starts to rise?)

 

[jfowkes]

Is there not even enough space for a rigid conductor bar system?

 

[Senex]

Trouble with Leicester is building up enough momentum: the bridge in question is hard by the S end of the platforms, and southbound trains pulling away are very soon on a rising gradient (anyone know just where the gradient starts to rise?)

The Midland Railway's 1902 gradient diagrams (i.e. a few years after the new Leicester station, roadbridge, and widening to the south had been finished) shews level through the station, under the bridge, and to London Road Jn, there changing to 1:400 rising. Whilst a train arriving from the south could certainly coast in if running unchecked, there's no way a train starting out to the south could get up enough momentum to make a start without current. The clearances do look tight, and everyone has always spoken of track-lowering. Does anyone have any idea of how much lower the track would need to be for even an overhead contact-rail to be a practical proposition. (The new Berlin tunnels use contact-rails for 120 km/h speeds, and isn't the Severn Tunnel being done the same way for the GW electrification?)

 

[DarloRich]

Can’t believe it’s taken 12 months for someone to ask the question in Parliament, and for the news to get out! It was trailed on this forum 8 months ago too.

anyone would think professional engineering people had been telling DfT this for about 12 months

 

[edwin_m]

The Midland Railway's 1902 gradient diagrams (i.e. a few years after the new Leicester station, roadbridge, and widening to the south had been finished) shews level through the station, under the bridge, and to London Road Jn, there changing to 1:400 rising. Whilst a train arriving from the south could certainly coast in if running unchecked, there's no way a train starting out to the south could get up enough momentum to make a start without current. The clearances do look tight, and everyone has always spoken of track-lowering. Does anyone have any idea of how much lower the track would need to be for even an overhead contact-rail to be a practical proposition. (The new Berlin tunnels use contact-rails for 120 km/h speeds, and isn't the Severn Tunnel being done the same way for the GW electrification?)

A recent-ish Five Mile Plan shows the 1 in 400 starting right at London Road bridge, and as mentioned a 30" sewer is shown under the track in the same place but with no indication of depth. Trains don't tend to stop at the southern end of the platforms, so these parts could perhaps be taken out of use formally to address issues such as wire height in public areas.

 

[sharpley]

Is there not even enough space for a rigid conductor bar system?

Not sure how much clearance is needed for OHLE but looks like there's only a couple of feet between train and the bridge at the south of Leicester station. The bridge has the station building and the A6 London Rd on it. The main bridge from platforms to ticket hall looks a similar clearance as well. The points have all been replaced just the other side of the London Rd bridge recently as well.

 

[Grumbler]

Whilst a train arriving from the south could certainly coast in if running unchecked, there's no way a train starting out to the south could get up enough momentum to make a start without current.

Trains will have at least two pantographs at least one of which will be able to pick up juice at all times, surely!

 

[edwin_m]

From that photo the clearace does't look too bad. I can also see a "dip" in the nearest rail going under the bridge, although it could be a small horizontal curve rather than a vertical one. Leicester still seems to have both a set of BR Corporate signage and some of the old InterCity Zone signs!

 

[td97]

Not sure how much clearance is needed for OHLE but looks like there's only a couple of feet between train and the bridge at the south of Leicester station. The bridge has the station building and the A6 London Rd on it. The main bridge from platforms to ticket hall looks a similar clearance as well. The points have all been replaced just the other side of the London Rd bridge recently as well.

Electrified at Manchester Victoria

Different view at https://flic.kr/p/rfr3H2
Clearance at Leicester seems to be in a similar league

 

[sharpley]

Electrified at Manchester Victoria
View attachment 60066
Different view at https://flic.kr/p/rfr3H2
Clearance at Leicester seems to be in a similar league

Certainly looks similar. Getting wires to Leicester isn't happening anytime soon (if ever) so I guess its not an issue anyway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there not even enough space for a rigid conductor bar system?

Does anyone have any idea of how much lower the track would need to be for even an overhead contact-rail to be a practical proposition. (The new Berlin tunnels use contact-rails for 120 km/h speeds, and isn't the Severn Tunnel being done the same way for the GW electrification?)

There seems to be a common misconception about conductor bar systems.

They are not used specifically to help with electrical clearances. Indeed if anything because the bar is deeper than a wire, it makes a clearance problem worse.

Conductor bar is use to reduce the risk of failure, and to reduce maintenance (as it needs almost none). For this reason it is often used in tunnels where access for maintenance is difficult (eg Severn tunnel) or in areas where high reliabity and reducing maintenance is imperative (Crossrail, Thameslink, both in tunnels).

Minimal clearances can be achieved with contact wire. One of the bridges outside Liverpool St has 75mm clearance between the live wire and the underside of a metal bridge, which has insulating material under earth it. The intersection bridge at Cardiff is having an even lower clearance IIRC. Both will have the wire set at minimum pantograph height. I’m reasonably sure the same will be possible at Leicester. If it isn’t then it is quite possible that in the event of electrification from Harboro’ to Clay Cross that new trains on the line will have battery capacity for short sections off the juice and to enable shunting in depots / rescue of the power is off. Certainly makes more sense lugging around a few tonnes of battery than a greater weight in engines, cooling groups, alternators, exhausts and fuel, all of which need plenty of depot attention.

For what it’s worth, I would think that bidders for the new franchise will be doing the maths on the costs of electrification of the remaining part fo the MML and the savings in terms of extra fleet costs (leasing and maintenance) from diesel bi-modes. It would be an obvious project for the Government to announce as a private sector infrastructure investment in the railway.

 

[59CosG95]

MML Wiring Progressometer 25.0 (as of 6th of March 2019)
Mileages are from St. Pancras. Unless mentioned otherwise, all reference to the "Fast" side refers to tracks on the western side of the "10-foot" (centre of the track pairs), and the "Slow" side for the tracks on the eastern side.

Bedford (49m 65ch) - Wellingborough (65m 09ch)

• Work to raise Ford End Rd bridge is now complete.
• On the Fast side, behind Bedford P4's fence, masts to support troughing appear to have been erected. These may carry feeder cables or similar.
• Piles have gone in next to the turnback siding at Bedford.
• On the Fast side south of Bromham Rd Bridge, Bedford, at least 9 masts are now up. These masts stretch northwards from Bromham Rd as far as the eye can see, towards the Great Ouse Bridge. A number of masts now have TTC booms - many booms have stovepipes.
  
• Over the pointwork of Bedford North Jct (just north of Bromham Rd Bridge), the majority of masts now have booms (either TTC or Portal). SPS also starting to go up.
• Between Bedford North Jct & Sharnbrook Jct, about 90% of masts are up on both sides of the line.
• At Bromham, between the A6 (Great Ouse Way) & Lower Farm Rd (https://goo.gl/maps/rSPFrDAZQ362), 13 Twin Track Cantilevers/TTCs (with booms) are up over the Slow Lines, and about 6/7 over the Fast Lines. This includes the Box Girder bridge over the river Great Ouse.
• At least 9 boomed and dressed (aka. bedanglied) TTC masts have now gone up north of Lower Farm Rd, adjacent to the Down Fast; 2 similar structures are now up adjacent to the Up Slow here too.
• Between Clapham & Oakley, two Anchor Portals (similar to the Tensorex-bearing variety seen and loathed on the GWML) have gone up; the northern one only has a strut on the Fast side, as does the southern one. Both now have Single Insulator "gooseneck" Cantilevers on stovepipes, as well as Tensorex drums. Additionally, an adjacent TTC on the Slow side (1 mast north of the southern Tensorex Portal) lacks a boom.
• At Oakley, on the site of the old station (just south of Station Rd Bridge), all visible piles over both lines now carry TTC booms. Between Station Rd & Highfield Rd bridges, all TTCS over the Slows and Fasts are now boomed.
• Between Highfield Rd & Oakley Viaducts, I estimate that around 3 TTCs & one Tensorex-bearing portal are missing; all on the Slow side (bar the portal).
• Near Milton Ernest (between Earwig Lane Bridge & New Rd), all masts appear to be up.
• Between Radwell Rd & New Rd, a TTC mast has been placed between the Up Fast & Down Slow, as the embankment adjacent to the Up Slow had to be replaced with a gabion retaining wall.
• About 6 TTCs are up immediately to the north of Radwell Viaduct, over the Slow lines (https://goo.gl/maps/r5oXUSSPSAo); 3 more TTCs are up accompanying them over the Fast lines (positioned between the pairs of lines). Another 2 are now up over the Slows south of the viaduct. Masts for 2 portal booms are up at the southern end of the viaduct; both pairs of masts now have booms, completing the portals.
• Roughly 3 or 4 piles (now with boomless TTC masts) are in next to the Down Fast, and another 4 (3 of which have boomed TTC masts) next to the Up Slow just north of Moor End Lane, Radwell (https://goo.gl/maps/cmgWsgyYAo62). South of Moor End Lane (but north of the next bridge to the south), about 5 TTC masts are up (2 of which have booms) adjacent to the Up Slow, with a similar number in adjacent to the Down Fast. South of that bridge, another 2 piles have masts (possibly w/ booms).
• 2 parallel piles are in place (no masts) adjacent to the Fast lines at Radwell; possibly for a portal frame?
• TTCs have now sprouted at the northern end of Sharnbrook Viaduct; these stretch north to the extremities of Sharnbrook Jct itself. Significantly more steelwork up over the Slows than the Fasts.
• Around Sharnbrook Jct (south of Templars Way O/B), at least 4 piles have gone in adjacent to the proposed alignment of the future Up Slow.
• North of Templars Way overbridge, 3 boomed TTC masts are in place on the Slow side, and 1 boomed & dressed TTC mast is in place on the Fast side. South of these, a pair of portal uprights have gone up.
• Almost all masts are now up over the Slow lines, from just north of Park Ln, Sharnbrook (https://goo.gl/maps/df2As431FDr) to Sharnbrook Rd overbridge (southern end of Souldrop bank); the 4-tracking here is not yet complete as signals "WH378" and “LR 8” sit right in the path of the restored Up Slow. Some TTCs have now gone up on the Fasts between these bridges too.
• At Souldrop (between Sharnbrook Rd & Back Lane overbridges) 4 TTC masts (all bedanglied) are in next to the future Down Slow, at the southern end of the bank. All the TTCs for the Fasts are up between the two bridges.
• Back Lane Bridge (aka Odell Viaduct), demolished & rebuilt earlier in the year, had its new bridge deck installed over the weekend of 10th/11th November, to allow for a more generous OLE clearance. Follow-up work occurred the following weekend.
• North of Sharnbrook Tunnel, the first 15 piles (13 Down, 1 Up) now bear steelwork. 11 of these are TTCs (all on the Down side); the other 4 will bear SSAs "wicket-keepers" for wire run terminations in Tensorex drums on either side of the running lines.
  South of Bridge WYM-4 (adjacent to the New Inn), 9 of the 17 piles are now in on the Down side of the Slow lines - presumably for the (future) Down Slow at least.
• Between Wymington (https://goo.gl/maps/apZ6wwj9StR2) and Wellingboro', intensive 4-tracking is underway. Near the Google Maps link posted for Wymington, the car park used for the 4-tracking works is due to house a National Grid substation for the electrification; the concrete base has now been laid for the substation. Link to application to Beds Council: http://www.publicaccess.bedford.gov...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ONBIS8CUMMJ00
• In the southern area of the Wymington Deviation, around 9 masts are now up on the Fasts (single cantilever type). North of Souldrop Tunnel, all 7 piles south of the footbridge at 60m56ch (5 down, 2 up) now have masts (4 STCs, 3 TTCs), and another 7 piles (6 of which bear boomed TTC masts) are up to the north.
• A portal (two track) has now gone up on the Fast just south of Wymington Village.
• Near the centre of the "deviation", there are now many more masts up (with cantilevers too) on the Fasts. On the Up Fast side, there is one mast missing near Sharnbrook Summit, just north of the northernmost bridge before the summit. I suspect it might be an Overlap Termination, and as such will be Tensorex.
• On the Slows at the northern end of the "deviation", a number of STCs and TTCs have gone up, with at least two twin track portals also up.
• Masts have now sprung up in large numbers north and south of Station Rd Bridge, Irchester. North of Station Rd, all masts seem to be up over the Fast lines as far as the first footbridge north of there (Knuston Lodge).
• Between Irthlingborough Viaduct & I'borough Rd Bridge (i.e. the Kangaroo Spinney area), at least 10 TTC masts on each side of the line have gone up; about half of those on the Slow side have booms too.
• Irthlingborough Rd Bridge was demolished on Christmas Day 2018 - ony the utilities pipe remains. A temporary footbridge has also been erected.

Wellingborough (65m 09ch) - Kettering (72m 01ch)

• Preparations to return the 4th platform (P4?) at Wellingborough to public use have now begun. De-veg work and clearing ground for the new entrance and access road are underway.
• Extensive 4-tracking laid (except at points where existing infrastructure has to be moved).
• Finedon Rd Bridge, closed from 22/3/18 to 28/9/18 to allow reconstruction for OLE, is assumed to have reopened.
• TTCs stretch north from Wellingborough Yards over both pairs of lines as far north as the Weetabix factory (north of Burton Latimer). A couple of gaps remain where old equipment has to be removed e.g. the signal gantry at Harrowden Jct.
• A number of TTCs have now appeared over the Slows near Wellingborough Yards, along with masts for MPA Portals.
• At Burton Latimer (south of the Weetabix factory), power lines (National Grid) might be due a raise; taller wooden poles have been erected adjacent to the existing ones.
• Almost all (if not all!) masts and booms have now gone up around Kettering Headlands.
• Ground clearance works ongoing at Kettering Yard; the yard will be electrified as part of an EMU stabling facility.
• A number of TTCs have now been erected on the southern approach to Kettering station, roughly parallel to Kettering Yard.[So far, these amount to 8 over the Fasts (4 having booms) and 5 (all boomed) over the Slows. At least 1 STC and 2 Anchor Portal uprights are also up nxt to the Slows.

Kettering (72m 01ch) - Glendon Jct (74m 00ch) - Corby (79m 40ch)

• No activity yet at Kettering station - Platform extensions for the new EMU services are planned, and it is not yet known if canopy works will need to be undertaken.
• On the Fast side, around 6 TTCs are up to the north of the signal gantry at the north end of Kettering station; another is up immediately south of said gantry. On the Slow side, about 3 TTCs are up roughly parallel to the 6 on the Fasts; one is currently without a boom. Another pile is driven & capped in the 10-foot between the Up Fast & Down Slow.
• Between Kettering station & the A43, a number of piles are now in on the Slow side between the A43 bridge (nr Prologis Park) & the A6003 (Northampton Rd) bridge.
• At Glendon Jct/Kettering North Jct, all piles on the Slow side have now grown TTCs with booms; at least 5 are now bedanglied ("dressed"). A few signal gantries from the BR days have been (or are due to be) removed. Unclear of progress with piling/masts on the Main line north of Glendon Junction.
• About 5/6 STC masts are up adjacent to each side of the line just north of Glendon Jct, roughly where the Corby Lines diverge from the Mains.
• Pile now in on the Down side near Kettering North Jct.
• 2nd track now in operation, and linespeed raised to 90mph where it was previously 60mph.
• A number of STCs are up over both sides in the Storefield area.
• A handful of masts (~10) are now up in the Great Oakley area, halfway between Glendon Jct & Corby. All are single track cantilevers.

Glendon Jct (74m 00ch) - Market Harborough (82m 74ch)

• Braybrooke Substation approved. To be located here: (https://goo.gl/maps/fuy1uZeDjdQ2).
• The extent of wiring towards Market Harborough has now been as good as confirmed to reach the station. Hooray!

Any updates would be greatly appreciated.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

MML Wiring Progressometer 25.0 (as of 6th of March 2019)

Glendon Jct (74m 00ch) - Market Harborough (82m 74ch)

• Braybrooke Substation approved. To be located here: (https://goo.gl/maps/fuy1uZeDjdQ2).
• The extent of wiring towards Market Harborough has now been as good as confirmed to reach the station. Hooray!

Although I love all your updates (and thanks again BTW) This was my favourite bit of your latest update

 

[59CosG95]

Although I love all your updates (and thanks again BTW) This was my favourite bit of your latest update

Thanks very much! It is a particularly good bit of news.

 

[Flying Phil]

Although I love all your updates (and thanks again BTW) This was my favourite bit of your latest update

Mine too!

 

[WilloughbyGC]

Terrible picture from the train but is the first wire north of Bedford? Looks like a run of neutral wire on the slows between Souldrop and Wymington, just south of the diversion maybe for 400m

 

[edwin_m]

Thanks very much! It is a particularly good bit of news.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I think "forum optimism" has taken hold here. The local MP has been told that NR has been asked to design the wiring to Market Harborough but there is no commitment to fund the construction.

 

[Bald Rick]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I think "forum optimism" has taken hold here. The local MP has been told that NR has been asked to design the wiring to Market Harborough but there is no commitment to fund the construction.

Correct.

However it increases the chances of it actually happening to about 9/10. I certainly wouldn’t bet against it.

 

[swt_passenger]

Trains will have at least two pantographs at least one of which will be able to pick up juice at all times, surely!

Only if the train is wired as two half trains, like a 700. Normal situation on units with a roof 25 kV interconnection is that only one pantograph can be connected at a time, if they were cross connected things would go bang at neutral sections. So AFAICS on most trains you cannot generally switch pans “on the fly” to overcome clearance issues.

 

[edwin_m]

Only if the train is wired as two half trains, like a 700. Normal situation on units with a roof 25 kV interconnection is that only one pantograph can be connected at a time, if they were cross connected things would go bang at neutral sections. So AFAICS on most trains you cannot generally switch pans “on the fly” to overcome clearance issues.

It would be possible in theory to start out on the rear pan then lower it and raise the front one when the train was under the neutral section (assuming it was shorter than the distance between the pans). But in practice I don't think it would be favoured to do this manually when the driver has other things to think about when entering/leaving a major station, so it would need some kind of automatic system that would probably take lots of time and money to develop.

 

[Flying Phil]

Correct.

However it increases the chances of it actually happening to about 9/10. I certainly wouldn’t bet against it.

The fount of all local knowledge "Harborough Mail" today implies it is a done deal all due to our local MP, but does actually still say "If.....

 

[Bald Rick]

The fount of all local knowledge "Harborough Mail" today implies it is a done deal all due to our local MP, but does actually still say "If.....

Given that the basics of the proposal were done before and dusted before he was even an MP, that should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

 

[Senex]

From that photo the clearace does't look too bad. I can also see a "dip" in the nearest rail going under the bridge, although it could be a small horizontal curve rather than a vertical one. Leicester still seems to have both a set of BR Corporate signage and some of the old InterCity Zone signs!

There is a small puzzle about this. The replacement of the London Road Jn layout was done a year ago and on the up side involved a complete re-design, so presumably was an investment decision rather than a simple routine replacement decision. The idea, processing through the various stages, and detailed design-work must all have taken time, so presumably this job was actually being worked up before the Midland electrification was graylinged. So if the track lowering that has been mentioned so often over the years was needed, would it not have been planned in? Can we therefore assume that it proved not to be needed and there is sufficient clearance after all (and the picture of Manchester Victoria makes a very interesting comparison), or is it needed but was struck out from the works at the very last moment after the cancellation of the electrification?
The London Road bridge belongs to the 1890s, when the final stage of the widening work at Leicester was undertaken and the new station was built. At that time the Midland appears to have been working to a structure-gauge of 14 feet above rail level to allow a load-gauge of 13' 9" above rail level, so it seems reasonable to assume that the London Road bridge allows at least that. I wonder what figures the L&Y was using around the same time, which must presumably be when that Manchester bridge was being done too.
Thanks to Bald Rick for his clarification about overhead conductor-rails — I certainly hadn't appreciated how much bigger the cross-section is than a wire. Apparently the German version is an aluminium rail with a cross-section of 2223 square mm (and a weight of 6.1 kg/m, for a maximum continuous load of 2400 A).