Saving MML wires
CARL SHILLITO looks at the blighted history of plans to electrify the Midland Main Line, and how the campaign’s supporters can set about reinforcing their calls for the line to be wired in the wake of the scheme’s cancellation
The Government has called a halt on electrification projects, but is there a way for the Midland Main Line scheme to be revived?
The cancellation of major electrification schemes announced on the very day of the Parliamentary recess came as no surprise to industry insiders and informed commentators, but was a bitter blow to many communities and campaigners along the affected routes ( RAIL 832).
The reaction from Midland Main Line (MML) stakeholders to news that electric trains would now run to Kettering and Corby and no further (apart from Clay Cross to Sheffield for HS2 classic compatibles, but this only by 2033) prompted indignation beyond measure.
Betrayal, a kick in the teeth, dismay - these were the reactions widely reported in the media from those who represented Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield interests. And while it is not unusual to witness an emotional response when Government decisions offend a particular interest group, this was most definitely one case that was entirely understandable - given the track record of raised hopes for investment dashed, and hopes raised again and then dashed again, that has dogged the MML for decades.
Electrification was first seriously considered in the 1970s, and implemented as far as Bedford in 1983 for services on the ‘Bedpan Line’ from St Pancras and from Moorgate via the Metropolitan Widened Lines (this route is now incorporated into the wider Thameslink network).
Extension of the wires beyond Bedford was talked about, but receded into the distance in the 1980s and 1990s as electrification of the East Coast Main Line (ECML) took priority.
The MML had already been dubbed the Inter-City Cinderella, when High Speed Train sets failed to arrive until a full seven years after they had entered service on the ECML and the Western Region. But being overlooked for further electrification only served to confirm its second-class status.
The responsibility for this woeful state of affairs can all too easily be blamed on nationalised British Rail and a lingering corporate ethos whereby the MML was seen as a secondary route worthy of less attention than the more commercially lucrative lines starting from Euston and King’s Cross.
However, it should also be remembered that this was a period when any investment in the rail system had to be hard fought for against sceptical Treasury officials and a generally road-centric political consensus.
In some quarters, there is still a degree of political resistance to rail investment, although certainly since the early 2000s there has been a definite shift in the corridors of power towards seeing rail as a vital part of the national infrastructure.
Against this more promising background a consortium of local authorities across the East Midlands and extending to South Yorkshire
mounted a strong and seemingly effective campaign to persuade the Government that MML electrification should finally go ahead.
The culmination of this work was a report - The Case for Upgrading and Electrifying the
Midland Main Line - presented in November 2011 by Arup for East Midlands Councils and South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, supported by Local Enterprise Partnerships across the region.
By July 2012 its sponsors seemed to have achieved their goal, when the Department for Transport announced that MML electrification would go ahead at last, with a 2020 target date for completion to Sheffield. However, the London-Bristol-South Wales scheme started first, and soon ran into well-publicised difficulties with delays and cost-overruns that spooked the DfT and Westminster politicians.
These factors prompted Secretary of State for Transport Patrick McLoughlin to announce a “pause” in new electrification projects from June 2015. But by September it was again supposedly full speed ahead for the MML with a revised completion date of 2023.
However, sources close to the DfT were always doubtful this would happen. The lack of progress on contract awards was an ominous sign, and a sense of inevitability pervaded the air when McLoughlin’s successor Chris Grayling finally wielded the axe on July 20.
Line speed enhancements that are currently in progress represent a limited success for the regional campaigners, but the lasting
impression is of the MML firmly being stuck with its apt Cinderella tag, as the repeated promises of full electrification have seemingly turned into a perpetual pumpkin.
Regional organisations have pressed for an urgent meeting with the Transport Secretary, but the chances of persuading the Government to reverse its decision in the short to medium term look remote at this stage.
There will no doubt be an effort to elicit Labour Party support, and the first response will probably be sympathetic. However, a Labour or Labour-led administration could be five years away (if it happens at all), and it would have to make some very hard choices with so many potential spending commitments competing against each other.
There is no guarantee in these hypothetical circumstances, whatever is said now, that MML electrification would get into the Government’s programme. In any case, now would be a good time for East Midlands Councils and their partners to revisit the 2011 report and substantially rebuild their case before taking it back to the DfT. With the HS2 Phase 2b route now confirmed, the relationship of the MML with the new highspeed network will materially affect many of the original assumptions, and not necessarily in a negative sense.
In fact, a very good start has already been made, with the East Midlands HS2 Strategic
Board’s publication in September 2016 of the East Midlands Growth Strategy document Emerging Strategy: Fast Track to Growth.
The Board is drawn from the majority of councils and LEPs involved in the 2011 report, along with Network Rail, DfT and HS2 representatives. The document concerns itself not only with the location and design of the East Midlands Hub and its physical connections to the existing transport infrastructure, there is also much in the way of constructive proposals on the service patterns that can be developed by taking full advantage of released capacity on the MML.
Most of this now seems like wishful thinking, as it pre-supposed that the MML would be electrified a full decade before the first HS2 trains arrive at Toton. Nevertheless, the work that has been done would make a very good basis for arguing the case that without MML electrification, the full benefits of HS2 will not be realised. This would seem to be one argument that may strike a chord with Westminster politicians anxious to justify HS2 before a still largely unconvinced electorate.
South Yorkshire interests are not formally represented on the East Midlands HS2 Strategic Board, and will no doubt be making their own representations over the MML decision.
However, there is much discord between Sheffield and its neighbouring towns over the final Phase 2b route choice that was only confirmed days before the electrification announcement. As a consequence, planning and preparations for HS2 in the Sheffield City Region lag far behind what has been achieved in the East Midlands, which has the advantage of speaking in the main with one voice. The East Midlands should therefore take the lead in pressing the Government and the DfT to reconsider the July decision.
The proposals for post-2033 MML services in the Strategic Board report include fast and frequent interval services between Derby, Nottingham, Leicester and the East Midlands Hub; a clock-face timetable for Leicester to London services; and a proposal for a north-facing MML-HS2 connection at Toton, allowing classic compatible services to be introduced between Leicester, Northern Powerhouse destinations and Scotland.
This latter concept would, of course, be dependent on electrification between Leicester and the Hub that is now in doubt. However, the report’s other proposals would also be affected by the cancellation decision, as they assume better services for intermediate stations without having an impact on overall journey times - something that will be difficult to achieve without the superior acceleration of electric trains.
Building on the Strategic Board’s report, and emphasising the negative effect of the DfT’s current stance in terms of the regional economies capitalising on HS2, would seem to be the best approach.
However, perhaps this is also the time to really embolden the case for new investment, pushing the boundaries significantly beyond what has already been proposed - for example, promoting park and ride stations at Dore (south of Sheffield) and Wigston (south of Leicester). These could be reconstructed so that they serve the MML as well as the diverging routes, providing more trains for commuters into the respective cities as well as creating new southbound journey opportunities via the MML.
Schemes such as this would catch the public imagination in a way that is not currently happening, as many of the pronouncements on what will be achieved with classic rail capacity released by HS2 seem to be rather insipid and vague (at least outside the East Midlands), and give the impression that services will simply be cut back rather than improved.
The lasting impression is of the MML firmly being stuck with its apt Cinderella tag, as the repeated promises of full electrification have seemingly turned into a perpetual pumpkin.
Trying to electrify a whole route stretching hundreds of miles within an arbitrary timescale in today’s conditions puts undue pressure on Network Rail, its principal contractors and their respective supply chains.
Beefing up the MML electrification and improvement case with new ideas, combined with the robust vision already provided by the East Midlands lobby, and playing on the argument that electrification will ensure that the regions derive every possible advantage from the indisputably massive investment in HS2, is as good a strategy as any towards persuading the Government to at the very least consider reconsidering its position. This should be the first line of attack.
However, it is not the only argument that proponents of MML electrification can employ to advance their cause. Another sensible tactic would be to accept that the investment can be spread over a longer period.
There is a very convincing argument to be made that the problems encountered with current electrification schemes have been caused largely (if not entirely) by trying to do too much too quickly, resulting in a ‘more haste less speed’ scenario.
Upgrading existing and intensively utilised routes is a supremely difficult task, as we should all know by now given the West Coast Route Modernisation saga. Trying to electrify a whole route stretching hundreds of miles within an arbitrary timescale in today’s conditions puts undue pressure on Network Rail, its principal contractors and their respective supply chains.
In any case, if Chris Grayling’s faith in bi-mode trains is anywhere near justified, then it simply isn’t necessary to take that approach. Electrification of a route such as the MML can be undertaken in bite-size chunks between the early 2020s and 2033.
Kettering to Leicester would be an obvious start, then Leicester to Derby. The Nottingham line could follow to coincide with work on the Hub, and this would mean that the extensive remodelling that will be necessary at Trent could be done without unpicking and replacing relatively new electrification work in the process. All the while, dramatically improved interim services should still be possible with bi-mode trains bridging the wireless gaps.
There is at least one further avenue to explore in building the electrification case, and again it involves embracing bi-mode technology rather than throwing it back in the Transport Secretary’s face. This is to acknowledge that dual-powered trains can be imaginatively deployed to provide rapid through services to destinations beyond the planned limits of the electrification scheme - reaching out to places such as Lincoln and Matlock, for example.
Likewise, the technology provides an opportunity to retain and develop the currently limited services beyond Corby - to the Hub via Oakham and Melton perhaps, or even a “return loop” LondonCorby-Oakham-Melton-Leicester- London service with a corresponding working in the opposite direction. As more of the core route is electrified, more bi-mode trains can be cascaded to develop services such as these.
The latest decision on MML electrification is without any doubt a huge disappointment. However, by giving the case for electrification a thorough overhaul, by emphasising the relationship between upgrading the MML and fully capitalising on HS2 benefits, by being bolder and more imaginative about how the post-2033 released capacity can be utilised, by accepting a more generous timescale for investment, and by being positive about the contribution that bi-mode trains can make, there is still a realistic possibility that a wellorganised and united regional campaign can make the DfT and its political masters think again about what is best for the MML.
Carl Shillito is General Manager of Shannon Rail Service Limited.