Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

[59CosG95]

I think with all the pressures of your final exams - you are forgiven!

Why thank you @GRALISTAIR; my keyboard was actually the culprit on this occasion, but this is diverting further and further away from Scottish Wiring!

Speaking of all the wiring, earth wires are now going up around Hartwood on the Shotts Line, and a lot of the stations on the route now have masts with SPS up within the platforms.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I can't help but feel a battery option would be the simplest way forward for the forth bridge. With a conductor to avoid the raising and lowering of pantograph issues. If the whole route could be done other than the forth bridge then surely a small battery would be the most long term economical answer, and even with batteries installed another couple of difficult areas could be avoided if required.

 

[gordonjahn]

Nah, wire it. When HS2 services start and the fast lines come steadily further north (HS58?!?) the 25kV will be needed for classic compatible stock.

If the problem can be solved properly first time, reducing future rework and paving the way for most of the 7-Cities services to go electric, that’s the best long-term approach.

Edit to add: Suggesting battery is all well and good, but it's an additional requirement / expense on the top of existing requirements and it'd have to be specced for the full distance in highest headwinds. Anything like this rules out existing / older stock - even 385s for Fife commuters would require potentially expensive mods/retrofitting to allow use of a single route that might otherwise be all-electric. If all-electric apart from the bridge, 801s should also be able to go all the way from London to Aberdeen, but I don't know if their limp-home engine would get across The Bridge, especially in high headwinds.

 

[marks87]

Maybe a fourth Forth Bridge is required, with electrification infrastructure as part of the design

 

[mcmad]

Suspect the bigger issue would be the visual aspects of any wiring on the approach viaducts rather than fitting it through the main bridge structure.

 

[gingertom]

Suspect the bigger issue would be the visual aspects of any wiring on the approach viaducts rather than fitting it through the main bridge structure.

are the viaducts subject to the same UNESCO heritage site rules as the bridge itself?

 

[gsnedders]

are the viaducts subject to the same UNESCO heritage site rules as the bridge itself?

Yes, they're considered part of the bridge. There's also constraints around the entire bridgehead area.

 

[mcmad]

Interesting question, my thinking was that it was the whole site including the approach viaducts. The Forth bridges sites says that "The Site boundaries are defined by the single original contract that was let for the construction of the masonry and steel elements of the Bridge, and are represented in the original contract drawings."

Could be taken either way but I think that includes the approach viaducts?

 

[InOban]

If they can get permission to wire the bridge at Berwick (and I know there were objections) then surely the FB approaches should be ok.

 

[mcmad]

Different era and much different classification level although I believe some of the Great Western Route was classified as world heritage and so if they can put that series of OLE through, the (slightly) smaller Series 1 should be fine.

 

[InOban]

I thought that the Royal Border Bridge is also grade 1. World Heritage is a UNESCO award which they can threaten to remove, but you don't have to get prior permission.

 

[gsnedders]

I thought that the Royal Border Bridge is also grade 1. World Heritage is a UNESCO award which they can threaten to remove, but you don't have to get prior permission.

Royal Border Bridge is Grade I and Forth Rail Bridge is Grade A, so yes, equivalent.

 

[Highlandspring]

Interesting question, my thinking was that it was the whole site including the approach viaducts. The Forth bridges sites says that "The Site boundaries are defined by the single original contract that was let for the construction of the masonry and steel elements of the Bridge, and are represented in the original contract drawings."

Could be taken either way but I think that includes the approach viaducts?

I was told on a visit to the top of the bridge that the approach viaducts were designed (by the same man who designed Queen Street station roof) and constructed seperately as part of a seperate contract. A quick look at Wikipedia appears to back this up, though obviously it can’t be relied upon

 

[marks87]

Royal Border Bridge is Grade I and Forth Rail Bridge is Grade A, so yes, equivalent.

They're equivalent in terms of listing, so that shouldn't be a barrier to electrification.

The issue is the UNESCO World Heritage status. It's not a barrier to electrification per se, but it could be withdrawn if UNESCO deem any modifications to be too much. Which then boils down to a decision between making improvements to the bridge's day-to-day use, vs. keeping the prestige of World Heritage status.

I know what side I come down on...

 

[gordonjahn]

They're equivalent in terms of listing, so that shouldn't be a barrier to electrification.

The issue is the UNESCO World Heritage status. It's not a barrier to electrification per se, but it could be withdrawn if UNESCO deem any modifications to be too much. Which then boils down to a decision between making improvements to the bridge's day-to-day use, vs. keeping the prestige of World Heritage status.

I know what side I come down on...

Life is for the living - I hate the thought that a bridge designed to carry trains might one day not do that job just because someone wants it to become a snapshot in time.

Just as the HSTs have been reengineered to do a current job, so should the bridge. When the railway is done with it, then the argument can be had over what the preserved state is (like does a Valenta get put back in a preserved one over an MTU one) but until it’s out of use, it has a job to do.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Life is for the living - I hate the thought that a bridge designed to carry trains might one day not do that job just because someone wants it to become a snapshot in time.

Just as the HSTs have been reengineered to do a current job, so should the bridge. When the railway is done with it, then the argument can be had over what the preserved state is (like does a Valenta get put back in a preserved one over an MTU one) but until it’s out of use, it has a job to do.

Well said

 

[gingertom]

Life is for the living - I hate the thought that a bridge designed to carry trains might one day not do that job just because someone wants it to become a snapshot in time.

Just as the HSTs have been reengineered to do a current job, so should the bridge. When the railway is done with it, then the argument can be had over what the preserved state is (like does a Valenta get put back in a preserved one over an MTU one) but until it’s out of use, it has a job to do.

I feel the same way about the much talked about reopening of the Tavistock-Bere Alston route. A viaduct taken over by spiders. Get them out of there and put the track back down.

 

[InOban]

Back to the thread title!

Where the M9 crosses at Plean the masts are now fully danglified. Indeed south of the bridge it seemed as if they were wired, but I was driving, and being a motorway I couldn't stop.

 

[Jessicas Dad]

Back to the thread title!

Where the M9 crosses at Plean the masts are now fully danglified. Indeed south of the bridge it seemed as if they were wired, but I was driving, and being a motorway I couldn't stop.

I had a look this morning on my way to work, and from what I can see the masts are danglified as you say, except for a few immediately next to the actual motorway overbridge.

The earth wire seems to be run on both sides of the track, on both sides of the bridge, but with quite a bit bigger gap around the bridge itself.

The masts are still turned to run parallel to the tracks, so the main wiring can't be on at the moment but I would imagine it won't take long to turn them and attach the wires....

Ross

 

[snowball]

Press release (dated yesterday - it's curious that NR's press releases don't contain a date on the actual page of the release)

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds/investment-in-west-calder-gives-station-accessibility-a-lift/

West Calder station’s new, fully-accessible footbridge and lifts have opened to passengers, as part of a multi-million-pound transformation of the West Lothian station.


The installation of the £2.7 million bridge provides step-free access via lifts to both platforms and has been completed as part of the Scottish government-funded Shotts Line Electrification project, will improve access within stations for people with impaired mobility, travelling with luggage, children, cycles etc.

Constructed over the last ten months, the bridge includes lifts and stairs and replaces the old station footbridge which was no longer fit for purpose. The new bridge and stairs opened in April to enable the old bridge to be craned out and the lifts commissioned for service.

Construction work on the new structure was delivered over a 10 month period from a purpose-built site compound established initially to enable work on the A71 road bridge – completed early in 2017. The new bridge is part of wider work on the Shotts line being delivered by Network Rail ahead of the electrification of the route in 2019.

The old bridge, which will find a new home on Bo’ness heritage railway was removed by a 130t crane in 3 lifts – with work taking place during the 10 day closure of the line back in April so as to minimise disruption for passengers.

During work pedestrian access was maintained between platforms as the old footbridge remained open throughout while the station was open. The footbridge was only closed at night to enable work on the new bridge – constructed immediately to the east of the old structure.

The addition of the new and removal of the old bridge structures meant there was a need to resurface the approach footpaths, sections of the platforms and to make it easier for passengers to access the new bridge.

Kevin McClelland, route delivery director for infrastructure projects, said: “We are continuously seeking opportunities to make stations more accessible and the new footbridge at West Calder will help ensure that everyone in the community has the opportunity to easily access train services and thus enables more people to travel by train.

“Opening the new bridge is another important milestone for the electrification project – with the added bonus of enabling the old bridge to be relocated and preserved at Bo’ness heritage railway – which is great to see.

“We have cleared structures all along the route to avoid them being an obstruction to the safe running of the overhead wires which will enable electrification. Doing this in the station also brings the benefit if significantly improving accessibility which will transform the travelling experience for everyone using the station which is fantastic”.

The work on the new footbridge at West Calder station was delivered by contractor Bam Nuttall on behalf of Network Rail.

Electrification of the line across North Lanarkshire and West Lothian coupled with improvements at stations will transform the journey experience for passengers who will enjoy the benefits of improved services for many years to come.

 

[InOban]

I had a look this morning on my way to work, and from what I can see the masts are danglified as you say, except for a few immediately next to the actual motorway overbridge.

The earth wire seems to be run on both sides of the track, on both sides of the bridge, but with quite a bit bigger gap around the bridge itself.

The masts are still turned to run parallel to the tracks, so the main wiring can't be on at the moment but I would imagine it won't take long to turn them and attach the wires....

Ross

I thought there might be a gap under the bridge,but wasn't sure. I wonder why. Surely they don't need to lower the track.
Will the bridge parapets have to be raised, even though there shouldn't be any pedestrians crossing it?

 

[Macwomble]

Will the bridge parapets have to be raised, even though there shouldn't be any pedestrians crossing it?

Presume they will have to...if not, already, done. Parapets on M876 at Larbert have just recently been raised.

 

[alangla]

In terms of what's done next, I still think it's crazy that there's no sign of the City Union being done, it's by far the easiest way to get stock from Queen Street High Level or Eastfield to Shields or Corkerhill.

On East Kilbride, one wonders whether a bolder approach of doubling the track before electrification would make sense. I reckon it could easily sustain 4TPH.

 

[route101]

In terms of what's done next, I still think it's crazy that there's no sign of the City Union being done, it's by far the easiest way to get stock from Queen Street High Level or Eastfield to Shields or Corkerhill.

On East Kilbride, one wonders whether a bolder approach of doubling the track before electrification would make sense. I reckon it could easily sustain 4TPH.

City Union Line would make sense . If there will be future passenger services too.

Cheap option for EK line would be an extra passing loop , though ideally you would want it doubled.

 

[NotATrainspott]

In terms of what's done next, I still think it's crazy that there's no sign of the City Union being done, it's by far the easiest way to get stock from Queen Street High Level or Eastfield to Shields or Corkerhill.

On East Kilbride, one wonders whether a bolder approach of doubling the track before electrification would make sense. I reckon it could easily sustain 4TPH.

The City Union line will only be wired once someone can justify the (admittedly not large) cost of electrifying it. Unlike the South Suburban it isn't required for future enhancements. The only real justification for it is to make ECS runs between Shields and the Queen Street network easier. Since the 385s will be based at Millerhill there won't be much of a need for them to visit Shields, and occasional visits can be handled by Shotts or Carstairs services running to Central. With the current fleet plans there's no need for it yet; the earliest that's likely to change is when there's another big change to the EMU fleet. The next opportunity will be the Barrhead, EK and Maryhill wiring, but the number of units involved isn't going to be particularly large. I think a more likely time would be when the Mk3 EMUs are replaced some time in the mid- to late-2020s. Spending money wiring up the City Union would add a lot of flexibility for stabling during and after any fleet replacement work (e.g. if Shields needs major construction work, then some trains could stable up at Eastfield temporarily and/or permanently to reduce the load).

4tph on the East Kilbride line is almost certainly going to happen. We just have to wait for the spending priorities post-EGIP to be announced.

 

[alangla]

Something that just occurred to me, more in the context of existing electric services rather than new ones - how tricky / expensive would it be to double the Milngavie line? Might make for a more resilient service on the North Clyde routes. I know Transport Scotland were apparently looking at it, but don't remember if there was ever an outcome

 

[NotATrainspott]

Something that just occurred to me, more in the context of existing electric services rather than new ones - how tricky / expensive would it be to double the Milngavie line? Might make for a more resilient service on the North Clyde routes. I know Transport Scotland were apparently looking at it, but don't remember if there was ever an outcome

https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/53/283/

Apparently it was only singled (with the long loop including Bearsden and Hillfoot) in 1989 or so. Redoubling might force modern electrification standards on the line, but the only road-over-rail bridge I can see on the singled section is Canniesburn Road.

I'm not too sure how high this project would fall in the list of priorities. Increased timetable resilience is useful, particularly for the Airdrie-Bathgate services, but it wouldn't directly lead to extra services. That said, it might end up as an unusual intervention required to add more capacity through Haymarket if it's not viable to add more recovery time at Bathgate. A good time to do any change would be when the ~1989 junction works reach end-of-life and they have to replace the junction anyway.

 

[InOban]

There is, I understand, a working group within the Scotrail/NR alliance examining what infrastructure improvements/reinstatements are needed to improve the operation of the Scottish suburban services. At present any issues anywhere in the services through either Central LL or Queen Street LL spread throughout the N Clyde network, and through to Edinburgh via A-B. Redoubling of the Milngavie branch will be one the options, particularly since there is demand for an additional station on the branch.

 

[gordonjahn]

There is, I understand, a working group within the Scotrail/NR alliance examining what infrastructure improvements/reinstatements are needed to improve the operation of the Scottish suburban services. At present any issues anywhere in the services through either Central LL or Queen Street LL spread throughout the N Clyde network, and through to Edinburgh via A-B. Redoubling of the Milngavie branch will be one the options, particularly since there is demand for an additional station on the branch.

I believe the proposed Allander Station would also be in one of the single line sections, and not near an existing over/under pass - I've never been sure whether it was considered a better option to build it on the old track-bed on the single line. Obviously this would minimise costs versus the line being redoubled and then having to build two platforms with lifts/ramps but the lower cost comes at making the single line sections an even bigger bottleneck than they already are.

Clearly East Dunbartonshire Council should be pushing harder for a station at Woodilee (since that'd be a 2 minute walk from my house... ) - I have at least read reports confirming that Woodilee and Westerhill stops could be accommodated on the E&G which I don't recall seeing for Allander (though surely for Westerhill the platforms would be built on the Cadder loop lines so the stoppers aren't sitting on the main line).

EDIT: The transport study is at https://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/filedepot_download/11556/633 - page 22 describes the constraints; Allander is mentioned once but there is no feasibility/ timetable assessment undertaken.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Would it be more useful to redouble the northern or southern part of the line? Redoubling the Westerton-Bearsden section would help to get Milngavie trains out of the way of Singer trains. The simplest solution would be to just extend the loop and leave the single-lead junction in place. It's preferable to have completely standard S&C so fitting in a full doubled junction might be a bit of a challenge. It might help if they can shift the platforms eastwards a bit, but then the costs would start to rack up.

If they are making any junction changes to the line it might be a good opportunity to install another crossover to the south so that there's no need for single-line running through Platform 2 to reach Maryhill. NR got a crossover installed at Anniesland for the Queen Street tunnel closure despite one existing just down the line, so this wouldn't be unprecedented. Getting this sorted now would be ideal before electrification of Maryhill, as NR expects a higher frequency WHL service in future and it'll be useful for any planned diversions of North Clyde services into Queen Street HL once wired.

A single track station at Allander would increase occupancy of the single line section, but there would be significant costs involved in building it with two platforms. Maybe the solution would be to extend the loop just until the platforms, so that total single line occupancy times either stay the same or are reduced compared to today.