Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

[InOban]

Looking on Maps there seem to be remarkably few bridges over the railway between dunblane and Gleneagles.

 

[sannox]

Is the bridge at Crossmyloof not high enough for wires?

It is, or was. It was raised when rebuilt about 10-15 years ago. I had heard that they were proposing to knock down the old Strathbungo station and whilst it seems about the same clearance as into Pollokshields West I guess standards have evolved. Equally the pedestrian bridge where the Cathcart Circle crosses seems to have low clearance.

 

[paul1609]

I did ask about wiring the Forth Bridge and the engineers didn't foresee any major problems with this. I mentioned bi-modes for this and got a sigh and a no. I think Dunblane Auchterarder is a relatively easy bit. Design and planning work is ongoing north to Perth and at some point in time onwards to Dundee.
NR have recently purchased land at Greenloaning for the electrification depot to be set up and the move is on to clear the site at Cadder for the HST stabling sidings.

Being a non railway HV person I did express my doubts about the practicality and reliability of electrifying through the Severn Tunnel but was assured by railway engineers that it was no problem.
i suspect as nobody in the rail industry is held to task for the project management fiascos, they will tell you what you want to hear/ anything to get the project underway.

 

[66C]

I think they were referring to the clearances to install the wires or possibly a solid bar on the bridge. The pway guys also had issues with the increased axle loads of the bi-modes and the resulting increase in track maintenance. No mention of salt air effect on the overheads or induced currents causing additional corrosion to the bridge steelwork.

 

[Waverleystu]

The electrification depot should be moving from Cadder to Greenloaning shortly with stage one of the work proceeding from Dunblane to Auchterarder. Possibly to wire up to Russells Highland Spring Depot.

Any idea on start/finish dates if the electrification is a go?

 

[66C]

As far as I'm aware it's an I7C project in CP6 fitting in with the Perth station enhancement. I will update if I find any more out.

 

[385001]

And regarding the wiring of the Sub, there are, I think, 10 road Bridges and a canal bridge between Niddrie and Craiglockart. All already have clearance for OHLE.
However the eight West of Cameron Toll, and the canal bridge, will all need new parapets. And a glance on Google maps will show you the amount of vegetation clearance that will be needed as the line runs behind largely upmarket housing, which which will also need improved fencing.
On the other hand, the line speed does not need to be above 60mph, so there may be savings there.

I was out for a walk the other day and took these photos of the bridges on Peffermill Road and Duddingston Road West.

To my untrained eye they look ok for electrification but the work on these bridges was done a while ago so I appreciate further clearance may be required.

 

[gingertom]

I was out for a walk the other day and took these photos of the bridges on Peffermill Road and Duddingston Road West.

To my untrained eye they look ok for electrification but the work on these bridges was done a while ago so I appreciate further clearance may be required.

the bridge looks to have been rebuilt clear for OLE, but if the standards have changed significantly as you say further work may be required, perhaps a little bit of track lowering or surge arrestors. The engineers will make it work ok and safely.

 

[InOban]

Peffermill Road is one I use when I'm in Edinburgh and it was completely rebuilt a few years ago. That's why I referred to the bridges between there and Craiglockart junction, which according to NR are clear for OHLE but clearly need extensive parapet work. Replacing lovely stonework with concrete may not be popular (some of the area is in a conservation area)

 

[Mollman]

the bridge looks to have been rebuilt clear for OLE, but if the standards have changed significantly as you say further work may be required, perhaps a little bit of track lowering or surge arrestors. The engineers will make it work ok and safely.

I wonder if they can apply for derogation for them?

 

[edwin_m]

I wonder if they can apply for derogation for them?

I think there's a bit more common sense now in regard to clearances between OLE and structures. There's very little actual safety risk there, a flashover is only likely to cause equipment damage and service disruption. Parapet height is probably more difficult because a lower parapet is clearly more hazardous due to the risk of someone dangling something over it.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I agree on parapet height. Should be easier to remedy with some large coping stones.

 

[gingertom]

I think there's a bit more common sense now in regard to clearances between OLE and structures. There's very little actual safety risk there, a flashover is only likely to cause equipment damage and service disruption. Parapet height is probably more difficult because a lower parapet is clearly more hazardous due to the risk of someone dangling something over it.

The clearance required for OLE was decided a long time ago. It's been pretty robust from a safety point of view since those standards were set. It's right to take a fresh look to see if they are still relevant, but has there been any incident where someone has come to harm because the standards set all those years ago weren't stringent enough? I'm not talking about someone climbing a structure or onto the roof of a train, which are obviously unwise things to do and can't be legislated for, but normal people going about their normal everyday business? I'm sure this has been discussed in previous threads.

 

[Bald Rick]

The clearance required for OLE was decided a long time ago. It's been pretty robust from a safety point of view since those standards were set. It's right to take a fresh look to see if they are still relevant, but has there been any incident where someone has come to harm because the standards set all those years ago weren't stringent enough? I'm not talking about someone climbing a structure or onto the roof of a train, which are obviously unwise things to do and can't be legislated for, but normal people going about their normal everyday business? I'm sure this has been discussed in previous threads.

It’s not all about safety, but performance as well.

I have attended numerous incidents where the clearance between the OLE and the underside of a structure is well slow the minimum usually permitted (but granted on an exceptional basis), which have led to the wires co Ming down for some reason or another. Closing the GEML at Liverpool st is never fun, and wouldn’t have happened if ‘normal’ clearances applied.

 

[alangla]

The clearance required for OLE was decided a long time ago. It's been pretty robust from a safety point of view since those standards were set. It's right to take a fresh look to see if they are still relevant, but has there been any incident where someone has come to harm because the standards set all those years ago weren't stringent enough? I'm not talking about someone climbing a structure or onto the roof of a train, which are obviously unwise things to do and can't be legislated for, but normal people going about their normal everyday business? I'm sure this has been discussed in previous threads.

I thought the E&G electrification was badly delayed because of a change to clearance standards in the middle of the project?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I thought the E&G electrification was badly delayed because of a change to clearance standards in the middle of the project?

Yes, but that was due to not being able to secure a derogation from BS EN 50122-1 (2011 and 2017), which concerns the distance from any part of the electrification system to a standing surface (platform). It was expected that a derogation would be obtainable subject to the EGIP project using the same clearances used on previous projects, such as the Airdrie to Bathgate electrification works.

The purpose of that particular standard is not specifically to set contact wire height as such, but to ensure all of the electrification system (upto and including the lowest live components on a vehicle roof (pantograph horns or frame) is kept a safe distance (3.5 metres is the benchmark) from a standing surface. There can be some circumstances where the pantograph horns encroach excessively within that distance, and to regain that 3.5 metre distance, you need to move the contact wire higher so the pantograph horns will be higher. The same regulations also required higher parapet heights to gain greater electrical clearances.

As to whether it's sensible or not, there has been valid concern in some quarters that a combination of people growing taller since the last big electrification schemes and the proliferation of larger umbrellas on platforms was perhaps pushing the previous clearances just a little too much. Has it swung too much in the opposite direction - perhaps.

 

[CEN60]

the bridge looks to have been rebuilt clear for OLE, but if the standards have changed significantly as you say further work may be required, perhaps a little bit of track lowering or surge arrestors. The engineers will make it work ok and safely.

Both of the structures are clear for future electrification & W12 Freight Gauge!

 

[Edinburgh2000]

Do you know if that clearance includes clearance under these two 275kV cable ducts at Blackford Avenue?

 

[385001]

Both of the structures are clear for future electrification & W12 Freight Gauge!

I thought so but good to have it confirmed. Thanks.

 

[CEN60]

Do you know if that clearance includes clearance under these two 275kV cable ducts at Blackford Avenue?

The entire Sub route will be clear / made clear for W12 & electrification clearances - either by bridge reconstructions or use of current OLE clearance standards (no track lowers are currently planned) - note the works also include the line round to Slateford Stn & Georgie Branch.

 

[InOban]

We've discussed all this before. The remaining issues are tree clearance, improved fencing, and parapets. I'll be down in Edinburgh in a couple of weeks and take a few pics.

 

[CEN60]

We've discussed all this before. The remaining issues are tree clearance, improved fencing, and parapets. I'll be down in Edinburgh in a couple of weeks and take a few pics.

Note - we are months / year(s) away from anything being installed on the ground ie masts!

 

[clc]

Network Rail plans to demolish a retail unit on top of the Nithsdale Road bridge in Strathbungo and local politicians and others are not happy: https://twitter.com/murphyniallgla/status/1282695094668349441?s=21

So, @NetworkRailSCOT it seems you forgot to notify either Strathbungo or @PollokshieldsCC about your plans to demolish Susie’s Store. Did you notify the politicians i.e. @NicolaSturgeon @alisonthewliss and @StewartMcDonald (it straddles their wards). Still time to press pause

 

[66C]

Work to start on EK electrification first but Barrhead will complete 18months before. Electrical feeder to go in at Thornton. TS to go to the market soon for battery electric bimodes for Fife.

 

[route101]

Work to start on EK electrification first but Barrhead will complete 18months before. Electrical feeder to go in at Thornton. TS to go to the market soon for battery electric bimodes for Fife.

Wonder when its going to start, i noticed the vegatation has been cleared and apart from the bridges there is space to double.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

TS to go to the market soon for battery electric bimodes for Fife.

So I assume this allows for electrification of Fife Circle electrification but will allow batteries across the Forth and Tay bridges?

 

[66C]

I think the electrification is to be localised around Thornton for battery charging and battery to Dalmeny. Overhead to Edinburgh. Levenmouth reopening on a similar timescale.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

TS to go to the market soon for battery electric bimodes for Fife.

Which will be why Hitachi are making much battery EMU noise at the moment. I don't usually go in for trainset fantasy talk, but anything other than a follow on Class 385 order would be madness when you see the reliability statistics in Roger Ford's section of Modern Railways.

So I assume this allows for electrification of Fife Circle electrification but will allow batteries across the Forth and Tay bridges?

The Forth and Tay Bridges don't present a particular problem to electrify, beyond listed building consent. The viewing platform plan for the Forth Bridge navigated that despite proposing a frankly hideous structure be bolted to the side of the bridge (though I did hear a whisper that despite currently being out to tender, it's not going ahead).

The primary concerns were the electrification of the route at Edinburgh Airport and the Kinghorn Tunnel which did need track lowering (slab track and rigid overhead conductor was the assumed plan as per other projects in Scotland).

 

[66C]

15 year program.
Follow on from Barrhead to Kilmarnock and Barassie.
Hydrogen on the rural lines.

 

[clc]

15 year program.
Follow on from Barrhead to Kilmarnock and Barassie.
Hydrogen on the rural lines.

Do you know when the decarbonisation plan will be published?