East Kilbride/Barrhead electrification updates

[route101]

Found this on planning portal.

Mentions 8 car EMUS

4X hourly freq.

Double tracked

https://publicaccess.glasgow.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=map&keyVal=QBCECBEX0WY00

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Thanks for starting a new thread. I personally prefer that any new Scottish scheme has its own thread and does not get buried in the general Scottish Electrification updates thread - too unwieldly. Sounds like a good scheme.

 

[clc]

The scope of works to support these enhancements is awaiting client approval and the proposal described here is the maximum scope of works likely to be required to facilitate the necessary passenger enhancements. This is to ensure that the full environmental effects of the project can be assessed at an early enough stage.

I hope the Scottish Government opts for the maximum scope, ie. wires rather than battery hybrids; double track Busby to East Kilbride rather than just Busby to Hairmyers; 8-car platforms and new station at EK.

 

[hexagon789]

Long overdue, the 8-car EMUs suggests either cascading in 380s or more likely a new-build?

Better than suggestions in other threads that EK would end up with 318/320s anyway

 

[higthomas]

Only a small section of the route is single track and of this up to 6km will be double-tracked by forming a new line parallel to the existing track to be accommodated within the existing rail corridor where possible.

The single track goes from 3m 66c to 7m 64c, so 6.4km which suggests a doubling of it all (the Hairmyers loop being 32c which is about 0.6km).

 

[hexagon789]

The single track goes from 3m 66c to 7m 64c, so 6.4km which suggests a doubling of it all (the Hairmyers loop being 32c which is about 0.6km).

I thought the Hairmyres loop was installed to permit a higher frequency that 2tph, is it only capable of sustaining a nominal 20 mins frequency

 

[nlogax]

If electrification to Barrhead is finally happening then great. It surprises me how electrification has eluded that line when nearby (and less busy?) lines have been electrified for quite some time - in the case of the Neilston branch, nearly sixty years ago.

 

[hexagon789]

If electrification to Barrhead is finally happening then great. It surprises me how electrification has eluded that line when nearby (and less busy?) lines have been electrified for quite some time - in the case of the Neilston branch, nearly sixty years ago.

EK was definitely considered in the 1980s, but there was some sort of local objection. Might even have been considered in the 1950s.

The Cathcart lines had a much higher frequency than EK & Barrhead in the 1960s, possibly passenger numbers were higher as well hence its electrification.

 

[NotATrainspott]

During the 80s the usage of these lines had dropped quite a bit, and there were proposals to simplify the network. Some of this might have included electrification, but only to allow the existing electrified services to take over other routes and allow parts of the network to be shut down. I think the plan was to build the chord between the Cathcart and EK lines, serve EK as a Cathcart network branch, and then close the rest of the G&SW line. Similarly Cumbernauld was to be served only as an electrified extension of the North Clyde line. I'm not completely sure but I think the plan was to reverse at Coatbridge via a reinstated chord, and close the line through Stepps.

 

[railjock]

During the 80s the usage of these lines had dropped quite a bit, and there were proposals to simplify the network. Some of this might have included electrification, but only to allow the existing electrified services to take over other routes and allow parts of the network to be shut down. I think the plan was to build the chord between the Cathcart and EK lines, serve EK as a Cathcart network branch, and then close the rest of the G&SW line. Similarly Cumbernauld was to be served only as an electrified extension of the North Clyde line. I'm not completely sure but I think the plan was to reverse at Coatbridge via a reinstated chord, and close the line through Stepps.

Quite radical proposals. Luckily they never came about.

 

[hexagon789]

During the 80s the usage of these lines had dropped quite a bit, and there were proposals to simplify the network. Some of this might have included electrification, but only to allow the existing electrified services to take over other routes and allow parts of the network to be shut down. I think the plan was to build the chord between the Cathcart and EK lines, serve EK as a Cathcart network branch, and then close the rest of the G&SW line. Similarly Cumbernauld was to be served only as an electrified extension of the North Clyde line. I'm not completely sure but I think the plan was to reverse at Coatbridge via a reinstated chord, and close the line through Stepps.

Sounds like the scheme is was thinking of. I believe it would've left Clarkston/Giffnock unserved, perhaps one reason it didn't go ahead

 

[route101]

Thanks for starting a new thread. I personally prefer that any new Scottish scheme has its own thread and does not get buried in the general Scottish Electrification updates thread - too unwieldly. Sounds like a good scheme.

I forgot about that thread. This is pretty important. I wonder how far this has to go to getting approved.

I reckon it would be new stock, that would allow the new stuff or older EMUs to go on EK/Barrhead

 

[route101]

Sounds like the scheme is was thinking of. I believe it would've left Clarkston/Giffnock unserved, perhaps one reason it didn't go ahead

Clarkston would still be served. Giffnock and Thornliebank not.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I don't think we're going to see electrification schemes happening only because of the availability of some EMUs to run them. It's quite easy for the ScotRail operator to order some more 38X-like EMUs for more services. Since the order would be relatively small I'd imagine Hitachi would be the best-placed to provide them, especially if they have to be interoperable with other fleets. Although, Siemens could be in with a chance too if interoperability with the 380s was desired instead.

By the time this electrification happens, there will be plans to start replacing the Mk3 EMU fleet anyway. My theory is that just as the EK line is planned to go up to 8x23m, we'll also push the North Clyde line to 6x23m. Then there can be one procurement process for all the new EMUs, just as the 314 replacement was combined with the new EGIP fleet.

I know some folk are keen for us to make 8x23m the standard across all electrified routes but I think the cost of rebuilding Queen Street and other key North Clyde stations to 8x23m will be too high for the benefit you'd get. It'd be more useful to spend that cash building out east-west lines on the Glasgow Metro proposals which could relieve the inner parts of the Strathclyde Electrics network.

The Glasgow Metro proposals might mean some of those EMUs already or being ordered might become surplus to requirements on Strathclyde services. With new Metro trains of some variety on the Cathcart network, most of the 314 replacement fleet would be available for cascade. Having a project dependency like this might be a bit of a nightmare, but I don't think it should be a problem. General demand increases on public transport plus the plans to extend electrification across Scotland will soak up any excess EMU fleet within a few years.

 

[jopsuk]

for most future Scotrail things, when they talk about 8 cars presumably they mean 8x23m, as the 380 and 385 fleets are 23m stock? If so, it's significantly longer - 184m trains rather than 160m (it would be good to see such a length be the future target standard for the Strathclyde and Forth electric networks)

 

[davetheguard]

The single track goes from 3m 66c to 7m 64c, so 6.4km which suggests a doubling of it all (the Hairmyers loop being 32c which is about 0.6km).

I don't know the line well, I've only travelled on it once and that was back in the 80's on a first generation DMU. But I'd be interested to know how much work is involved in doubling the line: was it once double track throughout; was it built to a double formation, but only ever single; or will heavy earthworks be required to widen the formation to accomodate the second line?

In any event, it's good to hear that the Scottish Government's commitment to electrification is continuing.

Thanks in advance for any information.

 

[MadMac]

I don't know the line well, I've only travelled on it once and that was back in the 80's on a first generation DMU. But I'd be interested to know how much work is involved in doubling the line: was it once double track throughout; was it built to a double formation, but only ever single; or will heavy earthworks be required to widen the formation to accomodate the second line?

In any event, it's good to hear that the Scottish Government's commitment to electrification is continuing.

Thanks in advance for any information.

I commuted on it for 17 years. Never been double beyond Busby, most bridges in East Kilbride itself appear to be “double-ready”. Clarkson Toll will need major road work.

 

[NotATrainspott]

for most future Scotrail things, when they talk about 8 cars presumably they mean 8x23m, as the 380 and 385 fleets are 23m stock? If so, it's significantly longer - 184m trains rather than 160m (it would be good to see such a length be the future target standard for the Strathclyde and Forth electric networks)

Yes. In general, most new train fleets use 23-24m carriages. Longer carriages up to 26m are possible but require tapering of the bodyshell at the ends, which makes them suited really only for end-doored regional or InterCity trains like the IEP or related trains from Hitachi.

In the past, 20m was the standard go-anywhere carriage length. With the bulk of EMUs being built for London & the South East, where the loading gauge is often the most restricted on the whole network, that 20m carriage length naturally propagated to other EMU projects. The Mk3 carriages were the first to go to 23m, as this was possible on most routes they'd be used on. After that, many DMU designs went to 23m as well, while EMUs stayed at 20m. Only in the last few decades have we started to see 23-24m EMUs and they're now the default for new orders. This is partly because they allow a little bit more capacity without the entire train being longer. 12x20m (240m) trains in and around London are being replaced by 10x24m on routes where they'll fit.

The complexity of carriage lengths and formations means it's probably most useful to talk about train length instead of carriage numbers. I mean, with '10-carriage' trains replacing '12-carriage' trains but having more passenger capacity, it no longer stands that more carriages = better. Beyond that, on many networks, what matters is the length of the train from the first to the last door, as the very ends of the train could go beyond the platform without affecting passengers. That's what's happening on Merseyrail where the 3 carriage trains are being replaced by 4 carriages in a very different arrangement that still increases train length by 5m per single unit. The problems with this approach appear when the signalling and track doesn't allow the train to be longer, so it's fairly unusual.

So the Strathclyde Electrics network set up in the 1960s meant we got 120m long trains on the North Clyde line from Helensburgh, Balloch and Milngavie through to Springburn, Airdrie and the former Bridgeton Central. The same was done on the Cathcart Circle and lines to Newton and Neilston. The Argyle line and WCML electrification projects set up 120m platforms out to the south east. Subsequent electrifications (basically just the Ayr and south bank) set up 120m platforms too. In some cases, these platforms were shorter than the maximum length permitted. The excess length was abandoned, like at Charing Cross or Singer. New platforms and stations were built for 120m from the start, like Garscadden and the Argyle line bay platform at Dalmuir. Terminus stations were often left at the original length so that more trains could stable there (e.g. Helensburgh Central can have three 60m trains in some of its platforms). Where electrified stations were used by other services, the platforms were also normally left alone. Motherwell and Dumbarton Central both see other trains call too, and are both longer than normal.

Platforms on routes not covered by one of these electrification + standardisation schemes might have been shortened ad-hoc according to maintenance requirements. Stations on main intercity routes either are already full length, or are used to serving trains longer than their platforms by having them not use certain doors.

The 380 fleet is the first major platform lengthening scheme I can think of. It meant revisiting stations which had either always had short platforms, or had standardised them down to 120m, and making them capable of up to 184m for 8-car services. This wasn't ever done completely, and SDO is used to lock out doors at short platforms. This works fine at small stations but it's not suitable at key ones.

The EGIP project included extending the platforms used by the Edinburgh to Glasgow express services (Glasgow Queen Street, Croy, Falkirk High, Polmont, Linlithgow, Haymarket and Waverley) to support 184m long trains. If services need to call at other stations, they use SDO as it's not deemed necessary to extend the few others (Lenzie, Falkirk Grahamston, Edinburgh Park). The remaining services to Stirling and through Falkirk Grahamston run as 6-car 138m long trains. Other platform extensions haven't been required, either because the platforms had been built long enough for the services in the first place (e.g. on the Whifflet line, which had 120m platforms even before electrification due to the obviousness of running Argyle line trains up there some day) or because less-than-standard length trains are used (Paisley Canal can't run 120m trains despite being electrified).

Extending platforms again for a new train fleet is a neat way to increase capacity if it's an easy job. SDO can be used instead if it would be prohibitively expensive at lesser stations. The core stations on the North Clyde line are either already capable of 138m long trains, could be trivially made capable, or can use SDO. The new platforms built and rebuilt for the Airdrie-Bathgate project are all 138m long at minimum. The Argyle line is a bit more of a pain because the core stations in the tunnel are only 120m long. SDO might be okay for some of the lesser-used ones but Central is too short too in its current arrangement. Island platforms are generally much harder to extend as they require the track to be moved, which will be practically challenging in a tunnel.

 

[hexagon789]

Clarkston would still be served. Giffnock and Thornliebank not.

Thanks, I saw a map showing the plans somewhere in the sort of London Underground-style TransClyde style but can't find it

 

[route101]

Thanks, I saw a map showing the plans somewhere in the sort of London Underground-style TransClyde style but can't find it

A wee chord allowing 2 per hour or 1 even to go EK via Mount Florida would be cool.

 

[Dr Hoo]

A wee chord allowing 2 per hour or 1 even to go EK via Mount Florida would be cool.

Which other (current) journey opportunities would you be willing to lose to allow this?

 

[hexagon789]

A wee chord allowing 2 per hour or 1 even to go EK via Mount Florida would be cool.

I think a timetable recast might be needed to fit that in mind you!

 

[alangla]

There definitely needs to be a decision made as to whether there’s going to be a standard Strathclyde train length or if it will be route specific. If the decision is a standard 184m then there’s going to need to be some serious work at places like High Street, Carntyne, Partick, Hyndland and pretty much the whole Argyle line. Personally I think it’s overkill and delivering 120m as 5x24m walkthrough vehicles should be more than enough, but others may disagree. Also worth saying that the Whifflet electrification also involved lengthening at almost every station- they were built as 92m (4 car 156) and extended to 120 to accommodate 6x318/320. I guess what will ultimately govern the approach for EK is whether there are paths for 4 TPH to be fitted in between Busby/Muirhouse jcts and Central.

 

[hexagon789]

There definitely needs to be a decision made as to whether there’s going to be a standard Strathclyde train length or if it will be route specific. If the decision is a standard 184m then there’s going to need to be some serious work at places like High Street, Carntyne, Partick, Hyndland and pretty much the whole Argyle line. Personally I think it’s overkill and delivering 120m as 5x24m walkthrough vehicles should be more than enough, but others may disagree. Also worth saying that the Whifflet electrification also involved lengthening at almost every station- they were built as 92m (4 car 156) and extended to 120 to accommodate 6x318/320. I guess what will ultimately govern the approach for EK is whether there are paths for 4 TPH to be fitted in between Busby/Muirhouse jcts and Central.

Personally I think if 8-car trains to appropriate overall length can be obtained and made to work (in terms of appropriate infrastructure) then they should by all means go for it. Build it and they will come sort of thing, the EK line is always very busy in the peaks and I don't think 8-cars four times an hour would be overkill.

 

[alangla]

Personally I think if 8-car trains to appropriate overall length can be obtained and made to work (in terms of appropriate infrastructure) then they should by all means go for it. Build it and they will come sort of thing, the EK line is always very busy in the peaks and I don't think 8-cars four times an hour would be overkill.

Fair enough. Just thinking about this, what Strathclyde lines support >120m at the moment? Off the top of my head, EK, Lanark, Shotts, Springburn - Cumbernauld, E&G and Ayrshire get longer just now, typically 138m. Are Canal/Barrhead/Maryhill 92m with the rest 120?

 

[66C]

I gather all platforms from Busby Junction to EK are to be 193m long except EK's at 201m presumably to fit the buffers in. A crossover to go in at the new Hairmyers location.

 

[hexagon789]

Fair enough. Just thinking about this, what Strathclyde lines support >120m at the moment? Off the top of my head, EK, Lanark, Shotts, Springburn - Cumbernauld, E&G and Ayrshire get longer just now, typically 138m. Are Canal/Barrhead/Maryhill 92m with the rest 120?

Didn't Nitshill, Priesthill & Darnley and Kennishead get taken up to 6-car? Leaving only the Barrhead bay as a shorter platform?

 

[gsnedders]

The Argyle line is a bit more of a pain because the core stations in the tunnel are only 120m long. SDO might be okay for some of the lesser-used ones but Central is too short too in its current arrangement.

I was very much under the impression Central was pretty easily modified to go back to ~140m? Argyle Street is the really big problem, as the station box just isn't big enough.

That said, enough of the North Clyde Line is problematic (Partick, Hyndland, Jordanhill are all awkward) that I practically expect the first solution there will be to go to 120m fixed-formation units, as there's enough peak-time 3-car (60m) services still, probably with an interior designed similar to the Class 700 to maximise standing room (even with 140m stock I'm pretty sure there would still be plenty of standees on-peak, and off-peak there's plenty of spare seating capacity already).

 

[hexagon789]

I was very much under the impression Central was pretty easily modified to go back to ~140m? Argyle Street is the really big problem, as the station box just isn't big enough.

I know Dalmarnock was upgraded for the games in 2014 but not sure if that dealt with platform lengths

 

[Southsider]

I commuted on it for 17 years. Never been double beyond Busby, most bridges in East Kilbride itself appear to be “double-ready”. Clarkson Toll will need major road work.

There’s a real opportunity to realign Clarkston Road to the Toll roundabout and eliminate the double bend as part of the height clearance work on the bridge. I don’t see any specific mention of it in the application however.