Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

[Stopper]

If I read RTT correctly, there is a 1719 departure from Waverley proposed that is listed as a 385 and splits at Stirling: It arrives 1801 and continues to Dunblane, leaving Stirling (platform 6) at 1805 and arriving there at 1815. There's another 385 service leaves from Platform 6 at 1809 for Alloa.

I don't know how closely this is likely to match reality or even if I'm reading it correctly (my RTT-fu is weak), so if someone with a better mastery can confirm or refute, that would be helpful!!!

Cheers,
W.

It’s a 5-coach diesel. A 170/158 combo. The 170 goes to Alloa and the 158 goes to Dunblane after splitting at Stirling.

In the future I imagine it will be a 6-car 385, with 3 cars going to each.

 

[WGWarburton]

It’s a 5-coach diesel. A 170/158 combo. The 170 goes to Alloa and the 158 goes to Dunblane after splitting at Stirling.

In the future I imagine it will be a 6-car 385, with 3 cars going to each.

Yes, apologies.. I wasn't clear: The RTT lookup I posted was from me trying to find what the timetable might look like after the May update- when it's listed as a 385, as you suggest, with the timings I posted... faster and with a reduced wait in Stirling.

I've used the service several times recently- usually changing at Stirling onto the Aberdeen bound HST, which saves a fair bit of time. I hadn't made the 170-ALO/158-DBL link, though!

Cheers,
W.

 

[Southsider]

I see the Scottish Budget is to be debated this week. Hopefully we'll hear an announcement on the next tranche of electrification soon after.

 

[31160]

I see the Scottish Budget is to be debated this week. Hopefully we'll hear an announcement on the next tranche of electrification soon after.

Surely Perth has to be done at some point or Dumfries

 

[gingertom]

I see the Scottish Budget is to be debated this week. Hopefully we'll hear an announcement on the next tranche of electrification soon after.

East Kilbride?

 

[Southsider]

East Kilbride?

From a selfish point of view I hope so. I think it’s the logical choice too.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

From a selfish point of view I hope so. I think it’s the logical choice too.

Logical yes but political considerations must mean that some of the other 7 cities need to get some love so in that case Perth and possibly onwards to Dundee must surely be a strong candidate too
?

 

[gingertom]

Logical yes but political considerations must mean that some of the other 7 cities need to get some love so in that case Perth and possibly onwards to Dundee must surely be a strong candidate too
?

indeed, so long as the rolling programme continues to roll along.

 

[Southsider]

Logical yes but political considerations must mean that some of the other 7 cities need to get some love so in that case Perth and possibly onwards to Dundee must surely be a strong candidate too
?

I take your point regarding politics and there have been encouraging comments about EK from the Transport Minister, the reality may well be different however! It's only 12 miles on a fairly steep gradient with lots of stops, ideal electric territory. Add in Barrhead (about another 6 miles) and the south side of greater Glasgow is done.

 

[adrock1976]

From a selfish point of view I hope so. I think it’s the logical choice too.

Also not forgetting the short infill of the Maryhill Park line, with both arms to Anniesland and Westerton. Another short stretch could be Craigendoran Junction - Helensburgh Upper, for when the Sprinters become life expired (I believe the signalling is switched to and from RETB at Helensburgh Upper - could somebody confirm?) and would give scope for bimodes to replace them.

 

[MadMac]

Surely Perth has to be done at some point or Dumfries

Perth, unfortunately, doesn't make a lot of sense on its own as very little terminates there that would run entirely under the wires. I don't see wires getting there until and unless the Forth Bridge conundrum re electrification is solved.
Muirhouse -EK/Kilmarnock/Larkfield, Kilmarnock-Barassie, Cowlairs-Westerton/Anniesland (notwithstanding getting past the canal) and Edinburgh Sub make more sense in terms of reducing diesel traction requirements and facilitating diversions. I mooted the idea a while back that a small DMU depot in the Kilmarnock area could serve the Stranraer and G&SW needs.

 

[MadMac]

Another short stretch could be Craigendoran Junction - Helensburgh Upper, for when the Sprinters become life expired (I believe the signalling is switched to and from RETB at Helensburgh Upper - could somebody confirm?) and would give scope for bimodes to replace them.

I think they "hand back" the token at Helensburgh Upper when coming off the WHL but receive it when leaving Craigendoran, but that could be changed relatively easily. Isn't there a peak hour commuter service to/from Garelochhead? Perhaps that should be the handover point?

 

[marks87]

Perth, unfortunately, doesn't make a lot of sense on its own as very little terminates there that would run entirely under the wires. I don't see wires getting there until and unless the Forth Bridge conundrum re electrification is solved.

Going to Dundee would allow the Glasgow-Dundee semi-fasts to move over to electric. I don’t know if that would create any additional challenges over and above what you’d have to Perth anyway (i.e. Moncrieff).

 

[Ken H]

... I don't see wires getting there until and unless the Forth Bridge conundrum re electrification is solved.
...

Whats that then?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Also not forgetting the short infill of the Maryhill Park line, with both arms to Anniesland and Westerton. Another short stretch could be Craigendoran Junction - Helensburgh Upper, for when the Sprinters become life expired (I believe the signalling is switched to and from RETB at Helensburgh Upper - could somebody confirm?) and would give scope for bimodes to replace them.

There's not a lot of point wiring up to Helensburgh Upper. If bi-modes are used, they could raise and lower the pantograph on the existing wiring.

Perth, unfortunately, doesn't make a lot of sense on its own as very little terminates there that would run entirely under the wires. I don't see wires getting there until and unless the Forth Bridge conundrum re electrification is solved.
Muirhouse -EK/Kilmarnock/Larkfield, Kilmarnock-Barassie, Cowlairs-Westerton/Anniesland (notwithstanding getting past the canal) and Edinburgh Sub make more sense in terms of reducing diesel traction requirements and facilitating diversions. I mooted the idea a while back that a small DMU depot in the Kilmarnock area could serve the Stranraer and G&SW needs.

Perth is a reasonable place to extend the wiring even before you can run beyond. There's demand for commuter trains to extend beyond Dunblane, both as a passenger service and to provide a useful place to stable trains overnight. It's a good idea to have a depot at the far end of a commuter route so that you can run trains earlier and later, but the idea of stabling capacity at Stirling was dropped from EGIP.

Something I found weird to imagine is that EGIP has already covered far more than the number of track kilometres required for Dunblane to Perth. It's a relatively simple two-track railway from Dunblane to Perth, compared to the complex set of duplicated lines running around the Central Belt. The main constraint on wiring to Perth is the antiquated station/track layout and signalling at the end, but there are plans to comprehensively develop all of it.

 

[MadMac]

Perth is a reasonable place to extend the wiring even before you can run beyond. There's demand for commuter trains to extend beyond Dunblane, both as a passenger service and to provide a useful place to stable trains overnight.

Something I found weird to imagine is that EGIP has already covered far more than the number of track kilometres required for Dunblane to Perth. It's a relatively simple two-track railway from Dunblane to Perth, compared to the complex set of duplicated lines running around the Central Belt. The main constraint on wiring to Perth is the antiquated station/track layout and signalling at the end, but there are plans to comprehensively develop all of it.

All very good points, but could the timetable be recast and maintain the current level of Dunblane services with extension to Perth? There are indeed plans for a combined bus/rail "hub" which would entail a significantly smaller station - how far away is that? Nothing will be done signalling or track-wise until there's a settled plan.

 

[MadMac]

Whats that then?

Basically, nobody's figured out how to wire the Forth Bridge. Yet.

 

[Clansman]

Perth is a reasonable place to extend the wiring even before you can run beyond. There's demand for commuter trains to extend beyond Dunblane, both as a passenger service and to provide a useful place to stable trains overnight. It's a good idea to have a depot at the far end of a commuter route so that you can run trains earlier and later, but the idea of stabling capacity at Stirling was dropped from EGIP.

Is there much demand for services from Perth to Bishopbriggs, Lenzie, Croy, and Larbert though? With extending the Dunblane services, the frequency would be 3tph - which is all good and well, until punters from Perth realise that they're better off waiting 20 minutes in Perth for a service that is quicker, and will probably be quieter.

Although a massive bonus gained by electrifying Perth without going through to Dundee in a oner could be the oppertunity of extending some Edinburgh services through from Dunblane/Stirling, which would allow a 2tph frequency to Edinburgh without there being a detriment to existing journey times - which in turn could allow an increase in flexibility at peak time for the existing semi-fast services via Fife to help ease the crush loads at stations between Kinghorn and Dalmeny without affecting Perth (and connecting) commuters.

Whether it's worth running through to Dundee in a oner is certainly food for thought. Given the area around Perth will be closed for probably months when the time comes to rejig the layout in prep for wires and station upheaval, I imagine there'd be sense in taking advantage of this to kill 2 birds with one stone by wiring up to Dundee also. 2 major blockades in a short space of time would be manic for passengers.

 

[AndrewE]

Basically, nobody's figured out how to wire the Forth Bridge. Yet.

We have. The problem is the limited width at wire height because of the diagonal bracing on the bridge. Given the speed restriction that applies it could be wired to be used by new narrow low-reach pantographs. Most locos have 2 pantograph wells and 11-car Pendolinos have 3! One of these could easily have the limited-clearance version, which (if it was adopted as a second standard) would solve a lot of difficult-to-do electrification problems. New trains will be needed for the expanded services anyway, so the limited-clearance pans can be designed in for not much extra cost.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Basically, nobody's figured out how to wire the Forth Bridge. Yet.

If I may quote the infrastructure expert Gareth Dennis from page 75 of Rail issue 872:

Even as we look to the electric-only Britain of the future, the bridge is still moving with the times. Plans are afoot for the electrification of the lines into Fife, and there's a strong possibility that we'll see wires across the Forth before the end of the 2020s ( the bridge is already gauge-cleared to W7, so this shouldn't be overly complex ).

This would suggest that it is not as difficult as has been suggested earlier on this forum in various threads.

 

[Class 170101]

We have. The problem is the limited width at wire height because of the diagonal bracing on the bridge. Given the speed restriction that applies it could be wired to be used by new narrow low-reach pantographs. Most locos have 2 pantograph wells and 11-car Pendolinos have 3! One of these could easily have the limited-clearance version, which (if it was adopted as a second standard) would solve a lot of difficult-to-do electrification problems. New trains will be needed for the expanded services anyway, so the limited-clearance pans can be designed in for not much extra cost.

Presumably it would need a long stretch of appropriate OLE to facilitate pantographs raising and lowering plus probably computers to do it to remove the risk of the human element making a mistake and raising the wrong one.

 

[47271]

Although a massive bonus gained by electrifying Perth without going through to Dundee in a oner could be the oppertunity of extending some Edinburgh services through from Dunblane/Stirling, which would allow a 2tph frequency to Edinburgh without there being a detriment to existing journey times - which in turn could allow an increase in flexibility at peak time for the existing semi-fast services via Fife to help ease the crush loads at stations between Kinghorn and Dalmeny without affecting Perth (and connecting) commuters.

I know that we're not in the speculative ideas section, but could there be something else here?

How fast could an electrified Carmuirs-Perth (sorry, why not Carmuirs-Stanley) Caley main line be, with a few loops in all honesty it shouldn't run any slower than the northern sections of the West Coast Main Line, it's built to exactly the same standards? If we have a bimode future for the Glasgow-Aberdeens and Highland Main Line could the Inverness expresses not all route via Stirling, the only unavoidably slow bits are through Falkirk?

Just a wild thought to free us from the depressing subjects of the Fife coast, Ladybank-Perth and pie in the sky hopes of rail investment anywhere on the M90 corridor. Just put a load of welly behind the best route we have....

 

[Clansman]

How fast could an electrified Carmuirs-Perth (sorry, why not Carmuirs-Stanley) Caley main line be, with a few loops in all honesty it shouldn't run any slower than the northern sections of the West Coast Main Line, it's built to exactly the same standards? If we have a bimode future for the Glasgow-Aberdeens and Highland Main Line could the Inverness expresses not all route via Stirling, the only unavoidably slow bits are through Falkirk?

With obvious improvements to track quality and signalling, there's little to suggest that layout between Dunblane and Hilton Junction wouldn't allow compatibility with 125mph running - the same applies to Perth to Dundee. In the long term, if any journey time improvements are to be made on Intercity journeys post HST full timetable, then 125mph running on these stretches is essential. So to answer your question, absolutely yes.

As for your point about routing Inverness services via Stirling, using bi-Modes surely eliminates the need to constantly use wires all the time. Doing so would be detrimental to the capacity between Haymarket and Falkirk Grahamston - which we all know is full to the brim.

Just a wild thought to free us from the depressing subjects of the Fife coast, Ladybank-Perth and pie in the sky hopes of rail investment anywhere on the M90 corridor. Just put a load of welly behind the best route we have....

As much as I'm an advocate for plausable, and so called 'glamour' projects, such as a new line parralell to the M90, your last comment pretty much sums everything up. Couldn't agree more with this.

 

[Highlandspring]

I think they "hand back" the token at Helensburgh Upper when coming off the WHL but receive it when leaving Craigendoran, but that could be changed relatively easily.

RETB working starts and ends at Helensburgh Upper TEP (at the Down Stop Board and YC652 signal respectively).

 

[NotATrainspott]

With obvious improvements to track quality and signalling, there's little to suggest that layout between Dunblane and Hilton Junction wouldn't allow compatibility with 125mph running - the same applies to Perth to Dundee. In the long term, if any journey time improvements are to be made on Intercity journeys post HST full timetable, then 125mph running on these stretches is essential. So to answer your question, absolutely yes.

As for your point about routing Inverness services via Stirling, using bi-Modes surely eliminates the need to constantly use wires all the time. Doing so would be detrimental to the capacity between Haymarket and Falkirk Grahamston - which we all know is full to the brim.

As much as I'm an advocate for plausable, and so called 'glamour' projects, such as a new line parralell to the M90, your last comment pretty much sums everything up. Couldn't agree more with this.

125mph running over this stretch would have a marginal impact on journey times. You need hundreds of miles of uninterrupted >100mph running for it to make a meaningful difference to timetabling if you're not already on an incredibly busy set of tracks like the WCML or GWML fast/main lines. Railmiles says there's 28 miles between Dunblane and Perth, which would take approximately 17 minutes to travel at a constant 100mph and about 13 minutes at a constant 125mph. You can much more easily find 4 minutes of journey time saving from doing pretty boring stuff along the route like increasing junction speeds or upgrading signalling, which can then benefit all trains rather than the few capable of >100mph speeds. Given that you won't be running at a constant 100mph, let alone 125mph, the real difference would be even smaller.

 

[sannox]

East Kilbride?

I think EK and turnaround improvements at EK to better use capacity at Central are a no brainer.

 

[47271]

125mph running over this stretch would have a marginal impact on journey times. You need hundreds of miles of uninterrupted >100mph running for it to make a meaningful difference to timetabling if you're not already on an incredibly busy set of tracks like the WCML or GWML fast/main lines. Railmiles says there's 28 miles between Dunblane and Perth, which would take approximately 17 minutes to travel at a constant 100mph and about 13 minutes at a constant 125mph. You can much more easily find 4 minutes of journey time saving from doing pretty boring stuff along the route like increasing junction speeds or upgrading signalling, which can then benefit all trains rather than the few capable of >100mph speeds. Given that you won't be running at a constant 100mph, let alone 125mph, the real difference would be even smaller.

I totally take your point about the marginal benefits of 125mph running over relatively short distances, but I was actually thinking of Larbert Jn (sorry, I said Carmuirs, but you know what I mean on the triangle of slowness) to Perth, so 40 miles of route improvement.

Anyway, as you're probably aware, I suffer the Perth-Ladybank-Edinburgh grind day in day out and I'm trying to think of ways to fix this without the creation of a wildly expensive new route.

I think EK and turnaround improvements at EK to better use capacity at Central are a no brainer.

Thank you and, meanwhile, back in the real world, East Kilbride has got to be the number one priority.

 

[Clansman]

125mph running over this stretch would have a marginal impact on journey times. You need hundreds of miles of uninterrupted >100mph running for it to make a meaningful difference to timetabling if you're not already on an incredibly busy set of tracks like the WCML or GWML fast/main lines. Railmiles says there's 28 miles between Dunblane and Perth, which would take approximately 17 minutes to travel at a constant 100mph and about 13 minutes at a constant 125mph. You can much more easily find 4 minutes of journey time saving from doing pretty boring stuff along the route like increasing junction speeds or upgrading signalling, which can then benefit all trains rather than the few capable of >100mph speeds. Given that you won't be running at a constant 100mph, let alone 125mph, the real difference would be even smaller.

Fair point - I hadn't considered much of the distance aspect. Good point in regards to junctions speeds and signalling works, that would be more effective. I assume the two stretches which would allow the most effective changes would be between Carmuirs/Larbert Jn and Greenhill Jn, and Hilton Jn to Barnhill?

I totally take your point about the marginal benefits of 125mph running over relatively short distances, but I was actually thinking of Larbert Jn (sorry, I said Carmuirs, but you know what I mean on the triangle of slowness) to Perth, so 40 miles of route improvement.

Anyway, as you're probably aware, I suffer the Perth-Ladybank-Edinburgh grind day in day out and I'm trying to think of ways to fix this without the creation of a wildly expensive new route.

Electrification, doubling, and increasing line speed is all I can think of. Or if you have the flexibility, going via Stirling provides a somewhat more pleasant journey when the odd morning/evening services runs straight through. Fair play to you for grinding it out though. Horribly slow journey. It's little wonder that our attentions are foccussed on a new link via Kinross from time to time!

 

[AndrewE]

Presumably it would need a long stretch of appropriate OLE to facilitate pantographs raising and lowering plus probably computers to do it to remove the risk of the human element making a mistake and raising the wrong one.

Not at all. The wires go up and down quite a lot as it is, & in fact this may not be any lower as it's really the outer pantograph horn clearance that (we are imagining) is the problem. As pans can be triggered to drop for neutral sections anyway (by a trackside magnet) I don't see why that shouldn't happen on the approach to the bridge, plus a "special pan up/down" button to be used by the driver in the cab.
Anyway, if it has already been sorted out by our smart engineering friends, then we don't need to get hung up about it.

 

[NotATrainspott]

A good point to remember is that the remodelling of Rugby junction did as much to improve journey times on the southern WCML as the entire idea of 140mph running. The most beneficial changes are the ones which remove or reduce short speed bottlenecks which require trains to slow down and then accelerate again, rather than passing through at a constant speed.

Narrow pantographs are almost certainly not going to happen. If you want an electrification method that is appropriate for short stretches of difficult track, the obvious and best solution is to use batteries so you need no extra lineside infrastructure at all. Narrow pantographs don't solve all clearance issues while needing no pantograph for that stretch clearly solves all of them. Adding enough batteries to EMUs for them to run over the bridge at line speed, plus extra capacity for emergencies, would cost almost nothing in the grand scheme of things and would be useful all across the network for backup purposes.