• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

92002

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2014
Messages
1,134
Location
Clydebank
Are the Portobello upgrade through signalling and wiring of Millerhill and the Edinburgh sub not all interconnected. Not sure if there is enough power to allow diversion of the Pendolinos via Shotts during the Carstairs rebuild.
Curriehill will help with power on the Shotts line. Other feeder stations are struggling to provide for now. However delivery times for these things are long.
If the Sub were to be electrified it would need to be funded by freight. However somebody decided to build a depot for electric trains at Millerhill. Who knows Borders electrification could come along and a shared funding for the sub could happen.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

FS-2-11

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2015
Messages
51
Another piece of electrification work not often discussed is renewal of the North Clyde system. It's 60 years old now and must be ripe for a major uplift.
 

92002

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2014
Messages
1,134
Location
Clydebank
Another piece of electrification work not often discussed is renewal of the North Clyde system. It's 60 years old now and must be ripe for a major uplift.
Some updates have already been done through maintenance work. So not 60 years old as you suggest.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,224
What actually needs renewal on a 25kV AC system? I understand that some works have been required in areas (notably the Liverpool Street lines) where the original electrification was earlier and then 25kV AC was retrofitted. What has actually changed since the Blue Train electrification scheme? As far as I understand it the quality of overhead wiring went down since then, leading to the headspan situation on the ECML.

Also, even if work is required, it'll be of a different kind. All the infrastructure is already there to run an electric service - it's just about swapping out the bits which have become life-expired. There's no need for the major works required for totally new schemes, and legacy rights will exist to continue having lower clearances.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,492
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
What actually needs renewal on a 25kV AC system? I understand that some works have been required in areas (notably the Liverpool Street lines) where the original electrification was earlier and then 25kV AC was retrofitted. What has actually changed since the Blue Train electrification scheme? As far as I understand it the quality of overhead wiring went down since then, leading to the headspan situation on the ECML.

Also, even if work is required, it'll be of a different kind. All the infrastructure is already there to run an electric service - it's just about swapping out the bits which have become life-expired. There's no need for the major works required for totally new schemes, and legacy rights will exist to continue having lower clearances.
The main thing requiring renewal is contact wire. As pantographs pass over the contact wire, it wears down very slowly, but depending on speed of pantograph passage and number of individual pantograph passes, this can be quicker than if it was one pantograph at a lower speed.
The Anglia region is due to have its Mk1 era OLE renewed very soon, as large swathes of it operate with multiple pantographs (which obviously wear the contact down more quickly). Certainly on the GEML, speeds are also higher than most of the Strathclyde network, with 12-car (i.e. 3-unit) formations regularly operating at 100mph.
In the case of the renewals, the original 1940s/50s vintage OLE was all fixed-tension, meaning wires would sag in the heat. Auto-tensioning was introduced with Mk1 equipment, which largely used copper for its cantilevers and wiring.
Mk2 made a move towards Galvanised Steel supports, but Mk3 had to be developed as, by the start of the 70s, copper prices had soared (hence the use of AWAC catenary in it).

Headspans meant that each structure could be prefabricated in jigs off-site, and rolled between masts during a T3(?) possession (with trains still passing underneath!). Their use was, in the main, driven by cost - HM Treasury had a fairly strong grip on BR's expenditure. Had Thatcher not come to power, we would have had a rolling programme of electrification (including wires to Penzance by 2000), but the rest, as they say, is history.

Another case for renewals is NR's "Campaign Changes"; replacement of unsafe parts, for example. Ceramic insulators (from Mk1 to Mk3) all have an inherent shattering risk if dropped, and can cause permanent eye damage to linesmen working on them or replacing them. Vandals can also break them by throwing stones/other projectiles at them, so "anti-vandal" (silicone rubber) insulators are installed whenever possible on existing OLE, and are installed as new for new schemes or large renewals (E.g. WCRM).
Balance Weights have fallen out of favour too, especially since the Potters Bar derailment; when the derailed 365 crashed, it hit a headspan with balance weights anchored there. Said weights then fell and crushed someone's head. As a result, Anti-Fall Balance Weights (with ratcheted wheels) are now used where possible. Spring Tensioners (Tensorexes) eliminate the risk of fallen weights entirely, and also make independent tensioning of the wires easier. Otherwise, you'd need to rely on an equalising plate at the anchor structure, which is difficult to maintain, alongside making higher contact wire tensions impossible.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
What actually needs renewal on a 25kV AC system? I understand that some works have been required in areas (notably the Liverpool Street lines) where the original electrification was earlier and then 25kV AC was retrofitted. What has actually changed since the Blue Train electrification scheme? As far as I understand it the quality of overhead wiring went down since then, leading to the headspan situation on the ECML.

Also, even if work is required, it'll be of a different kind. All the infrastructure is already there to run an electric service - it's just about swapping out the bits which have become life-expired. There's no need for the major works required for totally new schemes, and legacy rights will exist to continue having lower clearances.

I see a more comprehensive answer has appeared above whilst I was writing my own reply.

Just to add, the cantilevers are starting to show their age too, mainly just general wear, which sees things like the registration arm pivots seizing, those cantilevers which have a wire support between the top tube and registration tube (from which the registration arm is mounted) can see the wire fail, which results in the geometry of the entire catenary being degraded (catenary wire being clamped to the top tube, contact wire to the registration arm).

There's all the issues about tensioning which have been covered above, a brief point about insulators to add that some of the ceramic insulators are prone to specific failure modes and have been replaced with polymeric insulators (a similar issue impacted on the Mark 3 system).

There has already been renewals work in Scotland - Shields Junction to Paisley was wired originally with the abandoned BR Mark 2 OLE system, it was replaced about 15 years ago now with Siemens SICAT small part (aluminium) steelwork, kind of tied in with the work done around that time for the also abandoned Glasgow Airport Rail Link.
 

66C

Member
Joined
8 Sep 2013
Messages
76
Also I hear a feeder station to go in at Tweedbank with some local electrification at some point and battery electric units to Edinburgh.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,385
Location
Bolton

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,224
Also I hear a feeder station to go in at Tweedbank with some local electrification at some point and battery electric units to Edinburgh.

That seems quite sensible if the plan is to get battery EMUs for Fife services. Then all current Edinburgh DMU commuter services can switch over to some sort of electric power. Any plans to wire up the Borders line would most likely be tied up with plans to wire up Fife.
 

66C

Member
Joined
8 Sep 2013
Messages
76
A feeder station is to go in at Newton to take some of the load of Eglinton Street feeder. There is large switching station nearby previously connected to Clydesmill Power Station.
Wires going up on the rebuilt Levenmouth branch to charge the battery electrics before their return to Edinburgh.
Wiring to Girvan and Hydrogen units from there to Stranraer all on the cards.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
That seems quite sensible if the plan is to get battery EMUs for Fife services. Then all current Edinburgh DMU commuter services can switch over to some sort of electric power. Any plans to wire up the Borders line would most likely be tied up with plans to wire up Fife.

I'm not involved, but it would make sense to electrify some or all of the Borders Railway first and use the electrification there to charge the battery packs for the run into Fife, whilst the difficult route clearance work is undertaken on the Fife side of the Forth.

The Borders Railway project made sure almost all structures were cleared for electrification (admittedly prior to the changes brought about by the TSI implementation) and other issues which plagued other electrification projects don't exist - the signalling is all neatly tidied away out of harms way, there's detailed data on all of the structures, ground conditions, embankments and the like, there's no stations with canopies needing modifications, and obviously a largely single track rural railway is very easy to electrify relatively quickly.

We shall soon see exactly what Transport Scotland has decided to fund - there are political considerations too, when places like Peterhead and Ellon are screaming for a re-opening as per Tweedbank, Alloa, and Leven, to spend more money so soon on upgrading the Borders line may cause some annoyance.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,224
I'm not involved, but it would make sense to electrify some or all of the Borders Railway first and use the electrification there to charge the battery packs for the run into Fife, whilst the difficult route clearance work is undertaken on the Fife side of the Forth.

The Borders Railway project made sure almost all structures were cleared for electrification (admittedly prior to the changes brought about by the TSI implementation) and other issues which plagued other electrification projects don't exist - the signalling is all neatly tidied away out of harms way, there's detailed data on all of the structures, ground conditions, embankments and the like, there's no stations with canopies needing modifications, and obviously a largely single track rural railway is very easy to electrify relatively quickly.

We shall soon see exactly what Transport Scotland has decided to fund - there are political considerations too, when places like Peterhead and Ellon are screaming for a re-opening as per Tweedbank, Alloa, and Leven, to spend more money so soon on upgrading the Borders line may cause some annoyance.

I expect that will depend on the sort of services that are planned to be run. When there are only 2tph to Tweedbank it won't be possible to run many Fife trains down there to charge up again.

A thought occurs. The 25kV AC network is obviously designed to provide 25kV to every train, but it can't go and provide max power to every train simultaneously. On a route with a large number of high-powered trains drawing a lot of power (e.g. the WCML leaving Euston) the power supply will need to be much beefier than on a branch line like Balloch. However, if there are infrequent high-powered trains, then the power supply will end up having to be sized to accommodate peak demand even if that only happens for a few minutes every hour. The only way to run more trains than this would be to apply power limiting to all of them.

However, with batteries, it'll be possible to spread the load across time. This applies for a mixed fleet of battery and traditional EMUs as well as a world where every EMU has its own battery on board. At times when the network has extra capacity, the battery trains can use that to recharge much more quickly with more power than you'd normally want running to a train of that size and speed. Then, when the occasional high-power loads by other trains appear, the battery charging can reduce or stop completely. So long as the batteries on board have enough charge to provide the power needed to match the timetable, it doesn't matter that the network couldn't theoretically supply all of them simultaneously.

Add to this the fact that EMUs with batteries could be set up to hold enough charge to get to the next feeder section, or continue moving at lower speed, and you can mitigate the need for excess backup supply capacity too. That's what I understand the problem on the ECML is right now. If any of the supply stations fail, there wouldn't be enough power for all the electric trains to run at the same time. Thus we have the oddity of electric-capable TPE 802s running in diesel mode under the ECML wiring.

So, how much money could be saved in terms of fixed supply costs (grid connections etc) if we start rolling out batteries as a standard component of any EMU? I wonder if there could be a justification to retrofit batteries, if possible, to the 385 fleet, in order to get some of these benefits on the existing network?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,808
Location
Yorkshire
Just a gentle reminder this thread is to discuss updates regarding what is happening in respect of Scottish electrification projects.

If anyone wishes to discuss anything else, that's great, but please do create a new thread in the appropriate section.

For ideas/suggestions please create a thread (if there isn't one already) in Speculative Ideas.

Thanks! :)
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
I expect that will depend on the sort of services that are planned to be run. When there are only 2tph to Tweedbank it won't be possible to run many Fife trains down there to charge up again.

A thought occurs. The 25kV AC network is obviously designed to provide 25kV to every train, but it can't go and provide max power to every train simultaneously. On a route with a large number of high-powered trains drawing a lot of power (e.g. the WCML leaving Euston) the power supply will need to be much beefier than on a branch line like Balloch. However, if there are infrequent high-powered trains, then the power supply will end up having to be sized to accommodate peak demand even if that only happens for a few minutes every hour. The only way to run more trains than this would be to apply power limiting to all of them.

However, with batteries, it'll be possible to spread the load across time. This applies for a mixed fleet of battery and traditional EMUs as well as a world where every EMU has its own battery on board. At times when the network has extra capacity, the battery trains can use that to recharge much more quickly with more power than you'd normally want running to a train of that size and speed. Then, when the occasional high-power loads by other trains appear, the battery charging can reduce or stop completely. So long as the batteries on board have enough charge to provide the power needed to match the timetable, it doesn't matter that the network couldn't theoretically supply all of them simultaneously.

Add to this the fact that EMUs with batteries could be set up to hold enough charge to get to the next feeder section, or continue moving at lower speed, and you can mitigate the need for excess backup supply capacity too. That's what I understand the problem on the ECML is right now. If any of the supply stations fail, there wouldn't be enough power for all the electric trains to run at the same time. Thus we have the oddity of electric-capable TPE 802s running in diesel mode under the ECML wiring.

So, how much money could be saved in terms of fixed supply costs (grid connections etc) if we start rolling out batteries as a standard component of any EMU? I wonder if there could be a justification to retrofit batteries, if possible, to the 385 fleet, in order to get some of these benefits on the existing network?

How much power do you think the battery charger equipment is going to take on a BEMU ?
 

92002

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2014
Messages
1,134
Location
Clydebank
That seems quite sensible if the plan is to get battery EMUs for Fife services. Then all current Edinburgh DMU commuter services can switch over to some sort of electric power. Any plans to wire up the Borders line would most likely be tied up with plans to wire up Fife.
They could of course course Just electrify the Tweedbank line. Which was built to the standards. Which is somewhere in the master plan.
 

Roger B

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2018
Messages
896
Location
Gatley
They could of course course Just electrify the Tweedbank line. Which was built to the standards. Which is somewhere in the master plan.
Given the capacity constraints on the Tweedbank line, it would probably be a good idea to double the track where possible before electrification, to build in a bit of future-proofing should the line be extended towards Carlisle, resulting a greater demand.
 

92002

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2014
Messages
1,134
Location
Clydebank
Given the capacity constraints on the Tweedbank line, it would probably be a good idea to double the track where possible before electrification, to build in a bit of future-proofing should the line be extended towards Carlisle, resulting a greater demand.
Would need new structures and cost plenty. Future-proofing will see short workings. Not many possible passengers really beyond Hawick. So really can't see it making Carlisle. Was built as a commuter line and haa enough built in possibilities.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,888
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
How much power do you think the battery charger equipment is going to take on a BEMU ?
I am not an expert but am going to research the subject over the next couple of years. What is the best available amp.hours per kg of battery with current technology? I can calculate from 1st principles for sacrificial anodes in cathodic protection but not with batteries.
 
Last edited:

CEN60

Member
Joined
17 Dec 2018
Messages
267
So Network Rail is keen to electrify the Sub but Transport Scotland is reluctant to pay for it?

I had a walk along the route of the Sub earlier this week and I agree with @InOban.



Unfortunately, I can't see the current nice bridge on Braid Avenue surviving although I was surprised by how low the track is below the pavement level on Myreside Road and Colinton Road.

I've attached photos if anyone is interested. Newington to Braid Avenue so far. More to come.
View attachment 80854View attachment 80855View attachment 80856View attachment 80857View attachment 80858View attachment 80859View attachment 80860View attachment 80861View attachment 80862View attachment 80863


You would need to ask TS - NR as far as I understand it are keen for it to happen!
 
Joined
6 Jan 2018
Messages
111
Location
Carluke
The intention to provide 3tph on the Shotts line was announced a while ago. I'm not entirely sure it's really needed, but there it is. This document strongly suggests the power supply increase is required, on page 4: https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/44516/scotland-s-railway-control-period-6-2019-2024.pdf

Not wanting to drag this discussion any further from the topic, but I would like to add, as someone who lives along this route, and at a station not served by the Limited Stop service, it would be a very useful addition to see the stopper increased to 2tph, or the limited stop service scrapped. The trains aren’t particularly busy, but I suspect it’s more to do with the fairly low frequency service. I do tend to find myself driving to Motherwell to use the more frequent service from there towards Glasgow, which is perverse as I live within walking distance of a Shotts line station. Haymarket is of course the biggest issue, but maybe a Platform 5 could be an answer, with some Shotts and Carstairs services terminating there instead. Plenty of room available for it, and more than sufficient connections onwards. Plus, anecdotally, it always seems like a large proportion of customers disembark there, especially during the peak. Anyway, back on topic....

I read an article, I believe in this weeks RAIL, about BEMUs, and how they only take something in the region of 15mins to fully recharge under 25kV, which provides a few dozen miles of power (from memory, as I don’t have the issue to hand). Could this make it possible to only electrify the last few miles of a route, along with terminal stations? We no longer need to think about how to string wires over the Forth/Tay and through the Fife tunnels, at least not in the short term. We could eliminate the last suburban diesels from Queen Street, by running BEMUs to Anniesland. We could extend electric services to Girvan by just throwing up some wires there to recharge, rather than the whole line initially. I understand there being a cost to a feeder, but it’s far cheaper to throw a feeder cable into a trough from Ayr, than to rebuild every overbridge on the route.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
I read an article, I believe in this weeks RAIL, about BEMUs, and how they only take something in the region of 15mins to fully recharge under 25kV, which provides a few dozen miles of power (from memory, as I don’t have the issue to hand). Could this make it possible to only electrify the last few miles of a route, along with terminal stations? We no longer need to think about how to string wires over the Forth/Tay and through the Fife tunnels, at least not in the short term. We could eliminate the last suburban diesels from Queen Street, by running BEMUs to Anniesland. We could extend electric services to Girvan by just throwing up some wires there to recharge, rather than the whole line initially. I understand there being a cost to a feeder, but it’s far cheaper to throw a feeder cable into a trough from Ayr, than to rebuild every overbridge on the route.

There is a limit on static pantograph current draw, beyond which you'll burn up the pantograph carbon, so fully recharging a battery pack in 15 minutes is only applicable if the battery pack is relatively small, of the size really designed to cover for discontinuous electrification around challenging structures, short branch lines and the like, rather than sized to replace a standard DMU on a predominantly non electrified route.

There is also a limit on the amount of power you can draw from each feeder, there is an element of robbing Peter to pay Paul with batteries. They take power from one feeder to use on a section of line which rightly should be fed from another feeder.

25kV feeding in a trough, as per the 'Great Extension Lead' is a false economy. The sensible option is to use OLE masts to carry the 25kV feed, they can then be used for catenary if/when the route is fully electrified.
 

GLC

Member
Joined
21 Nov 2018
Messages
298
Not wanting to drag this discussion any further from the topic, but I would like to add, as someone who lives along this route, and at a station not served by the Limited Stop service, it would be a very useful addition to see the stopper increased to 2tph, or the limited stop service scrapped. The trains aren’t particularly busy, but I suspect it’s more to do with the fairly low frequency service. I do tend to find myself driving to Motherwell to use the more frequent service from there towards Glasgow, which is perverse as I live within walking distance of a Shotts line station. Haymarket is of course the biggest issue, but maybe a Platform 5 could be an answer, with some Shotts and Carstairs services terminating there instead. Plenty of room available for it, and more than sufficient connections onwards. Plus, anecdotally, it always seems like a large proportion of customers disembark there, especially during the peak. Anyway, back on topic....

I read an article, I believe in this weeks RAIL, about BEMUs, and how they only take something in the region of 15mins to fully recharge under 25kV, which provides a few dozen miles of power (from memory, as I don’t have the issue to hand). Could this make it possible to only electrify the last few miles of a route, along with terminal stations? We no longer need to think about how to string wires over the Forth/Tay and through the Fife tunnels, at least not in the short term. We could eliminate the last suburban diesels from Queen Street, by running BEMUs to Anniesland. We could extend electric services to Girvan by just throwing up some wires there to recharge, rather than the whole line initially. I understand there being a cost to a feeder, but it’s far cheaper to throw a feeder cable into a trough from Ayr, than to rebuild every overbridge on the route.
I’ve asked something similar before, on the context of electrifying just parts of the WHL for the same purpose. The answer I got was that the real expense of electrification is the planning and design of it. Once you are putting in the physical infrastructure, whether you are doing 1 miles or 100 miles, it doesn’t increase the numbers all that much. At least for the sake of being able to use regular electric stock as opposed to a smaller battery fleet
 

snookertam

Member
Joined
22 Sep 2018
Messages
779
I think electrification of the borders line is more likely than doubling longer sections due to the lack of future proofing. Should arguably have been reopened as an electrified route in 2015, but better late than never.

Would love us to go for fully electric outside of the most rural lines (ie West Highland;Far North & Kyle; Girvan-Stranraer but accept that this is pretty ambitious even in the medium term.
 

jyte

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2016
Messages
670
Location
in me shed
Does anyone have any photos/diagrams of BR's Mk.2 system? I've searched pretty far and wide but found nothing.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
Does anyone have any photos/diagrams of BR's Mk.2 system? I've searched pretty far and wide but found nothing.

It's basically Mark 1 in galvanised steel rather than a combination of painted steel and copper components. If you want photographs, the Inverclyde Line was the main use of the system, though the section between Shields Road Junction and Paisley Gilmour Street was replaced about 10 years ago.

It has been discussed up thread, but it was essentially a way to reduce the amount of copper utilised within the system, at a time when copper prices were increasing and galvanisation technology was coming along nicely. The Mark 3 system was under development at much the same time as the last of the Mark 2 system was being installed, and as it was thought to be more cost effective than the Mark 2 system, it was used for further electrification projects.
 

alangla

Member
Joined
11 Apr 2018
Messages
1,178
Location
Glasgow
25kV feeding in a trough, as per the 'Great Extension Lead' is a false economy. The sensible option is to use OLE masts to carry the 25kV feed, they can then be used for catenary if/when the route is fully electrified.
Much shorter distance, obviously, but there’s a 25kV feeder in a trough between Parkhead and the junction at Bellgrove where the Springburn line comes off. It appeared at the same time as the electrification to Cumbernauld.
 

MadMac

Member
Joined
13 Jun 2008
Messages
967
Location
Moorpark, CA
There was one that ran from Coatbridge to Motherwell (dating back to the original electrification in the early 60s) which was in need of renewal in the early 80s, and it turned out that it was more cost-effective to wire from Mossend to Gartsherrie than replacing it.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,918
Location
Nottingham
I think trackside feeders are of some use where the feeder station is only on one line, as maintenance work or damage to the OLE on that one line will prevent the feeder contributing power to the rest of the network. Ideally the feeder station should connect at a junction to avoid this problem, but it also needs to be near a suitable Grid connection and somewhere land can be acquired, so it may be necessary to transfer the power via a trackside cable to connect to the OLE somewhere better.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,492
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
25kV feeding in a trough, as per the 'Great Extension Lead' is a false economy. The sensible option is to use OLE masts to carry the 25kV feed, they can then be used for catenary if/when the route is fully electrified.
Perhaps unrelated, but interesting nonetheless that the auto-transformer feeders for the southern section of the ECML (read: Welwyn 'B' to Hitchin) are all troughed...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top