Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

[QueensCurve]

I did check!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dreek
Maybe it's how the Americans spell it...

Definitely Dreich.

 

[SouthSub]

Definitely Dreich.

Indeed - when I used to drive the A71 it was frequently dreich in Breich.

 

[Hackneyite]

Americans think McLean is spelt MacLaine. We can ignore them!

 

[farci]

Americans think McLean is spelt MacLaine. We can ignore them!

...and pronounced 'Mac. Clean'

 

[SouthSub]

I thought only 3 portal-style masts up on the long Ratho viaduct was rather odd.
But from a train you can never tell what is going on below the parapet in such cases!
The bases being installed high up in the deep cuttings look to be large projects in themselves.
In the north west, "masts" were in some cases bolted directly to the rock walls in cuttings (so avoiding the need for bases).
I didn't see any sign of any of that on EGIP, and there's lots of rock cuttings.
I did see some bases on the platform at Falkirk, but otherwise the stations are untouched.

I passed under the Ratho viaduct on the A89 last night, above which one of the masts has been installed. There are some base plates in place on the sides of the viaduct, no sign of ongoing work in that location but there is a works access which leads to a track alongside the viaduct which I imagine is for the electrification works.

 

[92002]

I passed under the Ratho viaduct on the A89 last night, above which one of the masts has been installed. There are some base plates in place on the sides of the viaduct, no sign of ongoing work in that location but there is a works access which leads to a track alongside the viaduct which I imagine is for the electrification works.

Looks like most of the electrification work this week has been from the Depot at Cadder, out to beyond Greenhill Upper. Masts have appeared on the viaducts in this part, as well as a portal installed at Lenzie station at the West End. So presumably this was a trial for other stations, which don't have any yet.

Quite a lot now ready for the wiring train and a good amount for it to work on over the next couple of weeks.

 

[Railsigns]

Masts have appeared on the viaducts in this part, as well as a portal installed at Lenzie station at the West End. So presumably this was a trial for other stations, which don't have any yet.

The masts at Croy station have been up for a while now.

 

[route101]

Anyone know when East Kilbride line will get electrified?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Anyone know when East Kilbride line will get electrified?

2019-2029, subject to funding being agreed (funding for rolling electrification is provisionally budgeted for in the forward planning by the Scottish Government).

 

[Altnabreac]

Anyone know when East Kilbride line will get electrified?

It is one of the possible schemes for CP6. Beyond Shotts nothing has yet been confirmed for the rolling electrification programme.

Given the high passenger numbers and frequent use of 6 coach trains in the peak it seems likely EK would have one of the better business cases for electrification and certainly frees up more DMUs per track mile wired than any other scheme in Scotland.

Against that electrification will likely fix in place the infrastructure on the East Kilbride line for 20-30 years so related plans for a 4tph service and partial or complete redoubling probably need to be implemented alongside the electrification. If these are not funded / required immediately in 2019 it may be that other electrification schemes are implemented first with East Kilbride following on slightly later.

The expectation is that Barrhead would probably be wired at the same time as East Kilbride but Kilmarnock and Barassie would probably be a separate scheme. Again there is the issue of more redoubling between Barrhead and Kilmarnock that you would want to resolve before any electrification.

 

[Mordac]

EK does seem to be the next obvious step after EGIP and Shotts.

 

[Carntyne]

I would also hope for EK - the branch really needs additional capacity. NR have plans to redouble the line too I think.

 

[clc]

Anyone know when East Kilbride line will get electrified?

In March 2015 Network Rail said publicly that it was their intention to redouble Busby-EK in circa 5-10 years. So logically electrification would have the same timescale.

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding the East Kilbride line, I have heard about various proposals and suggestions in that would be an ideal route to convert to tram operation, in addition to the Cathcart District Railway.

Does anybody know if it will be likely to ever happen, or will both routes remain as conventional heavy rail?

It would be the starting point to bring back trams to Glasgow. After all, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Croydon, and Nottingham have brought back trams.

 

[Altnabreac]

Regarding the East Kilbride line, I have heard about various proposals and suggestions in that would be an ideal route to convert to tram operation, in addition to the Cathcart District Railway.

Does anybody know if it will be likely to ever happen, or will both routes remain as conventional heavy rail?

It would be the starting point to bring back trams to Glasgow. After all, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Croydon, and Nottingham have brought back trams.

Subject to the overwhelmingly likely result of next month's Scottish Parliament elections - there will be no tram train developments in Glasgow in the next 5 years.

East Kilbride seems less suited to tram train conversion anyway. Longer journey with wider station spacing, more 6 coach trains, high peak demand, sharing track with freight trains and other heavy rail all make it less suitable for tram train.

I also think Cathcart Circle is unlikely to be converted anytime soon but East Kilbride is a complete non starter.

 

[Southsider]

Given the high passenger numbers and frequent use of 6 coach trains in the peak it seems likely EK would have one of the better business cases for electrification and certainly frees up more DMUs per track mile wired than any other scheme in Scotland.

Mainly four car with one six but all are crammed full from Central. All round not a great passenger experience, particularly given the lengthy dwell times of the 156s as people squeeze past others to get off. In the absence of electrification, 170s would be a much better option but that's not in anybody's plans.

I think East Kilbride needs to be viewed as separate from the rest of G&SW lines as it is suburban commuter rather than rural or semi-rural.

 

[Dryce]

Regarding the East Kilbride line, I have heard about various proposals and suggestions in that would be an ideal route to convert to tram operation, in addition to the Cathcart District Railway.

I can't see any benefit to tram operation on the EK branch unless it provied an extension of existing services round East Kilbride itself - eg. a large loop.

But that presumably would be expensive and judging by the tram speeds in Edinburgh vs Bus to the airport - the advantages of better service in East Kilbride might well be lost in that the journey times to Glasgow would become longer.

It would be the starting point to bring back trams to Glasgow. After all, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Croydon, and Nottingham have brought back trams.

Edinburgh brought back trams.

Having watched the fiasco from the other side of Central Scotland those in Glasgow and Strathclyde might be somewhat wary of trying a similar project - particularly when Glasgow has a much much more extensive suburban rail network - and where the type of money spent in Edinburgh might be better invested.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Edinburgh brought back trams.

Having watched the fiasco from the other side of Central Scotland those in Glasgow and Strathclyde might be somewhat wary of trying a similar project - particularly when Glasgow has a much much more extensive suburban rail network - and where the type of money spent in Edinburgh might be better invested.

I have to agree - it makes sense to be heavy rail IMHO.

 

[clc]

I don't understand the eagerness that some people have to downgrade the rolling stock on parts of Glasgow's suburban network. Cathcart Circle and East Kilbride will likely see frequencies doubled in future, so they'll have turn up and go frequencies without losing all the advantages of heavy rail.

Anyway, as Scotrail is introducing brand new EMUs, with toilets and everything, on the Cathcart Circle it looks like the idea of converting it to tram trains has been binned. No one is going to tell passengers their comfy big well equipped trains are being replaced by less well specified trams.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I don't understand the eagerness that some people have to downgrade the rolling stock on parts of Glasgow's suburban network. Cathcart Circle and East Kilbride will likely see frequencies doubled in future, so they'll have turn up and go frequencies without losing all the advantages of heavy rail.

Anyway, as Scotrail is introducing brand new EMUs, with toilets and everything, on the Cathcart Circle it looks like the idea of converting it to tram trains has been binned. No one is going to tell passengers their comfy big well equipped trains are being replaced by less well specified trams.

Conversion of the Cathcart Circle line to light rail has been officially included as a possibility in various official reports over the years. It would represent a relatively cheap way to increase capacity into Central HL, while allowing a relatively population-dense area of Glasgow to have a proper rapid transit link into the city centre. Whatever frequencies might be possible on heavy rail, it would be possible to have even higher frequencies with tram-train conversion while reducing operational subsidy.

Class 385s will be put on the Cathcart Circle because it's the most cost-effective way to replace the 314s. 100mph regional EMUs aren't perfectly suited to the route but they'll manage just fine, and it's efficient to have only one new fleet of trains rather than two. If Abellio had gone with the option of inner-suburban AT100s - which could have been built at the same time as and maintained alongside the AT200s - then it would be more implausible to suggest that there might be changes in future for the Cathcart Circle line. Now, with standard 385s used, these could easily be cascaded onto the other routes (e.g. East Kilbride) when changes are made to the Cathcart Circle line.

A tram-train scheme would most likely be a Transport Scotland project rather than a Glasgow City Council one, so the political difficulties in giving money to a council to build a tram line won't be the same. The justification for this is that at least initially, the job of this scheme would be to relieve the NR network rather than to provide a light rail network for Glasgow. The ScotRail franchise holder could even be responsible for running it given that most of the route kilometres would be on tracks which would have to remain part of the NR network. The Cathcart Circle line would still have to be able to act as a WCML diversionary route and the Anniesland route would see freight and passenger services heading up to the WHL which couldn't be redirected through Partick forever.

 

[route:oxford]

Edinburgh brought back trams.

Having watched the fiasco from the other side of Central Scotland those in Glasgow and Strathclyde might be somewhat wary of trying a similar project - particularly when Glasgow has a much much more extensive suburban rail network - and where the type of money spent in Edinburgh might be better invested.

The weegies did it first though.

You might say that they never really left Strathclyde...

 

[gsnedders]

Conversion of the Cathcart Circle line to light rail has been officially included as a possibility in various official reports over the years. It would represent a relatively cheap way to increase capacity into Central HL, while allowing a relatively population-dense area of Glasgow to have a proper rapid transit link into the city centre. Whatever frequencies might be possible on heavy rail, it would be possible to have even higher frequencies with tram-train conversion while reducing operational subsidy.

Has it ever been said where the light rail would branch off? Looking on a map, it's hard to work out where it could be routed without a fair bit of demolition or a lengthy route into the city centre. Presumably it would need to leave north of Pollockshields East, which limits it a fair bit.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Has it ever been said where the light rail would branch off? Looking on a map, it's hard to work out where it could be routed without a fair bit of demolition or a lengthy route into the city centre. Presumably it would need to leave north of Pollockshields East, which limits it a fair bit.

No, it hasn't. There's land available around Pollokshields East for a proper solution that would segregate the trams from the GSW line. Having an extra station or two between Pollokshields East and Central wouldn't be a bad thing for regeneration purposes, even if this were a TS-lead scheme.

 

[Altnabreac]

Conversion of the Cathcart Circle line to light rail has been officially included as a possibility in various official reports over the years. It would represent a relatively cheap way to increase capacity into Central HL, while allowing a relatively population-dense area of Glasgow to have a proper rapid transit link into the city centre. Whatever frequencies might be possible on heavy rail, it would be possible to have even higher frequencies with tram-train conversion while reducing operational subsidy.

Class 385s will be put on the Cathcart Circle because it's the most cost-effective way to replace the 314s. 100mph regional EMUs aren't perfectly suited to the route but they'll manage just fine, and it's efficient to have only one new fleet of trains rather than two. If Abellio had gone with the option of inner-suburban AT100s - which could have been built at the same time as and maintained alongside the AT200s - then it would be more implausible to suggest that there might be changes in future for the Cathcart Circle line. Now, with standard 385s used, these could easily be cascaded onto the other routes (e.g. East Kilbride) when changes are made to the Cathcart Circle line.

A tram-train scheme would most likely be a Transport Scotland project rather than a Glasgow City Council one, so the political difficulties in giving money to a council to build a tram line won't be the same. The justification for this is that at least initially, the job of this scheme would be to relieve the NR network rather than to provide a light rail network for Glasgow. The ScotRail franchise holder could even be responsible for running it given that most of the route kilometres would be on tracks which would have to remain part of the NR network. The Cathcart Circle line would still have to be able to act as a WCML diversionary route and the Anniesland route would see freight and passenger services heading up to the WHL which couldn't be redirected through Partick forever.

If the SNP are re-elected then there won't be any Transport Scotland led tram train schemes.

I still think a north south tunnel is the most likely scenario for future capacity increase at Central.

 

[me123]

EK should not be a tram train system. It warrants 4tph on the mainline into Central. It definitely warrants electrification and doubling.

However, there is a compelling argument to divert the Cathcart services onto some for of light rail, coupled with an increase in frequency of course (and perhaps excluding Neilston). Build an interchange at West Street and from there into the City Centre. Probably operating as a new Subway line would be preferable to trams though. In addition to increasing capacity on Cathcart and improving South Side access, you'd also free up slots in Central HL.

 

[clc]

If the SNP are re-elected then there won't be any Transport Scotland led tram train schemes.
.

When the SNP are elected.....

 

[NotATrainspott]

If the SNP are re-elected then there won't be any Transport Scotland led tram train schemes.

I still think a north south tunnel is the most likely scenario for future capacity increase at Central.

I don't think it would be politically justifiable for the SNP to ignore the most likely outcome of a Glasgow terminal stations capacity report. The tram-train option would provide a few more years of capacity and would provide enough time for a tunnel to be built properly. Crossrail 1 has been extremely effective so far because its main route has been settled for so long, and so there has been plenty of time to do ground investigations and further design work to come up with the optimum solution. The longer a Glasgow cross-city tunnel can be in the planning/pre-construction stage, the better. With a later deadline, there is more time to go around filling up some of the disused mineshafts which cause so much of a problem for tunnelling in the city.

 

[clc]

I don't think it would be politically justifiable for the SNP to ignore the most likely outcome of a Glasgow terminal stations capacity report. The tram-train option would provide a few more years of capacity and would provide enough time for a tunnel to be built properly. Crossrail 1 has been extremely effective so far because its main route has been settled for so long, and so there has been plenty of time to do ground investigations and further design work to come up with the optimum solution. The longer a Glasgow cross-city tunnel can be in the planning/pre-construction stage, the better. With a later deadline, there is more time to go around filling up some of the disused mineshafts which cause so much of a problem for tunnelling in the city.

I doubt such a report would recommend building a tunnel and a tram train line through the city centre. These are two different strategies, the latter being part of a metro system.

A tunnel may be a way off but sufficient capacity can be created at Central to meet demand in the interim period.

 

[Altnabreac]

I don't think it would be politically justifiable for the SNP to ignore the most likely outcome of a Glasgow terminal stations capacity report. The tram-train option would provide a few more years of capacity and would provide enough time for a tunnel to be built properly. Crossrail 1 has been extremely effective so far because its main route has been settled for so long, and so there has been plenty of time to do ground investigations and further design work to come up with the optimum solution. The longer a Glasgow cross-city tunnel can be in the planning/pre-construction stage, the better. With a later deadline, there is more time to go around filling up some of the disused mineshafts which cause so much of a problem for tunnelling in the city.

Well my view is different.

Tram - train creates at most 6 spare hourly all day train paths into Central, 4 only if you decide Neilston needs to stay as heavy rail.

At the same time it is a reduction in capacity at peak times as 120m 6 car trains are replaced by at most a 60m long double tram. So in the peak 8-9am arrival at Central you need to run a 24 double trams per hour service to break even on capacity. That's possible of course but it's hard to get a huge uplift in capacity beyond there.

Equally the reduction in quality perception from the new AT300s with toilets, phone charging sockets and 2+2 seating to a minimal seating tram-train with standing passengers for 30 min + journeys would not be a positive one in the public perception, especially given the current political perception of trams in Scotland. It just won't happen.

Network Rail meanwhile seem to think they can create a similar level of new capacity at Central through a combination of lengthening Platforms 6-9, lengthening platforms 12-13, new platforms 16-17 west of the station, electrification and redoubling of East Kilbride line to allow a reduction in turnaround times for EK trains at Central.

Add to that potential reuse of the redundant bridge piers to create longer platforms for HS2 services and you can create the same capacity for less money by tinkering at Glasgow Central than you can create with a tram train proposal.

Then in the long term a Cross City tunnel creates a step change in capacity by freeing up 11tph all day if it starts in Arkleston or 13tph if you have a more basic scheme starting in Shields Road.

I think you have quite enough demand from Ayrshire and Inverclyde services without needing to create a complicated multi portal system to serve Kilmarnock or Cathcart services.

So my instinct would be the next 5-10 years can be dealt with by changes to Central with the cross city tunnel being developed for the mid-late 2020s.

 

[Glenmutchkin]

Not so dreich in West lothian this morning. Took my camera along on this morning's constitutional along the Union Canal and got a few shots of progress to the east of Linlithgow. Apologies if any of the technical terms that I have used are incorrect.

As reported higher up the Park Bistro bridge, about 2km east of Linlithgow, has now reopened to road traffic. It is single file, controlled by permanent lights, with parapets around 2metres high.


Between the new bridge and Linlithgow station it looks to my inexpert eye that almost all of the major ironmongery is in place. There just appear to be a couple of single masts missing. There is a stretch of a few hundred metres of this run that is wired up.


Immediately to the east of Linlithgow Station there is a loop that is used to turn back trains from the west from time to time when there are engineering works between Linlithgow and Edinburgh. This shot shows a gantry (?) that straddles both the running lines and this loop, so presumably the option to turn trains back at Linlithgow is being retained.


I could see no signs around the station of any support structures being installed or even of any preparatory work for these. Likewise no evidence of any work on the platform extensions as yet.

Is there a thread that explains the technical terms used in electrification projects? Preferably one with illustrations.