Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

[gsnedders]

To the best of my knowledge, the Maryhill route is worked with 158s, not with WHL 156s, which do however have 'turns' out towards Stirling.

It's 156s. And the main justification for electrifying Maryhill is to continue interworking when most everything from GLQ is EMUs. (It'd also be useful as a diversionary route, allowing Croy–Maryhill–Partick–Queen Street (Low Level)–Springburn–Croy as done when High Level was closed before, which avoids any conflicting moves as the 380s currently do to go to Shields, reversing at Hyndland.)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The problem is Fife is hard: the Forth Bridge is hard, most of the tunnels are hard (from North Queensferry to Inverkeithing, those either side of Burntisland and Kinghorn)… As such, basically all the proposals show Dundee getting electrified from the west first, especially in combination with new stopping services through Dundee.

Yes just Moncrief tunnel that is hard on this route iirc

 

[gingertom]

Yes just Moncrieff tunnel that is hard on this route iirc

there's many level crossings between Blackford and Moncrieff tunnel, I'd expect upgrades and/or closures as part of the package.

 

[najaB]

there's many level crossings between Blackford and Moncrieff tunnel, I'd expect upgrades and/or closures as part of the package.

Level crossings are 'easy' in electrification terms though.

 

[marks87]

At risk of this turning into a "well if you're going here, you'd might as well go there", if Dundee were on the agenda then it makes sense for the endpoint of that "block" to be Arbroath.

There might be a few iffy bridges along that way though (I'd hope the Dock Street tunnel isn't, given the work that's happened there in the past decade or so).

 

[marks87]

Level crossings are 'easy' in electrification terms though.

Yes and no.

While it's easy for the railway - the wires go up more or less as if it were a normal bit of track - you need to consider the road traffic. If it's a route commonly used by over-height HGVs, then an alternative route needs to be found.

Something similar happened relatively recently when it was proposed the Camperdown level crossing be closed just east of Dundee. It was an HGV access route to the port, so its closure was only approved on the condition that a bridge 2 miles or so further down the line was strengthened.

 

[Southsider]

Wemyss Bay (alongside with Gourock, plus Cathcart, Neilston, Motherwell, and Glasgow Central low level) were done in 1960.

Inverclyde was a little later in 1967, operated by the new Class 311. The Central low level (Argyle Line) was completed in 1979 with a new fleet of Class 314 to operate it. A reminder of how old the 314s are!

 

[adrock1976]

Inverclyde was a little later in 1967, operated by the new Class 311. The Central low level (Argyle Line) was completed in 1979 with a new fleet of Class 314 to operate it. A reminder of how old the 314s are!

I was meant to say Glasgow Queen Street rather than Central. I've fixed that in the previous post.

 

[gordonjahn]

Inverclyde was a little later in 1967, operated by the new Class 311. The Central low level (Argyle Line) was completed in 1979 with a new fleet of Class 314 to operate it. A reminder of how old the 314s are!

1979 can’t be “old”, can it?!?!!

(Yeah, *that* birthday next year...)

 

[Highlandspring]

Something similar happened relatively recently when it was proposed the Camperdown level crossing be closed just east of Dundee. It was an HGV access route to the port, so its closure was only approved on the condition that a bridge 2 miles or so further down the line was strengthened.

It was the other way round. The strengthening of the Stannergate bridge (to allow delivery of wind turbine components via the Port) enabled to closure of Camperdown. In terms of risk management it wasn’t really a big win because MCB3 is the least risky crossing type; the closure of Camperdown made an absolutely minimal impact on the Route’s FWI.

 

[adrock1976]

It was the other way round. The strengthening of the Stannergate bridge (to allow delivery of wind turbine components via the Port) enabled to closure of Camperdown. In terms of risk management it wasn’t really a big win because MCB3 is the least risky crossing type; the closure of Camperdown made an absolutely minimal impact on the Route’s FWI.

The only meaning of the bolded bit I am aware of is Miniature Circuit Breaker that is common in electrical installations, which may be found in what was once the fusebox at home. Is this the abbreviation for a level crossing?

On another note, it does mention in the forum rules not to use jargon or abbreviations without first saying what they mean.

 

[gordonjahn]

The only meaning of the bolded bit I am aware of is Miniature Circuit Breaker that is common in electrical installations, which may be found in what was once the fusebox at home. Is this the abbreviation for a level crossing?

On another note, it does mention in the forum rules not to use jargon or abbreviations without first saying what they mean.

http://uk.railway.narkive.com/H2qMzzuC/level-crossing-abbreviations defines MCB3 as Manually Controlled Barriers with CCTV supervision

 

[edwin_m]

The problem is Fife is hard: the Forth Bridge is hard, most of the tunnels are hard (from North Queensferry to Inverkeithing, those either side of Burntisland and Kinghorn)… As such, basically all the proposals show Dundee getting electrified from the west first, especially in combination with new stopping services through Dundee.

There's only one tunnel between Inverkeithing and Dundee, Kinghorn tunnel just west of Kinghorn.

 

[marks87]

It was the other way round. The strengthening of the Stannergate bridge (to allow delivery of wind turbine components via the Port) enabled to closure of Camperdown. In terms of risk management it wasn’t really a big win because MCB3 is the least risky crossing type; the closure of Camperdown made an absolutely minimal impact on the Route’s FWI.

I knew I shouldn't have relied on the local papers' reporting of it, where I recall it was claimed the closure was to stop people using the dock roads as a rat run to avoid the peak-time congestion on nearby East Dock Street.

I guess, though, the general point still stands - when it comes to level crossings, you need to consider how they're used and what the alternative routes are before you think about modifying them (whether it's full closure or, in the case of this thread, putting wires up above them).

 

[gingertom]

I knew I shouldn't have relied on the local papers' reporting of it, where I recall it was claimed the closure was to stop people using the dock roads as a rat run to avoid the peak-time congestion on nearby East Dock Street.

I guess, though, the general point still stands - when it comes to level crossings, you need to consider how they're used and what the alternative routes are before you think about modifying them (whether it's full closure or, in the case of this thread, putting wires up above them).

or to use Health & Safety jargon carry out a risk assessment, as to what the safety impact would be to crossing users of putting wires up. A fair number of the crossings west of Perth are used to access agricultural premises so plenty of opportunity for an overheight hay cart to foul the wires with predictable consequences.
With regards to the Forth bridge itself, does anyone know if the clearance for any sort of OLE has actually been surveyed?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

On the Forth bridge I reckon it will be a conductor bar embedded in an insulating polymer colored to the same color of the bridge. If they use ATF I would then think the negative 25 kV will be in a heavy duty polymeric plastic trough probably of the same color. The earth wire will be unobtrusive and there will be the mother of all equipotential bonding leads at multiple points along the structure with those leads possibly encased in the same colored polymeric insulator.

 

[Highlandspring]

There was a full LIDAR survey of the bridge done in 2016 (funded by Transport Scotland I think?) but whether that data would be of any use for a future electrification scheme I couldn’t say. Any clearance work required would pale into insignificance compared with the challenges of designing a suitably robust scheme while taking into account the UNESCO world heritage status.

 

[snowball]

There was a full LIDAR survey of the bridge done in 2016 (funded by Transport Scotland I think?) but whether that data would be of any use for a future electrification scheme I couldn’t say. Any clearance work required would pale into insignificance compared with the challenges of designing a suitably robust scheme while taking into account the UNESCO world heritage status.

I seem to remember that that survey was promoted at the time as super-accurate and super-detailed, so it probably would be useful.

According to something I read on here a few years ago, the main problem with electrifying the bridge is clearance between diagonal girders and the ends of a passing pantograph. That led me to think that they ought to cover relevant areas of the girders in question with insulating material. (Surely the breakdown voltage per centimetre of a solid insulator is higher than that of air?)

Either the current or previous issue of Modern Railways mentioned that the underside of a bridge at Cardiff has now been covered with a plastic insulator. If this technique is a possibility then I can't understand why it hasn't been used before.

I also remember reading somewhere that when the Forth Bridge was first designated* a world heritage site, a clause was agreed that it will be acceptable in principle for it to be electrified at a later date.

*I think the official verb is "inscribed".

 

[59CosG95]

There was a full LIDAR survey of the bridge done in 2016 (funded by Transport Scotland I think?) but whether that data would be of any use for a future electrification scheme I couldn’t say. Any clearance work required would pale into insignificance compared with the challenges of designing a suitably robust scheme while taking into account the UNESCO world heritage status.

Might they be able to give the tubes in close proximity those protective coatings that are due to be applied to a bridge in Cardiff? NR managed to save raising the bridge, and the £10 £10 million it would have cost to do so.

 

[gingertom]

There was a full LIDAR survey of the bridge done in 2016 (funded by Transport Scotland I think?) but whether that data would be of any use for a future electrification scheme I couldn’t say. Any clearance work required would pale into insignificance compared with the challenges of designing a suitably robust scheme while taking into account the UNESCO world heritage status.

the clearance spec changes that delayed EGIP may very well impact on the required solution. I don't think there will be many tall people waving umbrellas about on the bridge itself so please, let common sense prevail.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It's worth looking at Cardiff and the Valleys because Keolis/Amey are planning discontinuous 25kV electrification with long earthed sections. They're avoiding something like 50 different difficult points using batteries, including the 1.7km Caerphilly Tunnel. The Forth Bridge could have a grounded conductor bar (so that there's no risk of the pantograph striking the bridge) and any electric trains would just use a fairly small battery to get across.

 

[snowball]

the clearance spec changes that delayed EGIP may very well impact on the required solution. I don't think there will be many tall people waving umbrellas about on the bridge itself so please, let common sense prevail.

As I understand it derogations are still allowed provided each location has its own individual safety case? If so, that should not be a problem for the Forth Bridge - it's big enough and unique enough that it will be getting lots of special attention anyway.

 

[InOban]

Whenever I see pictures of trains exiting the central sections of the Bridge the vertical clearance seems very generous. Is the clearance less in the centre?

 

[dtaylor84]

NR managed to save raising the bridge, and the £10 it would have cost to do so.

Sounds like raising the bridge would have been the cheaper option!

 

[Class83]

Any remaining Glasgow suburban lines are probably the best next step.

Going north, the Fife Circle will get you the highest trains/mile of electrification ratio, plus it's a mixed commuter and express line so faster accelerating electric trains help as they obstruct the express trains less. Obviously the Bridge is non-trivial, but it's going to need doing at some point to enable the main Edinburgh-Aberdeen-Glasgow network to be completed so might as well do it now.

There are relatively few Perth or Dundee terminating services from Glasgow so electrifying that line is pointless unless you go all the way to Aberdeen, and Glasgow-Aberdeen doesn't make sense without Edinburgh-Aberdeen.

Then Borders (it's basically an Edinburgh commuter service), Highland Main Line, Aberdeen-Inverness and Glasgow South West. I doubt North Highland, Kyle or West Highland Lines will ever justify electrification.

 

[edwin_m]

Whenever I see pictures of trains exiting the central sections of the Bridge the vertical clearance seems very generous. Is the clearance less in the centre?

This image shows it is.
http://www.rail.co.uk/images/8407/original/1-Forth-Bridge-drivers-view-by-Phil-Marsh.jpg

 

[snowball]

There's at least one cab video on the web, making it even clearer:

 

[gingertom]

It's worth looking at Cardiff and the Valleys because Keolis/Amey are planning discontinuous 25kV electrification with long earthed sections. They're avoiding something like 50 different difficult points using batteries, including the 1.7km Caerphilly Tunnel. The Forth Bridge could have a grounded conductor bar (so that there's no risk of the pantograph striking the bridge) and any electric trains would just use a fairly small battery to get across.

would such an arrangement preclude the use of electric traction for freight? It would also mean a specific type of train for that specific route, with the loss of operational flexibility.

 

[59CosG95]

Sounds like raising the bridge would have been the cheaper option!

Dear me, clearly the "m" of "£10m" would have been good to put in!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Dear me, clearly the "m" of "£10m" would have been good to put in!

I think with all the pressures of your final exams - you are forgiven!