Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

[66C]

I'm only picking up little bits from those in the know. I imagine it will be released by TS. Think the bimode invitation is to go out in October. The Fife upgrade by 2022 as far as I can remember

 

[66C]

There was an odd thing with local electrification stretching out from Aberdeen among other places and a gradual infilling of the gaps. Engineer's are eager to start banging piles in

 

[alangla]

Is SAK end-fed from Stirling or does it have its own feeder?

 

[MadMac]

Also, small subsidiary question, is SAK end-fed from Stirling or does it have its own feeder?

Isn't it all fed from Greenhill?

 

[CEN60]

Which will be why Hitachi are making much battery EMU noise at the moment. I don't usually go in for trainset fantasy talk, but anything other than a follow on Class 385 order would be madness when you see the reliability statistics in Roger Ford's section of Modern Railways.



The Forth and Tay Bridges don't present a particular problem to electrify, beyond listed building consent. The viewing platform plan for the Forth Bridge navigated that despite proposing a frankly hideous structure be bolted to the side of the bridge (though I did hear a whisper that despite currently being out to tender, it's not going ahead).

The primary concerns were the electrification of the route at Edinburgh Airport and the Kinghorn Tunnel which did need track lowering (slab track and rigid overhead conductor was the assumed plan as per other projects in Scotland).

On what basis do you think that it not a problem to electrify the Forth Bridge. Well known in the railway industry that the Forth is a huge issue for electrification - hence all the talk of battery technology!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

On what basis do you think that it not a problem to electrify the Forth Bridge. Well known in the railway industry that the Forth is a huge issue for electrification - hence all the talk of battery technology!

Technically, it's not really more of a challenge than some of the other structures which have been successfully electrified across the network in recent years, particularly the Cardiff Intersection which has similarly limited clearances and the same issues with steelwork that the Forth Bridge also has. Cardiff Intersection, whilst it arguably could have been rebuilt, I suppose, has the added complication of a live railway running above the electrification, complete with signalling system and it's soon to be electrified itself, so electrical current management was a key issue there.

There's also all manner of newer technologies which now exist and are in routine use, particularly surge arresters/diverters, newer insulating contact wire covers and polymer coatings for steelwork, all of which reduce flashover risk and allow much reduced clearances. The newer design of OLE systems, particularly Series 1, reduces the live envelope of conventional catenary which can eliminate an issue or two by gaining the extra few mm needed to obtain the necessary clearances.

The bridge itself will need a bespoke OLE system making use of (probably all) those components and technologies. I would expect the biggest issue will be split between testing such a system (laboratory time is inevitable for this) and agreeing on the aesthetics of such a system such that it is acceptable to the planning authorities and UNESCO.

 

[Brissle Girl]

and agreeing on the aesthetics of such a system such that it is acceptable to the planning authorities and UNESCO.

When you look at the scale of the structure, which is itself all metal girders, it is hard to see how the addition of some electrification gubbings would have any meaningful impact on the aesthetics. Though I'm sure that won't stop those august bodies pouring all over the plans and adding a few millions to the overall cost somehow.

 

[matchmaker]

NR are starting work between Stirling and Dunblane on 20th July, with work due to carry on until July 2021. I suspect a lot of it will be involved in the modernisation of Cornton level crossing. A works compound is to be set up beside the crossing in the land formerly occupied by the Stirling Trailer Centre.

 

[66C]

I saw plans a while back for a bridge to go over with new access roads near Grahams dairy.

 

[66C]

Any news on the Curriehill feeder station? Portobello is due for an upgrade.

 

[CEN60]

Any news on the Curriehill feeder station? Portobello is due for an upgrade.

It is in hand - all linked to Portobello Remodelling & Edinburgh Sub Electrification

 

[matchmaker]

I saw plans a while back for a bridge to go over with new access roads near Grahams dairy.

Plans for a bridge were abandoned.

 

[mcmad]

It is in hand - all linked to Portobello Remodelling & Edinburgh Sub Electrification

The latter looking less likely as TS still don't see a benefit to it I believe.

 

[InOban]

There's no point in Curriehill being in hand unless they they are going to electrify the Sub. It's needed to allow electric haulage of freight from the east coast ports to Mossend via the ECML.

 

[mcmad]

Is Curriehill not needed to support an increased shotts timetable along with being part of the wider capacity increase on the ECML?

There is little ECML freight that could be electric hauled end to end even if the operators were interested in doing it

 

[InOban]

I'm not aware of any plans to increase the Shotts services beyond the present 2/hr. No capacity at Haymarket for one thing.
I think that there will be some encouragement for the freight TOCs to acquire electric, or electrodiesel locos

 

[CEN60]

There's no point in Curriehill being in hand unless they they are going to electrify the Sub. It's needed to allow electric haulage of freight from the east coast ports to Mossend via the ECML.

I am no expert - but having had a little involvement on SUB Electrification Feasibility in the past & Tendering for Portobello (unsuccessfully!!) If you don't electrify the Sub then when Portobello is disrupted there is no way of getting electric stock into Waverley or Haymarket I believe (unless you loco haul it into Waverley).

 

[InOban]

I had forgotten that aspect. When major work is required at either end of Waverley the sub can be used to bring trains in from the other end. However all the WCML trains are electric only. Admittedly most of the ECML services will be bimodes.

 

[59CosG95]

I had forgotten that aspect. When major work is required at either end of Waverley the sub can be used to bring trains in from the other end. However all the WCML trains are electric only. Admittedly most of the ECML services will be bimodes.

The only ones which won't be are LNER 801/2s, and ScotRail's own 385s on Dunbar/North Berwick services. (You could also add Cally Sleeper, when diverts via the ECML are going on)

 

[najaB]

The only ones which won't be are LNER 801/2s...

They would be capable of getting around the Sub unaided though.

 

[NotATrainspott]

After EK/Barrhead and Maryhill, TS are going to have to get used to the idea of spending a lot of money on electrification without it having any major effect on services. For instance, wiring from Dunblane to Perth is only directly going to be able to help a Glasgow-Perth stopper, and one which doesn't then bother extending to Dundee at that.

The single biggest justification for the south sub for passenger services is that it simplifies the works required at the eastern end of Waverley. If it isn't done, then at all times an electrified route will need to remain in operation through the station throat, or the 385 fleet will be screwed. I'm sure it'll be possible to provide one in normal times, to allow a limited number of direct services and/or a loop-and-back via Haymarket and the South Sub. Not allowing early morning/late evening blockades of the entire eastern end of Waverley might be ruinous.

Once you have a desire to wire up most of the network, you'll end up having to wire up fairly marginal bits too. An unelectrified South Sub (and City Union line) may as well be lifted if the rest of the network is all wired up. They're in far too core a location for it to be sensible to rely on alternative means of providing electric trains (bi-modes, batteries).

 

[alangla]

If it was a temporary block on the east end of Waverley or if Millerhill depot was unavailable, surely it would be possible to park sufficient 385s at Stirling, Bathgate, Cadder, Eastfield etc to run the service? Not viable long term obviously, but for a few weeks? IIRC, 380s have been serviced at Bathgate during Waverley engineering work in the past.

 

[gsnedders]

They would be capable of getting around the Sub unaided though.

Capable, but at what speed? Would their poor acceleration cause too many problems?

 

[Class 170101]

There's no point in Curriehill being in hand unless they they are going to electrify the Sub. It's needed to allow electric haulage of freight from the east coast ports to Mossend via the ECML.

Is Curriehill not needed to support an increased shotts timetable along with being part of the wider capacity increase on the ECML?
There is little ECML freight that could be electric hauled end to end even if the operators were interested in doing it

If you are wiring for ECML freight (future potential) is there any future potential for electric freight on the ECML especially north of Newcastle given the number of Class 1 >100 mph paths wanted by East Coast - two or three, XC one, TPE one per hour, First Group 4/5 per day and Class 2 services between Newcastle and Morpeth / Chathill and between Dunbar / North Berwick and Edinburgh. Is there actually any room for Class 4 and Class 6 Freight?

I actually doubt there is much room except overnight on this section so would there be any value in wiring the subs?

For discussing the Freight itself go here

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ecml-freight-between-north-east-england-wcml-and-west-scotland.206609/

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder that this thread is for Scottish electrification updates.

Any ideas/suggestions (whether that is regarding electrification or any other topic) must be posted in the Speculative Ideas forum section please.

Many thanks

 

[66C]

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.

 

[Class 170101]

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.

Surprised that a Pendolino or two hasn't been this way already? They seemed to be used for testing power draw on newly wired lines elsewhere

 

[385001]

It is in hand - all linked to Portobello Remodelling & Edinburgh Sub Electrification

The latter looking less likely as TS still don't see a benefit to it I believe.

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.

We've discussed all this before. The remaining issues are tree clearance, improved fencing, and parapets. I'll be down in Edinburgh in a couple of weeks and take a few pics.

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.

 

[InOban]

That's saved me a job! Excellent pics.

 

[385001]

Thanks @InOban.

Here at the rest of the pics from Morningside to Craiglockhart plus one of the bridges at Cameron Toll.