East Kilbride/Barrhead electrification updates

[Bald Rick]

Work began today on the Pollokshaws viaduct:

View attachment 110164

I thought that was the cantilever, and they were relocating the line to ground level

 

[GLC]

Work began today on the Pollokshaws viaduct:

View attachment 110164

Wow! Really makes you appreciate that sometimes stringing wires up isn’t that simple, and the range of talents that can be needed.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Wow! Really makes you appreciate that sometimes stringing wires up isn’t that simple, and the range of talents that can be needed.

I think you just named that tune in one!

 

[MadMac]

Hearing rumblings that wiring of East Kilbride and Larkfield curve have been “descoped“.

 

[ld0595]

Hearing rumblings that wiring of East Kilbride and Larkfield curve have been “descoped“.

Really? I'd be surprised given the project has already been de-scoped quite significantly. IIRC the proposals were double track throughout with 8 cars running at up to 4tph.

That would be a massive step backwards and certainly goes against ambitions to make public transport more attractive.

 

[MadMac]

Really? I'd be surprised given the project has already been de-scoped quite significantly. IIRC the proposals were double track throughout with 8 cars running at up to 4tph.

That would be a massive step backwards and certainly goes against ambitions to make public transport more attractive.

Came from a source that is not given to idle gossip. Personal opinions:

1) Nobody realised that Busby-East Kilbride was never double and budgeted it on a “redoubling”, leading to the doubling being abandoned.

2) The amount of work needed at Clarkston Toll for electrification clearance was underestimated.

This will cause a firestorm politically.

 

[Frankton Junct]

Hearing rumblings that wiring of East Kilbride and Larkfield curve have been “descoped“.

Currently, if I want to travel into the city centre I have a choice between an electric car, an electric bus or a diesel train. The world is moving on rapidly.

Wow! Really makes you appreciate that sometimes stringing wires up isn’t that simple, and the range of talents that can be needed.

Not to mention the water safety rescue team. It seems that the cross marked beside the abseiler is to be the location of the bracket on the southern side:

 

[och aye]

Came from a source that is not given to idle gossip. Personal opinions:

1) Nobody realised that Busby-East Kilbride was never double and budgeted it on a “redoubling”, leading to the doubling being abandoned.

2) The amount of work needed at Clarkston Toll for electrification clearance was underestimated.

This will cause a firestorm politically.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye out for the "outraged" statements from local MSPs that will no doubt appear in the Daily Record and Evening Times.

 

[Southsider]

Came from a source that is not given to idle gossip. Personal opinions:

1) Nobody realised that Busby-East Kilbride was never double and budgeted it on a “redoubling”, leading to the doubling being abandoned.

2) The amount of work needed at Clarkston Toll for electrification clearance was underestimated.

This will cause a firestorm politically.

Indeed. There’s already an outcry over not doubling it, not electrifying it will be hugely unpopular as well as going against the decarbonisation policy.

 

[clc]

Indeed. There’s already an outcry over not doubling it, not electrifying it will be hugely unpopular as well as going against the decarbonisation policy.

Presumably any further descoping would take the form of partial wiring and operating BEMUs on the route? There’s no way the line won’t be decarbonised.

 

[hwl]

Came from a source that is not given to idle gossip. Personal opinions:

1) Nobody realised that Busby-East Kilbride was never double and budgeted it on a “redoubling”, leading to the doubling being abandoned.

2) The amount of work needed at Clarkston Toll for electrification clearance was underestimated.

This will cause a firestorm politically.

The 275kV substation (conveniently track side) east of Busby would be handy else it is Kilmarnock South 400kV and the next most convenient (and not for a while) if the existing supplies can't provide enough extra.

Clarkston: 2 road over bridges and 3 foot bridges can't be that expensive to address?

 

[waverley47]

I've not heard anything indicating it's been descoped.

There was a high level discussion about decoupling the timelines, getting Barrhead switched on first and then moving onto East Kilbride, which needed another section insulator switch designed in at Busby junction, but apart from that it still appears to be going ahead.

It's definitely being decarbonised. Battery units won't be built by the time the wires could be strung up. It makes no sense to cancel what is quite a cheap run really.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Dead cat? Storm - don't worry it will be electrified but kills the furor over lack of doubling.

 

[snowball]

Personal opinions:

1) Nobody realised that Busby-East Kilbride was never double and budgeted it on a “redoubling”, leading to the doubling being abandoned.

That, if true, would suggest a quite staggering level of incompetence - to announce that the single track section would be doubled before even taking a cursory glance at it. I would need some evidence before I believed that it happened that way. Especially since Network Rail in Scotland was getting a reputation for relative competence in cost control of electrification compared to England.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

That, if true, would suggest a quite staggering level of incompetence - to announce that the single track section would be doubled before even taking a cursory glance at it. I would need some evidence before I believed that it happened that way. Especially since Network Rail in Scotland was getting a reputation for relative competence in cost control of electrification compared to England.

Indeed. At the minimum I thought engineers walked the route and did some ground surveys no matter how briefly.

 

[Class 170101]

Have things changed as a result of recent safety issues at Margam and more distance is needed between each track and that this now cannot be obtained on the East Kilbride brnach where the line is currently single?

 

[snowball]

Have things changed as a result of recent safety issues at Margam and more distance is needed between each track and that this now cannot be obtained on the East Kilbride brnach where the line is currently single?

Seems most unlikely. I think rules about extra clearance between tracks only apply where there are more than two tracks. The rules only apply to clearance between pairs of tracks.

Somewhere upthread I posted a cab video which shows that the original bridges (which are arched) were designed for two tracks with the present track at one side, but the formation was only levelled for one, so earthworks would be required for doubling.

Speculation: it may be that the original bridges are not compatible with simultaneous double track and electrification, but that with the doubling dropped, the required headroom can be obtained by slewing the line to the centre.

 

[Speed43125]

Speculation: it may be that the original bridges are not compatible with simultaneous double track and electrification, but that with the doubling dropped, the required headroom can be obtained by slewing the line to the centre.

Surely that would incur the difficulties of the earthworks you've mentioned?

 

[snowball]

Surely that would incur the difficulties of the earthworks you've mentioned?

Maybe only near the bridges. Given the wiggly route, the slewing and earthworks might be limited to a relatively short length at each bridge. Compared with electrification plus redoubling, this might be a minor saving; other savings would come from using less track, less wire and fewer masts, but I imagine that the biggest saving would be from not having to rebuild the bridges.

This is all subject to unproven assumptions about what is and isn't possible under the profile of the bridges.

On the Borders railway the track was slewed to the middle of existing arched overbridges in preparation for future electrification.

 

[Ex-controller]

If true that East Kilbride electrification has been ‘descoped’ (you’ve got to love the ‘neutral’ language that gets used for these things) then it’s thoroughly depressing, but not completely surprising. Nothing gets spent on transport in Scotland unless it’s a) a big road, or b) costs nothing.

Let alone Transport Scotland’s recent publication on climate change had its first strategic priority as having people travel less. When they’re that ridiculous it’s not surprising they can think nothing of getting so far into a major infrastructure project then drop it.

The current Scottish Government are the very definition of all fur coat and nae knickers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2022 ==

Came from a source that is not given to idle gossip. Personal opinions:

1) Nobody realised that Busby-East Kilbride was never double and budgeted it on a “redoubling”, leading to the doubling being abandoned.

2) The amount of work needed at Clarkston Toll for electrification clearance was underestimated.

This will cause a firestorm politically.

Indeed it will, but so did the abandonment of the Glasgow and Edinburgh airport links (first thing this government did in relation to transport) and they survived that. May well calculate that they can do similar here.

Most people in East Kilbride, Busby, Clarkston, Giffnock etc now work from home and use the car where required. I doubt the government have much ambition to interfere with that.

 

[MadMac]

Surely that would incur the difficulties of the earthworks you've mentioned?

Thorntonhall platform is hard up against the bridge, so if you centre the track, then you have to extend the platform out, which screws any future doubling.

 

[ld0595]

Most people in East Kilbride, Busby, Clarkston, Giffnock etc now work from home and use the car where required. I doubt the government have much ambition to interfere with that.

Given it's the first time the Greens are in government, I don't think they'd want any further de-scoping of public transport improvements/decarbonisation under their watch though.

Whilst they've been in government, we've seen a significant de-scoping from the original EK proposals and a permanent 10-15% cut to key rail services. Doesn't look like we're going in the right direction if we're serious about encouraging a modal shift.

 

[Ex-controller]

Given it's the first time the Greens are in government, I don't think they'd want any further de-scoping of public transport improvements/decarbonisation under their watch though.

Whilst they've been in government, we've seen a significant de-scoping from the original EK proposals and a permanent 10-15% cut to key rail services. Doesn't look like we're going in the right direction if we're serious about encouraging a modal shift.

They’ve already got around this obvious contradiction, which you correctly refer to, by putting their focus on active travel. They can also distance themselves from government policies they don’t like.

A more cynical arrangement you couldn’t invent.

 

[InOban]

Making it possible for people to travel less isn't ridiculous. Most journeys by car or public transport aren't made for fun, they're made because the service required isn't available within walking or safe cycling distance. Hence the focus on trying to ensure that as many destinations as possible are within 15-20 minutes on foot (pram-push distance ) and the route is safe and attractive.

 

[Taunton]

Somewhere upthread I posted a cab video which shows that the original bridges (which are arched) were designed for two tracks with the present track at one side, but the formation was only levelled for one, so earthworks would be required for doubling.

Speculation: it may be that the original bridges are not compatible with simultaneous double track and electrification, but that with the doubling dropped, the required headroom can be obtained by slewing the line to the centre.

If the earthworks have supported just a single line in the last 150 years since the line was built, then even if originally laid out for two tracks inevitably they will have slumped back over time.

There's a comparable issue currently arisen with converting motorways which had a hard shoulder to change this to an additional running lane. Once the project starts all sorts of additional substantial earthworks have been suddenly "discovered" as needed at the edge, although theoretically the road width hasn't changed. The project on the M23 motorway to Gatwick has been especially conspicuous for this, but it's afflicted others as well.

It really is disappointing, for all such projects, that after the countless expensive consultants' studies that do and redo the feasibility of such works, once things start on site such basic boners are discovered. Did nobody go and measure the bridges? It's a 30-minute job at each for a surveyor and assistant plus some tape measures.

As for not knowing that the line had never been installed double, this probably goes back to railway recruitment having a downer on anyone who may have railway enthusiasm. I recall (during my time in Glasgow) a public meeting there to present the first stages of what turned out to be the Argyle Line, probably about 1974; the key railway speaker gave such a cack explanation of the prior history of the route that from the audience none other than John Thomas himself, premier Scottish railway historian and author, later rose and lambasted the complete nonsense put out by the platform party. Anyone else there and remember it?

 

[snowball]

If the earthworks have supported just a single line in the last 150 years since the line was built, then even if originally laid out for two tracks inevitably they will have slumped back over time.

I don't believe the earthworks (as distinct from bridges) ever were laid out for two tracks. I looked at the OS large scale maps months ago, to inform a post in this thread, and the slopes came close to the track.

It really is disappointing, for all such projects, that after the countless expensive consultants' studies that do and redo the feasibility of such works, once things start on site such basic boners are discovered. Did nobody go and measure the bridges? It's a 30-minute job at each for a surveyor and assistant plus some tape measures.

I think it's a bit premature to claim that this is what happened. We only have MadMac's "personal opinions" in #606 to base this on.

As for not knowing that the line had never been installed double, this probably goes back to railway recruitment having a downer on anyone who may have railway enthusiasm.

Same comment applies. Whether or not a historian or an enthusiast, they would surely have checked the situation before announcing redoubling as part of the scheme.

 

[MadMac]

I don't believe the earthworks (as distinct from bridges) ever were laid out for two tracks. I looked at the OS large scale maps months ago, to inform a post in this thread, and the slopes came close to the track.

I think it's a bit premature to claim that this is what happened. We only have MadMac's "personal opinions" in #606 to base this on.

Same comment applies. Whether or not a historian or an enthusiast, they would surely have checked the situation before announcing redoubling as part of the scheme.

Correct. Just saying that I wouldn’t be shocked to hear that some sort of monumental “co-up” occurred.

 

[Ex-controller]

Making it possible for people to travel less isn't ridiculous. Most journeys by car or public transport aren't made for fun, they're made because the service required isn't available within walking or safe cycling distance. Hence the focus on trying to ensure that as many destinations as possible are within 15-20 minutes on foot (pram-push distance ) and the route is safe and attractive.

The examples you give still involve travel though. And I’d say that it is ridiculous for Transport Scotland to prioritise less travel as a way to meet its targets. They’re called Transport Scotland for a reason, not Stay-at-home-in-your-pants Scotland.

 

[Southsider]

If the earthworks have supported just a single line in the last 150 years since the line was built, then even if originally laid out for two tracks inevitably they will have slumped back over time.

There's a comparable issue currently arisen with converting motorways which had a hard shoulder to change this to an additional running lane. Once the project starts all sorts of additional substantial earthworks have been suddenly "discovered" as needed at the edge, although theoretically the road width hasn't changed. The project on the M23 motorway to Gatwick has been especially conspicuous for this, but it's afflicted others as well.

It really is disappointing, for all such projects, that after the countless expensive consultants' studies that do and redo the feasibility of such works, once things start on site such basic boners are discovered. Did nobody go and measure the bridges? It's a 30-minute job at each for a surveyor and assistant plus some tape measures.

As for not knowing that the line had never been installed double, this probably goes back to railway recruitment having a downer on anyone who may have railway enthusiasm. I recall (during my time in Glasgow) a public meeting there to present the first stages of what turned out to be the Argyle Line, probably about 1974; the key railway speaker gave such a cack explanation of the prior history of the route that from the audience none other than John Thomas himself, premier Scottish railway historian and author, later rose and lambasted the complete nonsense put out by the platform party. Anyone else there and remember it?

The issue with the bridges was known and explained in the presentation covering the Paisley Canal works; on two track sections the pantograph would foul the lower part of the arch. Clarkston station is a particular problem because of two such bridges at either end of the platforms.

 

[59CosG95]

The issue with the bridges was known and explained in the presentation covering the Paisley Canal works; on two track sections the pantograph would foul the lower part of the arch. Clarkston station is a particular problem because of two such bridges at either end of the platforms.

Both bridges (B767 Stamperland Cres. to the north; Strawhill Rd to the south) would definitely require reconstruction rather than track lowering due to the proximity of said platforms; fortunately pedestrian diversions are easy to implement for both.



A well-managed, staged approach could make this much less of an issue than the doom-mongers are making out.