Borders line (Scotland) electrification news and updates

[snowball]

Now two new planning bids have been submitted to the council for the installation of overhead line electrification at Kilknowe Bridge, east of 15 Wheatlands Road in Galashiels, and on land south-west of 1 Glenfield Court in the town’s Glenfield Road West.

Electrifying plans for a greener future

Electrifying plans aimed at giving the Borders Railway a greener future have been revealed.

www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk

 

[Class 170101]

The feeder station is to be located mid way between Tweedbank and Galashiels adjacent to Scottish Powers Tweedbank GSP.

And what happens when the power supply fails? I'm exp[ecting it to be battery all the way from Sherriffhall Mains to Tweedbank and back.

 

[CdBrux]

And what happens when the power supply fails? I'm exp[ecting it to be battery all the way from Sherriffhall Mains to Tweedbank and back.

presumably not as bad as when power supply fails on an EMU only line. How often does power fail?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

presumably not as bad as when power supply fails on an EMU only line. How often does power fail?

i would surmise that as its an independent section it will have dual supplies from the GSP which is also fed by dual circuits so 99.5% + reliability and even if supplies lost it has the batteries which ought to be rated to complete the journey in one direction.

 

[Class 170101]

presumably not as bad as when power supply fails on an EMU only line. How often does power fail?

Normally crossfeeding from adjacent power point happens if the supply fails, not sure how you do this in this situation as there isn't such a supply.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Normally crossfeeding from adjacent power point happens if the supply fails, not sure how you do this in this situation as there isn't such a supply.

As i said above you source two supplies from Tweedmouth Grid Supply point which is in itself fed by twin circuits so you have duplication at the 25kV supply level backed up by same level of security of supply that applies across the majority of the UK. Thus to lose all OLE supplies at Tweedmouth would mean a major grid failure had occurred which isn't unheard of but is very low probability.

 

[HSTEd]

i would surmise that as its an independent section it will have dual supplies from the GSP which is also fed by dual circuits so 99.5% + reliability and even if supplies lost it has the batteries which ought to be rated to complete the journey in one direction.

That degree of over-engineering is going to cause the cost of the installation to skyrocket.

More likely they will just tolerate occasional failures.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

That degree of over-engineering is going to cause the cost of the installation to skyrocket.

More likely they will just tolerate occasional failures.

My expectation is they will have to connect using SFC's at Tweedbank as its only fed at 132kV and given the modest power demand they should be able to connect at the 33kV level which is far more cost effective than two 132/25kV transformers.

Oh and looking at Scottish Powers network diagram its actually fed by two double and two single circuits at 132kV from three separate directions so would have to be a pretty big grid incident for all supplies to be lost although whether the DNO would impose restrictions on railway loads if they down to a single circuit feeding Galshiels substation.

 

[swt_passenger]

My expectation is they will have to connect using SFC's at Tweedbank as its only fed at 132kV and given the modest power demand they should be able to connect at the 33kV level which is far more cost effective than two 132/25kV transformers.

Oh and looking at Scottish Powers network diagram its actually fed by two double and two single circuits at 132kV from three separate directions so would have to be a pretty big grid incident for all supplies to be lost although whether the DNO would impose restrictions on railway loads if they down to a single circuit feeding Galshiels substation.

If it’s to be SFCs fed from the 132 kV system that’s going to be at least as safe as the new Marshall Meadows supply on the ECML, so I doubt anything special will be needed in case it fails…

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

If it’s to be SFCs fed from the 132 kV system that’s going to be at least as safe as the new Marshall Meadows supply on the ECML, so I doubt anything special will be needed in case it fails…

Marshall Meadows has less diversity at the 132kV level but it does have the advantage that if all supplies are lost feeding can be extended from the adjacent feeder stations which won't be available at Galashiels.

 

[Mag_seven]

From Midlothian View:

Borders Railway electrification bid revealed - Midlothian View

Electrifying plans which would lead to a greener future for part of the rail network in the Borders have been disclosed.

www.midlothianview.com

So two stretches of wiring. At the north end, wires from the existing wires at Newcraighall to a point SW of Sheriffhall Mains. At the south end, from the south of Bowshank tunnel to the south end of the line.

Thread reopened to allow for an update by @snowball.

 

[snowball]

Thanks to Mag_seven for reopening the thread.

I've found a report in the Border Telegraph from last month:

Plans to extend electricity sub-station in Galashiels are unveiled

The bid has been submitted by SP Energy Networks to Scottish Borders Council.

www.bordertelegraph.com

PLANS have been revealed to extend an electricity sub-station in Galashiels.

The bid, submitted by SP Energy Networks to Scottish Borders Council, will require temporary vehicle access, a boundary fence, gate and associated landscape works on land east of 2 Winston Road.

The proposed planning application relates to a new Network Rail feeder station, fed out of Galashiels 132kV substation, to provide supplies to the Edinburgh to Borders railway.

I then looked on the Scottish Borders Council planning site. The application reference number is 23/01872/FUL and it was received by the council on 15 December. This link may or may not work for you:

23/01872/FUL | Extension to electricity substation with temporary vehicle access/egress, boundary fence and gate and associated landscape works. |

eplanning.scotborders.gov.uk

The proposed Tweedbank feeder station is one of six contracted in 2022. The others are Ferguslie (now operational), Currie, Portobello, Newton and Thornton.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Thanks to Mag_seven for reopening the thread.

I've found a report in the Border Telegraph from last month:

Plans to extend electricity sub-station in Galashiels are unveiled

The bid has been submitted by SP Energy Networks to Scottish Borders Council.

www.bordertelegraph.com

I then looked on the Scottish Borders Council planning site. The application reference number is 23/01872/FUL and it was received by the council on 15 December. This link may or may not work for you:

23/01872/FUL | Extension to electricity substation with temporary vehicle access/egress, boundary fence and gate and associated landscape works. |

eplanning.scotborders.gov.uk

The proposed Tweedbank feeder station is one of six contracted in 2022. The others are Ferguslie (now operational), Currie, Portobello, Newton and Thornton.

Interesting installing two transformers a bit overkill but price for running an isolated system at least initially

 

[59CosG95]

Interesting installing two transformers a bit overkill but price for running an isolated system at least initially

Perhaps they're going for an AT-fed system on the Borders?

 

[CEN60]

Excuse the daft track engineer's question - Does the track gradient affect the distance the Battery Units can travel? The track gradient on Borders is quite steep (I appreciate that once you get over the summit its downhill so you get something back or don't use as much - just wondered if gradients are looked at when assessing how far a unit operating on battery can go?

 

[hwl]

Excuse the daft track engineer's question - Does the track gradient affect the distance the Battery Units can travel?

Yes but it can be quite complicated.

The track gradient on Borders is quite steep (I appreciate that once you get over the summit its downhill so you get something back or don't use as much - just wondered if gradients are looked at when assessing how far a unit operating on battery can go?

Same for station stops you don't get everything back by any stretch of the imagination.

The key bit that most people miss is that gradients usually to lead to slower journey times (ditto more stops) and this means the amount of time hotel and aux loads needs to be supplied goes up. The non traction energy requirement will be a minimum of 15% of the total and increasing with lower overall speeds.

Regen at high speed is also limited by vehicle electrical systems and max battery charging rates so recovery levels may be noticeably lower than it might initially expect at higher speeds.

 

[snowball]

Perhaps they're going for an AT-fed system on the Borders?

I would be extremely surprised if they are, on such a lightly-trafficked line - especially at this stage as the plan, unless it's been changed, is to only electrify a few miles [later edit: 6.4 route miles] at the south end and an even shorter length at the north end.

------------ automerged post -----------------

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2024 ==

I've just discovered that the Scottish Government's annual Major Capital Projects Progress Update, dated December 2023, was published on 29 Jan. I've posted about it, with a link and quotes, in post #249 ofthe Decarbonising Scotland's Railways thread (which is currently in the speculation subforum):

Decarbonising Scotland’s Railways

The refresh of the Decarbonisation Action Plan was ongoing and would be published ‘in due course’. The fact that he's saying nothing more specific than that sounds a bit ominous. There have been ministerial promises that it will be published by the end of the year, an ever-narrowing window...

www.railforums.co.uk

Major info is still being held back until the publication of the Traction Decarbonisation Refresh, expected soon, but dates are given for the completion of three of the feeder stations.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes but it can be quite complicated.

Same for station stops you don't get everything back by any stretch of the imagination.

No you don't but you generally get better overall energy recovery with an on board battery than with regeneration but optimising the SoC profile is key ie Unlike the Central Line you can't optimise the gradients on this route!

The key bit that most people miss is that gradients usually to lead to slower journey times (ditto more stops) and this means the amount of time hotel and aux loads needs to be supplied goes up. The non traction energy requirement will be a minimum of 15% of the total and increasing with lower overall speeds.

You also need to have a reserve to cover for operational needs ie animals on the line etc and that needs to be sized to support worst case hotel load for at least 30mins although im not sure RSSB have yet to define this requirement in a standard yet.

Regen at high speed is also limited by vehicle electrical systems and max battery charging rates so recovery levels may be noticeably lower than it might initially expect at higher speeds.

Its not the fastest of routes so if they 100mph BEMU may actually be operating in a more optimal part of the regen curve

 

[hwl]

No you don't but you generally get better overall energy recovery with an on board battery than with regeneration but optimising the SoC profile is key ie Unlike the Central Line you can't optimise the gradients on this route!

You also need to have a reserve to cover for operational needs ie animals on the line etc and that needs to be sized to support worst case hotel load for at least 30mins although im not sure RSSB have yet to define this requirement in a standard yet.

The pre-standard writing headscratching is an early stage work in progress at the moment.

Its not the fastest of routes so if they 100mph BEMU may actually be operating in a more optimal part of the regen curve

Agreed but if your design includes very few motored axles, relatively light axle loads (as per Aventra and Desiro City) and a fairly minimalist electrical system (ignoring batteries) because it isn't a high performance route in general (e.g. something like a 707 clone) then regen isn't going to be spectacular.

 

[snowball]

Agreed but if your design includes very few motored axles, relatively light axle loads (as per Aventra and Desiro City) and a fairly minimalist electrical system (ignoring batteries) because it isn't a high performance route in general (e.g. something like a 707 clone) then regen isn't going to be spectacular.

Surely there isn't going to be a BEMU individually designed for the Borders line? They will have to be suitable for a range of routes. And possibly for change of use within the life of the train, as electrification extends.

 

[hwl]

Surely there isn't going to be a BEMU individually designed for the Borders line? They will have to be suitable for a range of routes. And possibly for change of use within the life of the train, as electrification extends.

Exactly, the traction system has to be engineered for very high performance albeit only really intensively used during braking and the battery system quite large to deal with high peak charging rates when the batteries get old. Hence things get quite expensive after the detailed modelling cycles have started.

 

[chiltern trev]

A report in the Border Telegraph, dated 4th May 2024, that

https://www.bordertelegraph.com/new...rian-viaduct-electrification-work-bid-pulled/

The planning application withdrawn is 22/01387/PN, "Installation of Overhead Line Equipment on railway viaduct Galafoot Railway Viaduct Winston Road Galashiels Scottish Borders.

Planning application 22/01384/LBC, "Installation of Overhead Line Equipment on railway viaduct Galafoot Railway Viaduct Winston Road Galashiels Scottish Borders" remains Awaiting Decision.

The viaduct is known as Redbridge Viaduct (with castle icon) on Google and is about 1 mile west of Tweedbank railway station.
EDIT - there is a plan attached to 22/01387/PN innwhich Network RAil label the plan location as "Red Bridge Viaduct"

You can serach Borders Council Planning Applications from this link https://eplanning.scotborders.gov.u...earch.do?action=simple&searchType=Application

Quote

A PLANNING application for electrification work on a Victorian viaduct near Galashiels has been withdrawn after conservation concerns were raised.
As part of plans to electrify the entire Borders Rail network by 2035, a bid was submitted to Scottish Borders Council in September 2022 to install overhead line equipment onto the Redbridge viaduct at Galafoot, between Galashiels and Tweedbank.


The application was submitted by Network Rail for work to be carried out on the B-listed five span masonry arch viaduct located over the River Tweed.


The proposed works crossed the River Tweed special area of conservation (SAC) which is designated for its biological interest, including river lamprey, brook lamprey, sea lamprey, European otter, Atlantic salmon, and as a watercourse characterised by water crowfoot species.


NatureScot, which advises Scottish Government on nature conservation, raised concerns over the application.


A spokesperson said: “It is our conclusion that the works could have significant effects on the River Tweed if appropriate measures are not taken to protect the watercourse and its features.



“More information is required on equipment or heavy machinery that may be used in the installation of the overhead line equipment and if they will be used alongside the watercourse or if all work will be carried out on top of the viaduct.
It added: “These works are required to meet the Scottish Government’s key aim of de-carbonising the railways.


“The proposed works will clearly generate public benefits of national importance in terms of faster journey times for passengers and freight, improving connectivity, creating additional capacity, lowering industry operating costs, helping to meet environmental targets and improving air quality.


“All these benefits will support a model shift from private vehicles and heavy goods vehicles to rail increasing the operational, societal, environmental and economic benefits.”

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 May 2024 ==

Here are some extracts from Planning Application 22/01387/PN, document referred to as SUPPORTING_SUBMISSION_RED_BRIDGE-3676758.pdf. From the front page, owner is Network Rail then Installation of Overhead Line Equipment at Redbridge Viaduct, Galashiels then Supporting Statement for Prior Approval and Listed Building Consent

Selected text from the 16 page document now follows:

1.2 The viaduct is a B-listed five span masonry arch viaduct and is located over the River
Tweed to the east of Galashiels and carries the borders railway line.

1.6 For Borders Railway, Battery Electric Multiple Units (BEMU) will run from Edinburgh
Waverley to southwest of Sherrifhall Mains on Overhead Line Equipment (OLE). From
Sherrifhall Mains to the south of Bowshank Tunnel, battery power is used.
1.7 The trains will then connect to the OLE from south of Bowshank Tunnel to Tweedbank
Station, where they will idle for a short period to allow further recharge (Appendix 1).

Proposed Development
2.5 It is proposed to install Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) onto the viaduct. This will
comprise 2No cantilever masts that will be fixed to the outside of the structure with 2No
connection points into the masonry wall. These will be located on the northern elevation
of the structure and will be placed at the mid-point of piers 2 and 4 on the outside of the
viaduct wall (Appendix 3).
Design Option Appraisal
2.6 There are two options for installing overhead line equipment (OLE) to a single-track
railway. These are:
1. single track cantilevers;
2. portals.
2.7 The single-track cantilever is less visually intrusive than the portal arrangement and
takes into consideration the public nature of the southern side of deck of the viaduct.
2.8 There are three main ways to fix the portals to a viaduct. These are:
1. on the outside of the viaduct wall;
2. inside the viaduct wall;
3. on top of the viaduct wall.
2.9 Option 3 is not preferred, either from an operational safety perspective or with regards
to its impact on the character and appearance of the historic structure.
2.10 Option 2 requires a minimum distance of at least 2440mm from the rail to the viaduct
wall. There is insufficient distance between the parapet wall and the rail to allow the
cantilever masts to be fixed inside the viaduct wall.
2.11 As a result, Option 1 has been identified as the preferred method of fixing at this
location.

Appendix 3 page 14 is a 1 page drawing bringing together - Elevation side view of the viaduct, a cantilever drawing and several fixing diagrams - so 1 page showing all the component parts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 May 2024 ==

Question re distance between cantilever masts. There are 2 masts proposed on the viaduct. One mast will be above a pier with 'built-out' stone/brick work. The other mast will be above a pier with plane brick/stone - what would happen if this cantilever was moved to the above the other pier with 'built-out' stone/brick work - a wire span too far?

This site https://canmore.org.uk/site/278439/galashiels-galafoot-redbridge-viaduct-bridge-104?display=image has 24 photos and other useful info.

 

[snowball]

The withdrawn planning application has been mentioned in another thread:

Decarbonising Scotland’s Railways

The refresh of the Decarbonisation Action Plan was ongoing and would be published ‘in due course’. The fact that he's saying nothing more specific than that sounds a bit ominous. There have been ministerial promises that it will be published by the end of the year, an ever-narrowing window...

www.railforums.co.uk

59CosG95 in #270 in that thread quoted the Border Telegraph report, and Hagbard Celine in #275 said the withdrawn application was a duplicate.

The remaining application appears to be a year and a half old but still undecided.

Edit: it's a pity the proposed positioning of the masts is asymmetrical. I estimate that if they were three spans apart, their separation would be about 64m. Others will know if that's too large.

 

[chiltern trev]

The withdrawn planning application has been mentioned in another thread:

Decarbonising Scotland’s Railways

The refresh of the Decarbonisation Action Plan was ongoing and would be published ‘in due course’. The fact that he's saying nothing more specific than that sounds a bit ominous. There have been ministerial promises that it will be published by the end of the year, an ever-narrowing window...

www.railforums.co.uk

59CosG95 in #270 in that thread quoted the Border Telegraph report, and Hagbard Celine in #275 said the withdrawn application was a duplicate.

Apologies if my comment is duplication. I did a search on Borders Electrification but missed the other thread - should maybe have searched on Galasheils but then the bridge is described as Galafoot.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 May 2024 ==

Looking at Appendix 3 further, if you moved the cantilever support on the plain stonework pier to the one with the built out stonework pier, then that pier appears to be situated over the bank and thus no cantilever supprots would be visible looking up or down the river assuming trees and vegetation on the river banks perform a 'hiding' job.

 

[Class73ED]

According to the Border Telegraph of 26th June, Network Rail has submitted a planning bid to Scottish Borders Council for a installation of a new feeder station, network disconnector compound and access road at Tweedbank. It sounds as though this will be partly on Network Rail land but will also involve aquisition of additional land, hence the planning bid. It all sounds a bit sketchy to me but if true, it seems to indicate that although railway electrification in Scotland has dramatically slowed down, it is still going forward and the intent is still there.
Link to article as follows:

Network Rail powers ahead with new feeder station at Tweedbank

NETWORK Rail is powering ahead with plans for a new feeder station at Tweedbank, it has emerged.

www.bordertelegraph.com

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2024 ==

My apologies but the site doesn't seem to want to download the link to Borders Telegraph for some reason! I rarely post on this site so it may just be me!
I also meant to ask whether anyone else had heard anything more about future Scottish electrification apart from the work on the East Kilbride branch?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jun 2024 ==

Yes, it's downloaded it now!

 

[snowball]

@Class73ED created a new thread for the above post. I replied there and asked the mods to merge the new thread with this thread. They did so but also deleted my reply, so now I have to recompose it.

The new feeder station will require some corresponding "upstream" works at the nearby existing grid substation. These were discussed in February, higher up this page.

I also meant to ask whether anyone else had heard anything more about future Scottish electrification apart from the work on the East Kilbride branch?

There was a burst of activity in 2022 when there seemed to be progress towards the partial electrification of Borders and Fife and the eventual full electrification of Dunblane to Aberdeen, but then the financial situation went much worse and things went much quieter on both electrification and procurement of new trains.

The "refresh" of the 2022 decarbonisation strategy, originally promised for spring 2023, has been repeatedly delayed, but a reply in the Scottish parliament in May suggests it is still being worked on, and when it eventually comes out it will presumably include some steps on train procurement.

Some work appears to have restarted on Haymarket to Dalmeny and is discussed in the following thread:

Haymarket to Dalmeny electrification

A Prior Approval notification (21/05894/PA) has been lodged with City of Edinburgh Council by Network Rail for the "Proposed installation of overhead Line Equipment and associated temporary works, Haymarket to Dalmeny". The notification does not have much detail but can be viewed here...

www.railforums.co.uk

One bright spot is that six feeder stations, of which Galashiels/Tweedbank is one and Thornton, Fife, is another, were contracted in 2022 before the financial problems. Some of the discussion of these is in the following thread:

Decarbonising Scotland’s Railways

Noticed these ‘Rail Demand Assumptions’ on pages 123-125 of the Zero Emission Energy for Transport Report published last month: 2023  Electrification Complete: Glasgow Central to Barrhead 2024  Electrification Complete: Glasgow Central to East Kilbride  Service Introductions and Rolling...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think overall good news. I was worried that the whole program would get massively curtailed.

 

[stuving]

Interesting installing two transformers a bit overkill but price for running an isolated system at least initially

Two transformers and supplying circuits are required for security of supply (or availability, or resilience, etc.).

Railway traction power supplies are provided at intervals along a railway, based upon required traction power demand, available capacity, resilience of railway route traction power supplies and availability of connection opportunities. Depending upon these factors, supply points to railway feed distances of between 20 km to 100 km.

In order to provide the required level of availability, it is normal for each supply point to be provided with two circuits, each of which is capable of supplying the full traction demand. Occasionally, where alternative traction power is available, the traction power system design may require only one circuit. Similarly, in areas of high capacity, resilience requirements may demand three circuits. This is undertaken by the Railway Infrastructure Manager as part of the traction power system design.

(From ENA EREC P24 issue 2). The same principles apply throughout the electricity transmission and distribution networks: every component (line, transformer switch, etc) can fail or be taken out of service without any consumer losing supply.

 

[snowball]

The application is here on the Borders council website, ref 24/00744/FUL:

https://eplanning.scotborders.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=SFF0N9NTIHQ00

 

[HSTEd]

Two transformers and supplying circuits are required for security of supply (or availability, or resilience, etc.).

(From ENA EREC P24 issue 2). The same principles apply throughout the electricity transmission and distribution networks: every component (line, transformer switch, etc) can fail or be taken out of service without any consumer losing supply.

It is permissible under various circumstances to deviate from this principle, however.

I would argue that this is probably one of those times, the actual impact of a failure of this system will be very small.