Borders line (Scotland) electrification news and updates

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes it was - at the time that the plan was developed. But as far as I can see, it did not have any provision for flexibility if battery performance improved after those calculations were done. Where were the break points in the plan to say that, for instance, the Tweedbank OHLE could be curtailed to just two miles, if future BEMUs would routinely take enough charge in the 11 minutes from Galashiels to Tweedbank and back?


But that's water under the bridge. What concerns me is that the rail industry seems to be making the same mistake today - despite the rapid development of battery technology, and the expectation that battery performance will continue to improve manyfold within the lifetime of any electrification scheme being specified today. And that's performance in both total capacity, which will increase the distance needed between islands of electrification, and recharge speed, which will reduce the length of OHLE need at each island to fully recharge a battery without degrading it.

They have to be conservative currently as its unlikely that there will be a step change in energy density in Lithium Titanite Oxide technology over the next few years. There is also limit to how much power you can push through a static pantograph compared to one in motion. The important point has to be that Scotland is now pressing hard for discontinuous electrification as a way forward. Its just a shame they have dragged their feet in BEMU procurement to realise any of the benefits this decade.

 

[EMU303]

But that's water under the bridge. What concerns me is that the rail industry seems to be making the same mistake today - despite the rapid development of battery technology, and the expectation that battery performance will continue to improve manyfold within the lifetime of any electrification scheme being specified today. And that's performance in both total capacity, which will increase the distance needed between islands of electrification, and recharge speed, which will reduce the length of OHLE need at each island to fully recharge a battery without degrading it.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but I thought the TS strategy is to go back to some of these lines being partly electrified and fill in the gaps and use EMUs once finance allows. Then the BEMUs would be transferred elsewhere in Scotland eg West Highland lines, Dumfries etc. The goal being the replacement of the ageing 156,158, and eventually 170s, without buying diesel replacements.
End to end electrification from the start is clearly ideal but there’s insufficient time and capital available, and replace an ageing diesel fleet all at the same time.

 

[jeffinabox]

https://www.bordertelegraph.com/new...idge-viaduct-borders-railway-electrification/

A bit of news on the project today.

 

[Class 170101]

With the BEMUs I am expecting them to be heavier than convential EMUs presumably this affects the power draw under the wires especially under movement?

 

[themiller]

With the BEMUs I am expecting them to be heavier than convential EMUs presumably this affects the power draw under the wires especially under movement?

I’d expect that turning back short of destination will also require more thought as well as short turnaround times to catch up during times of disruption which would limit recharging time. What is the procedure if a battery system refuses to charge at the south end?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

https://www.bordertelegraph.com/new...idge-viaduct-borders-railway-electrification/

A bit of news on the project today.

I have tried and tried to get the link to work but can't. I was going to quote it so it kept within forum quote rules.

 

[EMU303]

I have tried and tried to get the link to work but can't. I was going to quote it so it kept within forum quote rules.

“WORK on a historic viaduct which will support the electrification of the Borders Railway has been approved – despite acceptance at its “visually obtrusive” impact.

Scottish Borders Council has rubber-stamped an application from Network Rail for installation of overhead line equipment at grade B-listed Redbridge Viaduct, a five-span masonry arch structure, near Galashiels.

The work forms part of the Borders Electrification project and will comprise of one cantilever mast that will be fixed to the outside of the structure with two connection points into the masonry wall.

The electrification of Borders Railway was announced by the transport secretary, Fiona Hyslop, in September 2025, with completion earmarked for 2035.

In his report approving the application, SBC planning officer Carlos Clarke, states: “Though it would have a visually obtrusive impact on the bridge, accounting for its slimline profile and its direct relationship to the operating railway, as well as its distance from public roads and neighbouring properties (albeit there is a public walkway over the viaduct), I would not consider that its visual harm would count against the benefit of providing it, which is to facilitate electrification of the railway.”

A report with the application stated: “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.

“The cantilever structure has been located and designed to offer the best practicable solution to the electrification of the railway in this location while minimising the impact on the appearance and character of the listed structure, the Special Area of Conservation and the Special Landscape Area.

“In this regard the advantages of the proposed design have been carefully considered and the merits of alternative options carefully considered.

“The proposed work will future-proof both the historic structure and the railway running over it for the long term economic and social benefit of the wider community.”

 

[fegguk]

https://eplanning.scotborders.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=TALDCANTJ1600&activeTab=summary

Here is the planning application. There are now quite a few piles in place between Torwoodlee and the Bowshank tunnel

 

[Phillipimo]

“WORK on a historic viaduct which will support the electrification of the Borders Railway has been approved – despite acceptance at its “visually obtrusive” impact.

Scottish Borders Council has rubber-stamped an application from Network Rail for installation of overhead line equipment at grade B-listed Redbridge Viaduct, a five-span masonry arch structure, near Galashiels.

The work forms part of the Borders Electrification project and will comprise of one cantilever mast that will be fixed to the outside of the structure with two connection points into the masonry wall.

The electrification of Borders Railway was announced by the transport secretary, Fiona Hyslop, in September 2025, with completion earmarked for 2035.

In his report approving the application, SBC planning officer Carlos Clarke, states: “Though it would have a visually obtrusive impact on the bridge, accounting for its slimline profile and its direct relationship to the operating railway, as well as its distance from public roads and neighbouring properties (albeit there is a public walkway over the viaduct), I would not consider that its visual harm would count against the benefit of providing it, which is to facilitate electrification of the railway.”

A report with the application stated: “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.

“The cantilever structure has been located and designed to offer the best practicable solution to the electrification of the railway in this location while minimising the impact on the appearance and character of the listed structure, the Special Area of Conservation and the Special Landscape Area.

“In this regard the advantages of the proposed design have been carefully considered and the merits of alternative options carefully considered.

“The proposed work will future-proof both the historic structure and the railway running over it for the long term economic and social benefit of the wider community.”

Is this whole article about the application for 1 mast? I'm very happy that the necessary environmental factors are being considered but it makes you realise how complex these projects are. Hopefully the rest of the route is a bit more straightforward!

 

[59CosG95]

Is this whole article about the application for 1 mast? I'm very happy that the necessary environmental factors are being considered but it makes you realise how complex these projects are. Hopefully the rest of the route is a bit more straightforward!

Most "open route" OLE structures are much more straightforward, as they're installed within Network Rail-owned land. Bridges & Viaducts, especially listed ones, tend to be the thorns in the side of projects, along with tunnels and station areas, normally due to the planning involved with stakeholders and 3rd parties.

 

[LocoCycle]

Photo yesterday at Tweedbank. Lots of piles already in the ground along the line too.

 

[Chris125]

They have to be conservative currently as its unlikely that there will be a step change in energy density in Lithium Titanite Oxide technology over the next few years. There is also limit to how much power you can push through a static pantograph compared to one in motion. The important point has to be that Scotland is now pressing hard for discontinuous electrification as a way forward. Its just a shame they have dragged their feet in BEMU procurement to realise any of the benefits this decade.

Besides, it must make more sense long term for improved battery capacity to allow a lighter/quicker train than less wires.

 

[waverley47]

They have to be conservative currently as its unlikely that there will be a step change in energy density in Lithium Titanite Oxide technology over the next few years. There is also limit to how much power you can push through a static pantograph compared to one in motion. The important point has to be that Scotland is now pressing hard for discontinuous electrification as a way forward. Its just a shame they have dragged their feet in BEMU procurement to realise any of the benefits this decade.

One of the COVID casualties unfortunately, along with Barnet shenanigans.

There's been a lack of money to actually buy the things, the whole process of just acquiring the trains is expensive enough as it is.

Additionally, when the UK government cancels spending (HS2 for example) the money is stopped immediately, and that blew a big hole in the transport budget. Whereas when spending is announced, Barnet consequentials don't actually kick in until the money is spent, so now that the Labour government are slowly turning the taps back on, there's a little bit more to spend.

It's not an excuse, but this has been on the drawing board for a long time, just waiting for financial conditions to allow the actual purchase.

 

[BorderCollie]

With the BEMUs I am expecting them to be heavier than convential EMUs presumably this affects the power draw under the wires especially under movement?

Heavier, slower to accelerate, use more energy, cause more track damage, more technology to go wrong/become obselete, more expensive...

One of the COVID casualties unfortunately, along with Barnet shenanigans.

There's been a lack of money to actually buy the things, the whole process of just acquiring the trains is expensive enough as it is.

Additionally, when the UK government cancels spending (HS2 for example) the money is stopped immediately, and that blew a big hole in the transport budget. Whereas when spending is announced, Barnet consequentials don't actually kick in until the money is spent, so now that the Labour government are slowly turning the taps back on, there's a little bit more to spend.

It's not an excuse, but this has been on the drawing board for a long time, just waiting for financial conditions to allow the actual purchase.

Before the Iran war would have been a lot cheaper! Money is much more expensive now.

 

[AndrewE]

Heavier, slower to accelerate, use more energy, cause more track damage, more technology to go wrong/become obselete, more expensive...

Unlike bimodes with diesel engines, for example? I suspect not in any of those respects...

 

[BorderCollie]

No, unlike EMUs. Full electrification.

I also forgot more expensive to maintain and operate.

 

[Bald Rick]

No, unlike EMUs. Full electrification.

I also forgot more expensive to maintain and operate.

Can you show your evidence for that?

Taking into account the whole railway system, not just the trains.

 

[BorderCollie]

Compared to EMUs:

8-10 tonnes of battery per car, the equivalent of a four car EMU hauling around an extra fifth car for free

Extra weight = £xmillion in extra track wear over the 35 year life

Either slower acceleration due to weight eating up train paths or bigger power draw for motors meaning higher electricity costs

Battery energy conversion efficiency loss c.20%

Cost of maintenance of said batteries, associated tecnology, electronic systems

Replacement of 8 - 10 tonnes of batteries per car at £xxmillion in 8, 16, 24 years time afer the end of life charge/recharge cycle

Pantograph wear and tear and associated stresses on OHLE with raising/lowering pantographs

OHLE rating needs to be higher as the power required to propel the train on electrified sections is required plus the power to charge the batteries

Discontinuous electrification is not a stepping-stone to full electrification. It's a locked-in system for a generation. Unless someone builds a business case for infill and has a big cheque book. We pay for the redundancy and inefficiency twice. And to think the trains are 33-40% more expensive to start with. It's the railway's equivalent of PFI economics.

 

[Bald Rick]

Where to start. Ah, the beginning.

8-10 tonnes of battery per car, the equivalent of a four car EMU hauling around an extra fifth car for free

A 4 car EMU would need about 1MWh of battery to give it around 60-80 miles of range off the wire or con rail. A battery pack of that size weighs about 8 tonnes. But you only need 8 tonnes per 4 car unit, and the packs could easily be split over, say two. So no, it’s not 8-10 tonnes of battery per coach, it is 8-10 tonnes of battery per 4 car unit, around a 5-6% weight penalty. Typically less than a DMU.

Extra weight = £xmillion in extra track wear over the 35 year life

And what is ‘x’? In my experience of maintaining and renewing track, I’d say that an extra 5% weight would lead to negligible life time additional costs.

Either slower acceleration due to weight eating up train paths or bigger power draw for motors meaning higher electricity costs

But better acceleration than the DMUs they replace, no? Thereby potentially reducing journey times and creating paths on currently non- electrified lines? And the extra power drawn in acceleration can almost always be recouped under braking, again unlike with electrified infrastructure (where the power suplly must be receptive to regen, and this is not always the case)

Battery energy conversion efficiency loss c.20%

Not so. LTO batteries have round trip efficiency (through the charge / discharge cycle) of c95%. Rather better than the efficiency of conductor rail, for example.

Cost of maintenance of said batteries, associated tecnology, electronic systems

And that is? How much does it cost to maintain the battery in, say, a Kia EV6? Multiply that by 12 and youhave the maintenance cost of a typical 4 car EMU battery. (I have two friends with a EV6s, and the combined maintenance cost for their batteries for the last 3 years has been £0.)

Replacement of 8 - 10 tonnes of batteries per car at £xxmillion in 8, 16, 24 years time afer the end of life charge/recharge cycle

Why do you assume an 8 year cycle? LTO batteries will last much longer.

Pantograph wear and tear and associated stresses on OHLE with raising/lowering pantographs

Wires have to cpe with raising and lowering of pantographs everywhere, as it can happen anywhere. But there would be less pantograph wear for the stretches where there are no wires, right?

OHLE rating needs to be higher as the power required to propel the train on electrified sections is required plus the power to charge the batteries

Does it? Are you sure? Or will the train limit power draw to the maximum the OLE can accommodate?


And you might have forgotten the other parts of the system cost:

* Installing overhead electrification systems at £4-5m per single track kilometre (current typical cost)
* maintaining the electrification system at around £30-50k pa per route km
* operating cost of the electrification system at around £4k pa per route km
* renewing parts of the OLE every 30-40 years at £200k per track km and then complete rewiring / replacement of small part steelwork and wiring every 60 or so years at £500k per track km
* cost of additional delays when there is an incident that causes delays that are because of the presence of the electrification system

and so on

 

[BorderCollie]

And you might have forgotten the other parts of the system cost:

* Installing overhead electrification systems at £4-5m per single track kilometre (current typical cost)

Currently c.£2m and £2m is a lot cheaper than in 20 years time when with inflation it will be 75% more.

* maintaining the electrification system at around £30-50k pa per route km

Having wee islands doesn't save staffing as they're already in a van getting from the end of the previous discontinuous electrification to the start of the next bit.

* operating cost of the electrification system at around £4k pa per route km

All that will do is make the islands of discontinuous electrification cost £6k per route km per year.

* renewing parts of the OLE every 30-40 years at £200k per track km and then complete rewiring / replacement of small part steelwork and wiring every 60 or so years at £500k per track km

Tiny future costs compared to hundreds of tonnes of batteries being hauled around the network using electricity every moment of every day.

* cost of additional delays when there is an incident that causes delays that are because of the presence of the electrification system

and so on

OHLE still exists on much of the route so what is the the likelihood of an incident on any particular stretch of line?

8/10/15 year wholesale battery replacement cycles are advertised by all current manufacturers not some bionic duckweed imagined future. Regular reconditioning is also required. And that's on top of usual EMU overhauls. That will cost a lot of money.

And not to mention freight at all...

 

[TrainViation]

Invalid post.

 

[zwk500]

Having wee islands doesn't save staffing as they're already in a van getting from the end of the previous discontinuous electrification to the start of the next bit.

Then don't do discontinuous electrification as 'tiny wee islands' but as a contiguous network for which Battery is used as a strategic opportunity to extend electric services.

Tiny future costs compared to hundreds of tonnes of batteries being hauled around the network using electricity every moment of every day.

Those batteries have uses in failure cases as well. The future of EMUs is that they will all be BEMUs, the question is just whether their batteries are 'get to a safe place' capacity or actual service traction.

And not to mention freight at all...

Freight will need some kind of last-mile solution for terminals using overhead loading anyway, as well as for the routes that will never justify electrification. Not that there's any freight on the borders lines, nor much prospect for any to appear.

 

[The exile]

Having wee islands doesn't save staffing as they're already in a van getting from the end of the previous discontinuous electrification to the start of the next bit.

I can’t imagine there will be many cases where the time taken to drive between those islands is greater than the time that would be needed for inspection of the unwired stretches if they were wired. Where “swings and roundabouts” may kick in is if / when those islands require more feeds etc than continuous wiring would - but I imagine that the planners take that into consideration.

 

[hwl]

8/10/15 year wholesale battery replacement cycles are advertised by all current manufacturers not some bionic duckweed imagined future. Regular reconditioning is also required. And that's on top of usual EMU overhauls. That will cost a lot of money.

And not to mention freight at all...

You presumably haven't seen the Siemens advertorial in the December issue of MR with LTO battery life of half the nominal train life (i.e. 20 years)? (Which is do-able with electrification in the right places to optimise battery health)

Establishing a secure connection ...

Siemens says experience gained with its Mireo Plus B battery units in Europe means it can guarantee a minimum range of 50 miles under all conditions for end-of-life batteries (lifespans are expected to be 20 years), with longer intervals likely for newer batteries. Just one change of battery is expected during the train’s predicted 35-year life. The batteries are based on those used on the Mireo Plus Bs, with the same Lithium titanate oxide chemistry which offers a longer cycle life and wider range of operating temperatures than lithium-ion batteries typically used in electric cars.

NMC and LFP will have far shorter battery pack life but don't confuse them with LTO or Sodium.

 

[Bald Rick]

Currently c.£2m

It’s £4m+. Source: me. I see the project accounts. And that is an average.

Having wee islands doesn't save staffing

Maintenance required and therefore the staffing hours required is roughly proportionate to the amount of assets that need maintaining. Less OLE, less distribution equipment means lower maintenance cost. Source: me when I did OLE maintenance.

All that will do is make the islands of discontinuous electrification cost £6k per route km per year.

No, it won’t, that’s not how the operation of electrification works. Source: me from when I managed Electrical Control Rooms.

Tiny future costs compared to hundreds of tonnes of batteries being hauled around the network using electricity every moment of every day.

Nonsense. What is the extra cost of ‘hauling‘ batteries around, taking into account the benefit of extra regeneration that the extra weight enables?

OHLE still exists on much of the route so what is the the likelihood of an incident on any particular stretch of line?

The same as anywhere. Delay Incidents caused by electrification (or that occur due to the presence of electrification) are broadly proportional to the amount of electrification assets out there.

 

[hwl]

Nonsense. What is the extra cost of ‘hauling‘ batteries around, taking into account the benefit of extra regeneration that the extra weight enables?

This is what a lot of people don't realise is that rail regeneration is a lot lower than road especially at low speeds due to adhesion limits or assumptions on adhesion limits, nice smooth braking for passenger comfort and lots of padding in timetables hence an extra bit of mass can be quite useful to up regen levels in practice. (There need to be wider conversation about regen/rheostatic braking optimisation and timetabling).

 

[AndrewE]

This is what a lot of people don't realise is that rail regeneration is a lot lower than road especially at low speeds due to adhesion limits or assumptions on adhesion limits, nice smooth braking for passenger comfort and lots of padding in timetables hence an extra bit of mass can be quite useful to up regen levels in practice. (There need to be wider conversation about regen/rheostatic braking optimisation and timetabling).

I thought that (even a couple of decades ago when I was working with engineers on depots) regen/rheo was seen as very beneficial because it cut the brake block wear so much, and hence paid for itself in savings of both materials and labour. If it didn't do much of the work I'm sure the savings wouldn't have showed and it would have been dropped...

 

[BordersBob]

It’s £4m+. Source: me. I see the project accounts. And that is an average.

I have no professional knowledge so cannot agree or disagree with any of this debate. But on the specific question of cost per km, Modern Railways quotes Network Rail Scotland's MD as follows:

"Mr Sumpter told the Scottish Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that the cost of electrification per kilometre in Scotland had reduced from £2.7 million to £2 million over the course of the past five years."

See https://www.modernrailways.com/article/scotlands-rolling-programme-cuts-electrification-costs-26.

The date MR published this was 16/5/25. The cost may well of course have increased since then.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have no professional knowledge so cannot agree or disagree with any of this debate. But on the specific question of cost per km, Modern Railways quotes Network Rail Scotland's MD as follows:

"Mr Sumpter told the Scottish Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that the cost of electrification per kilometre in Scotland had reduced from £2.7 million to £2 million over the course of the past five years."

See https://www.modernrailways.com/article/scotlands-rolling-programme-cuts-electrification-costs-26.

The date MR published this was 16/5/25. The cost may well of course have increased since then.

That’s the electrification cost (OLE and related civils) and that is for the discontinuous projects where some difficult civils are being avoided. It doesn’t include the cost of power supply, signalling amendments, and other related stuff.

 

[tcp]

OLE maintenance costs will be significantly lower for new electrification schemes. We have ageing infrastructure built before best practice was understood and with now problematic designs: headspans, copper ply wires, AWAC catenary, back-to-back STCs, poor grading of wires, low tensions, fixed-termination systems (not a problem in some scenarios), etc. Current maintenance costs and reliability is not an inherent feature of OLE.