Borders line (Scotland) electrification news and updates

[waverley47]

This is getting very odd topic, but Portishead I'd have only signed off with 2tph, at ten miles or so it's only really worth it if the wait til the next train if one is cancelled is less that the speed differential with the bus; that waiting for the next train would be quicker than giving up and walking to the bus stop

On the other hand, I'd never in a million years have put my name next to a decision to proceed with the Cowley line. Take from that what you will.

 

[Brush 4]

They will be successful despite predictions of failure, whether official or speculation. Passenger usage cannot be predicted but, the tendency is for higher usage than BCR indicates. Trying to do so is futile and a waste of money for those that think cost is everything.

 

[zwk500]

Passenger usage cannot be predicted

I've presented evidence to you before that it can.

Tavistock - Bere Alston Feasibility Study in jeopardy. But what could be done if the money was available?

The greater good and the benefits can't be measured so don't try to. The costs aren't known until it is built. The rest as I have said before, is just guesswork. The most ludicrous element is the UK's habit of announcing plans with a big fanfare, then killing it with, 'subject to funding'. What...

www.railforums.co.uk

Northumberland Line needs greater capacity (lengthened trains and/or higher frequency)

For all the talk of fares being too cheap, the fares align with the fares charged on Metro, where the large car parks at Regent Centre, Four Lane Ends, and Northumberland Park are charged at £1.50 per day. It's been very good at doing what it was intended to do- get people out of their cars...

www.railforums.co.uk

Northumberland Line needs greater capacity (lengthened trains and/or higher frequency)

For all the talk of fares being too cheap, the fares align with the fares charged on Metro, where the large car parks at Regent Centre, Four Lane Ends, and Northumberland Park are charged at £1.50 per day. It's been very good at doing what it was intended to do- get people out of their cars...

www.railforums.co.uk

Relevant to this thread, the third link includes the Scottish Government's evaluation report saying passenger numbers on the borders link were within 2% of the predicted number in Year 1.

This is getting very odd topic, but Portishead I'd have only signed off with 2tph, at ten miles or so it's only really worth it if the wait til the next train if one is cancelled is less that the speed differential with the bus; that waiting for the next train would be quicker than giving up and walking to the bus stop

On the other hand, I'd never in a million years have put my name next to a decision to proceed with the Cowley line. Take from that what you will.

I can't find formally published business cases for either, but a North Somerset council meeting minutes quotes 1.2m journeys:

https://n-somerset.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s6797/08%20MetroWest%20Phase%201%20Report%20to%20the%20Council%2014th%20January%2025%20-%20Final.pdf

While a press release for the Cowley approval quotes that:

It is forecast to attract almost one million return journeys each year.

Cowley Branch Line to be reopened with two new stations for Oxford

The government today announced £120 million of funding to reopen the Cowley Branch Line to passengers and create two new stations at Oxford Cowley and Oxford Littlemore in south-east Oxford.The reopening of the line will connect communities in Littlemore, Cowley, Blackbird Leys and Greater Leys...

news.oxfordshire.gov.uk

 

[waverley47]

Relevant to this thread, the third link includes the Scottish Government's evaluation report saying passenger numbers on the borders link were within 2% of the predicted number in Year 1.

Indeed they were, we did our homework, and we did it well.

Passenger usage cannot be predicted

It can. Very accurately even. Again, this is getting off topic, however I'd posit very simply; if passengers numbers couldn't be predicted, then why would open access operators exist.

We can model new demand incredibly well, what we struggle with is modeling changes to demand if say a new park and ride station opens on an existing line. Working out how many passengers would be new versus how many would be shifting their travel patterns from neighbouring stations is almost purely psychological, and therefore very difficult to predict.

While a press release for the Cowley approval quotes that:

Having seen the numbers for how much it actually costs to run short railway lines with only two stops, an hourly service, and no chance of extension, in a city area where you're competing with buses, I can firmly say I think that one million passengers a year will not be financially viable. It's a publicity stunt and a white elephant, trains aren't really very efficient at serving a three mile branch line.

Now, I humbly request we move on from Portishead and Cowley and back to updates with the Borders wiring.

 

[The Pelican]

Having seen the numbers for how much it actually costs to run short railway lines with only two stops, an hourly service, and no chance of extension, in a city area where you're competing with buses, I can firmly say I think that one million passengers a year will not be financially viable. It's a publicity stunt and a white elephant, trains aren't really very efficient at serving a three mile branch line.

Now, I humbly request we move on from Portishead and Cowley and back to updates with the Borders wiring.

I think the cowley line is going to be hallf hourly.

 

[Nottingham59]

Why does anybody think electrifying the Borders line is a good idea?

It's a two hour round trip from the wires at Newcraighall, which makes the line perfect for battery operation. 3-car 170s have 3 x 315kW engines, so peak power demand is less than 1 MW. Average power will be below 500kW; so under 1MWh needed over the two-hour round trip.

Double that to cover any eventualities gives a 2MWh battery pack per train.

The only conceivable electrification that could be justified for the line would be a way to top up the batteries at Tweedbank station; either a plug-in cable or an overhead conductor bar fed by a small static frequency converter.

If the Scottish Government is going spend money on electrifying lines it should electrify the platforms at Perth, Inverness an Aberdeen stations. Not a 2tph branch line to Galashiels.

 

[waverley47]

The only conceivable electrification that could be justified for the line would be a way to top up the batteries at Tweedbank station; either a plug-in cable or an overhead conductor bar fed by a small static frequency converter

Funny you should say that....

To give you a more complete answer, about a mile and half is being wired at the north end, and three miles at the south end, to do just that. Piling works started last month, and the feeder station is being built.

We are expecting an order of BEMUs later in the year to compliment these new wires.

 

[zwk500]

The only conceivable electrification that could be justified for the line would be a way to top up the batteries at Tweedbank station; either a plug-in cable or an overhead conductor bar fed by a small static frequency converter.

That's pretty much what they're doing.

From Saturday 21 February, engineers will begin preparatory work ahead of piling on the sections of the route to be electrified between Newcraighall and Shawfair, and from Bowshank Tunnel to Tweedbank station.

From https://www.networkrailmediacentre....-work-begins-to-electrify-the-borders-railway

Newcraighall north Jn to Shawfair is 1 mile and 1 chain, and Bowshank Tunnel to Tweedbank station is 6m 33ch (or thereabouts, the electrification may not begin bang on the tunnel portal and the buffers may be slightly further than the station mileage given in the Sectional Appendix.

 

[The exile]

Why does anybody think electrifying the Borders line is a good idea?

It's a two hour round trip from the wires at Newcraighall, which makes the line perfect for battery operation. 3-car 170s have 3 x 315kW engines, so peak power demand is less than 1 MW. Average power will be below 500kW; so under 1MWh needed over the two-hour round trip.

Double that to cover any eventualities gives a 2MWh battery pack per train.

The only conceivable electrification that could be justified for the line would be a way to top up the batteries at Tweedbank station; either a plug-in cable or an overhead conductor bar fed by a small static frequency converter.

If the Scottish Government is going spend money on electrifying lines it should electrify the platforms at Perth, Inverness an Aberdeen stations. Not a 2tph branch line to Galashiels.

Others have pointed out what is being done on the borders line. Electrifying platforms at Perth, Inverness and Aberdeen alone is going to be of very little use- and each would require a grid connection, which AIUI is one of the most expensive individual items in an electrification scheme (unless you’ve got very awkward structures to deal with). They will be done eventually, but will need other bits as well if they’re to be any use. Borders and Fife effectively means all local diesel services out of Edinburgh can go BEMU as soon as some are available.

 

[Nottingham59]

To give you a more complete answer, about a mile and half is being wired at the north end, and three miles at the south end, to do just that. Piling works started last month, and the feeder station is being built.

That's good to know, thanks. From other posts upthread I hadn't realised that the decision to go battery had already been made.

Electrifying platforms at Perth, Inverness and Aberdeen alone is going to be of very little use-

That's a discussion for another thread - do we need to electrify routes for battery recharging, or will station platforms be enough? I'll start one soon.

and each would require a grid connection, which AIUI is one of the most expensive individual items in an electrification scheme (unless you’ve got very awkward structures to deal with)

Grid connections as currently specified by the rail industry are incredibly and unnecessarily expensive. Take Braybrooke on the MML: there is no credible need for a 2 x 80MVA supply at that location. With 400kV supply voltage, it's an enormous expense to serve just 4tph, all of which have diesel back up.

Grid supply could be much much cheaper with battery boost. Take Tweedbank, for instance, which has 2 x 10MVA grid connection costing £14 million. That could be replaced by a 10MW/10MWh static battery coupled to a 10MVA static frequency converter.

The Borders line cannot take more than 2tph. At 0.5MW average per train, that's a total average power use of less than 1MW. So you could trickle charge the battery with just a 1MW grid connection and never run out of juice at Tweedbank. And if necessary, a 1MW HVO diesel generator would be enough to guarantee supply in case of grid power cuts.

 

[waverley47]

That's good to know, thanks. From other posts upthread I hadn't realised that the decision to go battery had already been made.


That's a discussion for another thread - do we need to electrify routes for battery recharging, or will station platforms be enough? I'll start one soon.


Grid connections as currently specified by the rail industry are incredibly and unnecessarily expensive. Take Braybrooke on the MML: there is no credible need for a 2 x 80MVA supply at that location. With 400kV supply voltage, it's an enormous expense to serve just 4tph, all of which have diesel back up.

Grid supply could be much much cheaper with battery boost. Take Tweedbank, for instance, which has 2 x 10MVA grid connection costing £14 million. That could be replaced by a 10MW/10MWh static battery coupled to a 10MVA static frequency converter.

The Borders line cannot take more than 2tph. At 0.5MW average per train, that's a total average power use of less than 1MW. So you could trickle charge the battery with just a 1MW grid connection and never run out of juice at Tweedbank. And if necessary, a 1MW HVO diesel generator would be enough to guarantee supply in case of grid power cuts.

There can be a maximum of four diagrams captive on the line at any given time, captive being anywhere south of Newcraighall.

We assume they're all six car units, which is the maximum on the route, accelerating uphill at the same time, which is very possible. That's about 3MW for each diagram six car unit at roughly 0.5MW a carriage , the same as the 385s, which gives 18MW.

The feeder is in that location, and is that size, so that they can wire up the middle, convert them to pure EMUs, cascade the battery units elsewhere and continue the process.

 

[Nottingham59]

We assume they're all six car units, which is the maximum on the route, accelerating uphill at the same time, which is very possible. That's about 3MW for each diagram six car unit at roughly 0.5MW a carriage , the same as the 385s, which gives 18MW.

Yes, agree that's the peak load with no batteries anywhere in the system. And it will only persist until one of those trains reaches the top of the hill and has to throttle back. With no batteries on the trains, you would need around that power rating.

But with any size of traction batteries on the trains, you don't need that peak power from the SFC at Tweedbank, even with continuous electrification; and with static batteries to boost the grid supply you don't need that power from the grid connection either. And it's the grid connection that costs the money.

With an SFC using a 10MW static boost battery, the Borders line will only ever need to take a steady 1-2MW from the grid.

 

[Morayshire]

With an SFC using a 10MW static boost battery, the Borders line will only ever need to take a steady 1-2MW from the grid.

And when the remaining non electrified section gets electrified, does this solution allow for the EMUs to run?

Or do would we (i.e. the taxpayer) need to fork out for an upgraded feeder which I'm guessing will not be cheap. If that is the case then it makes more sense to me (and the cynic in me also thinks it will be cheaper in the long run) to simply spend the money now on the higher spec connection rather than fork out even more on an upgrade a few years later.

 

[Nottingham59]

And when the remaining non electrified section gets electrified, does this solution allow for the EMUs to run?

I thnk it will. Using the figures @waverley47 kindly supplied, the ultimate peak power requirement for a 4tph EMU service using 4 x 3MW 6-car class 385/0 is 12MW. That could readily be supplied by 10MW from the Tweedbank end, and 10MW from the ECML supply at Newcraighall. So the solution has the capacity to handle even that peak.

The average power consumption of a single six-car train on the 85mph line would be less than 1MW,* giving a total average power of under 4MW. This could be supplied with 2MW through Tweedbank and 2MW from the ECML.

* [Based on a 9-car Pendolino 390044 on a record attempt from Euston to Glasgow at 125mph averaged 2MW]

Or do would we (i.e. the taxpayer) need to fork out for an upgraded feeder which I'm guessing will not be cheap. If that is the case then it makes more sense to me (and the cynic in me also thinks it will be cheaper in the long run) to simply spend the money now on the higher spec connection rather than fork out even more on an upgrade a few years later.

There might be better places to spend money just in case the traffic on the Borders line grows eightfold between now and then.

 

[Falcon1200]

And when the remaining non electrified section gets electrified, does this solution allow for the EMUs to run?

If the BEMUs are a success, in performance, capacity and other terms, would the remaining sections have to be (expensively!) electrified at all?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If the BEMUs are a success, in performance, capacity and other terms, would the remaining sections have to be (expensively!) electrified at all?

Yes, then cascade the BEMUs and build up a rolling programme head of steam.

 

[Falcon1200]

Yes, then cascade the BEMUs and build up a rolling programme head of steam.

Or simply keep the BEMUs where they are and electrify, fully or partially, elsewhere - Are there not simpler schemes than the Borders Line? I can think of some......

 

[zwk500]

Yes, then cascade the BEMUs and build up a rolling programme head of steam.

I'm with @Falcon1200. The Borders is an obvious candidate for long-term BEMU operation, and certainly would be much lower priority than e.g., the lines from the Central Belt to Perth/Dundee for infill and EMU operation.

 

[The exile]

I'm with @Falcon1200. The Borders is an obvious candidate for long-term BEMU operation, and certainly would be much lower priority than e.g., the lines from the Central Belt to Perth/Dundee for infill and EMU operation.

Lots of engineering “challenges” on the Edinburgh - Dundee that don’t exist on the borders line - while the benefits are undeniably lower on the borders line, I suspect the costs per mile will be dramatically less.

 

[hwl]

Lots of engineering “challenges” on the Edinburgh - Dundee that don’t exist on the borders line - while the benefits are undeniably lower on the borders line, I suspect the costs per mile will be dramatically less.

Agreed but the number of vehicles using Edinburgh - Dundee is much larger though.
A key driver at the moment is avoiding having to replace 156s at end of useful life with anything diesel powered. Timing and speed is very important.

 

[Nottingham59]

If the BEMUs are a success, in performance, capacity and other terms, would the remaining sections have to be (expensively!) electrified at all?

I don't think so. The economics of battery versus continuous electrification are already strongly in favour of battery. And the rapid development of battery technology at the present time implies that the balance will move even more in that direction in the future.

 

[The exile]

Agreed but the number of vehicles using Edinburgh - Dundee is much larger though.
A key driver at the moment is avoiding having to replace 156s at end of useful life with anything diesel powered. Timing and speed is very important.

As any full electrification of the Borders line is definitely a “stage 2 (or more)” it’s a bit academic. AFAIK, the work being done there and in Fife should effectively remove the requirement for pure dmus on Edinburgh-based short and medium distance services. That then frees up a lot of units to start a cascade which ends up with 156s falling off the bottom.

 

[zwk500]

Lots of engineering “challenges” on the Edinburgh - Dundee that don’t exist on the borders line - while the benefits are undeniably lower on the borders line, I suspect the costs per mile will be dramatically less.

There's more benefits on Day 1 from doing Edinburgh-Dundee fully (or at least mostly fully), and a lot more potential in the 30 years afterwards. Also it's possible to do a phase 2 of electrification where much shorter gaps are left than phase 1, such that BEMUs with 'last mile' battery packs are used rather than full-service ones.

FWIW, I strongly expect all future EMUs to be ordered as BEMUs, to the extent that when talking about EMUs people will actually mean 'Last-mile BEMU'. Some retrofitting may even take place. GWR and SE have certainly talked about the potential for even small-capacity battery packs on electrified local services.

 

[TrainViation]

There's more benefits on Day 1 from doing Edinburgh-Dundee fully (or at least mostly fully), and a lot more potential in the 30 years afterwards. Also it's possible to do a phase 2 of electrification where much shorter gaps are left than phase 1, such that BEMUs with 'last mile' battery packs are used rather than full-service ones.

FWIW, I strongly expect all future EMUs to be ordered as BEMUs, to the extent that when talking about EMUs people will actually mean 'Last-mile BEMU'. Some retrofitting may even take place. GWR and SE have certainly talked about the potential for even small-capacity battery packs on electrified local services.

I’d imagine these small batteries would be used on sections which would be too tricky or too expensive to put OLE in. For example; Kinghorn Tunnel, Queensferry Tunnel or one of the many long bridges on the route. But electrify the rest of the line regardless. (Although EMU operation would be ideally the most cost effective solution in the long term.)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Agreed but the number of vehicles using Edinburgh - Dundee is much larger though.
A key driver at the moment is avoiding having to replace 156s at end of useful life with anything diesel powered. Timing and speed is very important.

Thank you for that insight.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, then cascade the BEMUs and build up a rolling programme head of steam.

No need to. BEMUs are the future for everywhere without high speed and/or high freight traffic requirements.

 

[Killingworth]

No need to. BEMUs are the future for everywhere without high speed and/or high freight traffic requirements.

Power supply apart, the less catenary we have to support the better, particularly in exposed places where vulnerable to high winds and heavy rainfall. It also complicates any track work.

 

[Bald Rick]

Power supply apart, the less catenary we have to support the better, particularly in exposed places where vulnerable to high winds and heavy rainfall. It also complicates any track work.

In principle I agree. There are exceptions.

One thing that is often misunderstood is the oower supply requirements. Ultimately a fleet of BEMUs needs roughly the same amount of power as a fleet of EMUs. So the power supply you need for electrification you still need for BEMUs too, The benefit is that you can make use of soare capacity in existing power supplies in some cases, which is more difficult to do with straight electrification.

 

[Nottingham59]

No need to. BEMUs are the future for everywhere without high speed and/or high freight traffic requirements.

Agreed: BEMUs are the future. There are two strategic decisions needed now for future GB electrification programmes:

1. What range should BEMUs have off the wires? (i.e. operating range in all conditions, without over-draining batteries). This determines what the spacing needs to be between islands of electrification. I note that the 802207 trial suggested that a BEMU based on the 802 with "all three GUs were replaced by batteries, a return run of 135 km off wire was feasible e.g. York to Scarborough."
2. At what rate should BEMUs recharge? Should they recharge at the limits of OHLE contact wires (i.e. 7.5MW), which might mean more expensive batteries to accept that charging rate? Or at a slower rate, which would require longer lengths of OHLE in every island of electrification?

Getting back on topic, there is a real risk that the four and a half miles of electrification being planned for the 30-mile Borders Line will prove in future to have been unnecessary.

 

[hwl]

Getting back on topic, there is a real risk that the four and a half miles of electrification being planned for the 30-mile Borders Line will prove in future to have been unnecessary.

Very unlikely - in my expert professional view Scotrail have got the numbers right, why is is so difficult for some people to accept this?

The recharge time for the 802 ended up being quite long so it wasn't possible to do that at frequent intervals so it would require a very long time under the wires.