East Kilbride/Barrhead electrification updates

[waverley47]

I hope this is all as waverley47 said. It does not seem to have got through yet to Roger Ford of Modern Railways. In his piece in the September issue he praises the Scottish approach compared with the UK govt approach, but mentions a couple of times that nothing has been authorised.

I understood his point to be more that the actual cost of the electrification work required for decarbonising countrywide is in the order of the tens of billions of pounds, to start in this Parliament. And that capital is as yet not forthcoming, although smaller pieces of electrification work have been funded through the existing settlement. I doubt myself now that you point this out though.

That was one of his main points (as discussed in the Transpennine thread in the last week or two) but I'm referring to one or two small asides which suggested he's unaware of the information in waverley's post about how electrification will proceed henceforth in Scotland.

So, point of order, Mr Speaker.

Electrification in England proceeds according to treasury authorising X scheme with a budget of X million, with a defined scope. That starts with the treasury defining a set project, milage, structures, service frequency, power to be installed ect, and broadly speaking, that is final. NR then authorises contracts plans the upgrade, and everything gets going slowly and takes about five years.

That scope creeps slowly, as inevitably costs rise so things are cut out to change money, or the cost increases to cover more accurate surveys or new engineering guidance. At the end of the project, what was specified +/- a little bit is delivered, and NR has to pack up, write a new timetable and wait for the next project.

The benefit of this system is each system is weighed up individually, and you tend to get a good idea of how long it will take. The drawback is that you end up with inefficiency, as that team and all its learning packs up elsewhere and buggers off, only for a new team to be formed and have to relearn all the mistakes five years later when a new project is authorised.


Now for the Scottish system.

The electrification budget is part of the ScotGov budget. It's a yearly settlement, but planned in intervals of five years. So each year the government has to vote to approve it, but the settlement is planned in advance. NR knows how much money they're getting in advance in that pot of cash, the "major public transport investments" years in advance, so they can budget accordingly.

What this does is remove most of the inefficiencies of the English approach. That electrification team goes straight onto the next one, all those planners go straight onto the next project. The team involved in running the simulation for sight lines for the wiring masts for example is already working out where the masts will go for the Aberdeen route, even though that project isn't anywhere near beginning. All those specialists move straight onto the next project, and everything is planned in advance.

NR Scotland already know how much money they're getting, so if one project goes over budget, they just shift the whole project completion date backwards, but knowing that the money will keep coming gives so much freedom to go slower and more methodically. There aren't any deadlines to meet, just a project to complete as and when it's done.


The problem with modern railways, and Roger Ford especially, is that they haven't yet gripped the reality that the Scottish government is pursuing such a different approach that their preconceived ideas aren't valid.

When analysing the Scottish approach, absolutely no attentions should be paid to publications. Instead, as long as the ScotGov budget is passed every year, we'll see progression. The schemes in Scotland haven't been let or announced, instead NR has decided it's the best use of their annual budget and their prime directive (wire the whole network by 2040) so they started with it.

East Kilbride is a quick and easy win, but the only time we'll even know what's next is when work starts.


Also any questions I will try to answer, of people want to pm me or post them here.

 

[Starmill]

When analysing the Scottish approach, absolutely no attentions should be paid to publications. Instead, as long as the ScotGov budget is passed every year, we'll see progression.

Indeed. However, the point I was getting at is thst this is disconnected from the reality of the electrification parts of the decarbonisation task. There absolutely is not enough money; it hasn't yet fed through.

But that is a separate point. I think you're right that Mr Ford could have used clearer terms.

 

[waverley47]

Indeed. However, the point I was getting at is thst this is disconnected from the reality of the electrification parts of the decarbonisation task. It hasn't yet fed through.

But that is a separate point. I think you're right that Mr Ford could have used clearer terms.

Eh, not really. The budget allocated to "major infrastructure improvements" explicitly has two directives on what it can be spent on.

Decarbonisation of the rail network by 2040, and

Improvements to intermodal journeys, connections at stations, and improving the capacity of the network to facilitate more journeys by public transport.

So that budget is basically for wiring and station remodelling to improve interchanges (Perth is the obvious one). The electrification won't ever be announced, because as far as NR and the Scottish government are concerned, it's part of one single project which started in 2019 and will end when it ends.

And yes, Roger Ford really needs to understand what's happening outside of NR southeast.

 

[Starmill]

So that budget is basically for wiring and station remodelling to improve interchanges (Perth is the obvious one). The electrification won't ever be announced, because as far as NR and the Scottish government are concerned, it's part of one single project which started in 2019 and will end when it ends.

Yes. But, as I keep saying that's going to be decades after 2040 if funding isn't significantly increased soon. And most definitely before the next Scottish Parliament election. That's why there are so many question marks.

 

[snowball]

But there's also the fact that the Scottish approach of wiring bits of lines and using battery trains should enable complete removal of diesel power from passenger trains to be achieved well ahead of complete electrification.

We also need to remember that carbon emissions from rail transport are a tiny fraction of carbon emissions from all transport.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

We also need to remember that carbon emissions from rail transport are a tiny fraction of carbon emissions from all transport.

Slightly OT but that is why for serious decarbonisation modal shift will also be required.

 

[snowball]

I hope they can get enough feeder stations built on a reasonable timescale. Everybody keeps saying how long the lead time is for them.

 

[Bald Rick]

Slightly OT but that is why for serious decarbonisation modal shift will also be required.

Or electrification of the road network....

 

[Southsider]

Eh, not really. The budget allocated to "major infrastructure improvements" explicitly has two directives on what it can be spent on.

Decarbonisation of the rail network by 2040, and

Improvements to intermodal journeys, connections at stations, and improving the capacity of the network to facilitate more journeys by public transport.

So that budget is basically for wiring and station remodelling to improve interchanges (Perth is the obvious one). The electrification won't ever be announced, because as far as NR and the Scottish government are concerned, it's part of one single project which started in 2019 and will end when it ends.

And yes, Roger Ford really needs to understand what's happening outside of NR southeast.

Are you saying there are no time constraints or milestones associated with this project? Kind of goes against the fundamentals of project management.

 

[takno]

Are you saying there are no time constraints or milestones associated with this project? Kind of goes against the fundamentals of project management.

There are clearly milestones and time constraints. They just haven't been planned out 5 years in advance and intimately tied to the budget, so if they are missed there doesn't have to be an explosion of toys from a ministerial pram. Basically if one project gets behind, the whole project gets behind.

 

[sannox]

Will the terminal bay platform at Barrhead be long enough as is, or does it need to be extended?

Platform 3 can take 4 car Cl156s. Might be tight with 4 car 380s!

 

[nlogax]

Platform 3 can take 4 car Cl156s. Might be tight with 4 car 380s!

It would be tight, but I assume replacing the existing slope with level platform would fix it?

 

[Southsider]

It would be tight, but I assume replacing the existing slope with level platform would fix it?

Aren’t they both 23m carriages? Plus the passenger doors of a 380 are away from the end so should be over the platform. However, wasn’t one of the aims of the project to permit 8x23m trains?

 

[nlogax]

Aren’t they both 23m carriages?

380s have at least an extra 50cm per car over a 156.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2021 ==

However, wasn’t one of the aims of the project to permit 8x23m trains?

Ah, I wasn't aware of that. I do keep hoping some station modification documents will turn up on East Ren's planning website but nothing so far.

 

[sannox]

380s have at least an extra 50cm per car over a 156.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2021 ==



Ah, I wasn't aware of that. I do keep hoping some station modification documents will turn up on East Ren's planning website but nothing so far.

A 380/1 shows, on wikipedia at least, as a total length of 94.70m.

I suspect that the Barrhead local service would be still be a max of 4 car given works needed to intermediate stations too? The local service is never too bad in my experience. The worst was the 2 car at 07:55 which was always awful, but seems due to covid to be a 4 car combined with the Kilmarnock run.

 

[clc]

Slightly OT but that is why for serious decarbonisation modal shift will also be required.

Or electrification of the road network....

The Scottish Government has a target of reducing car km driven by 20% by the end of the decade. I saw some analysis recently which suggested that half of that target could be met by a reduction in peak time commuting due to increased working from home; and the other half by modal shift. In that scenario the author estimated that we need to plan for roughly a doubling of rail demand compared to 2019 levels.

 

[Class 170101]

The Scottish Government has a target of reducing car km driven by 20% by the end of the decade. I saw some analysis recently which suggested that half of that target could be met by a reduction in peak time commuting due to increased working from home; and the other half by modal shift. In that scenario the author estimated that we need to plan for roughly a doubling of rail demand compared to 2019 levels.

But then they dual the A9 and make rail (even) less competitive with road?

 

[ld0595]

But then they dual the A9 and make rail (even) less competitive with road?

And slash frequencies. You're not going to encourage rail use with that. My line in South Glasgow is now down to 1tph in the evenings. I now use the car to get around because I'm not going to wait for up to an hour for the next service or pay significantly more for the bus.

 

[Starmill]

But then they dual the A9 and make rail (even) less competitive with road?

It's well and good to claim your support for decarbonisation, and to write nice-sounding laws about how you've a deadline for "net zero", but it doesn't actually do anything. This is true across climate policy in all sectors though, not just transport, and almost all rich countries though, not just Scotland.

At least with rail, the cost of increasing capacity and the cost of decarbonising existing capacity have synergies. But it's still going to be tens of billions that is currently unfunded. There are only 24 years to go. Best get on with it.

 

[clc]

But then they dual the A9 and make rail (even) less competitive with road?

Most of the reduction in car use will be in and around Glasgow and Edinburgh. The author cited a report which found that the number of public transport boardings per capita in Edinburgh in 2012 was around half that in Copenhagen and only just above one quarter of the equivalent number in Zurich. But I agree that if decarbonisation is the priority then A9 dualling makes no sense given the opportunity cost.

 

[66C]

East Kilbride electrification cut back. Double tracking from Busby to East Kilbride no longer happening and back to 6 car operation.

 

[route101]

Where you get the info from?

I guess no justification for 8 car EMUS on the branch.

 

[Highlandspring]

Not surprising.

 

[clc]

Incredibly short sighted if true.

 

[John R]

East Kilbride electrification cut back. Double tracking from Busby to East Kilbride no longer happening and back to 6 car operation.

So just be clear, full electrification is still going ahead (the first statement suggests it might not be), but the associated infrastructure changes are not going ahead?

 

[gingertom]

Incredibly short sighted if true.

if it is indeed true let's hope they at least leave passive provision to upgrade at a later date.

 

[Southsider]

Not surprising.

I agree, it will be interesting to see if it’s validated.
Even before COVID the need for full doubling and eight car operation struck me as questionable, an extra platform at East Kilbride and six car operation throughout with an increased frequency off peak would have been more realistic. I haven’t seen any official figures but, from local discussion (gossip?), hardly anyone is using the line apart from the school traffic to and from Crossmyloof. Depending on usage projections could the whole future of the East Kilbride branch be up for debate?

 

[takno]

I agree, it will be interesting to see if it’s validated.
Even before COVID the need for full doubling and eight car operation struck me as questionable, an extra platform at East Kilbride and six car operation throughout with an increased frequency off peak would have been more realistic. I haven’t seen any official figures but, from local discussion (gossip?), hardly anyone is using the line apart from the school traffic to and from Crossmyloof. Depending on usage projections could the whole future of the East Kilbride branch be up for debate?

Isn't government advice still not to return to the office? It doesn't make any sense to predict future traffic on the basis of what's happening in the middle of what the Scottish government still insist on regarding as a crisis.

 

[Frankton Junct]

I agree, it will be interesting to see if it’s validated.
Even before COVID the need for full doubling and eight car operation struck me as questionable, an extra platform at East Kilbride and six car operation throughout with an increased frequency off peak would have been more realistic. I haven’t seen any official figures but, from local discussion (gossip?), hardly anyone is using the line apart from the school traffic to and from Crossmyloof. Depending on usage projections could the whole future of the East Kilbride branch be up for debate?

My understanding is that lengthening to 8 carriages for peak services was selected instead of a more frequent 6 carriage timetable due to the flat junctions and platform capacity at Glasgow Central. Some of my former colleagues want to return to office based working but their employer has kept their office closed. It is too soon to forecast peak demand for the next 20-30 years.

Recently, I used evening services which were busy (although one was only 2 carriages, making social distancing impossible).

A bad outcome would be if the Scottish Government diverts the funding from this project to rebuild Stewartfield Way in East Kilbridge as a dual carriageway road. This might be necessary if they successfully force commuters away from the railway. (End of speculation)

Meanwhile, the Strathbungo Society posted a report of their recent meeting with Network Rail:

A new bridge is coming – but where?
by Heather Alexander


Network Rail (NR) have announced that the public consultation on a new footbridge for Strathbungo has decided in favour of design A, which nods to the design of the current bridge and allows Strathbungo residents to maintain the fine old tradition of waving at the trains.

However, we still don’t know where the bridge is to be situated. The local consensus appears to be that the bridge be re-sited at the end of Marywood Square, where one existed until the end of the 1990s.

The Society met with Network Rail in early August to discuss this and associated issues of the road bridge on Nithsdale Road, where Susie’s still stands, though not for much longer (demolition is scheduled for early 2022). Network Rail have a deadline of 2023 to get electric trains on the tracks. This means all timescales are tight but it seems much has still to be determined.

Moving the footbridge was raised and their engineering spokesperson said that he had done a location visit at Queens Square but had not investigated the original site of the Marywood Square bridge, which seems odd! There seemed little resistance in principle to the idea of re-locating the new footbridge, but the feasibility is in question. Where the engineer investigated at Queens Square, they felt there was no safe pedestrian access to it, as it is sited on a semi-chicane T-junction with narrow pavements on the Moray Place side at the Queens Square junction. NR believed that the same would apply at the top of Marywood Square. However this is not the case. Where the previous bridge landed at Marywood, the infrastructure is intact with a pavement as wide as at the existing bridge, but considerably longer and with the advantage of overhead lighting. It also provides safer access to Pollokshields, in that this site is nearer the pedestrian crossing across Darnley Road.

Questions were also asked about the road bridge at Nithsdale Road. Given the state of the bridge, it is not surprising that it is to be replaced but the new road bridge will replace the deck only - not the superstructure at either end that holds it up - and will remove the ‘temporary’ props under the bridge. The new deck will be thinner from top to bottom than the present to raise the clearance. There was also discussion about the replacement parapets, ensuring that they are suitable in a conservation area.

For the Society, there are major concerns about how the new road bridge will be configured . Currently it is a two-lane road, one in either direction, due to weight restrictions. However, with new commitments by the Council to active travel, we are keen to enter into discussions with them about the road design. It will also be important to have a footbridge before the road works start, or crossing the railway will have to be done via Titwood Road or Albert Drive. As things stand, we are seeking the urgent engagement of council officials in the Planning and Roads departments to seek solutions that suit the Strathbungo area.

See A new bridge is coming - but where?

 

[sannox]

This makes the point quite correctly that the bridge is more useful to replace the bridge at Marywood Square than at Queens Square. Think that makes a lot of sense.