Fife Line(s) Capacity

[waverley47]

I do actually have the long term demand forecasting for the Fife lines lying around somewhere, and it basically says that about 70% of the cumulative demand from all stations in Fife to stations out of Fife was to just two destinations: Haymarket and Waverley. Add in Dundee and Perth and you take it up to 80%.

We are getting off topic here, so I'll not start a conversation about best use of assets, however, if you're going to complain about a service pattern and a lack of connectivity, then it would be useful to know which improvements to services, and which service patterns you want. Which flows do you feel are not being adequately served, and how might they be better served, given the capacity constraints at Waverley and over the Bridge?

As an aside, running Glasgow trains through Stirling, Fife and on to Leven seems incredibly unlikely in the next two decades, and is not an adequate solution to any capacity constraints previously mentioned in this thread.

 

[edwin_m]

At least two Leven to Edinburgh via Kirkcaldy locals each day spend 10min in a loop approaching Inverkeithing for an Inter7City from Aberdeen to overtake, which does tend to suggest the current service pattern is stretching the route capacity close to the limit.

 

[John R]

The whole partial electrification is more of a way for the government to say "we don't have enough money, so we're gonna cheap our way into it first".
It only solves half of our issues, albeit with a somewhat cheaper cost. God knows how Dundee and Perth services will work, given no electrification north of Ladybank for the time being, and that's atleast 20km each way between them. BEMUs barely fit the demographic of the Fife Circle route, but certainly not the "inter-city" route to Dundee and Perth. Unless Network Rail installs OHLE into Dundee station where the trains can charge on idle, I don't see any way the trains will have enough range to make it back to Edinburgh, as there is more track without wires over them on the route than there are (if that makes sense).

It isn't saying "we are gonna cheap our way", it is using a strategy of partial electrification and batteries to maximise the benefits of electrification as fast as possible given the limited resources available. What exactly is wrong with that?

As for the Ladybank to Dundee services, it would be very surprising if the intention isn't to run BEMUs on the services that terminate at Dundee. But it's really not a problem. If the 40 mile round trip is going to be outwith the operating range of the batteries, then a simple fixed conductor rail in the two bay platforms would suffice. In exactly the same way that the bay at Caerphilly has a fixed conductor, for precisely the same purpose. And as for a connection to provide the power for conductor rail, if a suitable high voltage one isn't available then the same facility as successfully employed at West Ealing could be used which trickle charges continuously, rather than needing anything of higher voltage.

Also, depending on the exact range, you might not be charging from empty to full. Say the comfortable operating range is considered as 30 miles. So you can't do the 40 miles there and back. You only need to charge the equivalent of 10 miles during the turnaround at Dundee, which is only 25% of the capacity.

Exactly the same concept would work at Perth, which is slightly shorter, at 18 miles.

So low cost solutions are available, which will considerably increase the benefits of the partial electrification under way, and will at the same time enable more services to be replaced by the new trains, which presumably will be considerably better than the ageing rolling stock operating on the services under discussion.

 

[TrainViation]

I'd like to apologise for sounding very condescending and critical in my previous message, it does make sense that the Scottish Government are making the most of what they can afford to do just now. It is a little frustrating however that this approach must be carried out, as well as the reduction in service stopping patterns which removes convenience.

I think it would be appropriate to talk more about the Dundee aspect of things and about how charging would work there if needed.
Here's the link to the designated thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/dundee-electrification-plans.290037

 

[waverley47]

To shed some light onto wiring plans:

That is the full complement of Central Belt services run by the 158/170 fleet, and, crucially, are worked by units from Haymarket and Eastfield (some of the 158s stable at Corkerhill, but that's not important). It amounts to about 32 diagrams south of the Perth - Arbroath line at any given time, although some units do transfer back and forward from Aberdeen/Inverness to the Central Belt on passenger services, which should be eliminated with the 222 fleet. The longest distance currently run off the wires are the Dundee and Perth services, which conveniently will find themselves running under the wires for about half of the route, following the commissioning of the wires around Glenrothes. Units which out-stable do so at Tweedbank (soon to be wired), Leven (soon to be wired), Perth Depot and Dundee (to be wired).

The highest priority for Scotrail is to be able to bin off the suburban fleet from Haymarket and Eastfield depots. Space there is severely limited, especially at Haymarket, and switching the Anniesland, Fife Circle, Tweedbank, Perth and Dundee services over to the BEMUs would allow you a uniform fleet. Following the commission of all planned electrification, none of these services would spend more than two hours, or about 120 miles off the wires (Dunblane to Arbroath and back), less when Dundee to Arbroath is wired. That allows an internal cascade, with the 158/170s transferring to Aberdeen and bolstering services, replacing the worst 156s on the G&SW routes, and the 158s potentially (although gauging issues may need to be addressed) on the West Highland.

 

[Class83]

It isn't saying "we are gonna cheap our way", it is using a strategy of partial electrification and batteries to maximise the benefits of electrification as fast as possible given the limited resources available. What exactly is wrong with that?

As for the Ladybank to Dundee services, it would be very surprising if the intention isn't to run BEMUs on the services that terminate at Dundee. But it's really not a problem. If the 40 mile round trip is going to be outwith the operating range of the batteries, then a simple fixed conductor rail in the two bay platforms would suffice. In exactly the same way that the bay at Caerphilly has a fixed conductor, for precisely the same purpose. And as for a connection to provide the power for conductor rail, if a suitable high voltage one isn't available then the same facility as successfully employed at West Ealing could be used which trickle charges continuously, rather than needing anything of higher voltage.

Also, depending on the exact range, you might not be charging from empty to full. Say the comfortable operating range is considered as 30 miles. So you can't do the 40 miles there and back. You only need to charge the equivalent of 10 miles during the turnaround at Dundee, which is only 25% of the capacity.

Exactly the same concept would work at Perth, which is slightly shorter, at 18 miles.

So low cost solutions are available, which will considerably increase the benefits of the partial electrification under way, and will at the same time enable more services to be replaced by the new trains, which presumably will be considerably better than the ageing rolling stock operating on the services under discussion.

It seems that the reasonable need for limited battery operation, Forth and Tay Bridges plus a few tunnels, has morphed into barely 50% track mileage electrification. Electric units are generally much better at accelerating as they can easily draw more power and weigh less than diesel units. It will be interesting to see the proposed accelleration profile of the BEMUs v a pure EMU and how increasing the battery capacity/range effects this. A small battery to give 5-10 miles to get through the difficult to electrify sections is one thing, 40 miles range is going to require a large and heavy battery and/or significant performance limitations while operating off the wires.

 

[John R]

It seems that the reasonable need for limited battery operation, Forth and Tay Bridges plus a few tunnels, has morphed into barely 50% track mileage electrification. Electric units are generally much better at accelerating as they can easily draw more power and weigh less than diesel units. It will be interesting to see the proposed accelleration profile of the BEMUs v a pure EMU and how increasing the battery capacity/range effects this. A small battery to give 5-10 miles to get through the difficult to electrify sections is one thing, 40 miles range is going to require a large and heavy battery and/or significant performance limitations while operating off the wires.

Yes, good points. Though I guess in the context of a 40 year lifetime for the units, the battery capacity can be reduced or removed in future as the gaps are infilled if there is a business case to do so.

 

[Highlander1]

Off topic, but the north of Fife has ZERO direct connection with Stirling, without changing at Dunfermline or Forth Valley Hospital on the bus.

Leven to Glasgow or even Stirling to make use of the north bay platforms, would make a world of difference.

The north bay platforms are not set up for passenger use. They'd need to be resignalled

 

[318266]

The north bay platforms are not set up for passenger use. They'd need to be resignalled

Presumably, if you have the money to build a station in Kincardine, you have the money for such signalling alterations.