Fife Rail Electrification/Decarbonisation

[John R]

Precisely. NWR has to use portals or TTCs above platforms (some places have used headspans, like Glasgow Queen St), and single track cantilevers are a no-no.

Out of interest, why are STCs a no-no?

 

[Elecman]

Out of interest, why are STCs a no-no?

To avoid any potential of live equipment over the platform. The Lancashire Trisngle scheme made that mistake before energisation with the post on the platform with the insulators on the post so potential live metal over the platform itself iirc

 

[John R]

To avoid any potential of live equipment over the platform. The Lancashire Trisngle scheme made that mistake before energisation with the post on the platform with the insulators on the post so potential live metal over the platform itself iirc

Thank you. But still a bit puzzled, as above it was stated that TTC are allowed. Surely there's the same problem?

 

[59CosG95]

Thank you. But still a bit puzzled, as above it was stated that TTC are allowed. Surely there's the same problem?

Nope - the live parts can be moved along the boom of the structure on their 'stovepipe' such that they are all over the tracks, not the platform.

 

[The exile]

Nope - the live parts can be moved along the boom of the structure on their 'stovepipe' such that they are all over the tracks, not the platform.

Makes sense.

Genuine question - how many serious incidents have been caused by live parts of OHL equipment being over a platform over the last 75 years?

 

[John R]

Nope - the live parts can be moved along the boom of the structure on their 'stovepipe' such that they are all over the tracks, not the platform.

Thanks. Always good to learn something!

 

[McRhu]

I take it this 1973-vintage assembly wouldn't be allowed now?

 

[GraphitProjekt]

None of the live parts are above the platform footprint so wouldn't that be fine (?)
==

I think it's this kind of design that is the problem (or would be, if there were a platform beneath it) - because all the cantilever components are live since the insulator is on the post.

 

[59CosG95]

I take it this 1973-vintage assembly wouldn't be allowed now?

View attachment 189305

I mean, it's still "allowed", but only if replacing like-for-like, or if the cross-section of the mast is much beefier. The increased forces on the main steelwork when the catenary & contact are much further along mean that the mast is more likely to fail more quickly.

 

[TrainViation]

Spotted further road works underway around the Bankhead industrial estate between Bankhead Roundabout and Coaltown of Balgonie. This is obviously for the electricity cabling for the new feeder station.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I do like the Scottish Grid Feeder Strategy - or at least it looks like a definite strategy to Me.

 

[McRhu]

I mean, it's still "allowed", but only if replacing like-for-like, or if the cross-section of the mast is much beefier. The increased forces on the main steelwork when the catenary & contact are much further along mean that the mast is more likely to fail more quickly.

One of the features of MKIIIa, to my layman's eye, is the lightness and elegance of the stc masts. Has this been a problem then? The Series 2 masts (not to mention Series 1) are much heavier. I watched an overhead line repair some time ago (from a distance) where a tree had brought down MKIII wires and cantilevers on the WCML. It looked to me as if one of the masts had slightly twisted, barley-sugar style, and one of the crew untwisted it using the cantilever tubes as a lever as he hoisted them back into position. Then again it may have been a trick of the light/the distance/me havering, etc. Would such a manoeuver be possible?

ps. Sorry to go off topic a bit. Mods - strike me down with an insulator. All hail Fife.

 

[TrainViation]

Another bridge to be modified!
The bridge on Randolph Road (A915) near Standing Stane Road is to be raised over a 30 working day period between 31/01/26 and 29/04/26.

 

[Ginaro]

Another bridge to be modified!
The bridge on Randolph Road (A915) near Standing Stane Road is to be raised over a 30 working day period between 31/01/26 and 29/04/26.

To be clear it says parapets not the bridge. There's also two foot bridges near Dysart that haven't been mentioned but I think they will ok for clearance, maybe just parapet work.

 

[59CosG95]

One of the features of MKIIIa, to my layman's eye, is the lightness and elegance of the stc masts. Has this been a problem then? The Series 2 masts (not to mention Series 1) are much heavier. I watched an overhead line repair some time ago (from a distance) where a tree had brought down MKIII wires and cantilevers on the WCML. It looked to me as if one of the masts had slightly twisted, barley-sugar style, and one of the crew untwisted it using the cantilever tubes as a lever as he hoisted them back into position. Then again it may have been a trick of the light/the distance/me havering, etc. Would such a manoeuver be possible?

ps. Sorry to go off topic a bit. Mods - strike me down with an insulator. All hail Fife.

The normal "open-route" MkIII STCs are fine, but the issue is with the slimmer cross-sections on masts which have larger radial loads (e.g. platform cantilevers, such as those used at Welwyn North). The larger the radial load, the more likely the "twist" can't be recovered.

Another reason why the Welwyn North-style cantilevers tend not to be used on new installs is the public; the less of a mast that someone can use as a de-facto climbing frame, the better!

 

[McRhu]

The normal "open-route" MkIII STCs are fine, but the issue is with the slimmer cross-sections on masts which have larger radial loads (e.g. platform cantilevers, such as those used at Welwyn North). The larger the radial load, the more likely the "twist" can't be recovered.

Another reason why the Welwyn North-style cantilevers tend not to be used on new installs is the public; the less of a mast that someone can use as a de-facto climbing frame, the better!

Many thanks for that.

 

[TrainViation]

To be clear it says parapets not the bridge. There's also two foot bridges near Dysart that haven't been mentioned but I think they will ok for clearance, maybe just parapet work.

Apologies for the lack of knowledge. What does parapet work actually mean then? Is it for the return wires? And from cab rides in the past that I have seen, there is quite a few old bridges which look far too low for OHLE to pass under.

 

[John R]

The parapet is the bit on the side of the bridge that stops people or vehicles from falling off it. Raising it for electrification work means making it higher, to stop people dangling things over it which might come into contact with the wires. It unfortunately means that any view from the bridge is almost inevitably lost.

 

[TrainViation]

The parapet is the bit on the side of the bridge that stops people or vehicles from falling off it. Raising it for electrification work means making it higher, to stop people dangling things over it which might come into contact with the wires. It unfortunately means that any view from the bridge is almost inevitably lost.

Ah, thanks for the info. I really should've known that beforehand...

I'm unfortunately not convinced that there will be truly full electrification even in the sections which are set to be electrified, since the clearance is definitely not enough for wires to pass through. An example being Markinch train station.

 

[Ginaro]

Well if it just mentions extending the height of bridge parapets then they must think that the clearance for that bridge is enough, otherwise they'd have to replace/raise the entire bridge. Here's an example from the Edinburgh to Glasgow electrification.

Crosshill Road bridgeworks completed

Network Rail has completed work on Crosshill Road in Lenzie to raise the bridge parapet heights in preparation for electrification of the Edinburgh-Glasgow railway line.

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

"The bridge parapet walls needed to be 1.8m tall to ensure the public is a safe distance from the 25k volt electric cables which will be installed under the structure as part of the ongoing Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP)."

 

[AMD]

An example being Markinch train station

Markinch isn't a problem, what is a problem is Kinghorn tunnel - low height and a very wiggly shape, as it has an S bend at the west end with another curve at the east, and it's not that long!

 

[TrainViation]

Markinch isn't a problem, what is a problem is Kinghorn tunnel - low height and a very wiggly shape, as it has an S bend at the west end with another curve at the east, and it's not that long!

I agree with the Kinghorn tunnel as that will be an engineering nightmare, especially with its infamous kink in the middle.

I’m still skeptical whether this bridge along with others the exact same height will have great enough clearance… (e.g the one in this screenshot.)

 

[jadmor]

I agree with the Kinghorn tunnel as that will be an engineering nightmare, especially with its infamous kink in the middle.

I’m still skeptical whether this bridge along with others the exact same height will have great enough clearance… (e.g the one in this screenshot.)

I know this question drifts a little off topic, but is there any reason why Kinghorn tunnel wasn't bored out to a better alignment? I appreciate cost is always a factor, but is there an engineering issue?

 

[BorderCollie]

October issue of Modern Railways now reporting that the electrification of the Borders railway (the same programme as Fife electrification) is in its entirety from Newcraighall to Tweedbank. ANyone know more?

 

[TrainViation]

I know this question drifts a little off topic, but is there any reason why Kinghorn tunnel wasn't bored out to a better alignment? I appreciate cost is always a factor, but is there an engineering issue?

Could be complete bollocks, but LNER has a video with a fact about it at the timestamp 3:36

 

[John R]

October issue of Modern Railways now reporting that the electrification of the Borders railway (the same programme as Fife electrification) is in its entirety from Newcraighall to Tweedbank. ANyone know more?

Having reread it, I suspect this is just a rather imprecise wording, rather than a change in scope.

 

[BorderCollie]

I did wonder that myself John. That whole article is poorly written, which is disappointing to see in MR.

 

[jamieintercity]

I noticed on Scot-Rail.groups.io that OHL installation between Thornton and Seafield, Kirkcaldy was due to begin at the weekend and last until end of next year

 

[TrainViation]

I noticed on Scot-Rail.groups.io that OHL installation between Thornton and Seafield, Kirkcaldy was due to begin at the weekend and last until end of next year

When was this discussed? And do you know if there is any work that has happened so far?

 

[MadMac]

When was this discussed? And do you know if there is any work that has happened so far?

Someone posted on there that they had received an official notification as a “railway neighbour”.