It's in a decent condition, but adding the weight of conductor rail, which is reasonably heavy itself, and masts to the already quite strict weight limits over the high girders might put too much weight down through the columns for the structures team to be comfortable with, hence necessitating strengthening
Then what's the point doing the electrification now? Either way you look at it they could be doing something else with that money (electrifying Maryhill to Anniesland?) and then time it so the wiring does stay there unused for years.
Doing it in a steady stream drives down captial cost. Significantly cheaper in Scotland vs England & Wales currently. Basically got a moderate sized team at SPL continuously employed doing electrification somewhere.
Given they don’t have enough emus to run a full electric service to East Kilbride, what units would use suggest they use for that service?
Agreed and the aim is for the new EMUs to be delivered first which will deliver a full EK electric service (there are also a few other diagrams with diesel operated services that could be electric if there were more EMUs).
So they're supposed to wait until the trains have arrived before they do the work? So we the tax payer are paying to lease trains that can't be used?
Having a fleet of trains stabled waiting for infrastructure work to be completed is a much worse scenario than having the infrastructure waiting for the fleet of trains.
The other key missing point is that this is the 1st round of electrification works and TS already have another in advanced planning to release more diesel units, delaying Fife and Waverley works would then delay those second round of schemes. People need to look at the overall picture not an individual scheme timing....
Dundee - Aberdeen discontinuous.
I the tunnel reboring in the past tense the reboring of Farnworth Tunnel? In the case of Kinghorn there is a diversionary route via Dunfermline.
Are the ground conditions at Kinghorn similar to Farnworth?
Has that work been done? I imagine the wires could be supported from the high girders of the Tay Bridge and Portals would be required on the two ends of the bridge
Depending on the order of construction, I wonder if the mainline or the inner circle would be fully electrified first, since there’s reasons for and against both.
Is there anything tunnel-wise via Cowdenbeath? In any event, whichever way you go first you still have to deal with the tunnels at North Queensferry and Inverkeithing.
I just roughly went over Google maps and I counted 17 overbridges and 1 level crossing between Inverkeithing junction and the terminus of the current Fife electrification project phase 3. Some of the motorway bridges may be okay for clearances though.
Those should at least be easier to deal with than Kinghorn, being somewhat greater diameter and relatively straight.
A bit further south than Dunblane - nearer Bridge of Allan.
I think that one of the restraints on the Tay Bridge is the fact that a large part of it is cast iron and wrought iron, which are not as strong as steel. The Forth Bridge is mainly steel.
No - the “taboo” is quite rightly the height of the hurdle which has to be overcome before the “authorities” can ride roughshod over the wishes of property owners (or the individual in general). Planners and back-office theorists often make the mistake of assuming it’s all a matter of bricks and mortar and pounds and pence - but it isn’t. It’s also another reason why development projects are slower and more expensive here. Get the price right and almost any landlord will take the money and invest elsewhere. Someone whose parent was born in the cottage they’ve lived in for the last 70 years is more likely to resist, however much you offer them.
Having lived with the prospect of HS2 running past the end of our garden (before the East Leg got canned) and the street beyond facing demolition, I can certainly see both sides of the discussion.
I see the principle in general, but in this particular case the cost of going down the compulsory purchase route might be quite high. A quick Google Maps survey says that there are at least 16 properties (some quite large) plus the A291 in the potential danger zone.
No, they're supposed to have both ready at (roughly) the same time, so that neither stands idle.
That would be the ideal, but in a world where capital expenditures often have to be spread out over different years, and delivery scales can be quite different, it's often the case that one will have to wait for the other.
Well, this is the problem. But it can't be fixed unless we build more housing. And if railway CPO powers are always scoped to be as narrow as possible, then the whole process will end up gummed up. The more land the railway (or any infrastructure/development company) has the power to redevelop, the easier it is to provide suitable housing in the right place, at the right time, and at the right cost. It may well be that you're best off redeveloping land in the town centre to provide some new retirement flats that allow vulnerable residents of the street to move once, into fundamentally better accommodation.
If you go down that route then my guess is that the required take would be significantly more. The tunnel isn't particularly shallow, which would make the cutting comparatively wide - it seems to be around 30m wide just before the western tunnel portal, and 40m wide at the eastern. And this would still entail a relatively long closure of the line, though admittedly possibly shorter than reboring.
Do you think in the private sector it would be acceptable to have an expensive asset depreciating for possibly years with barely any use? We are far too accepting of incompetence and waste in the government sector.
It happens. Look at how often civils like motorway junctions are completed way ahead of construction of the industrial/business estate that's going to use them because they have to align with major road works being done by the highways agencies.
