Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

[LNW-GW Joint]

On a side note Network Rail Scotland seems to have got the point where it is electrifying the right amount of track it can mange and is not biting off more than it chew, so how many track km on average is NWR Scotland planning to electrify per year compared to what is/was planned in England?

They always quote 100 stkm a year as being the ongoing investment.
That's 32-ish miles of double track, and very manageable (much like the NW scheme in fact).
.

 

[clc]

Is there a formula that determines much RAB borrowing the Scottish Government can take on for electrification and other railway upgrades? For example, if RAB borrowing in England = £X million does that mean the SG can borrow 10% of X million?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is there a formula that determines much RAB borrowing the Scottish Government can take on for electrification and other railway upgrades? For example, if RAB borrowing in England = £X million does that mean the SG can borrow 10% of X million?

Good question.
I thought the Scottish budget came from the higher level Barnett formula, not directly linked to rail.
For instance, they can switch money into rail from the overall transport budget (and away from other things).
Not really sure though.

 

[clc]

Good question.
I thought the Scottish budget came from the higher level Barnett formula, not directly linked to rail.
For instance, they can switch money into rail from the overall transport budget (and away from other things).
Not really sure though.

I think any RAB borrowing by the Scottish Govt would be over and above it's Barnett formula allocation. Same goes for other types of borrowing it does such as NPD (a version of PFI) which finances roads, schools and hospitals. That's why it's capital expenditure is greater than it's capital budget. What I'm not sure about is whether there's a cap on how much RAB borrowing it can do.

 

[QueensCurve]

Greenhill Junction may well come back as well, it would improve journey times and reliability for a swathe of services, but until extra services are required it will probably remain a "nice to have" rather than a "must have".

Greenhill is one of those locations where there is existing grade separation between the routes and where a non-conflicting junction would perhaps be relatively easy to provide.

Others include Severn Tunnel Junction, Roade and Taybridge Junction, Dundee.

 

[route:oxford]

Greenhill is one of those locations where there is existing grade separation between the routes and where a non-conflicting junction would perhaps be relatively easy to provide.

Others include Severn Tunnel Junction, Roade and Taybridge Junction, Dundee.

Was there originally a link between the two Glasgow routes at this point?

https://goo.gl/maps/tVOzC

I used to commute daily between Stirling and Weegieland around 20 years ago and there was what appeared to be a disused/lifted link from the Croy Up to the Cumbernauld Up.

 

[Railsigns]

Was there originally a link between the two Glasgow routes at this point?

https://goo.gl/maps/tVOzC

No, but earthworks for a link were carried out during the Second World War. The track was never laid. The recently shelved proposals for grade separation would have seen track laid along this link.

 

[deltic08]

Greenhill is one of those locations where there is existing grade separation between the routes and where a non-conflicting junction would perhaps be relatively easy to provide.

Others include Severn Tunnel Junction, Roade and Taybridge Junction, Dundee.

Severn Tunnel Junction is not a grade separated junction and from memory I don't think either junction at Greenhill is either but if earthworks are present to create one at Upper, why shelve plans for one?..

 

[Railsigns]

Severn Tunnel Junction is not a grade separated junction and from memory I don't think either junction at Greenhill is either

Roade and Dundee Central aren't grade separated junctions either but I think the point being made is that where two routes approach a junction on different elevations it's theoretically easier to implement grade separation.

 

[NotATrainspott]

No, but earthworks for a link were carried out during the Second World War. The track was never laid. The recently shelved proposals for grade separation would have seen track laid along this link.

Are there maps available of what was planned to happen? I've tried to follow the descriptions I can find online but a diagram or map would be more than helpful.

 

[snowball]

The alignment of the formerly proposed curve is easy to deduce from current OS 1:25000 mapping, e.g on Streetmap. To the south of the present bridge, it appears as earthworks in Castlecary Low Wood and a field boundary to the SW.

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=279287&y=678167&Z=115

 

[me123]

EGIP works seem to be going well. The EGIP ****ter account continues to do a good job at keeping people up to date and showing a few pictures. New concrete track bed now being laid in the tunnel.

Pleased to see the work progressing well

 

[NotATrainspott]

The alignment of the formerly proposed curve is easy to deduce from current OS 1:25000 mapping, e.g on Streetmap. To the south of the present bridge, it appears as earthworks in Castlecary Low Wood and a field boundary to the SW.

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=279287&y=678167&Z=115

I can see that but I'm thinking more of the actual track layout, with which tracks passing over the top or under other ones. Adding in that link would seemingly connect the Cumbernauld line to Falkirk High, when at the moment the only connection is from Croy to Falkirk Grahamston. I can't see how that helps with grade-separation though.

 

[Railsigns]

I can see that but I'm thinking more of the actual track layout, with which tracks passing over the top or under other ones. Adding in that link would seemingly connect the Cumbernauld line to Falkirk High, when at the moment the only connection is from Croy to Falkirk Grahamston. I can't see how that helps with grade-separation though.

There was to be a second bridge under the E&G lines but to the east of Greenhill Upper Junction.

 

[marks87]

Roade and Dundee Central aren't grade separated junctions either but I think the point being made is that where two routes approach a junction on different elevations it's theoretically easier to implement grade separation.

While previously possible in theory, it'll now be a bit awkward to grade-separate Dundee Central Jn - they've just opened a new footbridge right over the top of it.

 

[snowball]

Footbridges are small fry in such matters.

 

[najaB]

Footbridges are small fry in such matters.

I don't think that throwing away £3.5M in the current climate would go down very well.

 

[snowball]

Yeah but it wouldn't be happening in the current climate. It would be happening at some future date when they decide grade separation there is necessary. And would probably be a £100M or £200M job.

And NR throws money away all the time. Resignalling South Wales with gantries that aren't electrification-compatible. Rebuilding Stalybridge to keep the line to Piccadilly as the main line and the line to Victoria as slow, despite having already decided that the fast trains will go to Victoria in future.

 

[edwin_m]

What earthly reason would there be to grade separate Dundee West Junction? Two or three trains per hour on each route...

 

[me123]

^Agree, the project would have a poor cost:benefit ratio. Over the course of the day, there's very few trains that would even potentially conflict with each other. An HST coming off the bridge conflicting with a Glasgow bound service? It can happen, but to be honest the train can wait for a minute before setting off.

I suppose the option is there should Dundee ever need a much higher frequency - it would simply be a case of diverting the Northbound line over the Glasgow-bound lines, footbridge or no footbridge, and in fact it's probably one of the relatively easiest grade-separations I can think of. I think that was the point of bringing it up. But I can't imagine it's even on the radar at the moment.

 

[marks87]

^Agree, the project would have a poor cost:benefit ratio. Over the course of the day, there's very few trains that would even potentially conflict with each other. An HST coming off the bridge conflicting with a Glasgow bound service? It can happen, but to be honest the train can wait for a minute before setting off.

Remember as well that Dundee is bi-directional. So a new (relatively) inexpensive crossover on the bridge ramp (just before Dundee Central) would allow an arrival from Edinburgh into platform 1 while a Glasgow-bound service departs from platform 3 or 4.

 

[me123]

Of course, how could I forget! Even less reason to do it, a bit of planning would pay off if we needed to increase capacity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
FWIW, I've just passed through Dundee and had a wee look at the new bridge - it's quite a nice bridge, and it would definitely get in the way! Not that it adds anything to this hypothetical argument, but it's not worth demolishing it for a pointless flyover.

 

[Altnabreac]

Why is Scotland so good at electrification when England is so poor?

Although it doesn't feel like it, the Scots actually built up gradually. First was Airdrie-Bathgate, a relatively simple scheme with the big advantage that most of the work didn't involve live railway. This has then moved on picking up a few useful infills on the way, to EGIP which is more ambitious but still relatively modest - comparable in size to the Lancashire Triangle. If Transport Scotland has its way then the next step will be the much bigger project of getting to Aberdeen.

Compare with the English situation. In a period of two or three years we went from having done virtually no electrification for 10 years to committing to three schemes each of which is significantly bigger than EGIP. Two of these are now firmly on the back burner.

I'd say another benefit in Scotland is political concensus - changes of government cancelled EARL and GARL but didn't harm the progress of electrifying the main lines. And from what I see of Transport Scotland, they have a small but highly skilled team of experts who really understand how the railway works and how it could and should be developed.

On a side note Network Rail Scotland seems to have got the point where it is electrifying the right amount of track it can mange and is not biting off more than it chew, so how many track km on average is NWR Scotland planning to electrify per year compared to what is/was planned in England?

They always quote 100 stkm a year as being the ongoing investment.
That's 32-ish miles of double track, and very manageable (much like the NW scheme in fact).

I think there are three things in Network Rail Scotland's favour.

Firstly, as you say is that the programme has developed gradually. Lessons were learnt and engineers were trained on the Airdrie - Bathgate scheme which had the advantage of operating mainly (although not completely) on a closed alignment. A lot of the EGIP management, contractors and engineers cut their teeth on A2B.

Secondly is the relatively sensible volumes / timescales. No one (either Scottish Government or Network Rail) is promising to electrify the whole network by next week, so no one is needing to make promises that can't be delivered and lead to a loss of confidence in both sides as has happened in England.

Thirdly and most importantly in my opinion is the long term vision for the Scottish Network. Everyone in Scotland is very clear about the long term plan thanks to the Strategic Transport Projects Review process from 2008. The STPR set out exactly which lines were to be electrified, in which order of priority, for the next 15-20 years. This means other schemes in these areas can be planned to take account of future electrification, and Network Rail planning for each Control Period has been able to know roughly which areas will be up for electrification next.

For example structure clearance work is already under way on the Shotts line, even though wiring is not due to be complete until December 2019. Equally I'm sure Network Rail Scotland will currently be working up the designs and work requirements for the East Kilbride, Barrhead and Kilmarnock electrification even though they are likely to be CP6 projects, because they know that the STPR listed these lines as the next phase to be tackled.

In contrast the Network Rail RUS Working Group 6 - Electrification Refresh is nearly 3 years on from it's establishment in September 2012 and has yet to identify the strategic ordering of schemes in England & Wales. Project Managers down south don't know whether to specify other schemes for passive electrification compliance whereas in Scotland even areas such as the Highland Main Line, which are at the back of the queue for electrification, are at least in the queue. Therefore schemes like the potential line speed improvements there should take account of future electrification requirements.

There are still a few lines like South Sub, City Union, Maryhill, Kilmarnock - Barassie, Aberdeen - Inverurie that are slightly unclear exactly where they fit into the hierarchy of schemes but the vast majority of lines in Scotland we know exactly when they will be electrified and Network Rail can therefore plan well in advance.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I hope NR is as helpful when, inevitably, lines that iether woant be wired at all or for a long time need new or alternate stock that requires gage clearing and other alterations

 

[clc]

Equally I'm sure Network Rail Scotland will currently be working up the designs and work requirements for the East Kilbride, Barrhead and Kilmarnock electrification even though they are likely to be CP6 projects...

As Network Rail have said Busby-East Kilbride will likely be double-tracked in CP6 you would assume electrification will take place at the same time making it a fairly big investment and one they would only make if the plan was to increase frequency to 4tph. Though how they will find extra capacity at Central to accommodate the additional trains is another matter.

 

[66C]

Should be a short section of rewiring at Rutherglen (Central Junction?) When the crossovers are reworked I suppose

 

[QueensCurve]

What earthly reason would there be to grade separate Dundee West Junction? Two or three trains per hour on each route...

Indeed, probably none, but it seems inelegant not to do so when one line comes in at a higher level than the other.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There was to be a second bridge under the E&G lines but to the east of Greenhill Upper Junction.

Are there any published drawings of this?

 

[me123]

As Network Rail have said Busby-East Kilbride will likely be double-tracked in CP6 you would assume electrification will take place at the same time making it a fairly big investment and one they would only make if the plan was to increase frequency to 4tph. Though how they will find extra capacity at Central to accommodate the additional trains is another matter.

I don't see why 4tph to East Kilbride would be a massive issue. If you look at the rush hour at the moment, there are actually four trains an hour to and from East Kilbride, although some of these are fast and others are empty. As a quick example, just have a look at this page from RealTimeTrains.

Admittedly, it's going to be busier with those additional 2tph, but if they can manage it in the rush hour I don't see why it isn't possible off-peak.

Indeed, probably none, but it seems inelegant not to do so when one line comes in at a higher level than the other.

I reckon I can name at least one hundred projects across Scotland on the railways alone that deserve funding over and above this; and that's before we look at other infrastructure, and indeed schools, hospitals... Spending money to make something look "elegant" isn't worthwhile.

 

[marks87]

Indeed, probably none, but it seems inelegant not to do so when one line comes in at a higher level than the other.

What is the point of making something look "elegant" if it's not needed?

Dundee already has more than enough capacity, but even if more were required there's a much simpler and cheaper solution (the aforementioned crossover on the bridge, just before Central Jn). But I highly doubt the timetable will ever be so tight/frequent as to require arrivals from Edinburgh at exactly the same time as departures to Glasgow.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

What is the point of making something look "elegant" if it's not needed?

Dundee already has more than enough capacity, but even if more were required there's a much simpler and cheaper solution (the aforementioned crossover on the bridge, just before Central Jn). But I highly doubt the timetable will ever be so tight/frequent as to require arrivals from Edinburgh at exactly the same time as departures to Glasgow.

The question I have is what do you do with all this capacity at Dundee, when the station itself only has two through platforms, one proper loop and one short loop.