Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

[InOban]

Assuming all three sides of Cowlairs triangle are electrified now and just short of Anniesland station is already wired, how many track miles are we talking about to wire as far as Westerton compared to track miles to East Kilbride? Would the short tunnel at Dawsholm be a problem?

If you're meaning the tunnel under the Canal, then yes.

 

[deltic08]

If you're meaning the tunnel under the Canal, then yes.

Yes, that one.

 

[InOban]

I think it would need the same solution as Carmuirs - replace the tunnel by an aqueduct. £££££.
Doubling a section of the EK route would also be ££££, given the costs elsewhere of projects where the formation originally carried two tracks, which this didn't. But it would serve far more passengers.

 

[Altnabreac]

East Kilbride vs Maryhill - which to wire first?

East Kilbride
Pros:
Serves many more passengers
Relatively few structures to clear
Frees up lots of DMUs
Helps create capacity at Glasgow Central (by reducing dwell at Central and replacing with dwell at EK
Potentially helps address overcrowding if longer trains can run.
Cons:
Integrated diagrams with Barrhead, Kilmarnock and GSW services. Needs unpicking.
Most peak services already 6 coaches long so may need platform extensions as well adding cost and complexity.
Some (ideally all) of the single track section needs redoubled before electrification adding cost and complexity.

Maryhill
Pros:
Short section of line.
Diagrams integrated with other services out of GLQ High Level. By 2019 the only DMUs left will be HSTs, WHL and 170s on the Glasgow - Perth semi fasts, making it difficult to find suitable stock to operate Anniesland services between turns.
Potentially allows recasting of services to operate new electric services integrated into North Clyde services.
Cons:
Some expensive structures
Low passenger numbers
2 coach trains rarely busy so 3 coach EMUs a bit wasted on quiet services.
Westerton - Maryhill will only be of use for out of service trains

Overall I think I'd probably go for East Kilbride and Barrhead first but I'd certainly like to see planning underway to see both of them done in CP6.

 

[InOban]

A fair summary.

However much of whatever£ is allocated to CP6 is I think already spoken for. That beautiful rebuilt QS has to be paid for. Not to mention the cost overruns on the early stages of EGIP, pushing the later stages into CP 6.

 

[clc]

Maryhill
Pros:
Short section of line.
Diagrams integrated with other services out of GLQ High Level. By 2019 the only DMUs left will be HSTs, WHL and 170s on the Glasgow - Perth semi fasts, making it difficult to find suitable stock to operate Anniesland services between turns.
Potentially allows recasting of services to operate new electric services integrated into North Clyde services.
Cons:
Some expensive structures
Low passenger numbers
2 coach trains rarely busy so 3 coach EMUs a bit wasted on quiet services.
Westerton - Maryhill will only be of use for out of service trains

.

How about re-routing Maryhill services to Milngavie rather than Anniesland? The 3-car EMUs wouldn’t be carrying so much fresh air and Milngavie would get 6tph without requiring any additional capacity at Queen Street.

Kelvindale would have to be closed but you could build a replacement on the WHL to the north of the existing station.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Low passenger numbers mean the reason for electrifying Maryhill is operational convenience more than anything else. That's not to say it's an irrelevance though. When ScotRail will be trying to pour a gallon into a pint pot with the future Queen Street HL timetable, any 'quick win' which unlocks other improvements is going to be looked upon favourably. With view of the low passenger numbers I very much expect the work to be done via a major blockade, like much of the Paisley Canal wiring. It would be much cheaper just to bus passengers for a few weeks and have all hands on deck rebuilding bridges and lowering track than it would be to have a protracted set of works over weekends and bank holidays. Actually, a thought occurs that the cheapest time to electrify it might be at the same time as work on East Kilbride/Barrhead. These lines aren't going to be so easy to close, so there will be lots of resources needing paid for that will only be usable for a small proportion of the time. If the kit can make its way back and forth between the two sites, you could have it work on the Maryhill line during normal times and then on the EK line whenever a closure can be arranged. If there are any remaining gaps maybe they could just finish the job and wire up the City Union while they're at it?

I don't imagine they would electrify EK without doing Barrhead in the same job. With only a few kilometres more wiring you can convert all of the stopping trains on the line to electric, sharing stock and simplifying timetabling. Barrhead is as far as you can go without having to think about the much bigger project of redoubling and/or wiring to Kilmarnock.

How about re-routing Maryhill services to Milngavie rather than Anniesland? The 3-car EMUs wouldn’t be carrying so much fresh air and Milngavie would get 6tph without requiring any additional capacity at Queen Street.

Kelvindale would have to be closed but you could build a replacement on the WHL to the north of the existing station.

What you're proposing is the reversal of what happened when the Anniesland extension opened. Before that, the DMUs went onto the start of the Milngavie branch to turn back. When Larkhall reopened they added another 2tph through Central low level and Milngavie was the best place to terminate the trains. The new turnback siding west of Maryhill just so happened to be long enough to stretch all the way to Anniesland and have a new station on it at the same time.

Moving forward I really don't see them reverting this decision, as the factors in play back in 2005 are even more pressing today. You would have to up the Milngavie branch to 6tph, requiring full redoubling back to Westerton, and then you would have your Maryhill trains cross both running lines on the flat. It would mean that problems on the North Clyde/Argyle lines would have an impact on the high level trains, which can't be good for reliability.

 

[Railsigns]

What you're proposing is the reversal of what happened when the Anniesland extension opened. Before that, the DMUs went onto the start of the Milngavie branch to turn back.

They didn't reverse on the Milngavie branch or even go as far as Westerton station to reverse. They reversed on the Down Singer line, just clear of the Knightswood North Junction points (at signal YH530).

 

[route101]

Assuming all three sides of Cowlairs triangle are electrified now and just short of Anniesland station is already wired, how many track miles are we talking about to wire as far as Westerton compared to track miles to East Kilbride? Would the short tunnel at Dawsholm be a problem?

Must be nearly 3x times the distance

 

[route101]

Are most peak services to EK 6 car 156s , I thought it was just a couple .
Need to have a looks at bridges on EK line if they are ok for electrification.

 

[NotATrainspott]

They didn't reverse on the Milngavie branch or even go as far as Westerton station to reverse. They reversed on the Down Singer line, just clear of the Knightswood North Junction points (at signal YH530).

Ah, I misremembered the junction name. In any case, it means the idea of putting them up the Milngavie branch would be even more disruptive than I had thought.

 

[Southsider]

Are most peak services to EK 6 car 156s , I thought it was just a couple .
Need to have a looks at bridges on EK line if they are ok for electrification.

With 156s returning from refurbishment I believe there are now two six car sets during the peak, the rest are four car so plenty scope for increasing capacity.

As mentioned above there are not that many structures to be addressed. Hopefully the newish bridge at Crossmyloof is still OK under the new clearance regulations, particularly given its proximity to the station. There are a number of arched bridges that will require to be replaced, the ones either side of Clarkston station present opportunities to deal with poor road alignment and narrow footpaths in conjunction with clearance work.

 

[route101]

With 156s returning from refurbishment I believe there are now two six car sets during the peak, the rest are four car so plenty scope for increasing capacity.

As mentioned above there are not that many structures to be addressed. Hopefully the newish bridge at Crossmyloof is still OK under the new clearance regulations, particularly given its proximity to the station. There are a number of arched bridges that will require to be replaced, the ones either side of Clarkston station present opportunities to deal with poor road alignment and narrow footpaths in conjunction with clearance work.

I see , i had it that the express service from Glasgow to EK in peak was a 6 car .

I think the bridge at Crossmyloof was redone for pendos .

 

[170401]

I would have thought that electrifying Cowlairs North to Anniesland/Westerton would be a bigger priority than EK in that it would eliminate a small pocket of diesel working (aprt from WHL services obviously) and also open up the possibility of a Northern Circle?

The only way you'll see a Northern circle is if you divert a Dalmuir/Milngavie service at Anniesland. Partick/Hyndland does not have any capacity for additional services without major work (4 tracking). Can't see that being popular.

Personally I think the Maryhill line (Along with Fife, Aberdeen/Inverness, possibly EK etc) will be solved eventually using bi-mode stock. My personal belief is that we will follow the English example despite resistance and cash for new electrtification will become scarce in favour of bi-modes.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Personally I think the Maryhill line (Along with Fife, Aberdeen/Inverness, possibly EK etc) will be solved eventually using bi-mode stock. My personal belief is that we will follow the English example despite resistance and cash for new electrtification will become scarce in favour of bi-modes.

But you agree Shotts and Stirling will go ahead ?

 

[Altnabreac]

But you agree Shotts and Stirling will go ahead ?

Shotts already has all but one of the structures cleared and has a good portion of the masts erected. it isn't going to be cancelled at this point.

I don't see any appetite from Transport Scotland to cut back on the rolling programme of electrification. As the costs rise the single track kilometres per year delivered may fall but I strongly suspect electrification will remain a policy aim of Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government.

 

[Carntyne]

But you agree Shotts and Stirling will go ahead ?

They are already in progress, with Shotts at least ahead of schedule.

 

[najaB]

My personal belief is that we will follow the English example despite resistance and cash for new electrtification will become scarce in favour of bi-modes

Given that the Scottish projects haven't experienced the same level of either cost growth or schedule creep, I suspect that we will see fewer cancellations north of the border than there have been to the south.

 

[170401]

Shotts already has all but one of the structures cleared and has a good portion of the masts erected. it isn't going to be cancelled at this point.

I don't see any appetite from Transport Scotland to cut back on the rolling programme of electrification. As the costs rise the single track kilometres per year delivered may fall but I strongly suspect electrification will remain a policy aim of Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government.

Without getting too political, any speculation past what is currently planned is subject to changes in government. I really think bi-modes will figure hugely in Scotrails long term future and whilst electrification may reach the North of the country, I believe it will need to have its costs reduced and large jobs such as the Forth bridge/South Fife tunnels/Moncrieff tunnel/Tay bridge/Maryhill canal tunnels etc will never see wires installed and instead the gaps will be bridged using bimode technology.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Without getting too political, any speculation past what is currently planned is subject to changes in government.

TRUE

I really think bi-modes will figure hugely in Scotrails long term future ----

Agreed - for the foreseeable future Aberdeen will not get wires - so London - Aberdeen through trains are one obvious use of bi-modes. Others readily spring to mind.

--- whilst electrification may reach the North of the country, I believe it will need to have its costs reduced and large jobs such as the Forth bridge/South Fife tunnels/Moncrieff tunnel/Tay bridge/Maryhill canal tunnels etc will never see wires installed and instead the gaps will be bridged using bimode technology.

A week is a long time in politics - never is a word I rarely would use (I was tempted to say " never is a word I would never use!)

 

[najaB]

I really think bi-modes will figure hugely in Scotrails long term future...

I think that is a given: they start operation next year (with VTEC) and even in the most optimistic scenarios the wires wouldn't be reaching Aberdeen and Inverness before the mid/late 2030s (well after the HSTs were life expired). So c. 20 years in the optimistic scenario, more like 30 in a realistic one.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Without getting too political, any speculation past what is currently planned is subject to changes in government. I really think bi-modes will figure hugely in Scotrails long term future and whilst electrification may reach the North of the country, I believe it will need to have its costs reduced and large jobs such as the Forth bridge/South Fife tunnels/Moncrieff tunnel/Tay bridge/Maryhill canal tunnels etc will never see wires installed and instead the gaps will be bridged using bimode technology.

The idea of using bi-modes for the sake of a few short stretches of hard-to-electrify track doesn't make a whole lot of sense, despite what Chris Grayling likes to go on about. The minimum amount of engine you need for a train to be able to move any distance at all makes a significant impact to the cost, complexity and mass of the train. While the engine has a high fixed cost, the cost of adding range by increasing the size of the fuel tank isn't so great, so the overall economics of diesels has to favour routes with long stretches of running away from the wires. The economics of batteries are pretty much the complete inverse, as they're inherently modular and have a linear relationship between the amount of kit required and the range you can achieve. The batteries needed for a train to get from Aberdeen to Edinburgh without having wires over the Forth and Tay or through the few tunnels on the route would be really quite small.

Bi-modes don't make sense for the Glasgow suburban routes. Bi-modes work great when the most important sections of their route is wired up. Barrhead and East Kilbride have essentially no electrification whatsoever, so the electric side of the train would basically never be used. While there are emissions problems in city centre stations, having a small number of diesel trains in the fairly light and airy Glasgow Central isn't the worst possible outcome, so bi-modes aren't really desperately required there either. Relying on bi-modes for Anniesland doesn't solve the real reason why NR are keen on wiring it, which is to maximise operational flexibility at Queen Street HL. Unless the timetable writer or operations can send basically any train from the station up the line to get it out of the way for some-but-not-too-much time, it'll be an operational hassle that will hurt reliability of a big chunk of the rail network.

 

[mcmad]

Given that the Scottish projects haven't experienced the same level of either cost growth or schedule creep, I suspect that we will see fewer cancellations north of the border than there have been to the south.

Which ones haven't? EGIP was both massively overbudget, late and descoped from original. The Cumbernauld electrification was overbudget and still isn't fully commissioned. The A2I and HML projects are both overbudget from original costings. Probably easier to cover those you think have some in on time and budget?

 

[route:oxford]

Without getting too political, any speculation past what is currently planned is subject to changes in government. I really think bi-modes will figure hugely in Scotrails long term future and whilst electrification may reach the North of the country, I believe it will need to have its costs reduced and large jobs such as the Forth bridge/South Fife tunnels/Moncrieff tunnel/Tay bridge/Maryhill canal tunnels etc will never see wires installed and instead the gaps will be bridged using bimode technology.

Say, for example, the Moncrieffe tunnel or Kippenross tunnel...

Would the bimode engines generally be used?

Thinking of the Kippenross tunnel, the diesel engines tend to go very quiet when passing through it anyway - almost as if the train is coasting. Is it unrealistic to have a planned pan-drop for what would essentially be an extended neutral section?

 

[Railsigns]

Assuming all three sides of Cowlairs triangle are electrified now

The east and west curves are only partially electrified.

 

[Clansman]

believe it will need to have its costs reduced and large jobs such as the Forth bridge/South Fife tunnels/Moncrieff tunnel/Tay bridge/Maryhill canal tunnels etc will never see wires installed and instead the gaps will be bridged using bimode technology.

Given the Queen Street tunnel was shut and prevented use of one of Scotland's busiest stations for 9 months, the Moncrieffe and South Fife tunnels should be walks in the park. The Forth Bridge and Tay Bridges would need a little bit of innovation and will be tricky jobs, but no chance would they be tricky to the extent that it would prevent electrification happening altogether.

Bi-Modes are just modern day stop gaps. Best to get everything done while you need it, and make it last.

 

[najaB]

Probably easier to cover those you think have some in on time and budget?

I never said that any were. I said they haven't experienced the same level of cost growth and schedule slip.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I said they haven't experienced the same level of cost growth and schedule slip.

As in QUADRUPLING per the GWML scheme - never mind the delays?

 

[B&I]

The only way you'll see a Northern circle is if you divert a Dalmuir/Milngavie service at Anniesland. Partick/Hyndland does not have any capacity for additional services without major work (4 tracking). Can't see that being popular.

Personally I think the Maryhill line (Along with Fife, Aberdeen/Inverness, possibly EK etc) will be solved eventually using bi-mode stock. My personal belief is that we will follow the English example despite resistance and cash for new electrtification will become scarce in favour of bi-modes.

Couldn't the Hyndland nettle do with grasping anyway? A better 'Maryhill circle' service through the inner northern suburbs, connecting to the North Clyde line, would not be the only benefit from this.

And wouldn't bi-modes undermine another potential benefit of electrification, namely moving as much as possible towards a standard electrified fleet for greater Glasgow local services?

Scottish politicians are far from perfect, but they don't seem.to be quite as prone to bouts of utter daftness as English ones (well, at least Grayling).

 

[jopsuk]

I'm hearing that the plan for the major work at Stirling, Springbank Road (between the Craigs Roundabout and Kerse Road) is now coming together, with something sane thrashed out between Stirling Council and Network Rail. The council rather freaked out with how long the project team originally wanted to close the road for, understandably.