Incorrect press statement - the Forth Bridge can have overhead electric lines installed

och aye · 2 Nov 2021

I thought that it was technically possible, but I am quoting the very last sentence from a Network Rail press release which is regarding the Vivarail battery train crossing the Forth Bridge, which they also state is "the first emission-free fully-electric train to cross the iconic Forth Bridge"

Is this correct, or someone at the NR media relations team who has got this wrong?

Video here:

Vivarail battery train crossing Forth Bridge- COP26

Video: Green train goes Forth to mark COP26 in Glasgow

Network Rail and Vivarail have released stunning aerial shots of the first emission-free fully-electric train to cross the iconic Forth Bridge as the United Nations Climate Change Conference takes place in Glasgow.

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

Network Rail and Vivarail have released stunning aerial shots of the first emission-free fully-electric train to cross the iconic Forth Bridge as the United Nations Climate Change Conference takes place in Glasgow.

The eyes of the world are on Scotland as world leaders gather to accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

As part of COP26, Network Rail is demonstrating its commitment to decarbonising Britain’s railway and supporting the UK and Scottish Governments’ net-zero goals with a showcase of two green technologies which are vital to rail’s part in tackling climate change.

Two innovative new trains will run during the conference as part of Network Rail’s Green Trains @COP26 event; showcasing the range of green ways to power trains including batteries, hydrogen and electricity.

These technologies have been identified as important elements of plans to make rail even greener, as highlighted in Network Rail’s interim Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy.

British company Vivarail has designed and manufactured pure battery and battery hybrid trains, as well as innovative charging technology, and their next generation train is capable of achieving a range of up to 100km and recharges in only 10 minutes.

The flexibility of batteries mean this package can be used to repurpose good quality diesel units or added to other types of electric train so that they’re capable of travelling on parts of the network not yet electrified.

The Forth Bridge cannot have overhead electric lines installed because of the height restrictions, so trains need to have an independent source of power to travel across.

RailUK Forums

snowball · 2 Nov 2021

It wouldn't be the first time an NR press release has contained false information. Or the second, or the third.

Bletchleyite · 2 Nov 2021

The Forth Bridge is clearly listed/protected etc, but is there anything in law stating that they couldn't build a replacement electrified bridge in a slightly different location, and relegate the original to local services, so as to get the wires up? I don't believe you are required to continue using a listed structure for its original purpose, just to keep it maintained.

Perhaps it could be repurposed to a foot- and cycle path, even?

Or will we end up at the point that basically every train has batteries, because it's useful for "rescue" purposes in the event of a dewirement, so trains can be safely returned to the nearest station to evacuate? And if they do, discontinuous electrification can become the norm and save a packet, e.g. by not having to do any tunnels?

AngusH · 2 Nov 2021

Previously discussed here:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/scottish-electrification-updates-discussion.90420/post-4759096

GRALISTAIR · 2 Nov 2021

The Forth Bridge cannot have overhead electric lines installed because of the height restrictions, so trains need to have an independent source of power to travel across.

This has been done to death on other threads and is just not true. A challenge because of its world heritage status but not ridiculously so technically/engineering wise.

swt_passenger · 2 Nov 2021

AIUI listing of a bridge itself has never prevented wiring so far…

GRALISTAIR · 2 Nov 2021

And here is the tweet from the good Alex Alex Hynes on Twitter: "@RogerBlack3 @jw26040 @RobertClark125 @ScotRail @NetworkRailSCOT Yes." / Twitter

d9009alycidon · 2 Nov 2021

I remember there was quite a voiciferous campaign to keep the Royal Border Bridge free of OHLE, in the end the wires went up!

NSEFAN · 2 Nov 2021

Just install conductor bars, and paint the sides and masts in the same tone of red as the rest of the structure. Job done! :lol:

snowball · 2 Nov 2021

swt_passenger said:
AIUI listing of a bridge itself has never prevented wiring so far…

Designation as a world heritage site is a bigger deal than listing, but as I understand it, when the bridge was designated, a specific agreement was made that it could be electrified in future without endangering the designation.

NSEFAN said:
Just install conductor bars, and paint the sides and masts in the same tone of red as the rest of the structure. Job done!

Whenever the alleged difficulty of electrifying something is discussed, there's always someone ready to mutter the words "conductor bar" as if they were a magic incantation that solved all problems.

I seem to remember experts have posted in previous discussions to say that the headroom required for conductor bar is not necessarily much less than for wires.

NSEFAN · 2 Nov 2021

snowball said:
Whenever the alleged difficulty of electrifying something is discussed, there's always someone ready to mutter the words "conductor bar" as if they were a magic incantation that solved all problems.

I seem to remember experts have posted in previous discussions to say that the headroom required for conductor bar is not necessarily much less than for wires.

Perhaps not on its own, but a rigid shape that won't move easily in high winds on the bridge would make it better controlled and may allow some of the clearance issues to be mitigated.

snowball · 2 Nov 2021

I thought the main problem was clearance between diagonal girders and the ends of a passing pantograph.

92002 · 2 Nov 2021

snowball said:
I thought the main problem was clearance between diagonal girders and the ends of a passing pantograph.

Probably not impossible to move the diagonal members to create clearance. However quite a number would need to be done.
The overall shape of the structure would probably not be noticeably changed.

Depends on whether the the world Heritage folks would have an objection. Has anybody even asked them on their views.

Hophead · 2 Nov 2021

I was wondering just what @och aye's objection was to the wording in the article. As you posted the original text which we can read, it is now clear that the offending final sentence "The Forth Bridge cannot have overhead electric lines installed because of the height restrictions, so trains need to have an independent source of power to travel across." has been deleted.

swt_passenger · 2 Nov 2021

Hophead said:
I was wondering just what @och aye's objection was to the wording in the article. As you posted the original text which we can read, it is now clear that the offending final sentence "The Forth Bridge cannot have overhead electric lines installed because of the height restrictions, so trains need to have an independent source of power to travel across." has been deleted.

Fancy that. Engineers 1-0 Press Office

och aye · 2 Nov 2021

Hophead said:
I was wondering just what @och aye's objection was to the wording in the article. As you posted the original text which we can read, it is now clear that the offending final sentence "The Forth Bridge cannot have overhead electric lines installed because of the height restrictions, so trains need to have an independent source of power to travel across." has been deleted.

It wasn't an objection, it was genuine question.

As the sentence has been deleted, I'm guessing it is possible to have overhead electric lines over the bridge. :lol:

eastwestdivide · 4 Nov 2021

92002 said:
Depends on whether the the world Heritage folks would have an objection. Has anybody even asked them on their views

The World Heritage people don’t really have a say - all they can do is threaten to remove a site from their listing before any changes are made, or remove it after the changes. See the recent controversy over Stonehenge for example.

DarloRich · 4 Nov 2021

eastwestdivide said:
The World Heritage people don’t really have a say - all they can do is threaten to remove a site from their listing before any changes are made, or remove it after the changes.

Any infrastructure owner is going to work with stakeholders to try and come up with a mutually agreeable solution - it simply isn't worth the bad publicity of a falling out.

norbitonflyer · 4 Nov 2021

I would guess the biggest issue would be ensuring that there is sufficient clearance between the girders spanning the track and the wires. Mounting the wires (or a conductor bar!) directly on the girders is definitely be a no-no as the whole bridge would then be energised at 25,000 volts.

Thinking outside the box, given trespass is next to impossible on the main spans, could an exception be made to the ban on 3rd Rail electrification? It would require a dedicated ac/dc fleet, and would be an isolated pocket of dc, but there is a precedent for both at the other end of the ECML (about the same length too!)

snowball · 4 Nov 2021

eastwestdivide said:
The World Heritage people don’t really have a say - all they can do is threaten to remove a site from their listing before any changes are made, or remove it after the changes. See the recent controversy over Stonehenge for example.

As they have now done with the Liverpool waterfront.

As I said in #10, as I understand it, when the bridge was designated a world heritage site, a specific agreement was made that it could be electrified in future without endangering the designation.

Actually I think the official word is "inscribed" rather than designated.

Southsider · 4 Nov 2021

norbitonflyer said:
I would guess the biggest issue would be ensuring that there is sufficient clearance between the girders spanning the track and the wires. Mounting the wires (or a conductor bar!) directly on the girders is definitely be a no-no as the whole bridge would then be energised at 25,000 volts.

Thinking outside the box, given trespass is next to impossible on the main spans, could an exception be made to the ban on 3rd Rail electrification? It would require a dedicated ac/dc fleet, and would be an isolated pocket of dc, but there is a precedent for both at the other end of the ECML (about the same length too!)

That thinking needs to go back into the box! As has been said many times, wiring the bridge isn’t a problem and battery is a viable option but third rail ???

GRALISTAIR · 4 Nov 2021

Southsider said:
That thinking needs to go back into the box! As has been said many times, wiring the bridge isn’t a problem and battery is a viable option but third rail ???

Hear, hear. I am all for "out of the box lateral thinking" but 3rd rail is a no-no.

Ianno87 · 4 Nov 2021

snowball said:
As I said in #10, as I understand it, when the bridge was designated a world heritage site, a specific agreement was made that it could be electrified in future without endangering the designation.

I presume that some consideration will still need to be given to the aesthetics of any OLE on the bridge (i.e. don't do whackoff GWEP-style masts all over the structure)

py_megapixel · 4 Nov 2021

It looks like the offending sentence has already been edited out of the press release.

snowball · 4 Nov 2021

py_megapixel said:
It looks like the offending sentence has already been edited out of the press release.

As already pointed out in #14 - #16.

375610 · 4 Nov 2021

This is a totally absurd post and I understand it would never be done, but theoretically the whole bridge could be made +25kv (referenced to earth) and the track could be made 0v, with the track placed on insulators. I that would remove clearance issues, but introduce another fleet of interesting issues.

plugwash · 4 Nov 2021

It might remove some clerance issues but I bet it would add a bunch of new ones.

375610 · 4 Nov 2021

plugwash said:
It might remove some clerance issues but I bet it would add a bunch of new ones.

I agree, it's quite a fun thought experiment though.

pdeaves · 4 Nov 2021

375610 said:
This is a totally absurd post and I understand it would never be done, but theoretically the whole bridge could be made +25kv (referenced to earth) and the track could be made 0v, with the track placed on insulators. I that would remove clearance issues, but introduce another fleet of interesting issues.

Would a +25kV bridge just earth straight away through the water and foundations? 'Just' slice through it in a few places and put insulators in...

MacCookie · 6 Nov 2021

snowball said:
As I said in #10, as I understand it, when the bridge was designated a world heritage site, a specific agreement was made that it could be electrified in future without endangering the designation.

There are references to electrification in the nomination documentation, but that's all that I could see.

The Forth Bridge

This railway bridge, crossing the Forth estuary in Scotland, had the world’s longest spans (541 m) when it opened in 1890. It remains one of the greatest cantilever trussed bridges and continues to carry passengers ...

whc.unesco.org

Regards,
Ewan

Incorrect press statement - the Forth Bridge can have overhead electric lines installed

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member