ECML Power Supply Upgrade

[59CosG95]

And they just keep coming!

Northallerton TSC has now entered service.

REAL Power Supply Upgrade on LinkedIn: #powersupplyupgrade #ecml #collaboration #railinfrastructure

On Tuesday, 9 April, another PSU site was successfully entered into service, with works completed on time to a well-executed plan. Northallerton TSC is the…

www.linkedin.com

As it stands for Phase 2, everything from Hambleton to Darlington has gone online, along with Durham, Benton, Ulgham, Chathill & Fenham (13 total).

Doncaster North, Balne, Aycliffe, Tursdale Jn, Chester-le-Street, King Edward Bridge Jn, Stannington and Shilbottle are all still outstanding (8 total).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I cant see that this has been posted so I dont think it is a duplicate. Just seen this fantastic presentation from the PWI on YouTube. Long and somewhat technical but fantastic imho.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I cant see that this has been posted so I dont think it is a duplicate. Just seen this fantastic presentation from the PWI on YouTube. Long and somewhat technical but fantastic imho.

Thanks for posting i like technical! This is what the IET (IEE as was) did when i a junior engineer in the 80's but seems to have ceded that space to the PWI so all credit to them in continuing to be proactive in showcasing what electrification is about today.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Thanks for posting I like technical!

Me too - but obviously many on the forum aren't but it is good there are a wide variety of backgrounds.

 

[snowball]

Thanks for posting the video.

Will SFCs now become the norm for new installations?

I get the impression there will not now be much further expansion of the autotransformer system.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Thanks for posting the video.

Will SFCs now become the norm for new installations?

I get the impression there will not now be much further expansion of the autotransformer system.

Well given they can connect at 132kV and avoid all the additional lineside infrastructure the answer should be yes.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And avoids grid phase imbalances too - what is not to like?

 

[HSTEd]

And avoid grid phase imbalances too - what is not to like?

And, in the long term, they may even allow feeder stations to operate in parallel, flattening the load and allowing further increases in utilisation for the overall infrastructure.

 

[WAO]

The video in #242 is transformative and makes much modern design and practice obsolete.

Perhaps re-design is the reason for delays in wiring and power upgrades?

WAO

 

[hwl]

Thanks for posting the video.

Will SFCs now become the norm for new installations?

I get the impression there will not now be much further expansion of the autotransformer system.

Not necessarily - it is worth remembering that this video is from the pro SFC camp.

SFC have many advantages but also have high cost.
The electric supply situation can be very different across the country which will lead to differing levels of appropriateness advantages in different locations.
e.g. South Wales - excellent levels of DNO 132kV and 33kV and not huge number of long trains which favours SFC (huge numbers of DNO connected wind and solar farms and massive DNO spare capacity due to pit and washery closures)
In other locations they are looking for users to take at 275kV/400kV as the DNO can't cope without large upgrades e.g. more GW electrification or many routes in Scotland (e.g. Stirling - Inverness - Tain).

The scale of 400kV isolation required which is highlighted as an advantage for SFC has changed in the interim e.g. the Didcot example they used wouldn't have to be so large if done now reducing costs and cost differential. But the fail mention this - I wonder why?

SFC cost is quite high.

They also skirt commenting on grid connected (>200kV) SFC and hybrid SFC autotransformer systems used in other countries.

They also forget to mention some very new trains having active power factor correction onboard (beneficial on all route sections) which then reduces the benefit of SFC feeds for active correction. (Will help improve operators onboard metering costs both where this is fitted and to a much less extend on non fitted stock due to general improvement in power quality).

 

[swt_passenger]

Not necessarily - it is worth remembering that this video is from the pro SFC camp.

SFC have many advantages but also have high cost.
The electric supply situation can be very different across the country which will lead to differing levels of appropriateness advantages in different locations.
e.g. South Wales - excellent levels of DNO 132kV and 33kV and not huge number of long trains which favours SFC (huge numbers of DNO connected wind and solar farms and massive DNO spare capacity due to pit and washery closures)
In other locations they are looking for users to take at 275kV/400kV as the DNO can't cope without large upgrades e.g. more GW electrification or many routes in Scotland (e.g. Stirling - Inverness - Tain).

The scale of 400kV isolation required which is highlighted as an advantage for SFC has changed in the interim e.g. the Didcot example they used wouldn't have to be so large if done now reducing costs and cost differential. But the fail mention this - I wonder why?

SFC cost is quite high.

They also skirt commenting on grid connected (>200kV) SFC and hybrid SFC autotransformer systems used in other countries.

They also forget to mention some very new trains having active power factor correction onboard (beneficial on all route sections) which then reduces the benefit of SFC feeds for active correction. (Will help improve operators onboard metering costs both where this is fitted and to a much less extend on non fitted stock due to general improvement in power quality).

I think I’d agree there’s still going to be a choice to be made for each new requirement.

If SFCs were now the answer to every question, then there’d probably have been one put in on the MML at Braybrooke. Clearly they went with a fairly standard 400 kV set up because National Grid can cope with the misbalance at that level of the system.

I believe it’s hinted at in this thread that the SFC installation at Marshall Meadows is currently stalled. Work has apparently stopped with the compound work still at the groundworks stage because it’s deemed to be unaffordable.

 

[hwl]

I think I’d agree there’s still going to be a choice to be made for each new requirement.

If SFCs were now the answer to every question, then there’d probably have been one put in on the MML at Braybrooke. Clearly they went with a fairly standard 400 kV set up because National Grid can cope with the misbalance at that level of the system.

I believe it’s hinted at in this thread that the SFC installation at Marshall Meadows is currently stalled. Work has apparently stopped with the compound work still at the groundworks stage because it’s deemed to be unaffordable.

MML wise gut feeling suggests 400kV to Derby then 275kV further north (Sheffield / Chesterfield was all early grid at 275kV).

Marshall Meadows - I get the feeling they were trying to use the last spare capacity available - it may well be that less spare capacity was available than originally planned or railway power demands increased or both resulting in the chose solution not delivering what is now needed resulting in it now looking poor value.

SFC will do very well in retofits for older 132kV power supplies were more needs to be squeezed out of them.

The poor state of power supply availability along many parts of the ECML is always reflected else where in the country.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I think I’d agree there’s still going to be a choice to be made for each new requirement.

If SFCs were now the answer to every question, then there’d probably have been one put in on the MML at Braybrooke. Clearly they went with a fairly standard 400 kV set up because National Grid can cope with the misbalance at that level of the system.

I believe it’s hinted at in this thread that the SFC installation at Marshall Meadows is currently stalled. Work has apparently stopped with the compound work still at the groundworks stage because it’s deemed to be unaffordable.

They had to commit to that connection agreement well before the trial site at Hambleton could be commissioned and proven in use. Grid operators don't really want this extra kit hanging off primary transmission lines but if NR want 80MVA (not sure why here mind you) they have to connect at this voltage now.

 

[ABB125]

Not necessarily - it is worth remembering that this video is from the pro SFC camp.

SFC have many advantages but also have high cost.
The electric supply situation can be very different across the country which will lead to differing levels of appropriateness advantages in different locations.
e.g. South Wales - excellent levels of DNO 132kV and 33kV and not huge number of long trains which favours SFC (huge numbers of DNO connected wind and solar farms and massive DNO spare capacity due to pit and washery closures)
In other locations they are looking for users to take at 275kV/400kV as the DNO can't cope without large upgrades e.g. more GW electrification or many routes in Scotland (e.g. Stirling - Inverness - Tain).

The scale of 400kV isolation required which is highlighted as an advantage for SFC has changed in the interim e.g. the Didcot example they used wouldn't have to be so large if done now reducing costs and cost differential. But the fail mention this - I wonder why?

SFC cost is quite high.

They also skirt commenting on grid connected (>200kV) SFC and hybrid SFC autotransformer systems used in other countries.

They also forget to mention some very new trains having active power factor correction onboard (beneficial on all route sections) which then reduces the benefit of SFC feeds for active correction. (Will help improve operators onboard metering costs both where this is fitted and to a much less extend on non fitted stock due to general improvement in power quality).

Presumably it's possible to connect an SFC to 275/400kV?

Surely using autotransformers and SFCs would be the most efficient system? You get the benefits of 50kV transmission, but also the power factor benefits (for both the grid and the trains) and the various other things mentioned in the video. And you don't need to build as many SFCs because of the higher voltage/autotransformers.

 

[snowball]

Surely using autotransformers and SFCs would be the most efficient system? You get the benefits of 50kV transmission, but also the power factor benefits (for both the grid and the trains) and the various other things mentioned in the video. And you don't need to build as many SFCs because of the higher voltage/autotransformers.

The point made in the film is that SFCs minimise on-track interventions. To add an autotransformer wire to an existing electrified route, you have to do work all along the track, altering every overhead line support structure, with extra work at every overbridge.

 

[ABB125]

The point made in the film is that SFCs minimise on-track interventions. To add an autotransformer wire to an existing electrified route, you have to do work all along the track, altering every overhead line support structure, with extra work at every overbridge.

For existing electrification yes, but presumably for new electrification (eg: MML) this isn't a problem?

 

[hwl]

Presumably it's possible to connect an SFC to 275/400kV?

Yes - but it doesn't maximise the SFC benefit for the SFC fan club!

Surely using autotransformers and SFCs would be the most efficient system?

Correct - which it why it has been done elsewhere especially where the track and train cost thinking is more unified.

You get the benefits of 50kV transmission, but also the power factor benefits (for both the grid and the trains) and the various other things mentioned in the video. And you don't need to build as many SFCs because of the higher voltage/autotransformers.

The problems come with cost due to the greater number of stacked levels need for 50kV vs 25kV (e.g. assume 6KV rated IGBT, 3.6-3.7kV used per level... though the current would be less so not so many in parallel but more in series and more overall)

 

[Richard123]

I think I’d agree there’s still going to be a choice to be made for each new requirement.

If SFCs were now the answer to every question, then there’d probably have been one put in on the MML at Braybrooke. Clearly they went with a fairly standard 400 kV set up because National Grid can cope with the misbalance at that level of the system.

I believe it’s hinted at in this thread that the SFC installation at Marshall Meadows is currently stalled. Work has apparently stopped with the compound work still at the groundworks stage because it’s deemed to be unaffordable.

I'm not sure anyone has suggested unaffordable? A National Grid connection costs many tens of millions up front, and around half a million a year in annual service fees. It is big infrastructure.

It was written at the time that GBR considered there to be too many trains on the northern ECML for future passenger demand, and a "benefit" of GBR would be scaling back services through a whole-industry view. See Modern Railways. MM seems to have been a casualty of this rescoping, among other schemes.

That passenger numbers are now above pre-Covid is a moot point, and we are now in a different control period.

Regarding rapid change in other projects, I doubt this. National Grid contracts are committed many years ahead due to their timescales. Not a good look to change course, if maybe 10% of the overall electrification cost has already been sunk in Grid contracts, even if it saved money overall?

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm not sure anyone has suggested unaffordable? A National Grid connection costs many tens of millions up front, and around half a million a year in annual service fees. It is big infrastructure.

It was written at the time that GBR considered there to be too many trains on the northern ECML for future passenger demand, and a "benefit" of GBR would be scaling back services through a whole-industry view. See Modern Railways. MM seems to have been a casualty of this rescoping, among other schemes.

Marshall Meadows specifically already had 2 x 132 kV single phase DNO supplies. That needs to be modified to provide 2 x 132 kV three phase supplies, by upgrading the existing wooden pole runs to carry 3 wires. That part of the overall project was approved by planners a couple of years ago. The large site at Marshall Meadows has been cleared, and a big ASG25 switching cabinet has already been installed. That looks very much like the SFC installation was pulled at the last minute, and a project stopping midway through suggests lack of funds to me.

 

[hwl]

a project stopping midway through suggests lack of funds to me.

Either funds or have requirements changed? (the later isn't a simple answer)

On the funding thinking in similar terms to HS2 reprofile spend given rising costs so less occurs in parallel, did it need another team? So does i make sense to keep existing teams working for longer and add it to the end of the list?

It could simple be the case that there has been a decision that they want to trial a new type greater functionality SFC and assess the results and potential learnings/improvements before doing another?

Marshall Meadows specifically already had 2 x 132 kV single phase DNO supplies. That needs to be modified to provide 2 x 132 kV three phase supplies, by upgrading the existing wooden pole runs to carry 3 wires.

PS as a complete curve ball follow on thought: The Marshall Meadows feeds come from the same Grid to DNO connection and substation at Eccles that will feed Galashields on the Waverley electrification...

 

[swt_passenger]

PS as a complete curve ball follow on thought: The Marshall Meadows feeds come from the same Grid to DNO connection and substation at Eccles that will feed Galashields on the Waverley electrification...

Yes, although it’s fed from Eccles, it only becomes a pair of dedicated circuits at the Berwick area 132/33 kV substation sited at Low Cocklaw. Presumably back in the day the National Grid or DNO believed they could piggyback on the existing circuit towards Berwick - they must have believed it could cope with the extra load?

 

[59CosG95]

This one snuck under the radar...

REAL Power Supply Upgrade on LinkedIn: #powersupplyupgrade #ecml #collaboration #railinfrastructure

On the afternoon of Friday, 22nd March 2024, in Biggleswade, Bedfordshire, the REAL team finalised the protection system installation and completed the EIS…

www.linkedin.com

 

[Richard123]

Marshall Meadows specifically already had 2 x 132 kV single phase DNO supplies. That needs to be modified to provide 2 x 132 kV three phase supplies, by upgrading the existing wooden pole runs to carry 3 wires. That part of the overall project was approved by planners a couple of years ago. The large site at Marshall Meadows has been cleared, and a big ASG25 switching cabinet has already been installed. That looks very much like the SFC installation was pulled at the last minute, and a project stopping midway through suggests lack of funds to me.

Mixing messages here. It was reported at the time GBR expected to "rationalise" excessive services on ECML north of Newcastle to match reduced passenger numbers. Hence additional power "no longer required". It was also reported DfT were also demanding enhancement budget cuts to cover Covid support, but that was across the board.

The paragraph pointing out the high cost of grid connections was just a reply to a previous message that claimed Marshall Meadows was cancelled due to the "very high cost of SFCs" - this doesn't seem to stack up with published spending, just compare with costs of eg the WCML PSU sections done over past two decades?

 

[59CosG95]

REAL Power Supply Upgrade on LinkedIn: #powersupplyupgrade #ecml #collaboration #railinfrastructure

This week, the REAL Alliance team have been in Shilbottle, a small village outside Alnwick, Northumberland. The team successfully…

www.linkedin.com

Happenings at Shilbottle.

 

[swt_passenger]

REAL Power Supply Upgrade on LinkedIn: #powersupplyupgrade #ecml #collaboration #railinfrastructure

This week, the REAL Alliance team have been in Shilbottle, a small village outside Alnwick, Northumberland. The team successfully…

www.linkedin.com

Happenings at Shilbottle.

Interesting that he says they used a brick building at that location because they couldn’t get a container into the site. We were discussing this a few weeks ago and some people thought it had been a local planning restriction. Maybe that wasn‘t the case after all.

 

[59CosG95]

Interesting that he says they used a brick building at that location because they couldn’t get a container into the site. We were discussing this a few weeks ago and some people thought it had been a local planning restriction. Maybe that wasn‘t the case after all.

Having been practically on site (a byway skirts the edge of the compound and is bisected by the haul road to the brick building), it's nigh on impossible to get a crane pad or those low-level apparatuses used at other sites into position.
Lord knows how they'll manage it at Aycliffe...