(Suggestions for) Next Scottish medium to large project?

[asylumxl]

I don't really have any realistic ideas beyond what most people have proposed here.

In terms of unrealistic ideas, I'd love to see Scotland push the boat out on high-speed rail, as suggested here:

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/project/high-speed-rail

 

[380gk]

Kilmacollm is a fairly obvious one that could be delivered at a decent cost with a station at bridge of weir and at Houston (Parkway).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's been a while since anyone's attempted to revive the idea of a rail bridge over the Dornoch firth...

 

[NotATrainspott]

Kilmacollm is a fairly obvious one that could be delivered at a decent cost with a station at bridge of weir and at Houston (Parkway).

Yes, but that would require the Paisley Canal branch to be redoubled as well, so it's not the smallest of projects. I seem to recall that Network Rail's long term planning documents have the Paisley Canal line reopening to Elderslie so it's still not beyond the realms of possibility. One thing that might put it down the queue is that the Central Belt would have got a lot of improvements and it's time for the rest of the country to see money spent on it. The Kilmacolm/Paisley Canal branch is lovely and all but it's not as high a priority for enhancement as the lines to Inverness, Perth, Dundee and Aberdeen.

 

[clc]

Redouble the Paisley Canal line and extend it to Bridge of Weir. I'd include a new station in west Paisley near Lounsdale Road to serve the Royal Alexandria Hospital and the suburbs of Meikleriggs, Brediland, Stanely and Lounsdale which aren't currently within walking distance of a train station.

The trackbed between Bridge of Weir and Kilmacolm has been built on ruling out an extension, but the well heeled residents of Kilmacolm can always park and ride.

 

[Railsigns]

Yes, but that would require the Paisley Canal branch to be redoubled as well,

Would it though? I seem to recall that one of the reasons for the Kilmacolm line's demise was the unattractive journey times which resulted from it being, in effect, an extension of the Paisley Canal line. It would stand a greater chance of success if it was served by trains running via Gilmour Street (this line having recently been upgraded to enhance capacity).

 

[herschell]

I'm sure I read somewhere/heard somewhere that there was a possibility of this happening. I think it was in connection to the single section just south of Montrose, and the suggestion was Aberdeen to Glasgow services would go via Forfar.

And there I've mentioned another possible project, the doubling of the single line section south of Montrose. I now it'd be pretty expensive taking into account the two single line viaducts and the rock that piece of line currently cuts through.

I'd certainly like to see something done about Montrose including the forementioned doubling of the line and also the electrification to Edinburgh/Glasgow

 

[najaB]

I'd certainly like to see something done about Montrose including the forementioned doubling of the line and also the electrification to Edinburgh/Glasgow

Usan to Montrose is a tricky one to solve. It needs to be done but the question is how: do you reroute the line to bypass the basin completely? Do you find a way to double-track the bridge and viaduct? Live with the single track section but find away to reduce headways?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Usan to Montrose is a tricky one to solve. It needs to be done but the question is how: do you reroute the line to bypass the basin completely? Do you find a way to double-track the bridge and viaduct? Live with the single track section but find away to reduce headways?

It'll need the political will first - the business case on current passenger numbers doesn't work. The amount of work NR have put into the problem is impressive though.

Network Rail's preferred plan is to build a new route from Lunan into Montrose.

The intention is to take the line from Lunan Bay and build a totally straight section from there into Montrose, with a new twin track bridge, probably 200 yds or so from the viaduct, bypassing Rossie Island and converging onto the station, which may be moved further into the Basin to keep the platforms straight, if it's needed.

The existing alignment would in all likelihood, be abandoned. There's money to be allocated for additional freight facilities between the central belt and Aberdeen, one possible option is to make use of the viaduct, bridge and old alignment as a significantly lengthy freight loop.

NR have also looked at building new structures alongside the existing bridge and viaduct, and have ruled that out. They even went as far as to consider diverting the line inland, using the alignment of the Arbroath and Forfar railway as far as Glasterlaw, before rejoining the old Aberdeen Railway alignment to Bridge of Dun and onwards to Dubton, in order to completely avoid the basin.

The cost - Transport Scotland quote £100m to £250m, and given the work proposed on any of the plans, it'll be towards the upper end of the scale.

 

[Strathclyder]

A solution to the capacity issues on the Hyndland - Finnieston corridor has to be seriously considered sometime in the not-too distant future. It is at bursting point in terms of capacity for most of the day (28 tph (14 in each direction) between 1200 & 1300, for example) with very little headway. Any delays can have significant, long-lasting knock-on effects. If a train happens to break down in the section, the whole thing goes straight down the drain, to put it shortly.

Back in the mid/late 2000s, remodelling Hyndland East Junction (which would have involved extending the four track-section from Hyndland East Junction to the east of Hyndland station and rebuilding Hyndland station itself into a four-platform station (also improving access to Gartnavel Hospital in the process) seemed to be Network Rail's favored option to further look into at the time, as per this Hidden Glasgow post from 2006 (itself quoting a long-gone Network Rail Route Utilization Strategy PDF). Not sure what their current stance is on the matter, though.

Not sure how much it would cost to turn that above proposal into a reality these days (probably halfway to a medium-sized project, taking a complete guess), but something along those lines undoubtedly needs to happen at some point. The current layout is becoming increasingly inadequate.

PS: Feel free to disregard this post if you wish. Was just thinking/typing aloud...

 

[70014IronDuke]

...

My contribution: double track and colour-light signals between Inverness and Dingwall. It would make the Far North and Kyle lines *so* much more reliable and allow service improvements between Inverness and Tain where there are many houses springing up.

... .

Sounds nice, but how much would it cost?

Surely, it would have more chance of success by first introducing 2-3 new passing loops between Inverness and Dingwall?

Incremental improvements, not as spectacular as full-blown doubling, of course, but more chance of being done, I'd suggest?

 

[najaB]

Sounds nice, but how much would it cost?

Surely, it would have more chance of success by first introducing 2-3 new passing loops between Inverness and Dingwall?

Incremental improvements, not as spectacular as full-blown doubling, of course, but more chance of being done, I'd suggest?

I agree that a full redoubling is the more expensive option, but there is nothing wrong with dreaming big .Most of the route was built as double and singled later so it's not as big a job as it could have been.

 

[clc]

A solution to the capacity issues on the Hyndland - Finnieston corridor has to be seriously considered sometime in the not-too distant future. It is at bursting point in terms of capacity for most of the day (28 tph (14 in each direction) between 1200 & 1300, for example) with very little headway. Any delays can have significant, long-lasting knock-on effects. If a train happens to break down in the section, the whole thing goes straight down the drain, to put it shortly.

Back in the mid/late 2000s, remodelling Hyndland East Junction (which would have involved extending the four track-section from Hyndland East Junction to the east of Hyndland station and rebuilding Hyndland station itself into a four-platform station (also improving access to Gartnavel Hospital in the process) seemed to be Network Rail's favored option to further look into at the time, as per this Hidden Glasgow post from 2006 (itself quoting a long-gone Network Rail Route Utilization Strategy PDF). Not sure what their current stance is on the matter, though.

Not sure how much it would cost to turn that above proposal into a reality these days (probably halfway to a medium-sized project, taking a complete guess), but something along those lines undoubtedly needs to happen at some point. The current layout is becoming increasingly inadequate.

PS: Feel free to disregard this post if you wish. Was just thinking/typing aloud...

Combine it with a new section of track between Cardonald and Jordanhill which is one of the possible solutions to Glasgow's terminal capacity problem mentioned in the STPR and would include a new tunnel under the Clyde. You could then divert some Ayrshire/Inverclyde services through the tunnel onto the North Electric and/or Argyle lines. A station on the new section would serve the New South Glasgow Hospitals and its 10,000 employees. If GARL came back you could run airport services that way.

 

[Railsigns]

Sounds nice, but how much would it cost?

Surely, it would have more chance of success by first introducing 2-3 new passing loops between Inverness and Dingwall?

Introducing new crossing loops but retaining the RETB signalling would be severely detrimental to journey times since there would be a 15 m.p.h. speed restriction imposed at each loop for all trains.

 

[380gk]

Would it though? I seem to recall that one of the reasons for the Kilmacolm line's demise was the unattractive journey times which resulted from it being, in effect, an extension of the Paisley Canal line. It would stand a greater chance of success if it was served by trains running via Gilmour Street (this line having recently been upgraded to enhance capacity).[/QUOUTE]
I meant the line joining at elderslie and running via PYG. The line between Canal and Elderslie has been built over in places.

 

[Grinner]

The trackbed between Bridge of Weir and Kilmacolm has been built on ruling out an extension, but the well heeled residents of Kilmacolm can always park and ride.

Are you sure on that? I've regularly ridden the cycle route between Bridge of Weir and Kilmacolm and it looks intact to me. There's been a lot of building in Kilmacolm itself, you certainly couldn't go beyond the old station site towards Greenock, but there's no obstruction I can see to reaching Kilmalcolm itself.

 

[me123]

A solution to the capacity issues on the Hyndland - Finnieston corridor has to be seriously considered sometime in the not-too distant future. It is at bursting point in terms of capacity for most of the day (28 tph (14 in each direction) between 1200 & 1300, for example) with very little headway. Any delays can have significant, long-lasting knock-on effects. If a train happens to break down in the section, the whole thing goes straight down the drain, to put it shortly.

Back in the mid/late 2000s, remodelling Hyndland East Junction (which would have involved extending the four track-section from Hyndland East Junction to the east of Hyndland station and rebuilding Hyndland station itself into a four-platform station (also improving access to Gartnavel Hospital in the process) seemed to be Network Rail's favored option to further look into at the time, as per this Hidden Glasgow post from 2006 (itself quoting a long-gone Network Rail Route Utilization Strategy PDF). Not sure what their current stance is on the matter, though.

Not sure how much it would cost to turn that above proposal into a reality these days (probably halfway to a medium-sized project, taking a complete guess), but something along those lines undoubtedly needs to happen at some point. The current layout is becoming increasingly inadequate.

PS: Feel free to disregard this post if you wish. Was just thinking/typing aloud...

I'd love to see this four-tracked. It would make a great deal of sense and would hugely increase capacity. However, I think it's beyond unlikely that it'll actually happen.

Hyndland I reckon could be rebuilt into a four platform station, at some cost of course. It's already three track and I suspect there's space for more. But let's move further down the line. It's not long before you're constrained by houses on either side, and a major supermarket on one side also. I'm 99% sure there's no space to widen the bridge over Dumbarton Road without demolishing at least one building. Partick station itself is also constrained, and has only just been refurbished. We'd need new bridges over the Kelvin, again constrained by the Expressway to the South and some privately owned land to the North. And even between the two Finnieston Junctions, I can't see space for the three track railway that would be needed at that point.

In short: There's no space to do it. Whilst I would agree that you could create space, the cost of doing so is going to be phenomenal. Rebuilding Hyndland alone is a possibility, could help to some extent even if it was just to give a third platform in the Eastbound direction, but it still gives you the bottleneck through Partick and probably won't actually increase capacity.

I don't know why access to Gartnaval is urgently needed, either? It's got to be one of the easiest hospitals to get to at the moment anyway, but most of its services are moving to South Glasgow University Hospital anyway.

 

[Buttsy]

To relieve Partick station and the bottleneck to Hyndland, would it be possible to use part of the old route (Caley) from Stobcross to the back of Yoker CS? I appreciate that tunnelling would be requried to get the line under the Expressway and up to the Curle Street area (avoiding the Clyde tunnel).

A station for Partick could be built on the land to the north of the current line by the River Kelvin and linked to the current Partick station. New stations could also be provided south of the current Scotstounhill and Garscadden stations on this route (probably where the old stations once were).

 

[JohnR]

I'm sure I read somewhere/heard somewhere that there was a possibility of this happening. I think it was in connection to the single section just south of Montrose, and the suggestion was Aberdeen to Glasgow services would go via Forfar.

And there I've mentioned another possible project, the doubling of the single line section south of Montrose. I now it'd be pretty expensive taking into account the two single line viaducts and the rock that piece of line currently cuts through.

I seem to recall that Network Rail looked at the options there a couple of years ago. A new double track section from just north of Lunan Bay over a new bridge was cheapest at ~£200m. And yes, that should be one of the next major projects - Aberdeen needs fast frequent connections south.

 

[Class 170101]

Good idea - any suggestions as to how? Are you thinking loops, double tracking, resignalling, re-routing, any/all of the above?

Something I've wondering about is running doubled units that split/join at Perth for Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Technically possible on the current infrastructure to run the same number of trains that an hourly service would provide but not at hourly intervals. It does have journey time penalties on some trains as a result.

 

[clc]

Are you sure on that? I've regularly ridden the cycle route between Bridge of Weir and Kilmacolm and it looks intact to me. There's been a lot of building in Kilmacolm itself, you certainly couldn't go beyond the old station site towards Greenock, but there's no obstruction I can see to reaching Kilmalcolm itself.

I had it in my head that some housing had been built on the edge of Bridge of Weir. Perhaps I misremembered.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Introducing new crossing loops but retaining the RETB signalling would be severely detrimental to journey times since there would be a 15 m.p.h. speed restriction imposed at each loop for all trains.

Really? What a disastrous system!

What is the line speed - 60 or 70 mph?

Looking at google maps, it seems the single line starts almost immediately outside Inverness station. Which might have been ok for 6-7 trains E/W per day, but seems madness given the number of trains now scheduled over the line.

I should imagine there is a very good case for a loop somewhere close outside Inverness, on the coast, so that a train could leave Muir of Ord and be held there waiting for a departure northbound.

It really is a long section from Muir of Ord to Inverness, isn't it?

 

[najaB]

Really? What a disastrous system!

It's because of the self-operating points. There was a derailment a few years back at Muir of Ord (or maybe it was Dingwall) because the train passed the points too quickly. If you want faster entry/exit speeds then you need power-operated points. *Edit* It was Dingwall back in 2010. The speed of approach was only one factor in the incident.

It really is a long section from Muir of Ord to Inverness, isn't it?

It's actually two sections since there's a intermediate TEP at Clunes, but that's only useful for two trains in the same direction. The single track is about 24/25 miles if memory serves correctly.

 

[route:oxford]

A major Project?

A new line spurring from between Stirling and Bridge of Allan towards Doune & Callander.

Reconnecting Crieff with the national rail network would be convenient too.

 

[70014IronDuke]

It's because of the self-operating points. There was a derailment a few years back at Muir of Ord (or maybe it was Dingwall) because the train passed the points too quickly. If you want faster entry/exit speeds then you need power-operated points. *Edit* It was Dingwall back in 2010. The speed of approach was only one factor in the incident.

thanks for the explanation.

It's actually two sections since there's a intermediate TEP at Clunes, but that's only useful for two trains in the same direction. The single track is about 24/25 miles if memory serves correctly.

At Clunes? Interesting, I can't see that on google maps. And looked up Clunes on Wiki, and it says the passing loop was removed - nothing about re-instating.

But if there is a TEP in place, why can't they make it capable of being used for passing trains? Surely be the cheapest, easiest option to radcially improve capacity on this section.

It's "only" 13 miles Inverness - Muir of Ord - but that takes 22-23 minutes from Inverness (public TT).

So, in effect, ie means that once a train leaves Inverness, no train can arrive for 55 minutes.

Incidentally, M of Ord has seen spectacular growth in traffic - triple in fact - from roughly 24,000 to 74,000 pax per annum since 2004.

That is roughly 100 on and 100 off per day at the last count.

 

[najaB]

At Clunes? Interesting, I can't see that on google maps. And looked up Clunes on Wiki, and it says the passing loop was removed - nothing about re-instating.

But if there is a TEP in place, why can't they make it capable of being used for passing trains? Surely be the cheapest, easiest option to radcially improve capacity on this section.

An intermediate TEP breaks the section but doesn't have a passing loop. Most trains will take the long section token at Muir of Ord and have a clear run through to Clachnaharry, however, if an two trains are travelling in the same direction the first one would only take the token to Clunes, once it passes that TEP and gets the Clunes to Clachnaharry token the second train can get on the move from Muir of Ord.

It's "only" 13 miles Inverness - Muir of Ord - but that takes 22-23 minutes from Inverness (public TT).

Oops, mixing up my miles and minutes!

So, in effect, ie means that once a train leaves Inverness, no train can arrive for 55 minutes.

Even worse than that, they often give northbound trains priority over a delayed southbound train, so if a train is more than about 10 minutes late at Muir of Ord it can result in an hour or more delay getting to Inverness.

Incidentally, M of Ord has seen spectacular growth in traffic - triple in fact - from roughly 24,000 to 74,000 pax per annum since 2004.

That is roughly 100 on and 100 off per day at the last count.

There's always at least 10 to 15 people boarding or alighting when I pass through.

 

[Strathclyder]

I'd love to see this four-tracked. It would make a great deal of sense and would hugely increase capacity. However, I think it's beyond unlikely that it'll actually happen.

Hyndland I reckon could be rebuilt into a four platform station, at some cost of course. It's already three track and I suspect there's space for more. But let's move further down the line. It's not long before you're constrained by houses on either side, and a major supermarket on one side also. I'm 99% sure there's no space to widen the bridge over Dumbarton Road without demolishing at least one building. Partick station itself is also constrained, and has only just been refurbished. We'd need new bridges over the Kelvin, again constrained by the Expressway to the South and some privately owned land to the North. And even between the two Finnieston Junctions, I can't see space for the three track railway that would be needed at that point.

In short: There's no space to do it. Whilst I would agree that you could create space, the cost of doing so is going to be phenomenal. Rebuilding Hyndland alone is a possibility, could help to some extent even if it was just to give a third platform in the Eastbound direction, but it still gives you the bottleneck through Partick and probably won't actually increase capacity.

I don't know why access to Gartnaval is urgently needed, either? It's got to be one of the easiest hospitals to get to at the moment anyway, but most of its services are moving to South Glasgow University Hospital anyway.

Yeah, if you had billions to spend, then it would be possible. Otherwise, quadrupling the Hyndland - Finnieston corridor will remain a impossible pipe-dream. Shame really, as would make a whole lot of sense...

To relieve Partick station and the bottleneck to Hyndland, would it be possible to use part of the old route (Caley) from Stobcross to the back of Yoker CS? I appreciate that tunneling would be required to get the line under the Expressway and up to the Curle Street area (avoiding the Clyde tunnel).

Taking a complete stab in the dark, but I assume you mean taking the new tunnel underneath the derelict land on South St and placing the new tunnel portal right around here and bridging the new line over South St itself, linking up with the former 'Caley' route there?

This is something that's been niggling at me for a while now (sorry if this has been covered already): How would the new line connect up with the existing one at Yoker C.S? A flyover or something? Hopefully, someone will come and enlighten this dull bulb, as I'm truly clueless...

A station for Partick could be built on the land to the north of the current line by the River Kelvin and linked to the current Partick station. New stations could also be provided south of the current Scotstounhill and Garscadden stations on this route (probably where the old stations once were).

This piece of land? Just as well the new student digs currently being built on the other end of the same site don't reach that far...

In terms of new stations in Scotstoun/Whiteinch, the old Whiteinch Riverside platforms could be potentially reused, as it is still relatively intact underneath all that undergrowth. A new station could be built on or near the site of Scotstoun East, as that station's former island platform has been well and truly ravaged by nature/time and probably beyond saving.

This would all be pretty expensive (a medium to large-scale project), but compared to the potential cost of the Hyndland - Finnieston quadrupling, it's - dare I say it - cheap.

 

[clc]

This piece of land? Just as well the new student digs currently being built on the other end of the same site don't reach that far...
.

They've just started constructing student flats next to the railway as well. That entire site is earmarked for new flats.

 

[380gk]

I had it in my head that some housing had been built on the edge of Bridge of Weir. Perhaps I misremembered.

Yes totally clear all the way to kilmacolm, just elderslie to canal that's been built on.

 

[Buttsy]

Yeah, if you had billions to spend, then it would be possible. Otherwise, quadrupling the Hyndland - Finnieston corridor will remain a impossible pipe-dream. Shame really, as would make a whole lot of sense...


Taking a complete stab in the dark, but I assume you mean taking the new tunnel underneath the derelict land on South St and placing the new tunnel portal right around here and bridging the new line over South St itself, linking up with the former 'Caley' route there?

This is something that's been niggling at me for a while now (sorry if this has been covered already): How would the new line connect up with the existing one at Yoker C.S? A flyover or something? Hopefully, someone will come and enlighten this dull bulb, as I'm truly clueless...


This piece of land? Just as well the new student digs currently being built on the other end of the same site don't reach that far...

In terms of new stations in Scotstoun/Whiteinch, the old Whiteinch Riverside platforms could be potentially reused, as it is still relatively intact underneath all that undergrowth. A new station could be built on or near the site of Scotstoun East, as that station's former island platform has been well and truly ravaged by nature/time and probably beyond saving.

This would all be pretty expensive (a medium to large-scale project), but compared to the potential cost of the Hyndland - Finnieston quadrupling, it's - dare I say it - cheap.

Fair enough, not from the area, was looking at alternatives on the various maps. My thought at linking up at Yoker would see the line go through the area of the leisure centre and join the NB route just east of Yoker station, where the CS are presently.

Looks like my tunnel would have to start at Stobcross with a station underground at Partick...

Oh well, back to the drawing board