Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[me123]

Presumably it makes things much easier for Northbound trains to stop, though? No delays crossing over the Up line. Potential for more calling services. A Scotrail terminator won't block the only platform in the station. Seems very sensible and long overdue to me.

 

[Highland37]

A 200m extension would be pointless, and the challenges of crossing the busy road and disrupting Braehead's car park would make it more costly and difficult. If you're going to do it, just build the station where it is and provide a covered walkway to the shopping centre. (I'm assuming that you aren't looking at extending to Renfrew - as this would require an extension anyway, it makes sense then to have the station closer to the shopping centre).

I still strongly disagree with you that there's potential for this. I will reiterate - aside from a big ski slope (I don't care how busy it is, it's still just one thing) there is nothing in Braehead that you can't get in the city centre. So why would people go into the city, and then get another train out? They won't. They'll just stay in the city. People who want to go to XScape for the skiing will go there anyway, either by car or by bus.

I'm not sure what a "semi-through service" is, but are you seriously suggesting taking Ayrshire and Inverclyde trains down to Braehead, then reversing and heading back onto the mainline?!? (Apologies if I've misunderstood that). Or do you mean running trains Central - Braehead - Renfrew - Inverclyde; much more sensible, but you still have the inevitable problem of capacity in Central HL.

I don't think things like this require such an argumentative tone to be honest.

There are thousands of people going there every day. Regardless of whether you think the reasons to go there are not good, many people do go. It's easy to go by car, much less easy by bike and impossible by rail.

I agree, the ski slope will not provide enough traffic but that combined with the shopping centre and the multiple other things such as the Braehead Arena, the Imax, Sainsbury's and all the other shops plus the industrial element all provide a strong pull for people. Otherwise they wouldn't go.

I agree with your profile picture btw. Hopefully not long now.

 

[edwin_m]

The present arrangement at Dunbar sees down stoppers crossing the up line twice. A few miles down the line, rather more trains from N Berwick all cross the up line once. Is it really worth what the second platform and ancillary works will cost, just for that purpose? Somehow, I doubt that Drem is destined for a flyover.

Down trains crossing the Up line twice means there either has to be a gap of seven or eight minutes in the Up service for a Down train to make an normal length stop, or the Down train would need to make a longer stop than usual while an Up train passes through. Both are based on the Up train(s) only seeing green signals. A single crossing at Drem needs a rather shorter gap on the Up line.

 

[InOban]

How long is the station loop at Dunbar? The extra track could also provide a freight loop. With the inexorable rise in fast passenger trains on the route, the scarcity of loops is a growing problem, hence proposals for four-tracking a section and other loops.

And if the political will for additional stations, particularly Reston, becomes irresistible, then stoppers to Berwick will almost certainly have to wait at Dunbar while an express overtakes. Although this will require extensive work at Berwick to provide capacity for terminating trains.

 

[clc]

Re Braehead, I assume the business case would rely on commuter demand from Renfrew and beyond. The owners of Braehead could contribute land for park and ride as payment for improved connections. Everyone's happy.

 

[och aye]

A link would be helpful, or some indication of where the quote comes from.

Whoops! Link added now.

 

[snowball]

Whoops! Link added now.

Thank you!

 

[Dryce]

There are thousands of people going there every day. Regardless of whether you think the reasons to go there are not good, many people do go. It's easy to go by car, much less easy by bike and impossible by rail.

I think it's unlikely that a station would compete for more than a small % of the people using cars. That's in part because of where they are coming from (not likely to be close to a station) and also cars are convenient to carry shopping. It's a pity that despite Glasgow's suburban rail network there isn't a retail park such as the Fort or Silverburn with a really close station - that would at least serve as some kind of example model as to how valuable (or otherwise) it would be at Braehead. Duke Street station is arguably close to the retail park part of the Forge - but not so close to the retail Mall.

So while a station at Braehead may be of some use it's really only likely to be a secondary justification for the branch - with Renfrew being the primary justification.

 

[Highland37]

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/f...mises-to-fight-for-a-new-buchan-railway-line/

Alex Salmond has pledged to fight for a new railway for Peterhead and Fraserburgh.

 

[GusB]

I was under the impression that this had already been ruled out on cost grounds.

This idea is a bit pie-in-the-sky, but bear with me. Alstom are currently trialling their iLint train, which runs on hydrogen. Aberdeen already has facilities to produce hydrogen for buses at Kittybrewster depot, which is conveniently next to the railway. The infrastructure is there already - could this be an ideal opportunity to introduce this technology into the UK?

 

[mcmad]

pure electioneering after the increased tory vote last week, nothing more.

 

[najaB]

I was under the impression that this had already been ruled out on cost grounds.

I don't think it's been ruled out entirely, just pushed into the near/mid-term future.

 

[route:oxford]

Alex Salmond has pledged to fight for a new railway for Peterhead and Fraserburgh.

Fighting for it?

Sounds like things are getting a bit acrimonious within the SNP...

Railways are all devolved, if Alex wants it, surely Nicola, Yousef and Derek can organise it?

 

[InOban]

They would rather spend billions upgrading the motorway network.

 

[NotATrainspott]

They would rather spend billions upgrading the motorway network.

Because spending billions on the trunk road network has a better business case than spending money on a rural branchline. I don't think we'll see the sorts of tricks used to justify the Borders Railway happening again, even in Alex Salmond's home territory.

 

[najaB]

Because spending billions on the trunk road network has a better business case than spending money on a rural branchline.

"Can have" is probably a better way of putting it.

 

[47271]

I don't think we'll see the sorts of tricks used to justify the Borders Railway happening again

It wasn't *only* tricks that got the Borders built, there was a popular campaign as well. Whatever Salmond says, I don't detect any significant groundswell in Buchan. Knowing the locals very well, they'd all much sooner drive their big fat cars up and down a dualled A90 than go anywhere near a train.

 

[InOban]

I'm sure they can concoct a good business case for the road expenditure, and I'm not advocating massive rail reopenings until someone gets a grip on the costs of opening and operating these routes.

However I must point out that about ten years ago the Scottish parliament instructed the government​ to deliver a 50% reduction in transport-related CO2 emissions by 2030. On the contrary they have continued to rise slowly, which is hardly surprising since expanding the capacity of the road network always leads to more journeys at higher speeds. They have done nothing to indicate they will even attempt to reach that target, because to do so would annoy the motoring lobby.

 

[Highland37]

Fighting for it?

Sounds like things are getting a bit acrimonious within the SNP...

Railways are all devolved, if Alex wants it, surely Nicola, Yousef and Derek can organise it?

Ask the P&J, the wrote it.

Network Rail is not devolved. Parts of "railways" are, parts aren't.

 

[Highland37]

Someone above makes an excellent point - roads have a much better business case than rail as the latter is so expensive.

So if business case is to be the primary measure of infrastructure development value, road will always win. This means rail is a waste of money.

However I think this immediate jump to talk about business cases is damaging the case for rail.

 

[clc]

The A9 and A96 dualling projects don't have particularly high BCRs. The A9 has a BCR of 0.78, though the inclusion of 'driver frustration' and wider economic benefits increases this to 1.12. The A96 has a BCR of 0.75-1.00 or 1.00-1.25 with driver frustration and WEBs. Between them these two projects will hoover up £6 billion of the transport budget over the next 13 years.

 

[GusB]

WEBs?

 

[NotATrainspott]

It wasn't *only* tricks that got the Borders built, there was a popular campaign as well. Whatever Salmond says, I don't detect any significant groundswell in Buchan. Knowing the locals very well, they'd all much sooner drive their big fat cars up and down a dualled A90 than go anywhere near a train.

The Borders Railway was the result of a long, somewhat romantic campaign to right the wrongs done to an entire region of Scotland. As a result there was a political imperative to fiddle the BCR calculations; the criticism for doing so would be dwarfed by the criticism for cancelling the scheme entirely. As you say there's no real local campaign for it so it would be much harder to justify versus other schemes for the area.

I'm sure they can concoct a good business case for the road expenditure, and I'm not advocating massive rail reopenings until someone gets a grip on the costs of opening and operating these routes.

However I must point out that about ten years ago the Scottish parliament instructed the government​ to deliver a 50% reduction in transport-related CO2 emissions by 2030. On the contrary they have continued to rise slowly, which is hardly surprising since expanding the capacity of the road network always leads to more journeys at higher speeds. They have done nothing to indicate they will even attempt to reach that target, because to do so would annoy the motoring lobby.

I have a sneaking suspicion that our wonderful government goals about de-carbonising road transport are going to look a bit naive in a few years when everyone starts buying Model 3s rather than their BMWs, Audis and Mercedes. The predictions are that electric cars will be just as affordable, without subsidies, as their internal combustion equivalents by 2020-22 and then steadily get cheaper and cheaper, as the main expense is in the battery. Combined with the shift to automation I don't think we'll really be that concerned about transport CO2 emissions by the end of the A9/A96 projects.

The A9 and A96 dualling projects don't have particularly high BCRs. The A9 has a BCR of 0.78, though the inclusion of 'driver frustration' and wider economic benefits increases this to 1.12. The A96 has a BCR of 0.75-1.00 or 1.00-1.25 with driver frustration and WEBs. Between them these two projects will hoover up £6 billion of the transport budget over the next 13 years.

Like the Borders Railway the A9 dualling has a sort-of emotional case for it. A good proportion of the people in Scotland have driven or have been driven on it once and can remember the long stretches of single carriageway. They also see the number of horrific-looking A9 accidents - even though this is just a factor of its length rather than any inherent danger - and want something done about it. I'm not even sure if there are going to be many people complaining about the BCR for such a trunk road scheme, as the free-market type folk who say that public transport investments are terrible value for money don't seem to care when they themselves are drivers. If the only complainers are going to be Greenie folk who would whinge about any road scheme even if it had the best BCR on this earth, then there's really no downside to going ahead. Conversely, there would be a major political price to pay for not going ahead.

 

[InOban]

I had forgotten that the business cases were so poor. These projects are entirely politically driven. All governments prefer a few grand projets which provide good publicity rather than a multitude of local projects that would better meet the needs of the public (remembering that most journeys are short, and even long ones begin and end on local roads). The horrendous accidents on the A9 have been almost eliminated by the average speed cameras; they are now to be installed on the A90.

Can I also point out that about half the CO2 emissions come from trucks? I don't see them going battery electric any time soon. And I expect that my recent hydrocarbon-fuelled car will still be running in 2030. And there are still very few electric cars with sufficient real world range for longer journeys. But I agree they will be universal in urban areas, oddly enough increasing the demand for rail for longer journeys.

All governments are good at talking the talk. But as for walking the walk.....

 

[najaB]

WEBs?

Wider economic benefits, I believe.

 

[Altnabreac]

The Borders Railway was the result of a long, somewhat romantic campaign to right the wrongs done to an entire region of Scotland. As a result there was a political imperative to fiddle the BCR calculations; the criticism for doing so would be dwarfed by the criticism for cancelling the scheme entirely. As you say there's no real local campaign for it so it would be much harder to justify versus other schemes for the area.

Peterhead is now the largest settlement in the UK isolated from the railways by a significant distance, but there isn't really the same sort of local campaign for reopening as the Waverley Line had.

A reopening to Ellon would be much more realistic but less likely to fulfill a romantic pledge than Peterhead or Fraserburgh. Suspect the SNP will at least fund a study into reopening though as a post election reward for the area (assuming Salmond and/or Eilidh Whiteford are re-elected).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I have a sneaking suspicion that our wonderful government goals about de-carbonising road transport are going to look a bit naive in a few years when everyone starts buying Model 3s rather than their BMWs, Audis and Mercedes. The predictions are that electric cars will be just as affordable, without subsidies, as their internal combustion equivalents by 2020-22 and then steadily get cheaper and cheaper, as the main expense is in the battery. Combined with the shift to automation I don't think we'll really be that concerned about transport CO2 emissions by the end of the A9/A96 projects.

That depends on how the electricity to charge the batteries is generated, and how efficient electric cars turn out to be.

Also bear in mind that CO2 pollution isn't the only problem: Congestion in most urban areas is also an issue, and electric cars will do nothing to fix that.

 

[edwin_m]

That depends on how the electricity to charge the batteries is generated, and how efficient electric cars turn out to be.

Also bear in mind that CO2 pollution isn't the only problem: Congestion in most urban areas is also an issue, and electric cars will do nothing to fix that.

Also the recent scare of particulates from tyre wear, worse for electric vehicles because they're heavier.

 

[NotATrainspott]

That depends on how the electricity to charge the batteries is generated, and how efficient electric cars turn out to be.

Also bear in mind that CO2 pollution isn't the only problem: Congestion in most urban areas is also an issue, and electric cars will do nothing to fix that.

We're not exactly building new coal plants, aren't we? Battery electric vehicles and renewable sources go well together because you're talking about energy storage. Using up-to-the-minute pricing you can encourage charging when there is a surplus of capacity and, if really necessary, offer to buy charge back from vehicles if supply really is too low for a bit. All those 50-100kWh batteries in cars will have a similar impact on grid balancing as fitting households with ~10kWh static batteries like Tesla's Powerwall.

Autonomy makes this even more efficient, as then it's up to some computer algorithm rather than the whims of a human driver to get the energy storage sorted. Using robotic snake chargers (which will be necessary anyway as charge rates increase making the cables too unwieldy for normal people to handle) fleets of autonomous vehicles could be told to go charge or discharge en masse when not performing a time-critical job. While normal households would buy electricity in a way that guarantees supply, these major autonomous vehicle companies will buy their electricity straight from the grid at wholesale prices.

Autonomy will be the solution to city centre congestion. Soon enough you won't be allowed to drive manually in city centres any more as the benefits of autonomy will be so great.

Also the recent scare of particulates from tyre wear, worse for electric vehicles because they're heavier.

A small increase in tyre particulates but a major reduction in brake particulates, as they will use regenerative or rheostatic braking to slow down most of the way. Just like modern EMUs. For operators of heavy vehicles on stop-start missions (e.g. bin lorries) this represents an enormous saving for electric vehicles over diesel ones, as they won't need to replace the brakes so often.

 

[och aye]

Rail campaigners hand petition to parliament

http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/news/transport/rail-campaigners-hand-petition-to-parliament-1-4468241

MSPs joined representatives from the Levenmouth Rail campaign to pass a 12,506-signature petition to Transport minister Humza Yousaf on Thursday. The petition handover, which filled three boxes, is the latest effort to convince the Scottish Parliament of the case to reinstate the rail link from Leven to Thornton. In an ironic twist campaigners travelled by shuttle bus to Edinburgh.