Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[deltic08]

I believe that is why the section being spoken about for quadrupling is Wallyford to Drem and I believe it will be either next to the existing line or very close to it.

I thought the quadrupling was between Wallyford and Waverley not Wallyford and Drem. The former already has a trackbed, the latter will need one making. I'm happy with either.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I thought the quadrupling was between Wallyford and Waverley not Wallyford and Drem. The former already has a trackbed, the latter will need one making. I'm happy with either.

There are two separate works. The Waverley east end works involve redoubling Calton North tunnel and providing a third approach track running via Abbeyhill and the former Powderhall branch route. This is more about improving flexibility and capacity at the station than allowing fast trains to overtake slow ones.

The other work is the quad-tracking on the open section of line some way between Wallyford and Drem. This is to allow fast trains to overtake slow ones, and this is the bit where I think there's a possibility a totally new pair of tracks may happen rather than a traditional paired-by-direction quad-tracking.

It's likely that there would still be a two-track railway between these two parts of the work, but it would be a relatively short stretch and wouldn't cause too many capacity constraints. With the South Sub remodelling and electrification, it'll be easy for freight and passenger services to take the Millerhill diversion towards Slateford or Portobello. Between Waverley and Musselburgh there won't be any meaningful difference in speed between different services so overtaking won't be required. Full separation of fast and slow services is only really required when both are going to be running at high frequency, but this isn't ever going to be the case on this section of the ECML. The 2043 Route Study has 4tph to Tweedbank (!), 3tph LDHS and 1tph, 1tph and 2tph ScotRail to Newcastle, Dunbar and North Berwick, respectively plus two freight paths. That's 7tph local, 2tph freight and 3tph express, which should be perfectly fine on the infrastructure they're suggesting.

 

[AndrewE]

There are two separate works. The Waverley east end works involve redoubling Calton North tunnel and providing a third approach track running via Abbeyhill and the former Powderhall branch route...
The other work is the quad-tracking on the open section of line some way between Wallyford and Drem...
It's likely that there would still be a two-track railway between these two parts of the work, but it would be a relatively short stretch and wouldn't cause too many capacity constraints.

It would be interesting to hear a signaller, regulator or other operator's opinion on that!

 

[najaB]

It would be interesting to hear a signaller, regulator or other operator's opinion on that!

I'm neither, but assuming that the station throat is sorted out, there's no reason you can't get 13tph across a stretch of double-track line.

 

[edwin_m]

The other work is the quad-tracking on the open section of line some way between Wallyford and Drem. This is to allow fast trains to overtake slow ones, and this is the bit where I think there's a possibility a totally new pair of tracks may happen rather than a traditional paired-by-direction quad-tracking.

If the new alignment was anything other than up-up-down-down then there would be junction conflicts each end. Flying junctions would be very costly and space-consuming and flat ones would destroy much of the capacity benefit of the four-tracking.

Perhaps a compromise would be one flying junction at Wallyford onto a new alignment further south, with no new stations and no need to re-build the existing ones. North Berwick and any other stopping trains would use the existing tracks and faster ones would be on the new southern tracks avoiding the current flat conflict with North Berwick trains at Drem. The new alignment then re-join via a flat junction east of Drem, but laid out with provision for future extension eastwards avoiding the curves at East Linton and perhaps those around Dunbar as well. Some trains might terminate at Dunbar and the line is fairly straight to the east, so the benefits of extending a high speed bypass beyond Dunbar are less. When it gets curvy again it's in the hills where building a bypass would be much more costly.

 

[Altnabreac]

Flat junction east of Drem won't lose much capacity as it will only be used by Freight trains as all the passenger trains from Dunbar will use the bypass.

A flat junction west of Wallyford is sub optimal compared to a flying junction. But the current situation involves a flat junction at Drem then 4 stations served by slow trains but bypassed by fast trains. Replacing this with a single flat junction will be a big increase in capacity, and the Dunbar semi fasts can use the fast line and still call at Musselburgh as they do now.

 

[railjock]

Flat junction east of Drem won't lose much capacity as it will only be used by Freight trains as all the passenger trains from Dunbar will use the bypass.

A flat junction west of Wallyford is sub optimal compared to a flying junction. But the current situation involves a flat junction at Drem then 4 stations served by slow trains but bypassed by fast trains. Replacing this with a single flat junction will be a big increase in capacity, and the Dunbar semi fasts can use the fast line and still call at Musselburgh as they do now.

Where is the possible third line into the East End of Waverley reckoned to start- Jocks Lodge, the current Powderhall line junction or further East?

 

[InOban]

BTW, East of Jock's Lodge the formation is four tracks, but there are at present only two.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If the new alignment was anything other than up-up-down-down then there would be junction conflicts each end. Flying junctions would be very costly and space-consuming and flat ones would destroy much of the capacity benefit of the four-tracking.

Perhaps a compromise would be one flying junction at Wallyford onto a new alignment further south, with no new stations and no need to re-build the existing ones. North Berwick and any other stopping trains would use the existing tracks and faster ones would be on the new southern tracks avoiding the current flat conflict with North Berwick trains at Drem. The new alignment then re-join via a flat junction east of Drem, but laid out with provision for future extension eastwards avoiding the curves at East Linton and perhaps those around Dunbar as well. Some trains might terminate at Dunbar and the line is fairly straight to the east, so the benefits of extending a high speed bypass beyond Dunbar are less. When it gets curvy again it's in the hills where building a bypass would be much more costly.

Would another possibility be to do roughly what you suggest, but put a station on the new track at Haddington (along with East Linton), and run the fasts AND the Dunbar locals along the new track (obviously, only the locals - probably now running hourly -would stop at the new stations). The current track from Drem to East Linton then would no longer be used for regular service, and the issue of the flat junction at East Linton would go away.

As another variation, instead of running the new track from Wallyford, you could 4-track to Longniddry and use the old line from there to Haddington, which would allow the Dunbar stoppers to serve those stations too.

 

[Steamysandy]

The Southern Reporter newspaper says that an exhibition in a shop in Hawick has led to an increase in the number of people signing up to a pressure group in favour of reopening the rest of the Border Railway to Carlisle. It is felt that Hawick is still too isolated from the North and that a service to the South would also help to reopen the area up to businesses.
More exhibitions are planned

 

[Tobbes]

How much time would the bypass save? By 2043 we're into HSR territory, surely? Waverley - Gorebridge - Tunnel - Lauder - Jedburgh - Tunnel - Tunnel - Otterburn - Newcastle at 220mph....

 

[och aye]

Work to begin on new north-east railway station

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/work-to-begin-on-new-north-east-railway-station1/

Network Rail will build the new facility featuring two platforms at Kintore.

The transport body received planning approval from Aberdeenshire Council earlier this year for the site in the north of the town beside the B987 and Northern Road.

A report, which has gone before councillors, said work to clear the site would start in autumn.

It read: “It is envisaged that access to the land will be available from mid-autumn for site clearance and compound establishment.

“This then enables the ramping up of construction activity during spring 2019, ready for main construction during the rail blockade, required for the wider Aberdeen to Inverness rail improvement project, from May 2019.

“It is anticipated that the station will be operational from December 2019 in time for the biannual timetable change.”

The Kintore station will be the first new one in the north-east since 2009 when the £3 million Laurencekirk platforms opened.

Along with the two platforms, a footbridge linking them will be built, as well as waiting shelters, seating and a car park for 168 vehicles.

 

[clc]

Glasgow Airport Rail Link

The latest twist is that the council would quite like the link to serve Queen Elizabeth University Hospital:

https://www.insider.co.uk/news/glasgow-city-deal-airport-link-13157264

 

[Altnabreac]

Glasgow Airport Rail Link

The latest twist is that the council would quite like the link to serve Queen Elizabeth University Hospital:

https://www.insider.co.uk/news/glasgow-city-deal-airport-link-13157264

Hmm. Not really sure how that’s going to work without becoming a much more expensive project.

Good to finally see some acknowledgement of the capacity issues at Central though. Sanity vaguely breaking out on that front.

 

[clc]

Hmm. Not really sure how that’s going to work without becoming a much more expensive project.

Maybe they could build a loop from Hillington to the hospital rejoining the mainline at Cardonald.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It looks like they're slowly, but surely, coming to the realisation that the best system would be a new metro (i.e. tram) line.

 

[InOban]

That's what I was thinking. Airport Braehead Hospital then to the centre.

 

[clc]

That's what I was thinking. Airport Braehead Hospital then to the centre.

Bear in mind they only have £140 million to spend on it.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Bear in mind they only have £140 million to spend on it.

£140m to pay for a link to the Airport. However, as soon as they choose a system which serves other transport requirements, there'll be extra funding opportunities opened up. It might not happen instantaneously, but at the very least if they can get a rough draft of a scheme they can then look for ways to fund it. For instance, through developer contributions from housing developments next to the route.

 

[och aye]

Construction begins on new Robroyston station

https://www.scotrail.co.uk/about-scotrail/news/construction-begins-new-robroyston-station

Work will begin today (Wednesday 12 September) on the construction of the new Robroyston railway station, which will serve a development of 1,600 homes in the area around the site.

The design and build contract which marks the start of the work, has been awarded to AmcoGiffen.

Located between Stepps and Springburn on the Glasgow to Cumbernauld line, the new station will include step free platform access, together with two car parks with a total of 258 spaces, offering a new ‘park and ride’ facility for people driving into Glasgow along the nearby M80.

Clearance works at the site have already been completed with vegetation completed and ground investigations underway – with the station expected to open in December 2019.

PS. Is it mandatory for every Government/ScotRail/Network Rail representative to say something along the lines of:

"We are committed to building the best railway Scotland has ever had"

at the end of every press release/announcement?

 

[och aye]

Plans for rail link between Aberdeen airport and new AECC hit by setback

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp...berdeen-airport-and-new-aecc-hit-by-setback1/

Ambitious plans for a £70 million rail link between Aberdeen International Airport and the new AECC have hit a setback.

City council bosses unveiled their multi-million-pound vision two years ago to create a track between the airport and the new £333m TECA (The Event Complex Aberdeen) at Bucksburn.

But transport consultants hired to develop rail options for the region have cast doubt on building the new “rail spur” on land belonging to TECA, arguing it is “unlikely” an airport connecting line would be suitable and that it could impact on neighbouring homes.

 

[GrimShady]

Hmm. Not really sure how that’s going to work without becoming a much more expensive project.

Good to finally see some acknowledgement of the capacity issues at Central though. Sanity vaguely breaking out on that front.

Surely it's time to be thinking of a new St Enoch station. There's a huge are to the east of the shopping center currently used as car parks that could be used for a new Queen Street sized station. It could even be integrated with the shopping center and still keep underground car parks.

 

[NotATrainspott]

A new railway station on the newly-redoubled line through Stoneywood seems in order. It's the sort of development which isn't as easy to implement on a single-track line due to occupancy times.

Once you have a station there, you can go to the ULTra people and set up a little driverless people mover track to the airport terminal. It'd cost a damn sight less than any heavy rail improvement, and it would provide a useful link for all trains rather than just the ones which could head to the airport on a branch. With the single line restriction it seems rather unlikely that there'd be capacity for branch shuttle trains anyway.

 

[gsnedders]

Surely it's time to be thinking of a new St Enoch station. There's a huge are to the east of the shopping center currently used as car parks that could be used for a new Queen Street sized station. It could even be integrated with the shopping center and still keep underground car parks.

To have relatively straight platforms, not on a sharp curve, you need most of that space (filled with car parks) for approach lines to the station!

 

[Aictos]

With the plans above for a rail link to Aberdeen Airport, if only the terminal wasn't in it's current position then Dyce could have been used as the railhead for it which would mean no need for a line to be built however maybe because of the location of the terminal a few years ago Stagecoach cancelled the service they ran between Dyce and the Airport for lack of use.

Could the terminal be relocated closer to Dyce station?

 

[GrimShady]

To have relatively straight platforms, not on a sharp curve, you need most of that space (filled with car parks) for approach lines to the station!

Go with curved platforms. There's definitely space there for five maybe six coach trains lengths there, maybe more if it was partially integrated with the shopping center just like the new exentsion on the west side. There was once a traction depot up there too.

 

[haggishunter]

With the plans above for a rail link to Aberdeen Airport, if only the terminal wasn't in it's current position then Dyce could have been used as the railhead for it which would mean no need for a line to be built however maybe because of the location of the terminal a few years ago Stagecoach cancelled the service they ran between Dyce and the Airport for lack of use.

Could the terminal be relocated closer to Dyce station?

Any very slim chance of that has surely gone with the current ongoing significant redevelopment of Aberdeen Airport on the current terminal site. Likewise when the current Inverness airport was built, an opportunity was lost to flip the site around to put the terminus by the railway. At the time it happened the Scottish Office maintained it was too costly. Subsequently buying out the catastrophically bad PFI Tory ministers signed up to cost many times what building a much bigger and better terminal by the railway line could have cost through traditional public funding. That will be one of those Union dividends?

Any cross Aberdeen service that would end up at the airport on the council proposal looks to be detrimental to commuter services to West of the airport and to the prospects of reopening the line to Ellon. Kittybrewster would be a more useful station.

 

[najaB]

Any very slim chance of that has surely gone with the current ongoing significant redevelopment of Aberdeen Airport on the current terminal site. Likewise when the current Inverness airport was built, an opportunity was lost to flip the site around to put the terminus by the railway.

To be honest, neither airport generates enough traffic for the disruption associated with moving the terminal to be made up for by the number of rail journeys it would enable.

For Aberdeen, a helicopter terminal close to the railway would make sense if the oil industry picks back up.

 

[haggishunter]

^Aberdeen is being extended and the existing building refurbished, but in Inverness no part of the original terminal was retained and there was significant disruption during construction, which in that case could have been avoided entirely by starting at the other side of the airport. Because it was a clean slate project rather than extension of the existing building, it was a missed opportunity imo.

As an aside, that Evening Express article mentions 9 stations between Dyce and Aberdeen, is that correct and what were they? Stoneywood, Bucksburn, Kittybrewster.....

 

[najaB]

...in Inverness no part of the original terminal was retained and there was significant disruption during construction, which in that case could have been avoided entirely by starting at the other side of the airport.

But would that also have required a new taxiway, apron, etc? If so, that would have increased costs significantly.

A quick look on Google Maps leads me to believe that there isn't room for a new apron and terminal on the other side of the runway.