I really hope Winchburgh gets a decent service as it’ll be a decent sized town by the end of the development. 2tph on the Edinburgh-Dunblanes as apparently proposed is a bit meagre. Especially considering there will be no Glasgow link, nor a chance to change onto a shuttle at Polmont or Linlithgow. Would also be disappointing not to have a Linlithgow-Winchburgh link consdering how commonly travelled between the two places are, and there is plenty demand for this especially after the First 38 bus frequency was halved. Winchburgh is a much needed station though, I just hope it gets a worthwile service.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed
- Thread starter och aye
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
As with many things in that area, it all depends on one thing: Dalmeny.
If/when the chord is built Winchburgh will see a lot more trains.
Will it? If you send 4tph shuttles (possibly 6tph) Dalmeny way in future then you possibly have the 2tph Stirlings and the 2tph Cumbernauld empties (if they still exist by then) going past Winchburgh. Can’t see a whole lot being added as between Winchburgh Jn and Polmont Jn could get busy.
It was discussed earlier in the thread, the Dalmaney Chord allows you to send alternate trains via the two routes and the calls balance each other out: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-network-proposed.108662/page-36#post-3272749
So it could see 3tph calling possibly, rather than most of them flying past.
To be honest, I think two trains per hour is pretty adequate given the proposed population. I also imagine that the majority of passengers from there will be going to Edinburgh as well.
I get the impression that the Winchburgh development will be similar to what is being built at Shawfair - in essence, building an Edinburgh commuter town.
That's exactly what it is!
I must point out that the pretty artist's impression in the news item doesn't show any nice new platforms, let alone a station building.
On the other hand I thought that one of the train services, presumably the Cumbernauld one, already has an allowance in its schedule for a Winchburgh stop.
On the other hand I thought that one of the train services, presumably the Cumbernauld one, already has an allowance in its schedule for a Winchburgh stop.
Not sure it will be quite as big as Shawfair to be honest. Shawfair has, and is planned to have, a half hourly rail service as well. However, things can change.
It’s the Dunblanes which are proposed to be calling at Winchburgh, not the Cumbernaulds.
Altnabreac
Established Member
Probably slightly larger than Shawfair but very similar. 4000 houses planned at Shawfair, 3,500 planned at Winchburgh. But Winchburgh already had about 1,200 houses to begin with so it will be slightly larger overall.
Altnabreac
Established Member
The station is included in the plans. It’s just north of the tunnel and pond, slightly north of the historic station site.
2tph to Edinburgh will be a good starting point for a service but longer term you could see it growing beyond that.
With the new M9 motorway junction and a decent amount of parking I’d expect it to attract people from Bo’ness, the east end of Linlithgow and South Queensferry so usage could be high.
Post Dalmeny Chord I could easily see a 4tph service calling at Winchburgh with 6tph going via the new Chord.
2tph to Edinburgh will be a good starting point for a service but longer term you could see it growing beyond that.
With the new M9 motorway junction and a decent amount of parking I’d expect it to attract people from Bo’ness, the east end of Linlithgow and South Queensferry so usage could be high.
Post Dalmeny Chord I could easily see a 4tph service calling at Winchburgh with 6tph going via the new Chord.
Not if you include the existing Danderhall, Newton and Millerhill communities perhaps but I accept I have underestimated the scale of the Winchburgh developments. The good thing is that both will be rail served which is a change from the previous new town developments in Scotland.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,304
Edinburgh is an ideal city for new commuter towns to spring up, or for smaller villages to expand rapidly. The key to the economic case for Winchburgh is that it'll be an easy commute to the high-paying jobs in Edinburgh. Building a new town with reasonable density surrounding a train station is easier than adding sprawl onto an existing town.
Previous new towns have failed for a number of reasons, but a major factor is the short-lived period of economic growth that wasn't rooted in dense urban areas. New towns made some sense if you could also plop a factory or two there using cheap-ish land and easy access to the then-new motorway network for easy connectivity. Since those types of light industries have faded away, the new towns have been left without much of a reason to exist economically other than the maintenance of their own population (e.g. jobs in supermarkets). The new towns which have failed the least, or even succeeded, are the ones which were almost by accident located on railway routes suitable for commuting into major urban areas. Cumbernauld and Livingston might not be designed well for life with public transport but they are reasonably acceptable places for people to live, then park and ride at a nearby station for a commute into Glasgow or Edinburgh. As property prices in other commuter towns increase, these less-desirable locations can still manage to attract people looking for a large family home at a reasonable price. With those commuters, it keeps the town going for the rest of society.
I think you summed that all up pretty well. A good example is Glenrothes which was developd near the new Rothes Super Colliery which was built but never ever went into full production mode.
That’s the new marketing slogan sorted.
matchmaker
Established Member
Both Rothes Colliery and Glenochil Mine from the same era were complete commercial disasters!
Mordac
Established Member
Better than 'What's it called? Cumbernauld!'
Well Winchburgh already exists whereas Sharfair is a new town being built from scratch is kind of what I meant. Slightly pedantic I know.
Which is what the frequency was originally, until around the time of the strikes related to the introduction of DOO - 2tph Inner, 2tph Outer, 2tph Kirkhill via Maxwell Park, 2tph Newton via Queens Park, plus the 2tph Neilston. That worked out to 4tph on the western side, 6tph on the eastern, 4tph on the Kirkhill line. Some time after that, the Kirkhill turnback was removed, and circle and Newton services were cut to the current level of 1tph each via QP and MP.
ian1944
Member
Regarding the relative size of Shawfair and Winchburgh, the just-started development on the ex-opencast site at Blindwells, south of the ECML west of Longniddry and distinctly closer to Edinburgh than one of them, dwarfs both as it's stated to be having about 9000 homes. In an ideal world, the old siding serving the coal drop would be re-opened for terminators to/from Edinburgh (it's an unashamed commuter settlement, whatever flannel may be talked about local employment), easing the pressure on the much-publicised congestion at Prestonpans and points west on the ex-North Berwick trains. Naturally, it won't happen and the nearby A1 junction, carefully designed so that leaving eastbound and joining westbound traffic conflict at a roundabout, will get even more clogged.
waverley47
Member
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 862
So back in my university days, I was part of a group looking at ways to tackle the Edinburgh city region's inevitable explosion in population (set to double by 2055) and how transport initiatives might tackle that. I'm a long term lurker but I feel there's a couple of things I can contribute to this thread.
Firstly, we looked at the trams and buses routes to the peripheries (Edinburgh is a uniquely hilly city but over the next few decades trams especially will be forming an increasingly vital part of the city's infrastructure, think Granton, Portobello, eventually as far as Dalkeith and out east to eventually Riccarton)
Next, a wholesale remodelling of Waverley is inevitable, with a mezzanine level and a new tunnel bore into the western end. The new bore isn't easy, and high speed rail may change things like balance between the station throats, but a new bore is going to be needed to match commuter growth by about 2040. Stringing wires up across most of central Scotland and Fife, the Dalmeny Chord and potential four tracking as far as Newbridge jn will all help in their own ways
From the east, four tracking as far as Portobello Jn is needed by about 2050, along with three more westen bay platforms at least. The track between Powderhall Branch jn and Portobello Jn was originally four track and slewn over the formation for higher speeds in 73 so this part would be easy. Between the tunnels and Powderhall, the work would involve demolishing a couple of warehouses, land takes and rebuilding the bridge under London road (this would involve extended road closure of an arterial route, but fundamentally would be difficult as there is enough of a up from the east side. The rebuilding will also be needed to support segregated tram tracks if they do end up following roughly the road alignment)
Eventually, the plan is that the four tracking between Dream and Prestonpans will result in a new high speed alignment through open countryside from Portobello-ish as far as Dunbar (maybe further) and eventual service provision would be 2tph to North Berwick, 1tph all stations to Dunbar, and 1tp semi-fast to Berwick. Reopened stations at East Linton, Reston/Grantshouse and new stations at Blindwells (for the new ~6000 homes), Inveresk (for Mussleburgh east) and potentially Portobello (mainly to allow journeys into east Edinburgh from further afield rather than switching at Waverley) would open up journeys along the coast, and take advantage of the paths created by the new high speed alignment. On the Borders line, 3tph as far as gorebridge at least (we didn't look into the Borders line as part of the scope of the survey)
A lot to digest here, but the long term plan is a new generation of commuter towns (think Winchburgh, Blindwells, Shawfair ect) with a new high frequency services is an all together easier way of managing population growth than inner city development in a city already fighting itself over space.
Hope this helps clear some things up about the projected expansion over the coming decades, although I fear I myself at least might not be here to witness most of it as it does seem very far away.
Firstly, we looked at the trams and buses routes to the peripheries (Edinburgh is a uniquely hilly city but over the next few decades trams especially will be forming an increasingly vital part of the city's infrastructure, think Granton, Portobello, eventually as far as Dalkeith and out east to eventually Riccarton)
Next, a wholesale remodelling of Waverley is inevitable, with a mezzanine level and a new tunnel bore into the western end. The new bore isn't easy, and high speed rail may change things like balance between the station throats, but a new bore is going to be needed to match commuter growth by about 2040. Stringing wires up across most of central Scotland and Fife, the Dalmeny Chord and potential four tracking as far as Newbridge jn will all help in their own ways
From the east, four tracking as far as Portobello Jn is needed by about 2050, along with three more westen bay platforms at least. The track between Powderhall Branch jn and Portobello Jn was originally four track and slewn over the formation for higher speeds in 73 so this part would be easy. Between the tunnels and Powderhall, the work would involve demolishing a couple of warehouses, land takes and rebuilding the bridge under London road (this would involve extended road closure of an arterial route, but fundamentally would be difficult as there is enough of a up from the east side. The rebuilding will also be needed to support segregated tram tracks if they do end up following roughly the road alignment)
Eventually, the plan is that the four tracking between Dream and Prestonpans will result in a new high speed alignment through open countryside from Portobello-ish as far as Dunbar (maybe further) and eventual service provision would be 2tph to North Berwick, 1tph all stations to Dunbar, and 1tp semi-fast to Berwick. Reopened stations at East Linton, Reston/Grantshouse and new stations at Blindwells (for the new ~6000 homes), Inveresk (for Mussleburgh east) and potentially Portobello (mainly to allow journeys into east Edinburgh from further afield rather than switching at Waverley) would open up journeys along the coast, and take advantage of the paths created by the new high speed alignment. On the Borders line, 3tph as far as gorebridge at least (we didn't look into the Borders line as part of the scope of the survey)
A lot to digest here, but the long term plan is a new generation of commuter towns (think Winchburgh, Blindwells, Shawfair ect) with a new high frequency services is an all together easier way of managing population growth than inner city development in a city already fighting itself over space.
Hope this helps clear some things up about the projected expansion over the coming decades, although I fear I myself at least might not be here to witness most of it as it does seem very far away.
6000 according to East Lothian council which is still bigger than Shawfair or Winchburgh.
https://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/info/210624/blindwells/12396/blindwells
There has been talk of moving Prestonpans station though.
I don't suppose anyone here or knows someone who went along to the meeting?
Highland37
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 1,259
@waverley47 Where can we find a copy of this plan?
That is very interesting. Did you look at the reopening of Haddington, Gullane (with a connection to N. Berwick as per the original plans) too?
waverley47
Member
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 862
I'm not sure if it was ever published publicly as it was commissioned for the city council and Scottish government, but I'll have a look. It was called 'long term outcomes of expected population growth in the Edinburgh city region and the Lothians" and it's section 7 which is public works planning and outcomes.
The problem we found with Gullane was that it was never really needed, as the housing that will eventually be built there is mainly exclusive and expensive. The buyers and indeed current residents have cars and can easily reach the parking at Longniddry or Prestonpans (both to be expanded significantly in coming years) or even drive into Edinburgh itself.
Haddington is unique in that it has an existing track formation and would benefit significantly from a rail suggestion, but reopening the link doesn't benefit anywhere other than Haddington itself. Haddington also exists in somewhat more of a bubble compared to North Berwick and Gullane, with a far smaller number of people commuting into the city.
Reopening would be easy if costly and the length of such a single track section limits to approximately one train every forty minutes including turnaround, which doesn't fit in a clockwork timetable. Additionally, more trains crossing an already busy route on the flat would add congestion both at Longniddry and more platform use at an already busy Waverley. Essentially, although a reinstated link would benefit the town, more benefit can be gained from fast busses both to Longniddry and the city centre, with a fifteen minute frequency essentially solving the problem in the medium term.
While trains would open up the town to commuters, and indeed in the long term 2tph to Haddington would have a b/c ratio of something like 2.1 if I remember correctly, the conclusion was that other towns will soak up population growth first, and other infrastructure projects in the medium term will eventually make reopening to Haddington possible
Hope this makes sense, it does seem quite rambling on rereading
- Status