Airdrie-Bathgate service

[me123]

Nope. Looking more and more like the snow came just in time to give them an excuse To be fair, it is possible that the snow caused damage to unfinished work when it came. Apparntly most of the work is related to access (such as the car parks and paths).

The latest I've heard was mid-late February, so about another month (source). Of course, it's possible that they could all open at different times.

 

[rail-britain]

The anytime day return ticket Blairhill-Edinburgh is £17.30. In comparison, his combination cost £24.70. This is a passenger who would rather pay £7.40 more than required, make an unnecessary connection and (probably) extend his journey time than use the new route

A Blairhill - Edinburgh allows travel via Airdrie / Bathgate OR Glasgow Queen Street / Croy
Sounds like this passenger is of the opinion or was advised that two tickets are required

 

[me123]

A Blairhill - Edinburgh allows travel via Airdrie / Bathgate OR Glasgow Queen Street / Croy
Sounds like this passenger is of the opinion or was advised that two tickets are required

That's quite surprising, given that the Queen Street-Edinburgh fare is cheaper than the Blairhill-Edinburgh fare. Sounds like a good way of getting a cheap Edinburgh-Glasgow ticket

 

[Bittern]

Was on the new line last Sunday and it was well used, though this is likely due to the closure of the Falkirk Line.

Interestingly, information displayed on Waverley's departure boards said passengers for Dunblane and Glasgow Queen Street should travel to Livingston on the Helensburgh services, bus-it to Linlithgow and train to Dunblane/Glasgow, despite the fact the the Helensburgh services go to Glasgow Queen Street. The passengers were smart enough to stay on the train instead.

 

[me123]

Saturdays and Sundays are likely to see higher levels of use at the moment, because a lot of people will be travelling for leisure purposes at the weekend and weekends have a higher 2tph frequency at the moment.

 

[tbtc]

The 'Longer' route can take less time. Eg if you miss a weekday service from Bathgate to Glasgow you can get there quicker by going to Haymarket then along the Falkirk line to Glasgow, than by waiting for the next direct service.

Scotrail need to look at how they've messed up here. Haven't they been spending the last 3 1/2 years promising 4 tph on the new line? Why did they not think there would be problems with the class 380 introduction, and that these problems would impact the service pattern on A-B?

A lot of people are feeling very let down by Scotrail just now.

With the reduced frequency, there will probably be a few examples where going via Queen Street is faster (but going via Bathgate will be faster once the A2B service is running at 100%).

In hindsight, Scotrail should maybe have promised a half hourly service for the first six months (e.g. December - May timetable change), which is as good as the Bathgate section previously got, same as Airdrie - Drumgelloch!), rather than aiming straight for 100%...

 

[Failed Unit]

Nope. Looking more and more like the snow came just in time to give them an excuse To be fair, it is possible that the snow caused damage to unfinished work when it came. Apparntly most of the work is related to access (such as the car parks and paths).

The latest I've heard was mid-late February, so about another month (source). Of course, it's possible that they could all open at different times.

I suspect you are right. I don't think they would have made it but the snow is a good external factor to blame. They can blame the snow for not having a contingency for late delivery of the 380s as well!

 

[John @ home]

A Blairhill - Edinburgh allows travel via Airdrie / Bathgate OR Glasgow Queen Street / Croy

I don't think that's right. My calculation is:

Edinburgh Group is a Routeing Point (RP)
RPs for Blairhill are Edinburgh Group, Glasgow Group, Falkirk Group and Inverkeithing Group.

Therefore Edinburgh and Blairhill share a common RP - Edinburgh Group.

Common Routeing Points
If the origin and destination have a common routeing point, the permitted route is direct via the shortest distance from the origin to the destination over which a regular scheduled passenger train service operates. No doubling back (passing through the same station twice on a single journey) is allowed which may require customers to change trains short of the routeing point, unless an easement allows a longer alternative route.

http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/RSPDocuments/instructions.pdf

A negative easement makes things even clearer:

Easement 700087
Customers travelling from Drumgelloch, Airdrie, Coatdyke, Coatbridge Sunnyside, Blairhill, Easterhouse, Garrowhill, Shettleston, Carntyne and Bellgrove to Edinburgh and beyond, may not travel via Glasgow Queen Street and/or Glasgow Central. This easement applies in both directions.

http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/easements.pdf

 

[317 forever]

I reckon I shall be visiting the area in September or October. I therefore hope the full service is running by then. It would compensate for the lengthy delay to the opening of the Edinburgh tram route!

 

[rail-britain]

I reckon I shall be visiting the area in September or October. I therefore hope the full service is running by then

Providing the first Class 380 units is accepted by FSR in February and deliveries recommence such that the entire fleet can be accepted by May
This will then allow the full cascade to be completed

By September the "spare" Class 380 units should also be in service, previously it was not known what service they were going to be used for

 

[Failed Unit]

I thought the "spares" were doing North Berwick - Edinburgh so the 322s can go back to East Anglia. If we have genuine spare I expect transport Scotland will want to improve Edinburgh - Motherwell from 2 hourly but that is speculation.

 

[rail-britain]

I thought the "spares" were doing North Berwick - Edinburgh

No, those four units are already accounted for as part of the fleet (note the decrease from five to four)

This leaves three Class 380 units "spare", originally ordered for GARL

 

[Damien1986]

With the reduced frequency, there will probably be a few examples where going via Queen Street is faster (but going via Bathgate will be faster once the A2B service is running at 100%).

In hindsight, Scotrail should maybe have promised a half hourly service for the first six months (e.g. December - May timetable change), which is as good as the Bathgate section previously got, same as Airdrie - Drumgelloch!), rather than aiming straight for 100%...

I totally agree with you there and wouldn't you agree that Scotrail have let a lot of people down?

 

[rail-britain]

Great in principle, however not possible if you do not have enough units
I suspect if the issue had come to light earlier and was not so dependent on a rolling stock cascade (ie the new Class 380 units went straight on the new route) then other arrangements would have been made to obtain alternative rolling stock

However, the decision was made to provide the previous service level on the previous routes and the new route with a basic service (rather than nothing)

 

[me123]

No, those four units are already accounted for as part of the fleet (note the decrease from five to four)

This leaves three Class 380 units "spare", originally ordered for GARL

Would these three be enough to run a two-hourly service between Glasgow and Edinburgh via Motherwell (which would, in combination with the CrossCountry service, effectively create an hourly service via Motherwell)? Of course, if you were able to extend these to North Berwick/Dunbar, then even better!

I totally agree with you there and wouldn't you agree that Scotrail have let a lot of people down?

I would say yes. In all fairness to them, they are running an hourly frequency (with a half hourly frequency at weekends) so at the very least they are running the train. They're doing their best. But, as I've said before, something's gone seriously wrong somewhere down the line. We've had shortages since late 2010 due to the delay in Class 380 delivery and entry into service, and this has caused the problems. This obviously cannot be entirely Scotrail's fault; they didn't build the trains. But something has gone wrong on their side as well, whether it's over enthusiastic promises, or badly thought out plans.

 

[Failed Unit]

Looks like inept project management if you look at post #201 onwards on page 14. With quotes from the A-b project manager saying he doesn't care about the 380 project.

 

[rail-britain]

quotes from the A-b project manager saying he doesn't care about the 380 project

Two projects, two project managers; different challenges

The A2B project did not include rolling stock, so why would they care so long as the infrastructure is in place, therefore completed the job to specification (well nearly, last few weeks were lost due to snow)

The Class 380 project was just too tight
Experience with the Class 334 and the issues encountered introducing those units was not taken into account
The units were received but encountered two issues which meant the introduction deadline was missed
Equally, there was a similar issue with the Class 318 for the Ayrline electrification, but there was more of an overlap such that all the units arrived before the timetable commenced
Since all the Class 380 units will be delivered by May 2011, that is the deadline they should have worked to, with the first units being to replace the Class 322 units temporarily

 

[tbtc]

Looks like inept project management

Agreed.

Trying to manage two things as separate projects, when one depending on the other was naive.

Remember it only takes one badly handled project to get people nervous about future ones. People still use the Millennium Dome as an example of "delayed, over-budget" projects to justify their opposition to HS2.

This doesn't encourage me, with the Falkirk (etc) electrification to come...

 

[rail-britain]

There are loads of similar parallel projects currently within the Scottish Government / admin structure

Another such example is the M74 and M80 construction
Again, two sets of project managers, they didn't talk to each other
The project manager from the M80 had booked some equipment first, the M74 project however required this first
This ended up putting the M74 project back about 6 weeks, however had a basic conversation between projects there would have been no delay at all

A real shocker is this one
The M8 grinds to a halt, leaving thousands of motorists stranded
The Transport Minister eventually resigns
The incoming Minister advises nothing like this will happen again
The following week the same stretch of M8 suffers ice and 3 people die
The contractor admits that gritters had not been out in the previous 4 hours
Which is worse?

 

[MadCommuter]

Another such example is the M74 and M80 construction
Again, two sets of project managers, they didn't talk to each other
The project manager from the M80 had booked some equipment first, the M74 project however required this first
This ended up putting the M74 project back about 6 weeks, however had a basic conversation between projects there would have been no delay at all

Sorry, I don't understand as these 2 projects are being constructed by different contractors? And the M74 is due to open in June, way ahead of the planned date?

 

[Mex]

Two projects, two project managers; different challenges

The A2B project did not include rolling stock, so why would they care so long as the infrastructure is in place, therefore completed the job to specification (well nearly, last few weeks were lost due to snow)

The Class 380 project was just too tight
Experience with the Class 334 and the issues encountered introducing those units was not taken into account
The units were received but encountered two issues which meant the introduction deadline was missed
Equally, there was a similar issue with the Class 318 for the Ayrline electrification, but there was more of an overlap such that all the units arrived before the timetable commenced
Since all the Class 380 units will be delivered by May 2011, that is the deadline they should have worked to, with the first units being to replace the Class 322 units temporarily

Yes, this is what I'm talking about.

We've had assurances that one (the 380 project) won't affect the other (A2B). Patently false, as we've seen.

We've had assurance that the two projects not talking to each other didn't matter - well, it did matter and now we're stuck with a 1tph service on NR's latest line to be built (never mind that 3 of the 4 new stations aren't in operation, that's another issue altogether).

Anyone care to guess how long it will be until we get a 2tph Bathgate - Glasgow service (I'd settle for that just now, never mind the 4tph we were promised)?

 

[me123]

2tph will be sufficient; 4tph is hardly necessary at the moment. It shouldn't be too long once the 380s start getting into service, but there are only 4 diagrams in regular service at the moment and it's been like that for over a month now. At this rate it will be some time. Indeed, even the 1tph would be better utilised had we not been so spoiled here in the SPT area.

Seimens are hardly innocent in this. They built trains that seem not to want to work! The blame must lie between Scotrail and Seimens.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Another such example is the M74 and M80 construction
Again, two sets of project managers, they didn't talk to each other
The project manager from the M80 had booked some equipment first, the M74 project however required this first
This ended up putting the M74 project back about 6 weeks, however had a basic conversation between projects there would have been no delay at all

Although, given that it's going to open 9 months early anyway IIRC, it's hardly a major issue... Currently expected to open in May or June.

 

[rail-britain]

Sorry, I don't understand as these 2 projects are being constructed by different contractors?

Yes, but each project has its own project manager within Transport Scotland

One section of the M74 construction was delayed due to the equipment sitting in readiness for the M80 construction
As with all things, it doesn't mean down tools and wait, other works can take place, and then catch up once that phase has finally been completed
ie good project management
The M74 project is effectively on-time, the time scale allows the local authorities to make payments from each financial year and if completed early allows the contractor to earn an early completion bonus (plus not having to pay the workers, so it's a double win for them)

The M77 phase 3 (Mosspark to Crookfur) construction was similar, 2 years to build, Glasgow City Council making two payments over two years, however the project timescale was 18 months which is exactly what it took; the public were then under the impression it opened early, what a laugh!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

2tph will be sufficient; 4tph is hardly necessary at the moment

Don't say that, might end up with just the 2tph, trains turning at both Airdrie and Bathgate
The idea behind the 4tph is to remove the need for Edinburgh - Bathgate as a separate service, thus the service simply continues semi-express to Airdrie

It's bad enough with services quiting eastbound just after High Street and to then go on a wee jaunt!
The same argument could apply to why don't these units simply continue to Springburn and then turn there...

 

[class156]

Yes, this is what I'm talking about.

We've had assurances that one (the 380 project) won't affect the other (A2B). Patently false, as we've seen.

We've had assurance that the two projects not talking to each other didn't matter - well, it did matter and now we're stuck with a 1tph service on NR's latest line to be built (never mind that 3 of the 4 new stations aren't in operation, that's another issue altogether).

Anyone care to guess how long it will be until we get a 2tph Bathgate - Glasgow service (I'd settle for that just now, never mind the 4tph we were promised)?

There currently is 2tph between Airdrie to Bathgate.

 

[me123]

There currently is 2tph between Airdrie to Bathgate.

But only at the weekends; weekdays is only hourly for the moment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't say that, might end up with just the 2tph, trains turning at both Airdrie and Bathgate
The idea behind the 4tph is to remove the need for Edinburgh - Bathgate as a separate service, thus the service simply continues semi-express to Airdrie

Whilst it would work in the short term, I'm sure we would need 4tph eventually. There's huge potential for the route; Livingston and Bathgate-Glasgow will definitely take off, people commuting to Livingston for work, Edinburgh Park-Glasgow will be a useful direct link, Monklands-Edinburgh will grow eventually... there's going to be a definite need for 4tph once the line becomes established.

Besides, if there were 2tph on the new line and 4tph at either end, you'd be just as well going for 4tph I would have thought; it would probably only take a couple of extra units.

 

[Failed Unit]

Two projects, two project managers; different challenges

The A2B project did not include rolling stock, so why would they care so long as the infrastructure is in place, therefore completed the job to specification (well nearly, last few weeks were lost due to snow)

I think the snow was just good luck. We are nearly in February now with still no date for opening the last stations. As discussed earlier they were never going to have completed them luckily now they can blame the snow.

As for two different project managers. as a PM your job is to log and try to mitigate all risks that could delay your project clearly this didn't happen. Snow you should add extra time at the beginning it happens in Scotand frequently in winter. Maybe not as bad but it snows! If the late delivery of the 380s were not logged as a risk for a-b then I stand by my inept pm comment.

 

[MacCookie]

Yes, this is what I'm talking about.

We've had assurances that one (the 380 project) won't affect the other (A2B). Patently false, as we've seen.

We've had assurance that the two projects not talking to each other didn't matter - well, it did matter and now we're stuck with a 1tph service on NR's latest line to be built (never mind that 3 of the 4 new stations aren't in operation, that's another issue altogether).

Assurances? How do you know that the TS project managers weren't talking to each other?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The M77 phase 3 (Mosspark to Crookfur) construction was similar, 2 years to build, Glasgow City Council making two payments over two years, however the project timescale was 18 months which is exactly what it took; the public were then under the impression it opened early, what a laugh!

That's what you do with a big project such as this. You say that it's going to take longer than you really need - the extra time is known as a contingency in case of problems. If it all goes well, you complete early. If it doesn't go so well, you complete on time.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, those four units are already accounted for as part of the fleet (note the decrease from five to four)

This leaves three Class 380 units "spare", originally ordered for GARL

The diagrams from May (originally from April, but they'll have changed now) show 32 units in service out of 38.

Ewan

 

[rail-britain]

the M74 is due to open in June, way ahead of the planned date?

Current opening date is 21 June
Project (contracted) completion date is 22 November

Although the M74 is likely to open on 21 June, several related projects will still be ongoing and are likely to be completed within 6 weeks
In effect that makes it 3 months ahead of schedule

 

[tbtc]

I think the snow was just good luck

Agreed; the snow has been a good excuse for something which wouldn't have been delivered on time (regardless of weather) - its allowed some people to deflect attention...

I remember the phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" from Latin. It translates (roughly) as "Who will guard the guards". Maybe in 2011 we should be saying "Who will manage the Project Managers?"

 

[Damien1986]

So driver training for the class 320's on Argyle Line services will only take place once the units have been refurbished and when they have been would any one of you be able to give a date as to when it will begin?