Airdrie-Bathgate service

[Bittern]

I read,on wikipedia I think,that class 320 units maybe used on peak services on the Airdrie to Bathgate route,is this true or just a rumour?

They're not cleared east of Airdrie.

 

[me123]

I caught the 0721 ex Edinburgh service at Glasgow today. 3 coach and totally rammed so I suspect the people that used that service in the past may be wishing the line hadn't opened.

That is usually 6 carriages to be fair. And it really does need the 6 - a 3 carriage train on that service would have been rammed even before Airdrie-Bathgate opened. The only difference will be that more people were left behind somewhere. You'd need to see how it fares as a 6 carriage train to see how much of an effect the line has had.

Once the 4tph are running, quite a lot of passengers will opt for the one before it I think (the current 07:52 limited stop from Airdrie, which will hopefully be run as a 6 car train), and there will be space on it if and only if it's 6 car. Similarly, the 08:22 from Airdrie should be able to cope with the extra as well. Both of these will take a lot of strain off the 07:21 from Edinburgh when things get up and running.

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

I had a discussion with someone today
"Didn't realise I could get a train to Shettleston, sounds good"
Then I mentioned instead of 4 trains per hour it was just one
"Stuff that, I'll take the car"; and that's what it is currently up against, due to a really basic timetable

I don't think getting a train (or indeed any other mode of transport) to Shettleston is a good thing

Seriously, though, the SPT area reallyl is spoiled as far as public transport goes. Most routes see a really good turn-up-and-go service. And people expect that. An hourly service is not turn-up-and-go. And that's what's putting them off.

Just about anywhere else, I think a lot of people would make use of the hourly service. But in Greater Glasgow, they're quite simply not going to be impressed by 1tph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I read,on wikipedia I think,that class 320 units maybe used on peak services on the Airdrie to Bathgate route,is this true or just a rumour?

You might be reading that the 320s will be used on peak hour services terminating at Airdrie (and, as such, not going through to Bathgate). In fact, most services terminating at Airdrie will be 320s coming from Balloch.

 

[Failed Unit]

Ok. Just unlucky today me123. I wonder if altering the departure boards may assist this line a bit. Make Edinburgh say xxxx via Glasgow and put the low level departures on the main board at queen street. I don't know if anyone heading to Barhgate has got caught out waiting on the high level or if everything is clear enough that they go to the low level anyway.

I was lazy today and took a ride from Charing cross to queen street. When the line is fully open I would certainly use it instead of the Falkirk route if I was doing Edinburgh to Charing Cross. No quicker but no change!

 

[Damien1986]

That is usually 6 carriages to be fair. And it really does need the 6 - a 3 carriage train on that service would have been rammed even before Airdrie-Bathgate opened. The only difference will be that more people were left behind somewhere. You'd need to see how it fares as a 6 carriage train to see how much of an effect the line has had.

Once the 4tph are running, quite a lot of passengers will opt for the one before it I think (the current 07:52 limited stop from Airdrie, which will hopefully be run as a 6 car train), and there will be space on it if and only if it's 6 car. Similarly, the 08:22 from Airdrie should be able to cope with the extra as well. Both of these will take a lot of strain off the 07:21 from Edinburgh when things get up and running.

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


I don't think getting a train (or indeed any other mode of transport) to Shettleston is a good thing

Seriously, though, the SPT area reallyl is spoiled as far as public transport goes. Most routes see a really good turn-up-and-go service. And people expect that. An hourly service is not turn-up-and-go. And that's what's putting them off.

Just about anywhere else, I think a lot of people would make use of the hourly service. But in Greater Glasgow, they're quite simply not going to be impressed by 1tph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You might be reading that the 320s will be used on peak hour services terminating at Airdrie (and, as such, not going through to Bathgate). In fact, most services terminating at Airdrie will be 320s coming from Balloch.

So once the full timetable is up and running class 320's will be a regular site on Argyle Line duties as well as Airdrie/Springburn duties?

 

[me123]

So once the full timetable is up and running class 320's will be a regular site on Argyle Line duties as well as Airdrie/Springburn duties?

Correct.

I can't remember how many diagrams there will be, but they will operate Ballcoh-Airdrie and Dalmuir-Springburn services. In addition, they will supplement services on the Argyle line (operating alongside 318s). But that's not going to happen for some time. I think they need at least the half hourly A-B timetable before you see any 320s; indeed, it may not happen until the 4tph timetable comes into play.

 

[Damien1986]

Correct.

I can't remember how many diagrams there will be, but they will operate Ballcoh-Airdrie and Dalmuir-Springburn services. In addition, they will supplement services on the Argyle line (operating alongside 318s). But that's not going to happen for some time. I think they need at least the half hourly A-B timetable before you see any 320s; indeed, it may not happen until the 4tph timetable comes into play.

So there will be no more class 318 units on North Clyde duties,not even if it's Airdrie/Springburn duties?

 

[ObservationCar]

Can't see the 320's being much good on the Argyle line as they are 75mph units (although the can reach 90mph). This would surely see 318's and spare 334's do the Lanark Runs, with 90mph possible.

Overall I see the classic problem of joined up services causing disruption West of Queen St. With no overtaking loops, a late running fast caught behind a stopper will play havoc once it reaches Kelvinhaugh. The same problem occurred when Central Trains run Aberystwyth to Norwich/Stansted Services, where it was effectivly 3 services being operated by one train.

One solution would be to put a curve in at the "O2 Academy" near bridge street Underground station, electrify city union line, and run some services into Central!!

Probably what will happen is 2 of the trains will terminate at Partick and reverse at Hyndland, until a turnback is provided closer to Queen Street which will be tricky and costly.

 

[Bittern]

Can't see the 320's being much good on the Argyle line as they are 75mph units (although the can reach 90mph). This would surely see 318's and spare 334's do the Lanark Runs, with 90mph possible.

They were upgraded recently in preparation for Argyle Line runs. They'll do just fine.

 

[rail-britain]

Don't forget, the (internal) conversion of the Class 320 units will commence shortly so there will be further shortages
I am still awaiting reports of the first Class 320 to arrive at WabTec Doncaster, with another to be sent a few days later
On the plus side, the conversion work should be complete just as the next timetable commences (and hopefully full Class 380 introductions and EMU cascade is completed)

 

[me123]

So there will be no more class 318 units on North Clyde duties,not even if it's Airdrie/Springburn duties?

With the exception of one diagram on Springburn duties, 318s aren't currently diagrammed for North Clyde Duties (at least not Monday-Friday). Usually they only come out this way in disruption, and are actually quite a rare occurrence at Airdrie. Once the cascade happens, they'll all be on Argyle Line duties (apart from a handful remaining on Ayrshire and Inverclyde runs). However, I think it's likely that you will still see 318s out in Airdrie when things go wrong for whatever reason.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Probably what will happen is 2 of the trains will terminate at Partick and reverse at Hyndland, until a turnback is provided closer to Queen Street which will be tricky and costly.

Turning back at Kelvinhaugh would be quite costly, but has been mooted for some time. Indeed, I think it's going to happen for when Cumbernauld services are electrified (so that these services are able to turn back before Partick). Similarly, improving the existing turnback at Anderston/Exhibition Centre would allow more trains to turn back there.

The problem with turning back early is that quite a few people do commute from one end of the city to the other, so terminating trains at Charing Cross/Anderston needs to be done carefully so that it doesn't inconvenience people trying to do, say, Larkhall to Anniesland.

Terminating at Partick throughout the day and during the rush hour is actually quite a bad idea. It does nothing to address the congestion issues on the line, and in actual fact will slow things down more because the train needs to cross into the loop at Hyndland. It works in evenings and on Sundays because the timetable is much less intensive, but in the morning rush hour it's a recipe for disaster.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

One solution would be to put a curve in at the "O2 Academy" near bridge street Underground station, electrify city union line, and run some services into Central!!

Quite right!

and it would have been so much easier if it was included in the massive land clearance which seems to be for no purpose other than to join 2 motorways. It would have been relatively simple to join the 2 railways (and thereby link the 2 stations - Queen Street and Central - and/or enable each station to receive each other's services, depending on whether the chord curves east-north or east-south).

 

[ObservationCar]

The problem with turning back early is that quite a few people do commute from one end of the city to the other, so terminating trains at Charing Cross/Anderston needs to be done carefully so that it doesn't inconvenience people trying to do, say, Larkhall to Anniesland.

Terminating at Partick throughout the day and during the rush hour is actually quite a bad idea. It does nothing to address the congestion issues on the line, and in actual fact will slow things down more because the train needs to cross into the loop at Hyndland. It works in evenings and on Sundays because the timetable is much less intensive, but in the morning rush hour it's a recipe for disaster.

Good point, about the turnback at Exhibition Centre improving and Hyndland. In my years of playing Rail 3D Classic, I've found the best solutions for turnbacks are in the middle of the 2 running Tracks, eg Queen's Park in London. This saves crossing any lines. So putting a platform on the Loop at Hyndland and using the middle road for reversing, or for overtaking, or to allow 2 trains to arrive in quick succession traveling the same direction which could be justified with its 28 trains an hour(crazy amount of trains). At Exhibition Centre, put a platform on the siding and run this onto the westbound line, to allow the same operation here as the Hyndland sugestion.

Its really amazing how many points this thread has raised, even though its about Airdrie to Bathgate, it has covered points in the whole of the Central Belt, but this just shows how integral the A to B link is to the whole operation, as we are suddenly seeing the assimilation of Diesel Scotland, Integrated with Suburban Electrified Scotland, Queen Street Low Level may Struggle as it deals with local, suburban, regional, and you could say Intercity for E to G journeys.

 

[rail-britain]

Turning back at Kelvinhaugh would be quite costly, but has been mooted for some time. Indeed, I think it's going to happen for when Cumbernauld services are electrified (so that these services are able to turn back before Partick)

As I understand the proposal :
All the Airdrie services will serve Dalmuir or Helensburgh
All the Cumbernauld / Falkirk services will serve Milngavie

 

[Damien1986]

With the exception of one diagram on Springburn duties, 318s aren't currently diagrammed for North Clyde Duties (at least not Monday-Friday). Usually they only come out this way in disruption, and are actually quite a rare occurrence at Airdrie. Once the cascade happens, they'll all be on Argyle Line duties (apart from a handful remaining on Ayrshire and Inverclyde runs). However, I think it's likely that you will still see 318s out in Airdrie when things go wrong for whatever reason.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Turning back at Kelvinhaugh would be quite costly, but has been mooted for some time. Indeed, I think it's going to happen for when Cumbernauld services are electrified (so that these services are able to turn back before Partick). Similarly, improving the existing turnback at Anderston/Exhibition Centre would allow more trains to turn back there.

The problem with turning back early is that quite a few people do commute from one end of the city to the other, so terminating trains at Charing Cross/Anderston needs to be done carefully so that it doesn't inconvenience people trying to do, say, Larkhall to Anniesland.

Terminating at Partick throughout the day and during the rush hour is actually quite a bad idea. It does nothing to address the congestion issues on the line, and in actual fact will slow things down more because the train needs to cross into the loop at Hyndland. It works in evenings and on Sundays because the timetable is much less intensive, but in the morning rush hour it's a recipe for disaster.

Before Airdrie to Bathgate ever opened I remember in November 2009travelling on the 1754 Glasgow Queen Street(1724 ex Drumgelloch) to Helensburgh Central to go to Partick and it was on a class 318 unit which correct me if I am wrong was diagrammed to operate the services departing Drumgelloch at 0824,1124,1424,1724,2024 and 2324?

 

[me123]

As I say, 318s were (and still are) infrequent visitors to Airdrie. They'd usually only find their way out in times of disruption as a last minute substitution. More often than not, they tend to be on the Milngavie services (presumably because those are the only two terminus points shared by the Argyle Line and Airdrie services).

In November 2009, those services originated at Airdrie and continued to Balloch and were definitely Class 320 operated, although a last minute substitution is definitely possible.

 

[Failed Unit]

Still some 320s on the route just seem one heading to Springburn. But then they could just be restricted to that route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I was wrong in above post the 2 in a row. The springburn service is at queen street now so the one ahead was a 320. Didn't catch where it was going. Could be because of disruption to overheads at Yoker.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I was wrong in above post the 2 in a row. The springburn service is at queen street now so the one ahead was a 320. Didn't catch where it was going. Could be because of disruption to overheads at Yoker.

 

[Damien1986]

This may sound off topic but I saw a photo on another website of a class 318 unit at Partick heading to Bellgrove via Glasgow Queen Street dated January 2002 however I was wondering when class 318 units started appearing on this route before that date?

 

[Failed Unit]

I am still interest to see what timekeeping will be like on the new route. Already in the peaks things are struggling. For example at the moment you have departures from Waverley at. 1633 Inverness, 1634 Dunblane, 1637 Bathgate, 1645 Glasgow. The 1645 Glasgow lost 10 minutes tonight because it left Haymarket at the same time as the Bathgate service and got stuck behind it as it stopped at Edinburgh Park (so much for class 1 headcode). All these routes are intensively used with little spare time. I guess we will see but I have also noticed at Glasgow the Ex-Edinburgh services are impacting on timekeeping.

In case anyone is wondering how 2 trains left at the sametime. The Bathgate was on 4 the Glasgow on 2. I expected the Bathgate to be held to let the Glasgow cross back onto the mainline at Murrayfield ahead of it (and keep it on-time)

 

[tbtc]

The 1645 Glasgow lost 10 minutes tonight because it left Haymarket at the same time as the Bathgate service and got stuck behind it as it stopped at Edinburgh Park (so much for class 1 headcode)

I've always thought it a daft idea to build the Edinburgh Park platforms on the "main" line, rather than with loops.

If the Bathgate project had worked properly from day one we'd have:

Four Bathgate services an hour
Four Falkirk High services an hour
Two Dunblane services an hour

...meaning the stretch of line past Edinburgh Park is fairly intensively used. Stopping services there on the main line is going to cause problems for "fast" Glasgow services.

See also Meadowhall as an example of a station with frequent local services stopping at it built on a main line (with no scope for faster trains to overtake)...

 

[Failed Unit]

I know cost would have increased but it is not as if they were short on land! But it would be very useful to overtake it is surprising how often an express gets behind a stopper. The sometimes loop Dunblane services at newbridge to let Glasgows past delaying them both.

 

[me123]

They could potentially build loops around the existing platforms, thus making it a 4 platform station. It wouldn't be ideal, but it would create a lot more capacity as these loops for stopping trains would allow faster trains to overtake.

Furthermore, there's nothing to stop 4-tracking from there all the way to Newbridge; there's plenty of room and it would allow more useful overtaking opportunities. You could probably get away with the two tracks from Haymarket-Edinbrugh Park, but the four from Edinburgh Park-Newhouse would be useful.

 

[MacCookie]

Furthermore, there's nothing to stop 4-tracking from there all the way to Newbridge; there's plenty of room and it would allow more useful overtaking opportunities. You could probably get away with the two tracks from Haymarket-Edinbrugh Park, but the four from Edinburgh Park-Newhouse would be useful.

Nothing except the City Bypass.

 

[me123]

Reconstruct the bridge at Hermiston Gait to allow 3/4 tracks through and realign the track slightly. Could be done at the same time as electrification to minimise inconvenience.

 

[djw1981]

IIRC at Edin park the Tram viaduct / flyover / waste of space is in the way.

The tunnel under the bypoass would be expensive to widen. However will this problem be helped by the new/proposed diversion of some of the edin-Glasgow direct services via the new Dalmeny chord. However this would give some support to the sacrificing of South Gyle station since stopping there would delay the fast trains and that route is much harder to 4track.

Of course had we not had the tram, then fastlink could have become a further 2 tracks and 4 tracking from Saughton junction to newbridge juncwould be possible.....as 6 tracks is almost possible as far back as Murrayfield thus meaning that if you had 2 terminal platforms at Haymarket (platform 0 and a new platform 5) then you could reduce service delays.

 

[matchmaker]

It might have helped if Saughton Junction was still a junction.......pre Edinburgh Signalling Centre days there were connections between the Dalmeny and Winchburgh lines just before they went their separate ways.

 

[me123]

This morning, I witnessed something rather alarming.

At Blairhill station, the person in front of me in the queue purchased a return to Queen Street, and a return from Queen Street to Edinburgh. When advised that there were now direct trains between Edinburgh and Blairhill, he replied that the new service was "too infrequent to be of any use".

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.

This may well be an isolated incident, but it's really worrying if anyone were to do this. He's deliberately choosing not to use the line because the frequency is not as good as he is used to. If this is widespread, it means that people are avoiding the new line.

 

[tbtc]

This morning, I witnessed something rather alarming.

At Blairhill station, the person in front of me in the queue purchased a return to Queen Street, and a return from Queen Street to Edinburgh. When advised that there were now direct trains between Edinburgh and Blairhill, he replied that the new service was "too infrequent to be of any use".

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.

This may well be an isolated incident, but it's really worrying if anyone were to do this. He's deliberately choosing not to use the line because the frequency is not as good as he is used to. If this is widespread, it means that people are avoiding the new line.

That is a bit surprising. It does show how people would rather have a "turn up and go" service (which Blairhall - Glasgow and Glasgow - Edinburgh are) - the debate between "frequent (with one change)" versus "direct" is one we've had several times on here of course (e.g. London - Sunderland), but interesting that even passengers from the A2B line are chosing to travel into/out of central Glasgow.

Hope the frequency of A2B can be sorted out soon, because The Powers That Be will remember it as an example of a bad re-opening, which hampers plans for future re-openings. For example, at the moment people can say "Skipton - Colne is estimated to attract a million passengers a year, and we can probably double that because look how sucessful the Alloa reopening was". In future it might be a case of "Skipton - Colne is estimated to attract a million passengers a year, but we can probably halfe that because look how badly performing the Bathgate reopening was"

 

[Mex]

That is a bit surprising. It does show how people would rather have a "turn up and go" service (which Blairhall - Glasgow and Glasgow - Edinburgh are) - the debate between "frequent (with one change)" versus "direct" is one we've had several times on here of course (e.g. London - Sunderland), but interesting that even passengers from the A2B line are chosing to travel into/out of central Glasgow.

Hope the frequency of A2B can be sorted out soon, because The Powers That Be will remember it as an example of a bad re-opening, which hampers plans for future re-openings. For example, at the moment people can say "Skipton - Colne is estimated to attract a million passengers a year, and we can probably double that because look how sucessful the Alloa reopening was". In future it might be a case of "Skipton - Colne is estimated to attract a million passengers a year, but we can probably halfe that because look how badly performing the Bathgate reopening was"

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.

 

[me123]

In all fairness, the half hourly frequency will attract significantly more passengers onto the new route; both people who currently go via Glasgow and passengers from other modes of transport/who would not have otherwise travelled.

£7.40 is quite a lot of money to pay for a more frequent service (that's not necessarily going to be faster than the direct train). This man could just be the exception, and there may well be people who now commute to Edinburgh (I've yet to see a departure for Edinburgh leave in the rush hour). But it is shocking.

As I've said before, I do hope that the passenger numbers for the first year take into account the reduced service frequency on the line, and the fact that most of the new stations aren't even open yet. It will make them seem significantly lower than would otherwise be the case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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?

When this passenger was purchasing his tickets, he could have been in Edinburgh quicker by the direct route.

4tph isn't really much of an issue; that's a "nice to have" rather than a necessity. It's the 2tph that are desperately need to allow the line to achieve its full potential. Remember, of course, that Blairhill won't even get 4tph to Edinburgh (although a quick change at Sunnyside is always possible to effectively create 4tph).

 

[Failed Unit]

Any news on the 3 missing stations? Surely the should be close now the snows disappeared for a while.