EGIP timeline

[tbtc]

maybe get some 153s for Motherwell - Cumbernauld If only Scotrail had some of those for routes such as Glasgow - Anniesland. Shame the pacers never arrived.

Motherwell - Cumbernauld, Queen Street - Anniesland, all Stranraer services... you could use quite a few 153s at ScotRail (bear in mind that GA only have five, LM only have seven, ATW only have eight, so even if its only single figures it'd be in line with the numbers that some other TOCs have)

 

[Failed Unit]

Motherwell - Cumbernauld, Queen Street - Anniesland, all Stranraer services... you could use quite a few 153s at ScotRail (bear in mind that GA only have five, LM only have seven, ATW only have eight, so even if its only single figures it'd be in line with the numbers that some other TOCs have)

Couldnt agree more, when you look at the loadings on EMTs 153 having 2 coaches is a waste on many Scotrail services. Even the highland lines could use 153. Maybe 2x 153 in the summer.

 

[michael769]

That now makes sense with the change from December on Class 156 priority on the Shotts line, which would release two Class 158 units for Fife services

Care to expand on the plans for the Shotts line?

 

[rail-britain]

Care to expand on the plans for the Shotts line?

A document that advises a change back from Class 158 to Class 156 on the Shotts line, from December 2012

 

[Failed Unit]

A document that advises a change back from Class 158 to Class 156 on the Shotts line, from December 2012

Which implies 158 operate the line, I think the majority of services are 156 already.

 

[rail-britain]

Yet again Winchburgh has flooded, forcing the Falkirk High services to 4 trains per hour
Announcements at Glasgow QS again suggest passengers for Haymarket and Edinburgh travel via Bathgate
Presumably similar announcements at Edinburgh and Haymarket?

 

[Failed Unit]

Yet again Winchburgh has flooded, forcing the Falkirk High services to 4 trains per hour
Announcements at Glasgow QS again suggest passengers for Haymarket and Edinburgh travel via Bathgate
Presumably similar announcements at Edinburgh and Haymarket?

You should work in PR. it is 4 normally. Now it is 2. You are doing the rail industry con of stating both ways! Yes 4 trains per hour. 2 between edinburgh and Glasgow and 2 per hour between Glasgow and Edinburgh.

 

[michael769]

Which implies 158 operate the line, I think the majority of services are 156 already.

I can confirm this.

In a year of daily travelling on the line every service I have been on has been a 156.

 

[Failed Unit]

I can confirm this.

In a year of daily travelling on the line every service I have been on has been a 156.

I have seen 158s on the route but they are the exception. I think only the Edinburgh crews sign them.

 

[rail-britain]

You should work in PR. it is 4 normally. Now it is 2. You are doing the rail industry con of stating both ways! Yes 4 trains per hour. 2 between edinburgh and Glasgow and 2 per hour between Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Falkirk High is normally served by 8 trains per hour, 4 to Glasgow and 4 to Edinburgh
Currently reduced to 4 trains per hour, 2 to Glasgow and 2 to Edinburgh

The same method is used for any other station, it is the standard throughout the industry when defining the number of services per hour
That is quite different from the number of services per hour on a specific route

edit :
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkirk_High_railway_station
This also quotes 8 trains per hour

Another example would be Falkirk Grahamston, which normally has 6 trains per hour
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As an aside, what are the plans for the proposed Winchburgh station?
Network Rail advise it could open in 2015
Rather odd that it is not included in any of the EGIP proposals (maps)
Equally, when it does open that increases the journey time (between Glasgow QS and Edinburgh)

 

[tbtc]

Falkirk High is normally served by 8 trains per hour, 4 to Glasgow and 4 to Edinburgh
Currently reduced to 4 trains per hour, 2 to Glasgow and 2 to Edinburgh

The same method is used for any other station, it is the standard throughout the industry when defining the number of services per hour
That is quite different from the number of services per hour on a specific route

Another example would be Falkirk Grahamston, which normally has 6 trains per hour

I don't think I've ever seen anyone else on here quote numbers like this - nice double counting though.

Getting back to facts, IIRC there are eight DMUs required for the Shotts service, not sure of the current 156/158 split (I normally see 156s though)

 

[michael769]

As an aside, what are the plans for the proposed Winchburgh station?
Network Rail advise it could open in 2015
Rather odd that it is not included in any of the EGIP proposals (maps)
Equally, when it does open that increases the journey time (between Glasgow QS and Edinburgh)

If it goes ahead it will be funded by West Lothian Council (paid for by developer contributions). Obviously the local council are not concerned about end to end journey times!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Getting back to facts, IIRC there are eight DMUs required for the Shotts service, not sure of the current 156/158 split (I normally see 156s though)

This suggests there is one service a day.

 

[rail-britain]

If it goes ahead it will be funded by West Lothian Council (paid for by developer contributions)

That is standard practice and both West Lothian and SESTRANS have outline details, but nothing beyond that
That way it keeps such costs off Transport Scotland finance
Yet again hiding of costs where it is of national benefit and future costings

 

[HSTEd]

Thanks for the info, seems unbelievable they have 314s sitting around and don't double some of the evening peaks. The 18.07 to Neilston must be the most packed train that leaves Central.

As the general public does not know that they have trains lying idle, this way they avoid complaints when the service doubling is withdrawn to support Paisley Canal operations.

 

[route101]

I seen a 158 Via Shotts not too long ago. Around 12 to 1 , I Saw at Eglinton .

 

[170401]

I seen a 158 Via Shotts not too long ago. Around 12 to 1 , I Saw at Eglinton .

One service per day in each direction is booked to be class 158 to facilitate maintenance changeovers of the Whifflet line 158s. I believe other changovers also happen at Cumbernauld.

I'll be surprised if the Whifflets go back to class 156 operation as the main reason for the change in the first place was complaints of toilet waste at Mossend from the ground staff.

nothing to stop 156's operating in Fife either.

 

[Failed Unit]

attempts to show that E&G was 8 trains per hour which was reduced to 4 yesterday

It is absolute nonsense to make the service sound more than it is. It maybe is used by other groups but it doesn't make it right. If you were wanting to travel between Edinburgh and Falkirk there were only 2 trains per hour. If Scotrail ever advertised they ran 8 trains per hour on the line I would be straight onto the ASA and I am sure the complaint would be upheld.

Is I say it is factually dodgy railway PR that annoys passengers. How do you think a passenger caught in the disruption would have felt getting treated by the contempt of someone saying the services was reduced to 4 per hour when it was clear from the departures they were only 2?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One service per day in each direction is booked to be class 158 to facilitate maintenance changeovers of the Whifflet line 158s. I believe other changovers also happen at Cumbernauld.

I'll be surprised if the Whifflets go back to class 156 operation as the main reason for the change in the first place was complaints of toilet waste at Mossend from the ground staff.

nothing to stop 156's operating in Fife either.

Don't the 158s flush onto the track?

 

[PhilipW]

What is the situation with regards to the electrification of the Falkirk Grahamston loop from Greenhill Upper Junction to Polmont Junction and the extension of electrification from Cumbernauld to Greenhill Lower Junction. These were proposed in the original EGIP scheme but there seems to be some confusion as to whether they are included in the revised scheme announced this week.

These seem very sensible to me as they give an alternate electric route all the way from Queen Street to Polmont Junction.

 

[Failed Unit]

I am sure Polmont - Falkirk Grahamston - Cumbernauld is still happening as is the Grangemouth branch. The letter I got from network rail certainly suggests it is and bridge clearance work between Falkirk Grahamston and Polmont has already seen a bridge replaced.

 

[rail-britain]

I am sure Polmont - Falkirk Grahamston - Cumbernauld is still happening as is the Grangemouth branch

Yet again this is a scheme that might be taken forward separately from a government funded scheme, as the groundwork has already been completed

Other press releases clearly state the diversionary route (via Falkirk Grahamston) is no longer to be electrified
I am personally waiting a few months until any revised planning applications are required to be submitted

 

[tbtc]

So if Glasgow - Cumbernauld is being done, but not the Grahamston line, does this mean that the Cumbernauld - Falkirk service is likely to be an extension of the Motherwell - Cumbernauld one? That'd give some new links (since Falkirk already has a good Glasgow service from High Street)

 

[Failed Unit]

So if Glasgow - Cumbernauld is being done, but not the Grahamston line, does this mean that the Cumbernauld - Falkirk service is likely to be an extension of the Motherwell - Cumbernauld one? That'd give some new links (since Falkirk already has a good Glasgow service from High Street)

I tend to believe letters from Network rail to home owners living by the line more that press releases. Network rails letter about 2 months ago definately state the line will be electrified. If they are sending letters about disruption to affected parties they will also have the contractors booked. We will wait see, but I will be amazed if it doesn't happen. It is surprising how frequently the Falkirk high route is shut, and not doing Cumbernauld - Falkirk will mean the end of that service (unless they divert the Motherwell one)

If the route is electrified it makes the stint to Dunblane / Alloa short but expensive if it needs an electric feeder station.

 

[tbtc]

I tend to believe letters from Network rail to home owners living by the line more that press releases. Network rails letter about 2 months ago definately state the line will be electrified. If they are sending letters about disruption to affected parties they will also have the contractors booked. We will wait see, but I will be amazed if it doesn't happen. It is surprising how frequently the Falkirk high route is shut, and not doing Cumbernauld - Falkirk will mean the end of that service (unless they divert the Motherwell one)

If the route is electrified it makes the stint to Dunblane / Alloa short but expensive if it needs an electric feeder station.

If they are going to do the Falkirk High route and the Grahamston one then the unelectrified section from Camelon/Larbert to Dunblane/Alloa (single track east of Stirling) seems frustratingly short for the sake of freeing up a dozen units. Plus it would mean that the line from Grahamston to Polmont would be wired without seeing any scheduled EMUs.

Just seems like false economy, when you consider that a big bit of glass at Queen Street seems to be more important!

 

[170401]

Plus it would mean that the line from Grahamston to Polmont would be wired without seeing any scheduled EMUs.

Several ECS movements a day would be required to Polmont if GLQ-FKG is electrified. This is to release freight paths to and from Grangemouth as per current practice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't the 158s flush onto the track?

All Scotrails 158s are now fitted with waste retention tanks, have been for several years now.

 

[Failed Unit]

Several ECS movements a day would be required to Polmont if GLQ-FKG is electrified. This is to release freight paths to and from Grangemouth as per current practice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


All Scotrails 158s are now fitted with waste retention tanks, have been for several years now.

Yep, in the evening the Glasgow - Cumbernauld - Falkirk services often reverse a Polmont.

Didn't know that about the 158s, I just thought it was the refurbished ones, not the unrefurbished Haymarket ones.

 

[rail-britain]

So if Glasgow - Cumbernauld is being done, but not the Grahamston line, does this mean that the Cumbernauld - Falkirk service is likely to be an extension of the Motherwell - Cumbernauld one?

Let's summarise -

Glasgow - Cumbernauld - Falkirk Grahamston :
The latest EGIP plan was Hyndland - Glasgow QS LL - Springburn (reverse) - Cumbernauld - Falkirk Grahamston
This has been simplified to electrification between Springburn and Cumbernauld only
This removes the Hyndland and Carmuirs projects
edit :
This removes the Hyndland and Greenhill projects

Glasgow - Croy - Stirling - Alloa :
There will now be no change

Edinburgh - Falkirk Grahamston - Stirling - Dunblane :
There will now be no change

Glasgow - Falkirk High - Edinburgh :
Electrification, using the existing service frequency, only

Glasgow - Anniesland :
There will now be no change

I tend to believe letters from Network rail to home owners living by the line more that press releases. Network rails letter about 2 months ago definately state the line will be electrified

I too received such letters, however these produced well before the latest change in the plans to EGIP

Network Rail may send out further letters, but I suspect they will press ahead with these schemes irrespective, allowing basic electrification via Falkirk Grahamston
This will then put the infrastructure in place for future expansion with the franchise
This is the way it should be
Take the Glasgow Airport extension, which Network Rail took forward themselves
I suspect the hint here is that the next ScotRail franchise is very flexible and the franchisee can acquire their own rolling stock, and between Glasgow and Falkirk Grahamston is one such example

 

[Scotrail84]

I have seen 158s on the route but they are the exception. I think only the Edinburgh crews sign them.

No that's not correct. Central and motherwell crews sign them as they use 158s on the whifflet and possibly east , they also work Cumbernauld - Motherwell services.

 

[tbtc]

Several ECS movements a day would be required to Polmont if GLQ-FKG is electrified. This is to release freight paths to and from Grangemouth as per current practice

Okay, but it's still wiring up a line that will see no passenger EMUs (at the same time as cutting back on other electrification)

 

[DXMachina]

Okay, but it's still wiring up a line that will see no passenger EMUs (at the same time as cutting back on other electrification)

Various threads regarding the timing of Class 319 releases for the north suggest that this will happen initially in several places anyway. I am pretty sure that once you have electrification works trains in an area then it makes sense to electrify everything thats going to be eventually needed.

Otherwise the marginal costs of moving the works trains, rescheduling regular services, crewing up the work teams.. all have to be encountered twice rather than just once

 

[rail-britain]

One of the contacts at Network Rail advised me of this, this morning :
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/news/Edinburgh-Glasgow-Rail-Improvement-Programme
"The project will cut 10 minutes from journey times between Scotland’s two major cities and will deliver wifi availability on all trains on the route by the end of next year"
He advised there is no chance of the Falkirk High electification being completed by the end of next year

He suspects this is political spin so that Falkirk High is completed before Falkirk Grahamston (as was originally proposed) :
Falkirk Grahamson 2014
Falkirk High / Croy 2016
This would then still meet the electrification target of 100km per year on completion of EGIP

However this changes the timescale of electrification through Falkirk High, and presents the original problem of rolling stock to commence from 2014; it would need to be ordered now