EGIP timeline

[tbtc]

I am not certain what benefit the dalmeny curve will make. I have a gut feeling that services from Linlithgow - Edinburgh will be slower as a result. I also can't see how they are going to path the fast trains when it is really only a two track railway.

From a Glasgow perspective, maybe it makes sense to divert the trains via Dalmeny to avoid the busy section through Edinburgh Park...

...trouble is, that just puts the Queen Street services into the way of the Fife services (four of which stop at South Gyle each hour) - this seems to be a zero sum game for Glasgow but potentially a big problem in capacity terms for Fife services.

Off peak:

4x EDB - GLQ via Falkirk
2x EDB - GLQ via Bathgate (to Helensburgh)
2x EDB - GLC via Shotts
+ 1tp2h EDB - GLC via Motherwell

Total = 7

...plus the other two Bathgate services that you are forgetting (not sure how you got the answer as seven?)

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Are you saying that these extra services will free up the M8 ?? Doubt it.

No, the M8 will stay just as busy, but more people will be able to get from Glasgow to Edinburgh in a more relaxed and civilised manner.

 

[rail-britain]

I take it you haven't tried using the M8 during the rush hours recently then?

There is nothing wrong with the M8 at rush hour, it has been at capacity for years
The contract for the A8 "missing gap" replacement is due to be awarded in the next few weeks, as the tender has now closed
However, this won't make any difference to rush hour traffic

 

[Failed Unit]

No, the M8 will stay just as busy, but more people will be able to get from Glasgow to Edinburgh in a more relaxed and civilised manner.

Via the M9, M876 and M80

OK it still merges onto the M8 but can still be quicker end-to-end

 

[rail-britain]

From a Glasgow perspective, maybe it makes sense to divert the trains via Dalmeny to avoid the busy section through Edinburgh Park...

I can find out, but I suspect this is simply an option to get the slower Dunblane / Alloa services away from the faster direct services, in order to maintain the 6 trains per hour frequency
This is quite similar to the arrangements at Croy

 

[PaxVobiscum]

The contract for the A8 "missing gap" replacement is due to be awarded in the next few weeks, as the tender has now closed
However, this won't make any difference to rush hour traffic

Agreed. Although the previous work getting rid of the Auchenkilns roundabout on the A80 did help a lot, I don't notice much improvement in the M80 route since the bit from the M73 to Haggs was brought up to motorway spec. and I don't hold out any great hopes for tarting up the A8 either.

 

[matchmaker]

I note that electrification to Grangemouth is shown on the map. Is there any proposal to reopen a station there?

 

[Failed Unit]

Agreed. Although the previous work getting rid of the Auchenkilns roundabout on the A80 did help a lot, I don't notice much improvement in the M80 route since the bit from the M73 to Haggs was brought up to motorway spec. and I don't hold out any great hopes for tarting up the A8 either.

Moddiesburn and the traffic lights? Glad to see the back of them.

 

[Scotrail84]

The whole point of EGIP was electrification (long overdue), faster journey times, a more frequent service, and "substantial" environmental benefits
Ironically, when the scheme was first released to the public almost everyone asked answered "er, it's fine as it is", "what difference does it make between 45 minutes and 37 minutes"

The proposal will offer 5 trains per hour (off-peak) and up to 13 trains per hour (peak) between Glasgow and Edinburgh, compared to the current 4 trains per hour

I'm not all that fussed about wires going up either to be honest. Prefer diesel units.

 

[Chris125]

I'm not all that fussed about wires going up either to be honest. Prefer diesel units.

:roll:

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Moddiesburn and the traffic lights? Glad to see the back of them.

Agreed. Although the previous work getting rid of the Auchenkilns roundabout on the A80 did help a lot, I don't notice much improvement in the M80 route since the bit from the M73 to Haggs was brought up to motorway spec. and I don't hold out any great hopes for tarting up the A8 either.

To clarify, I don't use the bit past Moodiesburn. If I did, I am sure I would agree with you.

 

[rail-britain]

Although the previous work getting rid of the Auchenkilns roundabout on the A80 did help a lot, I don't notice much improvement in the M80 route since the bit from the M73 to Haggs was brought up to motorway spec. and I don't hold out any great hopes for tarting up the A8 either.

The Auchenkilns upgrade simply moved the queuing traffic to Mollinsburn
With the M80 upgrade now completed this has removed both bottle necks
However northbound traffic still suffers a merging issue, drivers don't seem to understand what the long merge lanes are for and try to merge as soon as possible
However, the project has now moved the queue to Haggs Junction, which has not change, and results in northbound queues often all the way back to Condorrat

There shouldn't be any such issue with the A8 upgrade, as this will remove the current issue with traffic that travels westbound to join the M74 northbound (westbound)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I note that electrification to Grangemouth is shown on the map. Is there any proposal to reopen a station there?

Odd one this
If you look at the dates, you will notice the branch is electrified but not the adjoining track, although I suspect that is just a limitation of the graphics

There are no plans for a new station, it is just so that some freight trains may no longer need a change of loco at Mossend

 

[Failed Unit]

To clarify, I don't use the bit past Moodiesburn. If I did, I am sure I would agree with you.

good point.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

There shouldn't be any such issue with the A8 upgrade, as this will remove the current issue with traffic that travels westbound to join the M74 northbound (westbound)

... and the expedited traffic will start queueing up even further before the M74/M8/M77 junction. But I won't mind watching the WCML from the queue somewhere after Rutherglen.

 

[clc]

Agreed. Although the previous work getting rid of the Auchenkilns roundabout on the A80 did help a lot, I don't notice much improvement in the M80 route since the bit from the M73 to Haggs was brought up to motorway spec. and I don't hold out any great hopes for tarting up the A8 either.

For "tarting up the A8" read upgrading 7 miles of road, increasing capacity from 2 lanes each way to 4/5/6 lanes each way, and cutting peak time delays through the corridor by 15 minutes.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Sorry to keep being off topic and banging on about motorways but

For "tarting up the A8" read upgrading 7 miles of road, increasing capacity from 2 lanes each way to 4/5/6 lanes each way, and cutting peak time delays through the corridor by 15 minutes.

I haven't looked at the latest plans, but the last "upgrade" of the A8 from Baillieston to where the M8 begins at Newhouse did almost nothing for traffic flow and introduced the highly dubious concept of discontinuous hard shoulders, though I suppose we should be grateful for the huge chunk of concrete that now separates the carriageways. Extra lanes for a few miles won't make a big difference if they stop at Newhouse.

The whole M8 from Bailleston to Edinburgh needs 3 lanes, as does the M74 from Hamilton to Happendon or wherever it is that sanity prevailed when the A74 was being upgraded and we actually got 3 lanes worth.

No more motorway talk from me - this was all my fault.

 

[Scotrail84]

:roll:

What??

 

[rail-britain]

I haven't looked at the latest plans, but the last "upgrade" of the A8 from Baillieston to where the M8 begins at Newhouse did almost nothing for traffic flow and introduced the highly dubious concept of discontinuous hard shoulders, though I suppose we should be grateful for the huge chunk of concrete that now separates the carriageways. Extra lanes for a few miles won't make a big difference if they stop at Newhouse.

The whole M8 from Bailleston to Edinburgh needs 3 lanes, as does the M74 from Hamilton to Happendon or wherever it is that sanity prevailed when the A74 was being upgraded and we actually got 3 lanes worth

The A8 upgrade was essential at the time, the carriageway had completely worn out and needed replacing, and this will become the feeder-collector lane for the new M8

The project, which is pretty much unchanged since the 1990s, is for a feeder-collector with four separate carriageways that merge and split at various locations, so it varies between 3 and 6 lanes
I still have those original plans, as issued by the Scottish Exective

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/road/projects/m8m73m74
This is probably the most appropriate plan :
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk...o-Newhouse/M8 NTS Plan final 10-010-07sh1.pdf
Virtual view :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v9vl8d6k88

 

[clc]

I don't understand the point that you are making here? Scotman points out the current pattern (apart from he forgot the Edinburgh - Milngavie)

Currently both peak and off peak
4 via Falkirk High
4 via Bathgate (2 fast, 2 slow)
2 via Shotts
1 every 2 hours via Motherwell.

Hence my 10/11. It is always 11 in the peaks as Scotrail run via Motherwell.

Following Egip it will be 1 per hour via Motherwell and 2 more via Falkirk (non-stop)

It is not much of an improvement. With the current loading via Falkirk it does need some kind of improvement, but would directing some of the excess passengers onto the Stirling route which is not yet to capacity help?

We will see what happens when the timetable comes out, but I really can see they express a disruptive service risk, network rail already admit that they got it wrong with the Bathgate route and it is causing too much disruption.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Compared to roads into Manchester, Leeds and London it is light traffic

Surely an extra 2/3 tph is not to be sniffed at? And aren't they going to run longer trains hence the plan to increase platform lengths at Queen St? At the end of the day we'll have more capacity, faster journeys, old infrastructure renewed, modern electric trains which passengers prefer over diesels, and the improved connectivity between our 2 largest cities will deliver economic benefits. I'm surprised there's not more positivity about the project on here.

 

[rail-britain]

Surely an extra 2/3 tph is not to be sniffed at? And aren't they going to run longer trains hence the plan to increase platform lengths at Queen St?

It's way more than an extra 2/3 tph, once the project is completed
It's not so much about longer trains but about flexibility to operate as many services of fixed size from Glasgow Queen Street, which it currently cannot perform at the moment

 

[clc]

Extra lanes for a few miles won't make a big difference if they stop at Newhouse.

That would only be true if there was no local traffic using the A8 which of course there is.

 

[Eagle]

I'm not all that fussed about wires going up either to be honest. Prefer diesel units.

Any reason why you prefer the more expensive, dirtier, less efficient, slower-accelerating method of traction?

 

[Scotrail84]

Any reason why you prefer the more expensive, dirtier, less efficient, slower-accelerating method of traction?

Because at the moment it guarantees conductors jobs, I really fear for the grade when electrification comes. I know that there's an automatic assumption between electric trains and driver only operation but I know that's maybe not going to be the case, but with the McNulty report and scotrail already looking at ways to save money I can't see it going any other way.

 

[Eagle]

I know that there's an automatic assumption between electric trains and driver only operation...

Is there? I've never noticed such an assumption.

If anything, the assumption is between any new units and DOO.

 

[Failed Unit]

Surely an extra 2/3 tph is not to be sniffed at? And aren't they going to run longer trains hence the plan to increase platform lengths at Queen St? At the end of the day we'll have more capacity, faster journeys, old infrastructure renewed, modern electric trains which passengers prefer over diesels, and the improved connectivity between our 2 largest cities will deliver economic benefits. I'm surprised there's not more positivity about the project on here.

I just can't see how the infrastructure will take such an intensive service. If it is unreliable give me the current pattern which works with EMUs. There is very little slack already and it doesn't take much to make it collapse. (rain at winchburgh) adding more services onto a two track railway may make such disruption more frequent.

 

[Eagle]

Adding more services onto a two track railway may make such disruption more frequent.

At least the Dalmeny curve will ease that (by making it effectively four-track to Linlithgow).

 

[Failed Unit]

At least the Dalmeny curve will ease that (by making it effectively four-track to Linlithgow).

Yes, but that is really a short distance, if a fast train is hot on the heals of a slow by the in is only Edinburgh Park that will compound the delay. Croy - Glasgow is much further and although now the loop trains it does add to delays.

Likewise you have the flat junctions, greenhill? Polmont, winchburgh (which isn't a problem now but will be with more use) newbridge and Dalmeny. At the moment you need to often wait at Greenhill (the one where the Stirling line joins), Polmont and newbridge frequently. These waits dont really impact the service but if it is more frequent the knock on will increase.

I just don't know if this high frequency service is achievable. I would rather have a reliable timetable with less trains to one that just can't be trusted. I understand that the Aidrie line commuters are less happy with the worsing of the Glasgow service since the line to Edinburgh open. Network rail admits the pressure at the east end is too great now. Hopefully they dont make the same mistakes and abandon the non-stop service before it becomes a shambles as it catches up the stoppers from Dunblane.

 

[tbtc]

At least the Dalmeny curve will ease that (by making it effectively four-track to Linlithgow)

...but by displacing some of those trains onto the Fife line. Great for those travelling between Edinburgh and the Falkirk area but there are already seven Fife trains an hour (roughly half of which are stoppers, which causes speed differences), is there room for more services on the line through South Gyle? And if there is, should it be used for Fife services (since they aren't getting electrification and brand new EMUs)?

I understand that the Aidrie line commuters are less happy with the worsing of the Glasgow service since the line to Edinburgh open

I'm surprised to hear that, given the 50% increase in frequency to Glasgow (and "fast" services), reliability must be pretty poor in that case

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Could you please let me know the Eu directive or the UK law that states the franchise must be relet? If France and Germany can have state railways why can't transport Scotland?

I would guess the primary legislation for all UK franchises was in 1993 and pre-dates devolution.
The SG can respecify and relet the franchise but would need another UK bill to have total control over the process.
Further, Network Rail is funded by a slice of the DfT cake which is devolved to Scotland. There still has to be UK-wide agreement to the total pot and the Scottish element (for CP5 coming up).

And I think you'll find that neither France or Germany now have a traditional state-owned railway operation. They have arms-length commercial operators like we do, but they themselves may be state owned/controlled.
Scotland cannot simply set up a department of state for railways and run it like the NHS.
On top of which if Scotland wants to "renationalise" its railways it would have to find the money, which it hasn't got.
Might change under independence of course (within EU rules), but that hasn't happened yet.

 

[michael769]

The SG can respecify and relet the franchise but would need another UK bill to have total control over the process.

When the Scotland Act 2012 comes into force next month the Scottish Parliament will have powers to issue primary legislation that amends the UK legislation so that it only applies to England and Wales, leaving it free to create it's own separate primary legislation, so it is entirely possible for (within the constraints of our EU treaties) the parliament to grant the government full control over the process. Obviously this would need to involve a lot of consultation with the DfT especially with regard to the cross border franchises and Network Rail who cannot be easily divorced from DfT control.

I do not believe it would be possible or desirable to truly renationalise Scotrail, but I could see them setting up a arms length wholly owned company (in the same mould of DOR) to run it in decades to come. To be honest I don't see that happening this round though as they have other short term priorities, but I could see them taking even more control over it than ever before with the franchisee being reduced to a contractor role (in the mould of the current trunk road maintenance contracts).

Given that Transports Scotland's active involvement in the Railways makes the DfT looks hand off, the current franchise is not that far away from being a contractor as it is.