• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,304
Wouldn't a western route mean bypassing Haymarket?

Probably, yes. However, Haymarket is close enough to the centre that the benefit of going via the South Sub would be limited. For instance, someone at Cameron Toll would have the choice of the South Sub or the SE tram line into the centre, which would then terminate at Haymarket. The radial route will be more frequent and probably would take less time as the South Sub does take a meandering route around the suburbs. The benefit of the South Sub only really comes about if you're going west of Murrayfield.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

clc

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2011
Messages
1,326
Probably, yes. However, Haymarket is close enough to the centre that the benefit of going via the South Sub would be limited. For instance, someone at Cameron Toll would have the choice of the South Sub or the SE tram line into the centre, which would then terminate at Haymarket. The radial route will be more frequent and probably would take less time as the South Sub does take a meandering route around the suburbs. The benefit of the South Sub only really comes about if you're going west of Murrayfield.

Yes I can see the logic in that, but there's no certainty the SE Tram line will actually happen.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,304
Yes I can see the logic in that, but there's no certainty the SE Tram line will actually happen.

I think it will happen, although only once the initial two-line network is properly finished. By that time, the tram network will be making a profit, so any further extensions will be much easier to justify on commercial grounds. Just as people in Leith Walk have started to demand the tram be built once they know what effect it has had where it has been built, people in the South East will demand theirs as well. The growth in employment isn't just going to happen in the west, but in the south east as well at places like the BioQuarter and getting the tram built there would help to boost that process. For that matter, the South Sub would also benefit as then you can have people travelling in both directions to go to work.
 

clc

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2011
Messages
1,326
How much do you reckon a tram-spec viaduct over the main line would come in at?
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,304
How much do you reckon a tram-spec viaduct over the main line would come in at?

Since there are two of them already over the same line, I don't think it would be an insurmountable cost.

Sorting out a South Sub tram-train route would require a plan for the Edinburgh rail network into the future. Whenever this comes up I mention the eventual need for captive platforms at Waverley, and how the only way to provide properly that is to put suburban trains into a new cross-city tunnel, so there is probably quite a bit of change possible in the future that the plans would have to take into account. A cross-city tunnel (justified partly because employment will be spread east-west across Edinburgh and running via the surface platforms doesn't really work for suburban services given the need for timetable padding) would need to surface and link to all three lines west of Edinburgh while still allowing other services to run onto the remaining surface classic lines, so I expect that a new chord would need built at Slateford depot so that there's enough space to build a proper junction and set of tunnel portals before Haymarket. That would release the current route from Slateford to Haymarket for dedicated use by trams going to south-west Edinburgh. Haymarket depot will probably end up being moved further out so that the land can be developed, and that's probably where the South Sub tram would link back west. The land on either side of the railway could be developed, and this is where the route to Granton would branch off, so the South Sub trams could still serve this 'Haymarket West' site before going westwards past the stadium.
 

och aye

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2012
Messages
1,018
South Gyle is also heavily used at peak times by workers in Edinburgh Park. Edinburgh Gateway will be closer for the offices at the north west side of the business park, but South Gyle will still be more convenient for a lot of workers.

And useful for folk working at the RBS HQ too, I would imagine.
 

clc

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2011
Messages
1,326
£56M to Reconnect Penicuik to Rail Network


The Penicuik Cuckoo can finally reveal details of a £50,000 study into resurrecting the town’s railway line, following years of negotiations to make the documents public.
Penicuik remains one of Scotland’s largest towns not to be served by a rail network but new reports made available to us, show that we could once again be served by a railway line, should the council choose to act on their received guidance.

It is the so called “Borders Railway Effect”. Following the reopening of the former Edinburgh Waverley to Tweedbank line last year, hopes have been raised across the country that towns once frequented by trains may again be connected to the grid. Today, Penicuik is one such town. Costings have now been undertaken on four detailed routes between the town and Edinburgh City Centre, along with additional studies on tens of other options.

Structural Engineering Students at Heriot Watt University agreed to work with Midlothian Council in 2013 and produce feasibility studies into the reinstatement of the Penicuik Spur. These reports were completed by the following Summer. The students completed two stages of the eight stage industry standard GRIP (Governance for Railway Investment Projects) process; GRIP 2 and 3.

GRIP Stage 2 looks at a diverse selection or routes, regardless of their feasibility, and then narrows the selection down to three for further studies, including cost and detailed*design. The stage two report, made available, suggests ten routes but comes to the conclusion that a route north to Fairmilehead, the old Valleyfield to Rosewell route and an eastward route to Gorebridge should be investigated further. Both of the latter would have to connect to the new Borders Railway and could face capacity problems however the Fairmilehead option would connect to the Edinburgh Southern suburban line, which is currently only used for freight. This option would also have the freedom of coming into the north of Penicuik and perhaps serving Bush and other neighbouring towns.

However, the GRIP Stage 3 report is by a different author, this being a University project after all, and does not make the same conclusions, instead selecting the old Pomathorn to Bonnyrigg and Eskbank line rather than the northern option. It also acknowledges the possibility of reopening the Auchendinny line but at a total cost of £62M it is deemed to have a net negative impact on society.

The report states:

The primary advantages of Route 1 are the fact that it is a historic route, and as such there is a high degree of certainty that there will be few problems in re-opening the line. The route also passes through the centre of Bonnyrigg and Lasswade, and although this causes some concerns, including noise, it provides a central station which is easy for the commuters to travel to.

For the majority of Penicuik this route, costing £56,207,190 and taking two years to construct, would be unreachable by foot. A new station in the approximate vicinity of Pomathorn Mill would be fifty minutes walking distance from the north of the town. It would only serve as a viable alternative to the current commuting options is there was a fast and regular bus service or a large park and ride facility. Even then, with a journey time of 28 minutes to Edinburgh Waverley, it may struggle to beat express bus services. Should congestion prevail on the roads, the train journey would be considerably faster than the bus.

Another option considered would be to create a five storey station in the valley behind Kirkhill Road, allowing a railway to run along the current path to Auchendinny where it would diverge and head northwards to Loanhead. It could then cross the A701 and have station to the north of the Park and Ride or it could continue north to the east of ASDA with a station to the east of Sainsbury’s Straiton. Both would use a current crossing across the City Bypass to lower costs. These options would have the added benefit of serving Loanhead and Straiton but would have less of a benefit over sixty years; neither project would recoup their costs within that period.

Whilst these reports have now presented their findings to Midlothian Council, the administration has made it clear that there is no funding available to pursue the matter further, apart from the upcoming South East of Scotland City Deal. Their Local Development Plan states:

The potential to serve Penicuik by rail has been reviewed. Whilst Initial studies have identified some options for further investigation, the project will not be deliverable within the plan period. [up until 2025]

Instead the council are focusing on delivering an A701 bypass. This could cost significantly less at between £7M and £14M but it too has no funding in place and according to documents released as part of the ongoing Pentland Studios appeal, the project is not included within proposals for the City Deal. Concerns also remain about this route actually alleviating traffic, or whether capacity will again be reached.

http://www.penicuikcuckoo.co.uk/2016/04/56m-to-reconnect-penicuik-to-rail-network/
 

MarkRedon

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2015
Messages
292
A long-awaited report to Nestrans seems to have reached that august body but not to be available for consultation on the web. News story: https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/north-east/888651/nestrans/

Transport chiefs have revealed it could cost £300million to upgrade the north-east’s road and rail links.

Nestrans, the region’s transport partnership, is currently appraising options to improve journeys between Aberdeen, Ellon, Peterhead and Fraserburgh.

Interestingly, the report presents as competing proposals improvements to the road network and a start on the restoration of rail links towards Peterhead and Fraserbrugh. Thus for £300 million you can eitther have a dual carriageway highway all the way or a rail link as far as Ellon and perhaps beyond.

How does this rail reopening proposal wash its face against the Antnabreac Criteria?
 
Last edited:

47271

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2015
Messages
2,983
This has come up a few times before, and the arithmetic is quite favourable.

Peterhead has a population of 18k, Fraserburgh 12k and Ellon 10k, never mind places like Maud in between.

Trackbed is nearly entirely intact as the Buchan Way.

Aberdeen is a big centre for inbound commuting. Or it certainly seems to be going by its jammed roads.

Their economy isn't looking as clever as it did a few years ago so they could do with a regenerating railway.

Dual carriageway all the way to Peterhead and no train would be an unfortunate outcome.

They like their big fat cars in the NE though, I'm not convinced of the political will.
 

clc

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2011
Messages
1,326
It's unlikely the councils could find that sort of cash (Aberdeen City Deal turned out to be a bit of a damp squib) so it would be down to Holyrood to fund it. However the NE is already getting billions of Scottish Govt money spent on it's transport infrastructure, ie. A96 Dualling, AWPR/Balmedie-Tipperty, Aberdeen-Inverness Improvements, Montrose Basin, so it's chances of happening in the next 15 years look slim.
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,399
Location
The UK
I still think that the Lentran Long Loop on the Far North Line is a necessary piece of infrastructure that needs reinstating; unfortunately the more-than Lowland-based SNP government at Holyrood doesn't seem to care about it at all.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,425
Location
Salt & Vinegar
A long-awaited report to Nestrans seems to have reached that august body but not to be available for consultation on the web. News story: https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/north-east/888651/nestrans/



Interestingly, the report presents as competing proposals improvements to the road network and a start on the restoration of rail links towards Peterhead and Fraserbrugh. Thus for £300 million you can eitther have a dual carriageway highway all the way or a rail link as far as Ellon and perhaps beyond.

How does this rail reopening proposal wash its face against the Antnabreac Criteria?

Since you asked :lol:

Altnabreac's Golden Rules said:
1 - Population of 10,000+
2 - 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time of a major employment centre.
3 - Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed.
4 - Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required.
5 - Regeneration Potential / serves a deprived area.
6 - Housing growth potential / other funding sources

It scores pretty well.

On 1 Ellon is a population of around 10,000 and serves a wide hinterland with another 30,000 or so at Peterhead and Fraserburgh.

On 2 the journey time would be decent to Aberdeen. Previously I was unconvinced if Aberdeen centre created enough demand for new services but the growth in passenger numbers in other Aberdeenshire stations like Inverurie has convinced me otherwise. There is still an issue that a lot of the employment demand in Aberdeen is in business parks around the edge of the city but the city centre does seem to have strong demand now.

On 3 the track bed is mainly intact as a cycle path which would need diverting but there aren't any huge problems to reach Ellon.

On 4 it's a bit trickier as it diverges at Dyce and existing and future terminators are planned for Inverurie but with more cross Aberdeen local services planned in future it should be possible for some of them to divert to Ellon.

5 is probably a major reason why it hasn't previously been on the agenda. Aberdeenshire has had some of the strongest economic growth in Scotland. But Peterhead and especially Fraserburgh have some deprivation issues and with the transition from an oil based economy over the next 20 years or so this could be increasingly an issue in trying to help the Aberdeenshire economy diversify.

6 is also an issue. Major housing growth is underway in the North East but there is a land shortage and not a huge amount planned in Ellon that could subsidise the level of costs we're talking about. As the oil industry declines there may also be a decline in land value and a reluctance from house builders to invest. As previously mentioned the Aberdeen City Deal also didn't address transport much and the accompanying Scottish Government infrastructure package was focused on the A90 at Laurencekirk and the ECML at Montrose.

So in summary it looks a potentially viable reopening but as ever finding the money for it will be trickier. I'd say it would be the sort of scheme that might be implemented after the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections but unlikely to progress in the next 5 years.
 
Last edited:

MarkRedon

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2015
Messages
292
Since you asked :lol:
I did! And you've responded much as I had hoped that you might. Thanks!
It scores pretty well...

It looks a potentially viable reopening but as ever finding the money for it will be trickier. I'd say it would be the sort of scheme that might be implemented after the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections but unlikely to progress in the next 5 years.
I am sure you are right, and possibly even just a little optimistic. We are living in an interesting period when in Wales, England and Scotland there has been substantial capital investment in railway infrastructure – nearly all of it by government – but with some comparatively small but worrying setbacks in terms of on-time and on cost achievement. My guess is that at least the UK Treasury will be exercising caution; and the mood music in Scotland seems to be more in favour of road improvements than it is in England.

What strikes me about this particular reopening proposal is that it additionally restores rail service to a large land area which is currently not really served by rail. For that reason, it might ignite the sort of enthusiasm which the Borders reopening achieved – while serving more significant population centres.
 

clc

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2011
Messages
1,326
I heard it being discussed by SNP voices in Glasgow City Council earlier in the month.
Did they sound supportive?
The phrase was its "back on the agenda". (Which of course means 'planning to tell people that they might soon start talking about something - or not'; it does not mean 'doing something'. It also doesn't tell us anything about whose budget might be expected to fund the scheme.)

A bit dissapoining that we haven't heard a peep about Glasgow Crossrail from Labour or the SNP during this election campaign.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Saw this in the SNP's manifesto:-

"We will also examine the case for an extension of the Stirling-Alloa rail line to Dunfermline by upgrading the existing Longannet freight line."

Is that a new announcement? Hadn't heard them make that commitment before.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,425
Location
Salt & Vinegar
A bit dissapoining that we haven't heard a peep about Glasgow Crossrail from Labour or the SNP during this election campaign.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Saw this in the SNP's manifesto:-

"We will also examine the case for an extension of the Stirling-Alloa rail line to Dunfermline by upgrading the existing Longannet freight line."

Is that a new announcement? Hadn't heard them make that commitment before.

I believe it came up in meetings of the Longannet Taskforce and has been agreed by that group to do an initial assessment.

http://www.alloaadvertiser.com/news/14241385.Fresh_hope_for_Alloa_Fife_rail_link/

A Transport Scotland spokesman said: said:
"The proposed reopening of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line through to Dunfermline for passenger services does not feature in the current investment programme; however, it is currently being considered as part of the wider, strategic transportation assessment and appraisal being carried out for the Longannet Taskforce."
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,399
Location
The UK
1. Population of 10,000

Clackmannan has a population of 3,348. Kincardine has a population of 3,035. (High) Valleyfield has a population of 2,940, Cairneyhill has a population of 2430, and Culross has a population of 395. I can't find information for Torryburn or Charlestown.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,425
Location
Salt & Vinegar
Thanks for that.

Does it meet your usual criteria for reopenings?

As Backontrack says it's struggling for the population really to make it worthwhile.

If it is part of a regeneration strategy with some population growth and house building then it may just make sense. Starting with track in place is useful of course.

The other bit it may struggle with is journey time. If you ran to Glasgow via Alloa that's really too long a journey for a regular commute and with Alloa about to be wired there's a stock issue too.

On the other hand if you run Stirling to Edinburgh there's a reversal at Dunfermline or it becomes a much more expensive scheme if you decide to build a new Charlestown Chord.

It isn't the worst ever business case but if I were Fife Council and I had £100m to spend on rail I'd go for Levenmouth ahead of this one.
 

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
Ok, so let's do some fantasy bits here with a few little assumptions:-

A path is available.
The permanent way between Alloa is Dunfermline is no worse than the District Line
A temporary single platform station is built at Kincardine and Culross
Clackmannanshire Council were to hire in a D-train (or a couple of Sulzers Top 'n Tailing a couple of Mk2s from a Scottish heritage railway).

How long would the journey take (Stirling to Dunfermline shuttle) and what would be the absolute bare minimum it would cost to introduce the service?
 
Last edited:

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,399
Location
The UK
I think that it scrapes through on population. Stations have only been suggested at Kincardine, Torryburn and Culross; there's a possibility of people travelling in from Charlestown but that would only happen if trains continued beyond Dunfermline. PPM running would help serve more communities on the cheap (such as Valleyfield and Cairneyhill) but it wouldn't be worth it in the long run; you'd have to change at Alloa to go to Stirling or Glasgow, and the 43 bus will take you to Glasgow without a change.

I think that the best fix for now would be to run Glasgow trains onwards from Alloa to Kincardine and terminate there. There's more of a market at Kincardine and Clackmannan than there is at the other places; the hourly trains from Glasgow would simply run onwards from Alloa with stops at Clackmannan and Kincardine, where it would terminate. The train would be able to compete at Kincardine; something it has to be able to do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It isn't the worst ever business case but if I were Fife Council and I had £100m to spend on rail I'd go for Levenmouth ahead of this one.

I agree, Levenmouth serves a conurbation with a population of 37,000 - a much more worthwhile reopening that matches Altnabreac's template in all respects. Plus, the track's still there!
 
Last edited:

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,425
Location
Salt & Vinegar
I think that it scrapes through on population. Stations have only been suggested at Kincardine, Torryburn and Culross; there's a possibility of people travelling in from Charlestown but that would only happen if trains continued beyond Dunfermline. PPM running would help serve more communities on the cheap (such as Valleyfield and Cairneyhill) but it wouldn't be worth it in the long run; you'd have to change at Alloa to go to Stirling or Glasgow, and the 43 bus will take you to Glasgow without a change.

I think that the best fix for now would be to run Glasgow trains onwards from Alloa to Kincardine and terminate there. There's more of a market at Kincardine and Clackmannan than there is at the other places; the hourly trains from Glasgow would simply run onwards from Alloa with stops at Clackmannan and Kincardine, where it would terminate. The train would be able to compete at Kincardine; something it has to be able to do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I agree, Levenmouth serves a conurbation with a population of 37,000 - a much more worthwhile reopening that matches Altnabreac's template in all respects. Plus, the track's still there!

Except in December 2018 Glasgow - Alloa trains will be switching to EMU and the EMU timings for these are needed to enable the new faster Edinburgh - Glasgow services to operate so it isn't possible to run it as a DMU south of Stirling.

I think the options are:
  1. Stirling - Dunfermline DMU shuttle.
  2. Stirling - Edinburgh DMU with Dunfermline reversal.
  3. Stirling - Edinburgh DMU via new Charlestown chord.
  4. Glasgow - Dunfermline EMU with full electrification.
  5. Glasgow - Edinburgh EMU via Alloa and Dunfermline reversal with full electrification.
  6. Glasgow - Edinburgh EMU via Alloa and new Charlestown chord with full electrification.

Of that list my guess would be that number 2 has the best business case but even then, probably not a great one.
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,399
Location
The UK
Except in December 2018 Glasgow - Alloa trains will be switching to EMU and the EMU timings for these are needed to enable the new faster Edinburgh - Glasgow services to operate so it isn't possible to run it as a DMU south of Stirling.

I think the options are:
  1. Stirling - Dunfermline DMU shuttle.
  2. Stirling - Edinburgh DMU with Dunfermline reversal.
  3. Stirling - Edinburgh DMU via new Charlestown chord.
  4. Glasgow - Dunfermline EMU with full electrification.
  5. Glasgow - Edinburgh EMU via Alloa and Dunfermline reversal with full electrification.
  6. Glasgow - Edinburgh EMU via Alloa and new Charlestown chord with full electrification.

Of that list my guess would be that number 2 has the best business case but even then, probably not a great one.

Do you think electrification from Alloa to Clackmannan is possible? Perhaps the train could run there.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,425
Location
Salt & Vinegar
Do you think electrification from Alloa to Clackmannan is possible? Perhaps the train could run there.

I think it's unlikely you can make a business case for reopening Alloa - Dunfermline that includes electrification costs.

Much better to reopen as diesel service then have future electrification covered out of the general future rail capital budget.

Another reason why Fife need to get on and reopen Levenmouth before electrification hits the Fife Circle.

Luckily the rejigging of priorities to have Dunblane - Dundee electrification ahead of Fife in the queue gives them a bit more time to get Levenmouth open before electrification costs have to be included in the reopening capital costs.
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,399
Location
The UK
I think it's unlikely you can make a business case for reopening Alloa - Dunfermline that includes electrification costs.

Much better to reopen as diesel service then have future electrification covered out of the general future rail capital budget.

Another reason why Fife need to get on and reopen Levenmouth before electrification hits the Fife Circle.

Luckily the rejigging of priorities to have Dunblane - Dundee electrification ahead of Fife in the queue gives them a bit more time to get Levenmouth open before electrification costs have to be included in the reopening capital costs.

I was only referring to the short-ish section from Alloa to Clackmannan, though your point still stands. It's ludicrous that Holyrood are looking into reopening Longannet yet aren't looking at Levenmouth.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,425
Location
Salt & Vinegar
I was only referring to the short-ish section from Alloa to Clackmannan, though your point still stands. It's ludicrous that Holyrood are looking into reopening Longannet yet aren't looking at Levenmouth.

As far as I'm aware a station at Clackmannan is not necessarily even included in any reopening plans as a DMU service. This has all been driven by Fife Council whereas Clackmannanshire Council would need to fund anything for Clackmannan.

2-3 stations was the talk with the assumption that Kincardine is one and 1/2 out of Culross, Valleyfield and Cairneyhill the others.

Equally if I were Clackmannanshire Council and wanted to spend £5-10m on a new railway station I suspect I'd get a better business case at Cambus / Tullibody than Clackmannan. No need to extend the service and serves a population of 8,000 rather than 3,000.
 

clc

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2011
Messages
1,326
.

I think that the best fix for now would be to run Glasgow trains onwards from Alloa to Kincardine and terminate there. There's more of a market at Kincardine and Clackmannan than there is at the other places; the hourly trains from Glasgow would simply run onwards from Alloa with stops at Clackmannan and Kincardine, where it would terminate. The train would be able to compete at Kincardine; something it has to be able to do.
!

Interesting idea. I wonder how much it would cost to upgrade and electrify 6 miles of track and build 2 stations (or 1 station if Clackmannan not preferred)?
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,399
Location
The UK
Equally if I were Clackmannanshire Council and wanted to spend £5-10m on a new railway station I suspect I'd get a better business case at Cambus / Tullibody than Clackmannan. No need to extend the service and serves a population of 8,000 rather than 3,000.

You're right, Cambus would have a better business case.

As far as I'm aware a station at Clackmannan is not necessarily even included in any reopening plans as a DMU service. This has all been driven by Fife Council whereas Clackmannanshire Council would need to fund anything for Clackmannan.

That surprises me as Clackmannan is the biggest place on the line, but you're right in that Clacks. Council would fund it.
 
Last edited:

clc

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2011
Messages
1,326
I'm interested in exploring cheaper options which utilise only part of the line. Let's focus on the Glasgow market for the moment.

The business case will be dependant on commuters, so how far could you extend Glasgow-Alloa services before that market would tail off?

The Glasgow to Alloa journey time will drop from 55 mins to 45 mins post electrification. Alloa to Kincardine is 6 miles which would take, say, 10 mins including dwell time at Alloa, giving a Glasgow to Kincardine journey time of 55 mins, which is quite reasonable.

Kincardine to Valleyfield is 6 miles so thats another 10 mins onto the journey time giving a 65 minute commute to Glasgow, which is stretching the limit.

Any stops east of Valleyfield are going to be too far for regular commuting to Glasgow.

Glasgow-Kincardine:
6 miles of upgraded and electrified track.
1 new station.
Population served by new station - 3000
Journey time - 55 mins
Cost - £20-30m?

Glasgow-Valleyfield:
12 miles of upgraded and electrified track.
2 new stations.
Population served by new stations - 6000
Journey time - 65 mins
Cost - £50-60m?

Glasgow-Kincardine ticks the boxes in terms of journey time, would cost relatively little and would deliver good political capital. Its the sort of thing you could see as a good news announcement in the lead up to the next Holyrood election.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,003
Just a quick point to remember in your discussions - Longannet has a high voltage National Grid interconnector, making it ideally suited for an auto transformer feeder site (ATFS) with which to feed Fife Circle electrification and provide additional cover for an isolated supply on the Stirling-Alloa-Dunblane side of the existing scheme.

For my money, I think I'd run a DMU service from Stirling to Leven (yes, I'm assuming the Levenmouth project happens too) as if you're going to reverse at Dunfermline, why not go a little further and add in a lot more regional connectivity, which is pretty poor at the moment - if you're not going to Dundee or Edinburgh, rail in Fife isn't really all that good.

Electrification in due course would allow a through service between Glasgow and Leven, yes, that's a little bit odd, but it would give Glenrothes and Dunfermline a direct Glasgow service, and it gets the unit operating such a service out of the way of services operating on the Fife Circle or between Edinburgh and Dundee.

Leven is really in a sweet spot - the branch is useful for the railway, where it can be a glorified siding, and if it's used like that, the train services that can be provided to Leven could be extremely useful in regenerating a terribly deprived part of Britain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top