Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[takno]

This is a money's no object world, but you'd be surprised how many people would be put off by the tram but love the idea of a personal pod whisking them to the terminal.

Surely it's close enough for a zip line. Much more fun

 

[najaB]

Surely it's close enough for a zip line. Much more fun

Can't. The wire would be in the approach for runway 30.

 

[marks87]

Can't. The wire would be in the approach for runway 30.

12/30 is due to be closed in the relatively near-future so you never know...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Surely it's close enough for a zip line. Much more fun

Probably not as much fun on the return journey

 

[takno]

Probably not as much fun on the return journey

The return journey will be powered by a bungee chord stretched out by the outward trip. It really can't fail

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The return journey will be powered by a bungee chord stretched out by the outward trip. It really can't fail

"Scared of flying? Terrified when the plane takes off? Don't worry, we have a special patented shuttle, designed to get you from the station to the airport and overcome your flying fears at the same time! By the time you're ready to get on board, flying will seem like child's play!

Fly from Edinburgh Airport. For all grown-up kids."

 

[edwin_m]

Probably not as much fun on the return journey

Just give each person a rope with a hook to catch a tow from a passing plane.

 

[Altnabreac]

Interesting announcement from NR on platform extensions for the Shotts line:

Work will also see new station footbridges at Addiewell and West Calder, platform extensions at three intermediate stations (Carfin, Shotts and West Calder) and the complete redevelopment of Livingston South station.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-gbp-49m-shotts-line-electrification-contract

Given 23m long 385s are to operate the line we are looking at approximately the following lengths:
3 car 69m
4 car 92m
6 car 138m
7 car 161m
8 car 184m

Current Shotts Line platforms are:
Slateford Up 153m Down 183m
Kingsknowe Up 93m Down 94m
Wester Hailes 120m
Curriehill 121m
Kirknewton Up 99m Down 169m
Livingston South 120m
West Calder Up 129m Down 131m
Addiewell Up 151m Down 149m
Breich 128m
Fauldhouse Up 137m Down 128m
Shotts Up 152m Down 148m
Hartwood Up 128m Down 134m
Cleland 125m
Carfin Up 92m Down 97m
Bellshill Up 134m Down 138m
Uddingston Up 134m Down 133m
Cambuslang 138m

So it suggests they are at least wanting the option of the semi fasts to run as 2 x 3 car services with all stations able to take at least a 4 car service. However extending Shotts platforms from 148m suggests wanting to allow for some really quite long trains to call in future.

Perhaps a standard 8 x 23m train length should be what any newly extended platforms should be based on - probably 190m or so. Interesting to see what length they are going for at Shotts.

 

[Railsigns]

So it suggests they are at least wanting the option of the semi fasts to run as 2 x 3 car services with all stations able to take at least a 4 car service. However extending Shotts platforms from 148m suggests wanting to allow for some really quite long trains to call in future.

Perhaps a standard 8 x 23m train length should be what any newly extended platforms should be based on - probably 190m or so. Interesting to see what length they are going for at Shotts.

The Down platform at Shotts is being extended from the current 137 metres (top of ramp to top of ramp) to 147 metres. The Up Platform remains at 152 metres.

 

[Altnabreac]

The Down platform at Shotts is being extended from the current 137 metres (top of ramp to top of ramp) to 147 metres. The Up Platform remains at 152 metres.

So it's 6 cars they are planning for.

 

[clc]

Will they be able to run 6-car units straight away given the lack of spare peak time capacity at Central?

 

[railjock]

Interesting announcement from NR on platform extensions for the Shotts line:


http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-gbp-49m-shotts-line-electrification-contract

Given 23m long 385s are to operate the line we are looking at approximately the following lengths:
3 car 69m
4 car 92m
6 car 138m
7 car 161m
8 car 184m

Current Shotts Line platforms are:
Slateford Up 153m Down 183m
Kingsknowe Up 93m Down 94m
Wester Hailes 120m
Curriehill 121m
Kirknewton Up 99m Down 169m
Livingston South 120m
West Calder Up 129m Down 131m
Addiewell Up 151m Down 149m
Breich 128m
Fauldhouse Up 137m Down 128m
Shotts Up 152m Down 148m
Hartwood Up 128m Down 134m
Cleland 125m
Carfin Up 92m Down 97m
Bellshill Up 134m Down 138m
Uddingston Up 134m Down 133m
Cambuslang 138m

So it suggests they are at least wanting the option of the semi fasts to run as 2 x 3 car services with all stations able to take at least a 4 car service. However extending Shotts platforms from 148m suggests wanting to allow for some really quite long trains to call in future.

Perhaps a standard 8 x 23m train length should be what any newly extended platforms should be based on - probably 190m or so. Interesting to see what length they are going for at Shotts.

I've never understood how Slateford has survived as an Edinburgh station. Moving it along to Shandon/Gorgie would seem more sensible.

 

[takno]

I've never understood how Slateford has survived as an Edinburgh station. Moving it along to Shandon/Gorgie would seem more sensible.

Population served at Shandon/Gorgie doesn't seem much different in size, and you are competing with a significantly quicker bus service and an easy 15 minute walk to Haymarket.

 

[railjock]

Population served at Shandon/Gorgie doesn't seem much different in size, and you are competing with a significantly quicker bus service and an easy 15 minute walk to Haymarket.

I think the shandon/gorgie area is much more densely populated but I take your point re its proximity to Haymarket.

Handier for the football though.

 

[Highland37]

Does anyone have any information on the following?

* redoubling of the line from Milngavie to Hillfoot and then Bearsden to Westerton.
* any redoubling plans for Culloden to Moy.

Thanks.

 

[najaB]

* any redoubling plans for Culloden to Moy.

It's been mentioned in the HML improvement studies but IIRC that has been pushed back to CP8/CP9.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Does anyone have any information on the following?

* redoubling of the line from Milngavie to Hillfoot and then Bearsden to Westerton.
* any redoubling plans for Culloden to Moy.

Thanks.

Milngavie branch redoubling isn't planned because the bottleneck is down at Partick. The current infrastructure handles the 4tph service well enough that the money spent on redoubling would be far better spent on some other thing, such as electrifying the Maryhill line.

 

[Carntyne]

Milngavie branch redoubling isn't planned because the bottleneck is down at Partick. The current infrastructure handles the 4tph service well enough that the money spent on redoubling would be far better spent on some other thing, such as electrifying the Maryhill line.

It doesn't handle 4tph well. It's a nightmare when anything is slightly late.

 

[Highland37]

Agree with Carntyne. I remember when it was double all the way to Milngavie and the operational flexibility was good.

BR must have been really starved of funds to remove such short sections.

 

[najaB]

BR must have been really starved of funds to remove such short sections.

It could be down to the cost of junction renewals.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Looking at the Route Study again, when discussing the Fife Bypass Line (which appears to be extremely likely to be built), it mentions the need for related works around Cowdenbeath:

This intervention proposes construction of a new section of railway, running close to the M90 for approximately five miles. New junctions will be required, one between Inverkeithing and Dalgety Bay, and another in the vicinity of Halbeath.

Related works are likely to be required in the Cowdenbeath area for higher linespeeds and an upgrade of Thornton North Junction to accommodate the revised routing of the interurban traffic.

The justification for the bypass line is that all of the short sections of low linespeed on the coastal route make it very slow. Indeed, that basic idea drives a huge amount of improvement work, as you get far more bang for your buck by raising low linespeeds on otherwise fast sections of track than you do by increasing the overall linespeed (e.g. the Rugby remodelling alone made as much difference to WCML journey times as tilting 140mph would). Going through Cowdenbeath though there is an awkward set of curves which look difficult to straighten out. Trains could be hammering along the new M90-paralleling track at 100mph and then have to slow to a crawl through Cowdenbeath before speeding up again. After Cowdenbeath, it looks like other, more minor straightening works would be much easier to deliver. There is an abandoned railway alignment through the middle of the town that would straighten out this section completely without moving it too far from the town for a loop line to be required. The alignment looks mostly intact other than a slight encroachment by the golf course. Do you think this is what NR have in mind when they talk about related works? The benefit of a fast bypass line would be diminished if trains can't run at a sustained fast speed just beyond it. I imagine that any realignment works on the existing route would be disruptive and costly, while the old route could be reinstated as a non-railway work environment and then the tracks switched over in a single long possession.

 

[mcmad]

I think the old alignment was abandoned due to mining subsidence so would require extensive remidial works before it could support a high speed alignment.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think the old alignment was abandoned due to mining subsidence so would require extensive remidial works before it could support a high speed alignment.

Wikipedia says that the current station was built for the Glenfarg line to Perth, and eventually all services ran through it via a chord linking back to the original line. I can't find much more about it on the internet than this. RAILSCOT suggests that the line was open for freight, at least in part, until only a few decades ago.

Subsidence problems would be a challenge but I think they would need to be really, really bad before the line was totally unsuitable for reopening. The existing line is bound by development and the reservoir and has very tight radius curves befitting its history as a chord and not a proper route. As I said, the benefit of the bypass line would be severely limited if trains had to slow down as soon as they link back onto the existing railway. There would be a capacity benefit, but it wouldn't result in the transformative journey time changes that make the scheme worth investing in in the first place. Reinstating the original line through Cowdenbeath would almost double the total length of 100mph-capable railway and would make other improvements along the route to Thornton Junction worthwhile. Linespeeds on the route via Dunfermline are currently quite low but (Cowdenbeath aside) the alignment looks like it could manage a pretty consistent 90-100mph all the way from the future Halbeath Junction. Where curve radius is currently too tight it looks like it would be easy to acquire land to smooth it out.

 

[Ginaro]

You can see the old line going straight through Cowdenbeath on this map, and compare it to what's currently there: http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=15&lat=56.1132&lon=-3.3415&layers=168&b=1

How much time could actually be saved? It would be a lot of work, given the proximity of housing, old mining sites, reinstating the tunnel at Lumphinnans - and the golfers wouldn't be happy!

Regarding the bypass, I'm assuming it will shadow the M90 to Halbeath? How do they plan on crossing the M90 link and A92 - tunnelling under them to emerge beside the park & ride?

 

[najaB]

How much time could actually be saved?

From the sectional appendix it looks like that curve imposes a 35mph speed restriction and you're past Lochgelly before the line speed gets back up to 60mph so it would probably save a few minutes.

 

[NotATrainspott]

You can see the old line going straight through Cowdenbeath on this map, and compare it to what's currently there: http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=15&lat=56.1132&lon=-3.3415&layers=168&b=1

How much time could actually be saved? It would be a lot of work, given the proximity of housing, old mining sites, reinstating the tunnel at Lumphinnans - and the golfers wouldn't be happy!

Regarding the bypass, I'm assuming it will shadow the M90 to Halbeath? How do they plan on crossing the M90 link and A92 - tunnelling under them to emerge beside the park & ride?

From the sectional appendix it looks like that curve imposes a 35mph speed restriction and you're past Lochgelly before the line speed gets back up to 60mph so it would probably save a few minutes.

Transport Scotland has a goal of reducing journey times across the rail network and this sort of intervention avoids the need for other, more expensive work elsewhere. With a relatively small amount of work you can save an equivalent amount of time to dozens of kilometres of speed upgrades on existing fast tracks, while not requiring faster rolling stock or increasing track wear. It looks like this idea would have a low cost per minute of journey time reduction; combine it with the Fife bypass and the cost per minute saved would go down even more.

The Route Study says that the Halbeath line would start from a junction between Inverkeithing and Dalgety Bay. I don't think any really detailed design work has been done so far. I would try to remodel the junctions at Inverkeithing so that the new line would be the mainline route with the highest possible linespeed. The most important thing is to make it possible for trains from Markinch to be able to accelerate up to linespeed and then stay as fast as they can for as long as they can all the way into Edinburgh. Even a very short section of low linespeed causes a major impact as trains have to slow down sufficiently beforehand and then accelerate back up. This is especially important if electrification won't be happening quickly, as diesel trains will have inferior acceleration capability and will waste more energy when decelerating.

The golf course appears to be the only thing built over the old alignment through the town. While golf is important it's a lot less likely to derail a scheme than a need to compulsory purchase homes and businesses, and it's only one slice of the golf course that would be cut off anyway. Reinstating the tunnel shouldn't be too hard as there haven't been any structures built on top of the portals. Remember that all of these works could be done totally off-line without the massive railway mark-up, and would remove the need to touch the old route at all. Once the new line is done, including any electrification or gauge-clearing works as necessary, it could be put into service with a single long weekend possession of either end. The dismantling of the old route could then begin under similar circumstances. It would remove the need to clear the two B981 bridges for electrification, while the A909 bridge would be made electrification-ready well away from the railway. The resited station could be next to Morrisons where it would be easier to provide park and ride, accessible travel and interchange capabilities than on the current station site on the viaduct.

The programme of linespeed improvements that this could be part of should be pretty easy to deliver, all things considered. The Halbeath bypass would obviously be built totally off-line, as would the Cowdenbeath line. During construction it should be possible to effectively close the line after Lochgelly for the various alignment tweaks and track realignment works needed to Thornton Junction. The few Cardenden passengers would be bustituted to Cowdenbeath or Kirkcaldy to complete the loop. Once complete, it would make it easier to divert services away from the coastal route for the various clearance works needed there for electrification, such as a possible rebore of Kinghorn tunnel.

 

[Buttsy]

Agree with Carntyne. I remember when it was double all the way to Milngavie and the operational flexibility was good.

BR must have been really starved of funds to remove such short sections.

Westerton to Bearsden and Hillfoot to Milngavie singling saved the cost of renewals totalling £400,000 at 1989 prices (just been reading a 1989 Modern Railways)

 

[clc]

Latest newsletter from the LMRC has been published. I'm not sure going negative on Edinburgh Gateway and repeating Tory misrepresentations about the trams running below capacity is the most astute strategy:

http://www.lmrc-action.org.uk/webs/397/documents/LMRC News 25 (January 17).pdf

 

[jadmor]

Looking at the Route Study again, when discussing the Fife Bypass Line (which appears to be extremely likely to be built), it mentions the need for related works around Cowdenbeath:

This is an image I found posted on another site, hopefully it is Public Domain! It shows the Cowdenbeath and lochgelly area in the 60s, before closure of the Glenfarg route and the mineral lines.

 

[mcmad]

The biggest issues I can see with the 'bypass' line is that it appears to be based on someone looking at a map or perhaps google earth. No account of the topography or even elevation change from Inverkeithing to Halbeath. Anyone who's driven the M90 on that stretch will know that even today HGV's struggle up it.

The money would be better spent reboring Kinghorn tunnel to allow the ruling linespeed (HST 75?) which will have to be done for electrification anyway