Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[gsnedders]

As always though, having got in your car to drive to Ladybank why get out to catch the train when you can drive all the way to Edinburgh (or at least to Halbeath/Ferrytoll)?

Speaking of Ferrytoll, how practical would it be to have a station there? Though I guess given the car park is frequently near capacity already that's probably not a good idea…

 

[Ginaro]

Speaking of Ferrytoll, how practical would it be to have a station there? Though I guess given the car park is frequently near capacity already that's probably not a good idea…

Where do you put a station at Ferrytoll? https://goo.gl/maps/6kxT1thgU6F2

A tram has been suggested as one of the uses for the road bridge - could perhaps use the dockyard line from Inverkeithing, stop at Ferrytoll, and then onto the bridge. Though where it goes after the bridge is the harder bit...

 

[najaB]

Speaking of Ferrytoll, how practical would it be to have a station there?

There is (sorta), it's called Inverkething.

 

[JohnR]

A two--platform station would cost several times as much because of the need for the infrastructure needed to provide disabled access. It should be possible, and desirable in any case, to raise the linespeed since the route isn't curvaceous. Of course a doubled section long enough to provide a dynamic loop alive would be evenn better, but that again multiplies the cost, turning a minor project into a major one. I think a single platform and a two-hourly service would establish the demand.

How about a Penryn-style loop?

 

[och aye]

However, if this statement from the Newburgh station campaign group about the post-December-2018 timetable is correct, you'd only be able to get a train every two hours, unless you do some upgrades to the line (as suggested by 47271). Might not make for that good a service:

Would there be any merit in reopening stations further along the line i.e. Abernethy and Bridge of Earn if the necessary upgrades to the line were done?

 

[Clansman]

Would there be any merit in reopening stations further along the line i.e. Abernethy and Bridge of Earn if the necessary upgrades to the line were done?

There's definitley merit in reopening Bridge of Earn and Newburgh, but I think Abernethy is pushing it a little bit economics wise, given it's close proximity to Bridge of Earn. What satelleite images don't show is that Bridge of Earn has had significant investment into it over the years which has seen the village expand eastwards, parralell with the railway. The A912 and A913 connecting Bridge of Earn and Abernethy has been rebuilt as a carriageway, with a roundabout centre to both Bridge of Earn and Aberagie. So if you were to bide your time with Abernethy for another few years (providing the government wanted to opt for a tight purse strings approach to the line in future), you could accomadate a single park and ride station between the two towns aside the A912, along with a new station at Newburgh.

 

[Ginaro]

What satelleite images don't show is that Bridge of Earn has had significant investment into it over the years which has seen the village expand eastwards, parralell with the railway. The A912 and A913 connecting Bridge of Earn and Abernethy has been rebuilt as a carriageway, with a roundabout centre to both Bridge of Earn and Aberagie. So if you were to bide your time with Abernethy for another few years (providing the government wanted to opt for a tight purse strings approach to the line in future), you could accomadate a single park and ride station between the two towns aside the A912, along with a new station at Newburgh.

It's visible on the more recent ESRI imagery and I agree it would be the best place for a park and ride station. You could probably double track along that straight section as well?

 

[InOban]

1. I believe there are plans for a substantial housing estate on the site of the old hospital. That's why a station has been proposed. Abernethy would be a waste of money.

2. A previous poster said that both road bridges in the area allow a single track only. I can't imagine the cost of tunneling a second track under the motorway.

 

[najaB]

2. A previous poster said that both road bridges in the area allow a single track only. I can't imagine the cost of tunneling a second track under the motorway.

I've not gone that way for a while, but I don't believe that to be true - from memory I think there's enough room for double tracks. If there isn't then gauntleted track might be the way to go.

 

[Clansman]

View attachment 36153
It's visible on the more recent ESRI imagery and I agree it would be the best place for a park and ride station. You could probably double track along that straight section as well?

Indeed, Bridge of Earn has the luxury of not being constraint for space, currently. Although one thing to point out is if Perth & Kinross council are concious about safeguarding a radius of a few metres from the railway for future projects such as duelling and potential stations. With the works that are currently going on in Bridge of Earn, the fields between the A912 are currently being flattened and cleared for new housing schemes, it won't be long into the future until it's too late to utilise it for anything other than new communities.

I've not gone that way for a while, but I don't believe that to be true - from memory I think there's enough room for double tracks. If there isn't then gauntleted track might be the way to go.

There's just enough space for double tracking providing the investment was there, however Bridge of Earn itself is a bit of a bottle kneck due to the thin embankments in which the line sits on. So you would need to find ways in which to create a new level surface for to provide the space and support for a second line (if that makes sense - see attached). The constraints the town presents potential rail improvements means that any duelling will have to take place at the North side (the left side of the track, if you were heading towards Ladybank).

 

[InOban]

I suppose you could close that low bridge, lower the railway to ground level, and build a new bridge over the railway. A 10'3 clearance makes the existing road rather useless.

 

[ABB125]

A two--platform station would cost several times as much because of the need for the infrastructure needed to provide disabled access. It should be possible, and desirable in any case, to raise the linespeed since the route isn't curvaceous. Of course a doubled section long enough to provide a dynamic loop alive would be evenn better, but that again multiplies the cost, turning a minor project into a major one. I think a single platform and a two-hourly service would establish the demand.

How about a Penryn-style loop?

How about putting in two bi-directional single lines a few miles long? That way, there would only need to be one platform, and the non-stopping trains could bypass the station at speed in both directions, whilst passing the stopping train at the same time.

 

[InOban]

That low bridge is actually named as Old Edinburgh Road!
Looking at Google, it seems as if the newer road bridges may be double track, but there quite a number of older bridges which look narrower.

 

[Clansman]

How about putting in two bi-directional single lines a few miles long? That way, there would only need to be one platform, and the non-stopping trains could bypass the station at speed in both directions, whilst passing the stopping train at the same time.

Not a bad idea but it would be a bit short sighted in my opinion in the case of Bridge of Earn - having two platforms future proofs the station and gives greater timetabling flexibility.

 

[iain-j]

I found this about the proposed second platform at Dunbar for those who are interested.
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/scotland/dunbar-station-new-platform/

 

[InOban]

I don't understand the obsession of NR with building hideous and expensive (both to build and maintain) over-track structures, when there is a nearby underpass.
I recently visited the beautiful Aviemore station, where disabled access to the second platform (used only when trains are passing) and the Strathspey Railway is by underpass. The idea that its intact Victorian design should be vandalised by structures like that shown for Dunbar - that doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[iain-j]

I don't understand the obsession of NR with building hideous and expensive (both to build and maintain) over-track structures, when there is a nearby underpass.
I recently visited the beautiful Aviemore station, where disabled access to the second platform (used only when trains are passing) and the Strathspey Railway is by underpass. The idea that its intact Victorian design should be vandalised by structures like that shown for Dunbar - that doesn't bear thinking about.

I did think that the artist's impression showing the front of the station building with the proposed overbridge behind it looked hideous.

 

[JohnR]

Someone is gold plating the rails...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-41858408

 

[najaB]

Someone is gold plating the rails...

A road-builder by the sounds of things.

 

[gsnedders]

I don't understand the obsession of NR with building hideous and expensive (both to build and maintain) over-track structures, when there is a nearby underpass.
I recently visited the beautiful Aviemore station, where disabled access to the second platform (used only when trains are passing) and the Strathspey Railway is by underpass. The idea that its intact Victorian design should be vandalised by structures like that shown for Dunbar - that doesn't bear thinking about.

It's vastly more expensive to build ramps with the required gradient to meet accessibility requirements going underground.

 

[Altnabreac]

Someone is gold plating the rails...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-41858408

A road-builder by the sounds of things.

Actually worth reading the report in full:
http://www.nestrans.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FPASTS-1plus-Ellon-Rail-Study_Final-Report.pdf

3 options:
Option 1 - hourly service to Ellon, single track, single platform station at Newmachar
Option 2 - half hourly service to Ellon, single track, dynamic loop and two platform station at Newmachar
Option 3 - half hourly service to P&R east of Ellon, single track, dynamic loop and two platform station at Newmachar, double track from Ellon to P&R.

Options 2&3 also require redoubling and track lowering through the Schoolhill and Hutcheon Street tunnels north of Aberdeen.

Construction costs are shown broadly as £120m, £140m and £170m.

The £381M is taking the Most expensive Option 3 with full Schedule 4, Network rail costs, Track lowering in Aberdeen, Design costs and a 66% Green Book optimism bias.

Even at lower costs though it looks like the BCR is going to be very poor. The three options there generate BCRs in the 0.2-0.3 range so even without Optimism Bias they are well under 1.0.

I still wonder whether a better option might be a Park & Ride site on the outskirts of Oldmeldrum. It was a bonkers seeming scheme suggested a few years ago by Railfuture but would have the definite advantage of 2tph existing terminating services at Inverurie that could be easily extended. At only 6km with 8 major structures and a single platform station I reckon you could bring it in for more like £50-100m.

A large part of the demand at Ellon was for traffic from the north so Oldmeldrum might be able to capture some of that Banffshire demand at a lower cost.

 

[InOban]

It's vastly more expensive to build ramps with the required gradient to meet accessibility requirements going underground.

But if the underpass already exists? I know that the requirements insist on a level section every so often, but seriously.....

 

[najaB]

But if the underpass already exists? I know that the requirements insist on a level section every so often, but seriously.....

Is it compliant?

 

[InOban]

Probably not. But the end result of making it compliant would be less hideous and cheaper to maintain.

 

[edwin_m]

If there is an underpass with steps then it needs either a big hole digging on the opposite side from the steps for a lift, or a much bigger hole digging opposite or instead of the steps to provide a ramp. That opens up all sorts of hazards such as unknown ground conditions, buried services, risk of collapse under the running lines etc. With a footbridge it's a lot simpler - basically just lay a foundation on each platform and crane it in (well not that simple really but a lot easier than a subway). The result may also be better for passengers, as subways can be dark, damp and cramped but a new bridge will probably be more spacious and better lit. It does result in more steps though, as the bridges tend to be built to maximum 25kV clearances so are further above the track than the subways are below it.

I had a bit of involvement in a design package of accessibility measures for eight stations (not in Scotland). In that project the two or three that were above street level had lifts inserted into the existing subways and the others had footbridges adding. One of these already had a subway but it was preferred to add a bridge rather than to make the subway accessible.

 

[najaB]

Probably not. But the end result of making it compliant would be less hideous and cheaper to maintain.

Less visual impact, yes. But if the lift option is taken (which in many cases will be the only option) then no cheaper and probably more expensive since below ground level lifts will be at greater risk of flood damage in heavy rain.

 

[InOban]

In costing the alternatives, are the long-term maintenance costs of the 'standard' bridge/lift solution taken into account?

I may be oversimplifying your explanation, but it seems easier to go for the standard answer rather than to have to individually design an underpass one. But the public are left with the consequences.

In Dunbar, where this thread began, there is a lane, not the main road, which passes under both the present platform line and the main lines, and space for a very gentle ramp on each side. Just a longer walk for everyone needing to reach the new platform.

 

[najaB]

In Dunbar, where this thread began, there is a lane, not the main road, which passes under both the present platform line and the main lines, and space for a very gentle ramp on each side. Just a longer walk for everyone needing to reach the new platform.

And that longer walk could, in itself, be a show-stopper. Also, there's the issue of who owns the lane and who would be responsible for maintaining the footpath.

 

[InOban]

The lane is a public road. Maintaining the footpaths would cost a fraction of continual visits to repair broken lifts.

 

[route:oxford]

Continual visits to repair broken lifts.

Utter nonsense. Lifts generally just keep on working with regular servicing.

It's morally wrong to allow your own phobias to impact on the services delivered to people who need assistance with steps.