Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[och aye]

Are we likely to see any new or reopened stations this year?

 

[Altnabreac]

Are we likely to see any new or reopened stations this year?

Dalcross, Robroyston, Kintore, Winchburgh all looking like December 2019 at the earliest.

Auchenback is expected in 2021

East Linton and Reston are somewhere in the 2021 to 2023 range.

Nothing beyond those seven has funding yet. Most likely candidates are probably Cameron Bridge, Levenmouth, Dundee West, Bannockburn, Ravenscraig, Bonnybridge and Oudenard (Bridge of Earn).

Anything beyond those 14 seems unlikely to happen in CP6.

Common factor in virtually all of them is unlocking potential for new housing development.

 

[InOban]

I would have thought that Winchburgh would be impossible unless/until the Almond Chord had been built.

 

[Stopper]

Why’s that? Winchburgh station would be between Newbrige and Winchburgh Junctions.

Winchburgh station would be a very welcome development, the place has almost doubled in size in the last few years, with a lot of nice houses being built at both ends of the village. There’s still a lot more houses being built right now with what I think is a small sort of retail park being built also. The population used to be around 2500. I think it’ll be closer to 10000 once the entire development is finished. It would also potentially serve Kirkliston, and provide South Queensferry & Newton with a Glasgow link, as all of these places are just a short drive away.

I’m unsure if Glasgow services would call though, maybe only the via Cumbernauld ones, and the Dunblanes.

 

[InOban]

Because if you add more stops between Haymarket and Polmont junction then the next fast train will catch up before then.

BTW, the plan is that Dunblane trains will lose their stops at Linlithgow and polmont, these being picked up by the new service via Grahamston and Cumbernauld.

I am entirely supportive of Winchburgh station. It's a major argument for the Almond Chord.

 

[Stopper]

As someone who lives in Linlithgow, that’s pretty disappointing that we’re going to lose direct trains to Stirling and have them replaced by a fairly pointless service. Will this be the case for Edinburgh Park too?

Also, if the Winchburgh station was to be built between the Almond Chord and Winchburgh Jn, then it wouldn’t really be worth building at all. That’s a fair bit out of Winchburgh, especially the new town centre.

 

[Altnabreac]

I would have thought that Winchburgh would be impossible unless/until the Almond Chord had been built.

Because if you add more stops between Haymarket and Polmont junction then the next fast train will catch up before then.

BTW, the plan is that Dunblane trains will lose their stops at Linlithgow and polmont, these being picked up by the new service via Grahamston and Cumbernauld.

I am entirely supportive of Winchburgh station. It's a major argument for the Almond Chord.

Stopping services at Winchburgh station is a priced option in the current Scotrail franchise and it has long been agreed that a station there is possible without Almond Chord. Detailed work on the timetable is being worked on by Network Rail. What is clear is that electrification to Alloa / Dunblane / Cumbernauld is required first though as Winchburgh stops would be in Edinburgh - Falkirk Grahamston services (not yet decided whether Cumbernauld or Dunblane / Alloa would be final destination).

 

[Altnabreac]

As someone who lives in Linlithgow, that’s pretty disappointing that we’re going to lose direct trains to Stirling and have them replaced by a fairly pointless service. Will this be the case for Edinburgh Park too?

Also, if the Winchburgh station was to be built between the Almond Chord and Winchburgh Jn, then it wouldn’t really be worth building at all. That’s a fair bit out of Winchburgh, especially the new town centre.

It's not confirmed exaactly what calling pattern Dunblane / Alloa / Cumbernauld services will have between Grahamston and Edinburgh.

I'd expect Linlithgow to have a good case to increase it's Edinburgh service to 6tph by having stops in both the Dunblane and the Cumbernauld services.

Take a look at the entries and exits of the relevant intermediate stations:
Stirling 2,337,656
Croy 1,305,750
Linlithgow 1,156,604
Edinburgh Park 869,978
Falkirk High 846,642
Larbert 803,812
Polmont 756,212
Lenzie 682,240
Falkirk Grahamston 669,976
Bishopbriggs 581,422
Bearsden 555,990
Dunblane 519,370
Alloa 360,596
Bridge Of Allan 271,416
Stepps 269,880
Cumbernauld 199,470
Gartcosh 133,838
Camelon 132,166
Greenfaulds 114,784

Looking at that it seems to me that you could speed up Dunblane / Alloa services by missing out stops at Camelon and Polmont (and by not adding a new Winchburgh stop). But you'd want to keep stops at Falkirk Grahamston and Linlithgow to keep connections to Stirling from both and to increase their Edinburgh frequency to 4tph and 6tph respectively.

 

[clc]

Dalcross, Robroyston, Kintore, Winchburgh all looking like December 2019 at the earliest.

Auchenback is expected in 2021

East Linton and Reston are somewhere in the 2021 to 2023 range.

Nothing beyond those seven has funding yet. Most likely candidates are probably Cameron Bridge, Levenmouth, Dundee West, Bannockburn, Ravenscraig, Bonnybridge and Oudenard (Bridge of Earn).

Anything beyond those 14 seems unlikely to happen in CP6.
.

I suppose Glasgow Airport is still a slim possibility.

 

[Stopper]

Is it only me that thinks a 2tph E-G via FKG & Cumbernauld would be a bit of a waste? Cumbernauld is already well linked with a fast service to both cities in Croy, which I believe is why the usage at Cumbernauld and Greenfaulds is low. Springburn passengers for Edinburgh would be far quicker going to GLQ and getting a shuttle.

Imagine how slow this stopper would be end-to-end. It barely has a purpose for intermediate to intermediate calls either

 

[kilonewton]

Is it only me that thinks a 2tph E-G via FKG & Cumbernauld would be a bit of a waste? Cumbernauld is already well linked with a fast service to both cities in Croy, which I believe is why the usage at Cumbernauld and Greenfaulds is low. Springburn passengers for Edinburgh would be far quicker going to GLQ and getting a shuttle.

Ah, but it does then, in a roundabout way, honour the original EGIP commitment of 6tph between the two cities.

 

[clc]

Ah, but it does then, in a roundabout way, honour the original EGIP commitment of 6tph between the two cities.

In terms of frequency but not journey time.

 

[Altnabreac]

Is it only me that thinks a 2tph E-G via FKG & Cumbernauld would be a bit of a waste? Cumbernauld is already well linked with a fast service to both cities in Croy, which I believe is why the usage at Cumbernauld and Greenfaulds is low. Springburn passengers for Edinburgh would be far quicker going to GLQ and getting a shuttle.

Imagine how slow this stopper would be end-to-end. It barely has a purpose for intermediate to intermediate calls either

It will provide several useful services:
Cumbernauld - Edinburgh. Not everyone can get to Croy by road and relieves overcrowding there.
Gartcosh - Edinburgh. Increasingly important commuting station, especially with the Crime Campus.
Faster Stirling - Edinburgh. Intercity journey but no semi fast services at present.

Really it’s mainly operational convenience to link up two services to avoid terminating at Grahamston.

 

[PaulLothian]

Also, if the Winchburgh station was to be built between the Almond Chord and Winchburgh Jn, then it wouldn’t really be worth building at all. That’s a fair bit out of Winchburgh, especially the new town centre.

I think that the new town centre is supposed to be to the north of the existing village on the west bank of the Union Canal and on the planned new road linking the town to the new junction on the M9. That road also connects to the planned Winchburgh Station 'Park and Ride'. Splendidly joined up thinking!

If it were possible to build Winchburgh station on passing loops, would there be any timetable benefits, or would this generally slow down services? I suspect that the time taken to loop a train would outweigh any advantages.

 

[InOban]

I'm a bit mystified. If it's on the west bank of the canal it's quite a way from the tracks; North of the tunnel there is a substantial park/loch between the East bank of the canal and the tracks. However on Google maps there is a field to the east of the line, which although still cultivated, is also marked with a street layout.

 

[Altnabreac]

I think that the new town centre is supposed to be to the north of the existing village on the west bank of the Union Canal and on the planned new road linking the town to the new junction on the M9. That road also connects to the planned Winchburgh Station 'Park and Ride'. Splendidly joined up thinking!

If it were possible to build Winchburgh station on passing loops, would there be any timetable benefits, or would this generally slow down services? I suspect that the time taken to loop a train would outweigh any advantages.

The new Winchburgh station will be on the existing E-G line, not on the new Almond Chord.

If and when the Almond Chord is built it is likely that all services not calling at Winchburgh or Edinburgh Park would be sent via the Almond Chord (i.e. the fast - E-G services). this is because there will be Grade Separated junctions at Winchburgh and Turnhouse so the more services run through the grade separated sections, the less conflicts there will be on the remaining flat junction at Newbridge.

You would also have a better balance between the north and south lines at Haymarket, less flat junction conflicts where trains currently cross from north to south lines and less conflicts at Haymarket East Junction with Shotts / WCML trains.

So certainly at least 4tph would go via Almond Chord with 2tph via Winchburgh / Edinburgh Park. Once the Cumbernauld service is up and running it's a little less clear how you would timetable it but it would either be 6tph via Almond Chord or an even 4tph / 4tph split.

 

[PaulLothian]

This is the only map I can find on a quick search, but it does match what I have always understood about the plan: http://www.nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk/S...Applications/Documents/PharmacyMasterPlan.pdf

The road that is shown passing through the new town centre is in effect a bypass for the original line of the A9 (now B9080). It crosses both the canal and the railway just north of the flooded quarry, and apparently passes to the north of the development you note. About 300 metres from the west/south bank of the canal to the site of the P&R.

 

[Altnabreac]

I'm a bit mystified. If it's on the west bank of the canal it's quite a way from the tracks; North of the tunnel there is a substantial park/loch between the East bank of the canal and the tracks. However on Google maps there is a field to the east of the line, which although still cultivated, is also marked with a street layout.

See Masterplan for Winchburgh here:
http://www.winchburghvillage.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/G_MP_MasterPlan_101_100094.pdf

Block Z on the plan above is the station location.
Block AA is the field you are talking about which is currently under construction as housing by Taylor Wimpey.
https://www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/find-your-home/scotland/west-lothian/winchburgh/seton-park
Block V is a possible bus/coach park and ride next to the new motorway junction.
Blocks P & Q are the new mixed use town centre that are walking distance from the station but just to the west along the new link road.
Blocks M & K are the other areas that have been built as housing so far.

 

[InOban]

Thanks very much for your information. I hadn't realised the scale of development planned. Much appreciated.

 

[och aye]

Link to a Midlothian Council meeting, regarding the reinstatement of a heavy rail link to Penicuik:

Penicuik to Edinburgh - Public Transport Links and Rail Feasibility Assessment - report by Head of Communities and Economy

Background

At both strategic (South East Scotland Strategic Development Plan 2013) and local (Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017) planning levels, the A701 road corridor is identified as a growth area. The committed levels of development arising within this growth corridor include major housing at Bilston, Roslin and Penicuik, together with substantial retail and commercial development at Straiton. The most recent Census data (2011) indicates that around half of the workforce living in Penicuik travel to jobs in the Edinburgh area; there is no definitive evidence to suggest that this level of commuting would have altered significantly since 2011, nor that it will continue at a similar rate.

In recognition of this level of growth, the Local Development Plan includes a proposal for a new A701 relief road and A702 spur road, the former running to the west of the existing A701 to act as the main link for traffic between Penicuik and the A720 Edinburgh City Bypass. This will enable the existing A701 road to be re-prioritised as a public transport corridor, as well as a safer and more attractive route for cyclists and pedestrians. There has also previously been reference to the possibility of a light rail link along the A701, an extension of the Edinburgh tram network, and a link to the orbital bus proposals along the A720 City Bypass.

The proposal to re-establish a heavy rail link between Penicuik and Edinburgh has been considered by the Council since at least 2001, when a bid to the then Scottish Executive for funding for a feasibility study into the matter was submitted, but which was unsuccessful. More recently, in August 2012 and February 2013 the Council considered further reports on the Penicuik Rail Line which maintained the Council’s continued interest in considering the project. Heriot Watt University undertook a Governance for Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) Stage 2 Engineering Study in 2014, followed by a GRIP 3 Engineering Study shortly afterwards. That latter study recommended that further development to GRIP 4 stage be undertaken specifically to examine a route running from Pomathorn Road north eastwards along the track of a former railway through Rosslynlee, past Rosewell, and through Bonnyrigg, to link into the Borders railway line close to Eskbank Station. Since then no further work has been undertaken.

In resolving to adopt the Midlothian Local Development Plan at its meeting on 26 September 2017, Council agreed that “Further reports be brought forward in relation to a feasibility study in respect of a rail link to Penicuik.”

Summary

The potential for a heavy rail link between Penicuik and Edinburgh has been under consideration for many years, although there has been little progress since 2013/14. The scale of forthcoming development approved in the new Local Development Plan for Penicuik and the A701 corridor is such that further consideration could be given to the potential to maximise the public transport link opportunities, including that of heavy rail.

Recommendations

It is recommended that Council,

i) agrees to receive a more detailed report on the relative merits of options to maximise the capacity and quality of public transport links between Penicuik and Edinburgh; and

ii) receives a report which reviews in more detail the work already undertaken on the feasibility of a heavy rail link between Penicuik and Edinburgh, together with an assessment of the next stages in assessing the merits of such a proposal.

 

[najaB]

Link to a Midlothian Council meeting, regarding the reinstatement of a heavy rail link to Penicuik:

Penicuik to Edinburgh - Public Transport Links and Rail Feasibility Assessment - report by Head of Communities and Economy

From a quick NLS Maps survey it seems that a large part of the original route is built on, so would I be correct in assuming that any link would be mostly new-build?

 

[Stopper]

I think that the new town centre is supposed to be to the north of the existing village on the west bank of the Union Canal and on the planned new road linking the town to the new junction on the M9. That road also connects to the planned Winchburgh Station 'Park and Ride'. Splendidly joined up thinking!

If it were possible to build Winchburgh station on passing loops, would there be any timetable benefits, or would this generally slow down services? I suspect that the time taken to loop a train would outweigh any advantages.

The new town centre is to the west of the canal, inbetween the new houses and the canal. However, there are also more new houses to the north-east of the town, which wouldn’t be that far away from the Almond chord. The station would be of no use on the Almond chord anyway.

 

[Ginaro]

Found this video on Facebook: http://sendvid.com/qbm07a92 which shows the tracks within Kinghorn Tunnel - knew there was a kink but hadn't seen how bad it was!

The line speeds are 65 from Burntisland and 45 to the east through Kinghorn station. Of course there will need to be track lowering works for electrification, but what speeds could be gained by also reboring the tunnel and would it be worth it?

 

[najaB]

Found this video on Facebook: http://sendvid.com/qbm07a92 which shows the tracks within Kinghorn Tunnel - knew there was a kink but hadn't seen how bad it was!

Also, there's not much in the way of clearance.

The line speeds are 65 from Burntisland and 45 to the east through Kinghorn station. Of course there will need to be track lowering works for electrification, but what speeds could be gained by also reboring the tunnel and would it be worth it?

The tunnel is (from memory) 30mph so it would save a minute or two if you had a clear run of 60mph from Burntisland through the tunnel and heading out of Kinghorn.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The Inverkeithing-Halbeath line is going to be necessary before Kinghorn can be rebored. For it to be worth building, it has to be the new fast route for trains to Markinch and beyond. I can't see Kinghorn being re-bored simply for the sake of linespeed improvements as a result. If most or all trains will be stopping at Kinghorn, there's not a lot of point in spending extra to increase linespeed. It might well happen anyway, since straighter and faster routes tend to be cheaper to maintain.

A rebore would be a fun time for the people in Darney Terrace. Farnworth tunnel didn't have anything of value on top of it other than a dual carriageway.

 

[mcmad]

Given how tight it is in Kinghorn tunnel then I'd imagine the only way to get OLE through would be to rebore the whole tunnel.

 

[mcmad]

Inverkeithing-Halbeath is just a crayonista's fantasy ignoring the basic laws of physics ..... so a DFT dream project. There is also Cowdenbeath to sort out given the sharp curve from where the Glenfarg line carried on if the 'top' side of the Fife circle is to be the main route. Lots of mine workings to resolve whatever you want to do in that part of Fife so I suspect the coast route will be improved eventually but Fife will be the last route to get wires so expect a bimode HST replacement.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Inverkeithing-Halbeath is just a crayonista's fantasy ignoring the basic laws of physics ..... so a DFT dream project. There is also Cowdenbeath to sort out given the sharp curve from where the Glenfarg line carried on if the 'top' side of the Fife circle is to be the main route. Lots of mine workings to resolve whatever you want to do in that part of Fife so I suspect the coast route will be improved eventually but Fife will be the last route to get wires so expect a bimode HST replacement.

It's a Transport Scotland and Network Rail idea, so it's a cut above a crayonista fantasy.

The solution for the Cowdenbeath issue seems to be to reopen the original line which ran straight through it. If that became dedicated to fast services, there could be a fast set of tracks all the way from Inverkeithing to Lochgelly. Of course, 'fast' doesn't necessarily mean trains will run at 100mph all the way. Even with a relatively slow climb up to Halbeath the end-to-end journey time would be faster than via the coast or Dunfermline, while faster trains are able to overtake slower ones.

 

[Chris Hamilton]

Nothing beyond those seven has funding yet. Most likely candidates are probably Cameron Bridge, Levenmouth, Dundee West, Bannockburn, Ravenscraig, Bonnybridge and Oudenard (Bridge of Earn).

Hi, long time lingerer, first time poster.

I just wanted to point out that Ravenscraig Station is now dead in the water.

I live in the Ravenscraig development, and was recently invited to a planning exposition, as the developers, Ravenscraig Limited (which I think is made up of Tata Steel, WB Developments and Scottish Enterprise), have decided to completely resubmit their planning applications to North Lanarkshire Council.

Key changes noted were the almost total abolition of any major retail or leisure developments and the removal of transport interchanges, including the railway station. The whole site will now be completely devoted to housing and office/industrial space, with a large park (like Falkirk’s Helix).

The reason given was the proximity to Motherwell, Carfin and Shieldmuir stations. The exhibitor noted a 25 minute walk to all 3. It takes me 45 minutes to walk to Motherwell at best, with 25 minutes to Carfin. Now, that’s fine, but I don’t live anywhere near the centre of the development, which would presumably be at least another 15 minutes further. Neither Carfin nor Shieldmuir are places I would suggest anyone walk to or linger at in the dark.

It’s an unfortunate development, especially as the upcoming Motherwell North Resignalling of Holytown, Fauldhouse and Wishaw interlocking in the Autumn, has specifically built in new turn back signals at Wishaw for an extended Whifflet service, calling at Holytown and Ravenscraig en route. These trains already run, but they do so as an hourly ECS from Whifflet to Wishaw at the moment.

If Ravenscraig Limited (RL) are allowed pull out as the project sponsor, it will be left to NLC, SPT or another agency to step in, which is unlikely. It’s entirely possible that NLC will reject their updated plans, leaving RL with their current legal obligation to construct a station when a certain volume of housing development has been reached.

In a related note, RL are the project sponsor for their section of the “Pan-Lanarkshire Link Road”, an urban all purpose route linking Cumbernauld with the M74 via a new Airdrie Bypass, dualled Carfin Bypass and route through Ravenscraig, crossing the WCML to the north of Airbles Road. They have also resubmitted their planning for that, by re-aligning the route, and changing the WCML crossing from tunnel to over bridge. The exhibitor blamed Network Rail for that, claiming that NR deemed tunnelling under the WCML to be an unacceptable risk. I find that hard to believe as the original plan was approved quite some time back, and a diversion route exists for the WCML at this point. I suspect it’s simply cheaper. I’m not sure whether he was talking to me or my NR lanyard, which I had forgotten I was wearing (was on my way to work).

 

[InOban]

In my more crayonista moments I have thought that the IC trains should be diverted to run by Holytown and wishaw with a proper parkway station presumably where this proposed link road will cross the route. It must be much easier to access the airport via the M74/M8 than it is choose the rail option, particularly since hardly any London trains call at Motherwell.