Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[Stopper]

The post says that they can see Cumbernauld terminators not Grahamston ones. There will still be Cumbernauld terminators following the timetable change.

Only 1? Building a Grangemouth station for 1tph to Glasgow via the long way round of Hamilton/Motherwell isn’t exactly a good business case

 

[Chrism20]

Only 1? Building a Grangemouth station for 1tph to Glasgow via the long way round of Hamilton/Motherwell isn’t exactly a good business case

I never offered an opinion on the route. I only pointed out that they were quoting Cumbernauld terminators and not Falkirk ones.

 

[Stopper]

I never offered an opinion on the route. I only pointed out that they were quoting Cumbernauld terminators and not Falkirk ones.

I was pointing out that the Grahamston terminators cannot be used anymore and why they weren’t there on RTT. The 1tph Cumbernauld electric extending to Grangemouth is a non-starter so it would have to be the Grahamston ones.

 

[och aye]

Would another possibility be to do roughly what you suggest, but put a station on the new track at Haddington (along with East Linton), and run the fasts AND the Dunbar locals along the new track (obviously, only the locals - probably now running hourly -would stop at the new stations). The current track from Drem to East Linton then would no longer be used for regular service, and the issue of the flat junction at East Linton would go away.

As another variation, instead of running the new track from Wallyford, you could 4-track to Longniddry and use the old line from there to Haddington, which would allow the Dunbar stoppers to serve those stations too.

You could be replace the North Berwick branch with a bus service to Longniddry and then route trains on a reopened Haddington branch. (extremely controversial, I know!).

Before the locals of North Berwick start chasing me with a pitch fork, this isn't something I would advocate doing!

 

[clc]

Came across this SPT report on twitter which I hadn’t seen before:-

http://www.spt.co.uk/documents/rtp151206_agenda14.pdf

It states that a report was commissioned into the Glasgow cross city tunnel idea in 2000 but the consultants concluded that it could not be justified. There’s no detail on why this conclusion was reached but presumably it had a negative bcr. The cost estimate was £1.5 billion - £2.5 billion.

It may be the case that some creative accounting (as happened with A9 dualling) will be required if an economic case is to be made for the tunnel.

 

[Highland37]

Railways don't do very well in purely economic terms. They do in other ways though. We have become very short sighted in the UK.

 

[och aye]

Rising Leuchars passenger numbers hailed by campaign for St Andrews rail line

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/new...-hailed-by-campaign-for-st-andrews-rail-line/

A steady increase in passenger numbers at Leuchars railway station has been cited as evidence a rail link to St Andrews would be well used.

With more than 613,000 users during 2017/18, the stop was the fourth busiest in Fife.

The number of people boarding and alighting at the station has risen almost every year over the last two decades, according to statistics released by the Office of Rail and Road.

The station, on the east coast main line, serves St Andrews via a bus link but campaigners want to see the line extended to the university town and a station re-established.

Jane Ann Liston, convener of St Andrews Rail Link (StARLink), said: “With passenger numbers like these nobody can now seriously doubt that a rail service to St Andrews would be very well patronised.”

Since privatisation in 1997 the number of passengers at Leuchars has almost trebled, she said, with an increase of 100,000 over the past three years alone.

She said: “At this rate Leuchars could soon overtake Dunfermline town, whose figures fell slightly, as the third busiest station in Fife after Kirkcaldy and Inverkeithing.”

In August, the group received a grant of £40,000 from the Scottish Government for a transport appraisal, which was hailed as a leap forward for the campaign and a stamp of approval from the government.

 

[InOban]

What the data don't show is the destinations of these 600k passengers. If they're mainly travelling towards Edinburgh, then a rail link into the town would be of little benefit, since passengers would have to change at Leuchars anyway. It's doing just fine as a Park and Ride. Only if there is now major demand for travel into Dundee would a St. Andrews branch nake sense.

 

[najaB]

If they're mainly travelling towards Edinburgh, then a rail link into the town would be of little benefit, since passengers would have to change at Leuchars anyway.

A south-facing junction is part of the plans.

 

[mcmad]

A south-facing junction is part of the "wish List".

Fixed that for you.

 

[najaB]

Fixed that for you.

Tata Steel actually funded a properly scoped and designed plan. It's not got any further than that, but it's still a plan.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Came across this SPT report on twitter which I hadn’t seen before:-

http://www.spt.co.uk/documents/rtp151206_agenda14.pdf

It states that a report was commissioned into the Glasgow cross city tunnel idea in 2000 but the consultants concluded that it could not be justified. There’s no detail on why this conclusion was reached but presumably it had a negative bcr. The cost estimate was £1.5 billion - £2.5 billion.

It may be the case that some creative accounting (as happened with A9 dualling) will be required if an economic case is to be made for the tunnel.

The world has moved on since then. For example, it is no longer a requirement of the tunnel project to do any electrification. We've also seen a massive increase in passenger numbers since then, leaving simultaneous capacity issues north and south of the river. The costs will have increased, but I think the benefits have grown more. The big question is, if the tunnel isn't worthwhile, then what is? In the intervening period we've pretty much maxed out the capacity of both Queen Street and Central stations. A bit of relief could come from redirecting local services onto a metro system, but you'd still have a large number of regional trains bearing down with no clear way to deal with them.

What the data don't show is the destinations of these 600k passengers. If they're mainly travelling towards Edinburgh, then a rail link into the town would be of little benefit, since passengers would have to change at Leuchars anyway. It's doing just fine as a Park and Ride. Only if there is now major demand for travel into Dundee would a St. Andrews branch nake sense.

The STARLink proposal is for essentially a brand-new railway drawing nothing from the original line. Unlike the Borders Railway or Airdrie-Bathgate, the route isn't heavily constrained by geography (both natural and human) so it's quite practical just start afresh. The only part of the old line to be reused is the embankment next to Petheram Bridge car park for the station. There aren't any bridges or tunnels left so there's no value lost by building something better from scratch.

The Edinburgh link is the foundational principle for the line. There's precisely zero possibility of it being reopened if there isn't a southward connection.

 

[clc]

..The big question is, if the tunnel isn't worthwhile, then what is? In the intervening period we've pretty much maxed out the capacity of both Queen Street and Central stations. A bit of relief could come from redirecting local services onto a metro system, but you'd still have a large number of regional trains bearing down with no clear way to deal with them..

The other option is of course a new surface station in the St Enoch area. This could handle East Kilbride, Barrhead, Kilmarnock and Dumfries services via the Strathbungo Link, and at higher frequencies than at present. The capacity released at Central would allow you to double the frequency of Neilston, Newton and Circle services to meet the 2043 demand forecasts. Two new 8-car length platforms could be built at the west side of Central to accommodate additional Ayrshire and Inverclyde services.

 

[takno]

What the data don't show is the destinations of these 600k passengers. If they're mainly travelling towards Edinburgh, then a rail link into the town would be of little benefit, since passengers would have to change at Leuchars anyway. It's doing just fine as a Park and Ride. Only if there is now major demand for travel into Dundee would a St. Andrews branch nake sense.

I think this (and the actual plan) probably underestimate how useful a service into Dundee with connections at Leuchars could be. Given the pretty low probability of successfully getting through trains into Edinburgh I would have thought it was worth building a business case around that instead.

 

[najaB]

Given the pretty low probability of successfully getting through trains into Edinburgh

I imagine that some of the Dundee stoppers would become Leuchars terminators, or would run Cupar - St. Andrews - Leuchars - Dundee.

 

[Altnabreac]

The world has moved on since then. For example, it is no longer a requirement of the tunnel project to do any electrification. We've also seen a massive increase in passenger numbers since then, leaving simultaneous capacity issues north and south of the river. The costs will have increased, but I think the benefits have grown more. The big question is, if the tunnel isn't worthwhile, then what is? In the intervening period we've pretty much maxed out the capacity of both Queen Street and Central stations. A bit of relief could come from redirecting local services onto a metro system, but you'd still have a large number of regional trains bearing down with no clear way to deal with them.

I’d broadly agree with this but I think before we can make the business case for the tunnel stack up we really need to see more services in Scotland running as 8 x 23m DMUs. Ayr and E-G via Falkirk are the only routes doing this currently but to maintain capacity on those routes the tunnel and stations would have to accommodate those train lengths. Operationally if you’re aiming for something like a 14-16tph frequency to make the business case stack up you’d realistically need to aim for a homogenous train fleet of 8 car EMUs so you can use the full length of centrally tunnelled stations without passenger demand bunching where shorter trains come in.

So to improve an eventual business case I’d like to see more in CP6 more 8 car services and more stations extended to take them. Yes SDO can be used in some places but East Kilbride line stations, Lennie, Bishopbriggs, etc could all be extended as part of a policy of aiming for all main Central Scotland routes to be future proofed for those lengths.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I’d broadly agree with this but I think before we can make the business case for the tunnel stack up we really need to see more services in Scotland running as 8 x 23m DMUs. Ayr and E-G via Falkirk are the only routes doing this currently but to maintain capacity on those routes the tunnel and stations would have to accommodate those train lengths. Operationally if you’re aiming for something like a 14-16tph frequency to make the business case stack up you’d realistically need to aim for a homogenous train fleet of 8 car EMUs so you can use the full length of centrally tunnelled stations without passenger demand bunching where shorter trains come in.

So to improve an eventual business case I’d like to see more in CP6 more 8 car services and more stations extended to take them. Yes SDO can be used in some places but East Kilbride line stations, Lennie, Bishopbriggs, etc could all be extended as part of a policy of aiming for all main Central Scotland routes to be future proofed for those lengths.

I appreciate the sentiment but it looks like the EMU lengths will be fixed for the reasonable future term, unless it's practical to lengthen a 3-car 385 to a 4-car (which involves more than just inserting a trailer vehicle). It also depends on the practicality of 8-car operation in general. 4/8 car operation might prevent trains from being stacked in platforms, thereby requiring more platforms, and leading us right back to where we started with a capacity bottleneck.

 

[adrock1976]

The other option is of course a new surface station in the St Enoch area. This could handle East Kilbride, Barrhead, Kilmarnock and Dumfries services via the Strathbungo Link, and at higher frequencies than at present. The capacity released at Central would allow you to double the frequency of Neilston, Newton and Circle services to meet the 2043 demand forecasts. Two new 8-car length platforms could be built at the west side of Central to accommodate additional Ayrshire and Inverclyde services.

The Neilston, Newton, and Cathcart route could be part of a second phase of a project for Glasgow to bring back trams. The first phase could be a route something like Queen Street station - Central station - Broomielaw - Clyde Arc Bridge (take over the bus lanes being as no buses use it at all) - Pacific Quay - Govan Cross - New Southern General Hospital - Braehead Centre - Renfrew Cross - Airport - Love Street - Paisley Gilmour Street station - Paisley Cross.

As the people who designed and built the Manchester Metrolink tram system are the experts, perhaps Glasgow could use them when they have finished in Manchester?

 

[Altnabreac]

I appreciate the sentiment but it looks like the EMU lengths will be fixed for the reasonable future term, unless it's practical to lengthen a 3-car 385 to a 4-car (which involves more than just inserting a trailer vehicle). It also depends on the practicality of 8-car operation in general. 4/8 car operation might prevent trains from being stacked in platforms, thereby requiring more platforms, and leading us right back to where we started with a capacity bottleneck.

I agree but if we’re talking about a 20 year vision to develop a Cross Glasgow tunnel then rolling stock and platform lengths will be part of the challenge. So we should be moving in that direction and extending existing services when we can.

While there are still lots of 3-4 car services on the network it’s hard to argue that the step change of a Cross City tunnel is needed.

 

[Stopper]

How many lines in Scotland can really sustain 8-car operation though?

I don’t think many Ayr services are 8-car. E-G probably needs more than 8-car. Inter7City services probably could sustain it however they’re unlikely to be EMUs. East Kilbride and North Berwick are the only others I can think of.

 

[NotATrainspott]

How many lines in Scotland can really sustain 8-car operation though?

I don’t think many Ayr services are 8-car. E-G probably needs more than 8-car. Inter7City services probably could sustain it however they’re unlikely to be EMUs. East Kilbride and North Berwick are the only others I can think of.

8-car operation can look good for those lines because they're currently limited by frequency rather than train length. However, there are plans to address the frequency problem for both. EK will inevitably end up having the whole line doubled for a 4tph service, and the ECML local services will be massively overhauled once the four-tracking project is done. In both cases, increased frequency will almost certainly suffice for a long time. Train lengthening is a last-resort measure as it otherwise doesn't radically improve the transport experience for passengers. Every time, passengers will ask for more frequency over longer trains since that makes their lives that bit easier. I'm sure there'd be passengers on the North Berwick services who'd even be willing to give up a seat if it meant they could get out of bed 30 minutes later and still arrive in time for work.

 

[Steamysandy]

It would need a whole load of rebuilding a before North Berwick services could go over to eight coaches because platform lengths are inadequate

 

[clc]

I think Neilston could warrant 8-car in the long term based on the amount of new housing being built/planned in Cathcart, Battlefield, Newton Mearns and south Barrhead (where a new station is planned); and growing congestion on the M77 making commuting by car a pain.

Another significant factor which should boost Glasgow’s rail patronage is that the city council wants to reduce the number of cars coming into the city centre. It plans to do this by changing the transport hierarchy so that the city centre streets are less car orientated and more pedestrian and cycling focused. To this end the amount of road space and parking will be reduced in favour of pedestrianisation and cycle lanes. There’s also talk of introducing a workplace parking levy. There’s a report here: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=23513

A further report focussing on Glasgow’s rail connectivity is due next month.

 

[Stopper]

I agree with the posts above. North Berwick and East Kilbride suffer overcrowding due to the frequency rather than the train length. The 4-tracking of Prestonpans-Drem and EK doubling/electrification/4tph would remove the need for 8-car trains.

The only line that really needs 8-car trains is the E-G, and 4tph 8-car trains isn’t even enough now, let alone in 5-10 years but then you back to the usual Dalmeny Chord topic...

 

[InOban]

1. The frequency to North Berwick is limited by the single track.
2. The platform was lengthened recently, but it may have been just to accommodate 6*23m coaches. There's a bridge which would limit the possible length.
3. The passengers might want increased frequency, but the accountants = the taxpayers will want longer trains. It's only when trains are carrying > 500 passengers that they are making a serious contribution at an economic price. The rebuilding of Queen Street to accommodate 8-coach trains is vital to the viability of the Scottish network.
4. The station boxes at QSLL Charing cross and Central LL will allow 8 coaches. The problem on the Argyll Line will be Argyll St, which was a new station when the routwas reopened, and may well only 6.

 

[AndrewE]

1. The frequency to North Berwick is limited by the single track.
2. The platform was lengthened recently, but it may have been just to accommodate 6*23m coaches. There's a bridge which would limit the possible length.

So what? You could easily dig a trench into the car park. Look at what has been done at Waverley...

 

[Stopper]

Would have thought the frequency to North Berwick was more limited because of the paths between Edinburgh and Drem.

 

[najaB]

Would have thought the frequency to North Berwick was more limited because of the paths between Edinburgh and Drem.

The proposed capacity improvements at the Edinburgh end (four-tracking, new platforms, etc.) will help with that considerably.

 

[InOban]

That also. But at rush hour they pass near Drem..

 

[NotATrainspott]

1. The frequency to North Berwick is limited by the single track.
2. The platform was lengthened recently, but it may have been just to accommodate 6*23m coaches. There's a bridge which would limit the possible length.
3. The passengers might want increased frequency, but the accountants = the taxpayers will want longer trains. It's only when trains are carrying > 500 passengers that they are making a serious contribution at an economic price. The rebuilding of Queen Street to accommodate 8-coach trains is vital to the viability of the Scottish network.
4. The station boxes at QSLL Charing cross and Central LL will allow 8 coaches. The problem on the Argyll Line will be Argyll St, which was a new station when the routwas reopened, and may well only 6.

Increased frequency means rail can serve more passengers, not just carry them. The 'accountants' are looking at ticket revenue versus operational costs, but the Scottish Government is looking at wider societal benefits too. In the short term, it might require more subsidy but it opens the door to more passenger growth in future, which then provides a more solid base for reduced subsidy in the long term.

The reason Queen Street was extended to 8 cars was that it was a cheaper way of delivering the same benefit as 6x6tph on the E&G. That's because the difference between a 4tph and a 6tph service is just 5 minutes. The difference between a 1tph and a 2tph service, on the other hand, is 30 minutes. That's now a meaningful increase in utility for passengers, while 4>6 is really just about capacity.

The pressure on the Scottish end of the ECML is so great that the enhancements are going to happen instead of a simple extension to 8 car. If that had been a useful option, the time to implement it would have been now with the other platform extensions and introduction of the new 385 fleet.

That also. But at rush hour they pass near Drem..

There's no point dualling the branch now because it's not the bottleneck. Once the mainline has more capacity, it'll make sense to add a passing loop or a second platform or whatever else is best for the route.