Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[NotATrainspott]

I'm not sure if it was ever published publicly as it was commissioned for the city council and Scottish government, but I'll have a look. It was called 'long term outcomes of expected population growth in the Edinburgh city region and the Lothians" and it's section 7 which is public works planning and outcomes.



The problem we found with Gullane was that it was never really needed, as the housing that will eventually be built there is mainly exclusive and expensive. The buyers and indeed current residents have cars and can easily reach the parking at Longniddry or Prestonpans (both to be expanded significantly in coming years) or even drive into Edinburgh itself.

Haddington is unique in that it has an existing track formation and would benefit significantly from a rail suggestion, but reopening the link doesn't benefit anywhere other than Haddington itself. Haddington also exists in somewhat more of a bubble compared to North Berwick and Gullane, with a far smaller number of people commuting into the city.

Reopening would be easy if costly and the length of such a single track section limits to approximately one train every forty minutes including turnaround, which doesn't fit in a clockwork timetable. Additionally, more trains crossing an already busy route on the flat would add congestion both at Longniddry and more platform use at an already busy Waverley. Essentially, although a reinstated link would benefit the town, more benefit can be gained from fast busses both to Longniddry and the city centre, with a fifteen minute frequency essentially solving the problem in the medium term.

While trains would open up the town to commuters, and indeed in the long term 2tph to Haddington would have a b/c ratio of something like 2.1 if I remember correctly, the conclusion was that other towns will soak up population growth first, and other infrastructure projects in the medium term will eventually make reopening to Haddington possible

Hope this makes sense, it does seem quite rambling on rereading

Most of your ideas are already included in the 2043 Route Study published by Network Rail. Four-tracking the suburban ECML is a must-have to handle increased commuting demand, even if the primary long-distance high speed route to London switches to HS2/WCML. The idea of extra tracks to reach Waverley from the west isn't properly looked at but it's mentioned it would probably happen through high speed rail investment rather than typical NR work. That makes a lot of sense when you consider that it'd be a lot easier to build these tracks if you didn't have to call at Haymarket and could run the tunnel all the way out to the city bypass.

NR's preference for expanding capacity to the east is to redouble Calton north tunnel - apparently the south tunnel was repaired by patching the inside of the walls and reducing the loading gauge too much for it to take two tracks - and then use the Abbeyhill-Powderhall route for additional tracks. That means they'll be able to provide three separate tracks from the eastern end of the platforms all the way through to the existing Powderhall junction. Presumably four-tracking beyond there past Craigentinny to Portobello Junction is also possible but I don't recall seeing it. The most important proposal is to remodel Portobello Junction so that it's a double-lead which can be taken at 40mph rather than a single lead requiring a slow 15mph crawl. Once these proposed changes are made, I don't think any remaining double-track sections are going to be the primary barrier to extra services running.

I agree that trams will play a big role in transport for the south side of the city. Once the core route from Princes Street to Cameron Toll is done it'll be practical to add on extra routes heading due south as well as to the east via Craigmillar, as is currently planned for Line 3.

 

[waverley47]

It's important to remember though that we were doing this study circa fifteen years ago, and even then many of the improvements now being talked about were in the process of b/c ratios. Three tracking via the abbeyhill loop was and to a lesser extent is only really needed as an extra track to allow full service provision while four tracking as far as Portobello takes place. Running services via Abbeyhill is never going to be competitive and will be a slow crawl, and a reopened station at the stadium isn't ever going to work in terms of time taken vs benefit gained. The double lead at Portobello will also help things in the short run, but long term you have 2tph borders, minimum 4tph ECML fasts (LNER, crosscountry and the TPE when it happens) and minimum 2tph ECML slow (North Berwick/Dunbar). That's 8tph each direction into an already congested station throat and the eventual service provisions make a double lead junction into a two track section impractical at least.

Additionally, many of the improvements and problems we were studying were just starting to be understood, who could have forseen two decades ago even the massive boom that Edinburgh is currently undergoing. The new bore and four tracking are needed now, but realistically Network Rail is slow and unwieldy, and the recommendations we gave are still under discussion between various parties.

(Can't really say more than that as it's my job and a lot of future planning for the Edinburgh region is still under study, especially transport provision)

 

[railjock]

It's important to remember though that we were doing this study circa fifteen years ago, and even then many of the improvements now being talked about were in the process of b/c ratios. Three tracking via the abbeyhill loop was and to a lesser extent is only really needed as an extra track to allow full service provision while four tracking as far as Portobello takes place. Running services via Abbeyhill is never going to be competitive and will be a slow crawl, and a reopened station at the stadium isn't ever going to work in terms of time taken vs benefit gained. The double lead at Portobello will also help things in the short run, but long term you have 2tph borders, minimum 4tph ECML fasts (LNER, crosscountry and the TPE when it happens) and minimum 2tph ECML slow (North Berwick/Dunbar). That's 8tph each direction into an already congested station throat and the eventual service provisions make a double lead junction into a two track section impractical at least.

Additionally, many of the improvements and problems we were studying were just starting to be understood, who could have forseen two decades ago even the massive boom that Edinburgh is currently undergoing. The new bore and four tracking are needed now, but realistically Network Rail is slow and unwieldy, and the recommendations we gave are still under discussion between various parties.

(Can't really say more than that as it's my job and a lot of future planning for the Edinburgh region is still under study, especially transport provision)

I think four tracking the mainline from Abbeyhill to Jocks Lodge will be very expensive. More likely to re-lay and use the Abbeyhill loop for local services, much as they did before, I would imagine.

 

[waverley47]

Four tracking would be very expensive yes, but is technically not that difficult. Using the rail alignment and demolishing two warehouses and some gardens gives you the space you need.

The Abbeyhill loop on the other hand is a cheap and quick fix, but doesn't actually give any benefit to through services (going beyond craigentinny depot).

The time it takes to go around a set of 30mph reverse curves and join back onto the double track section is pretty much exactly the same amount of time it would take to just wait a minute or two and send it down the main line, which it rejoins anyway.

Shoving a borders line service via Abbeyhill takes it off the main line for three minutes as it crawls around meadowbank, and lets a fast service fly past along the main line. You get exactly the same result by just sending the ECML fast in the first path, and then the borders service in the second path, both going down the main line.

Abbeyhill isn't useful for through timetabled services as such, instead it opens up operational flexibility and the ability to shove things out of the way for twenty minutes during disruption.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The idea of four-tracking the existing line is going to be complicated by the plans to redevelop Meadowbank:

Unless the masterplan deliberately sets out passive provision for four-tracking to modern standards, it looks like it won't happen.

Even without the other redevelopment it would only happen if the dis-benefit of just using the slow round-the-houses line was great enough to justify the significant cost of four-tracking. I don't really think it would be, because a three minute delay really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things when it enables many more trains to run. A slow but consistent speed is still a lot better than a fast line that is so busy you'll be caught behind reds all the way into the station.

One option could be to use the third line to enable tidal flow. The three-tracking could be continued all the way into Craigentinny, at which point there's plenty of land you could use for a flyover/under to implement some grade-separation. A flyover with two tracks could solve a lot of issues - heading eastwards it would run from the northern to the southern side of the tracks. What this gives you is grade-separation of Portobello Junction and the ability to run all three tracks west of there bi-directionally without crossover conflicts as you switch back into normal up/down running. Then you can use the slow track via Abbeyhill for the non-peak direction where the extra few minutes doesn't make so much of a difference. The grade-separation wouldn't be complete for all possible routes but it would avoid problems for the most time-sensitive ECML routing. It'd also clearly make it easier for trains to escape to Craigentinny or Millerhill depots, or even through to the South Sub and back round to Slateford. We could see some more passenger services run through to Brunstane/Newcraighall to turn back during the peaks if it's impractical to actually join them up with ECML suburban services.

 

[waverley47]

The meadowbank plans most definitley do have passive provision, we (Scottish government) and network rail made sure of that.

And by the time you've built a flyover the costs aren't that different, in addition to the timetabling issues. Yes a third track helps tidal flows, but operationally it's no different to sending stuff down the main line in a different order (see my last message)

 

[clc]

The latest on GARL.

This tweet from the leader of Glasgow City Council pretty much confirms that Labour’s tram train plan is not going to happen. She wants something better:-

https://mobile.twitter.com/susaninlangside/status/1088367550407364608

 

[NotATrainspott]

https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.go...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=P2G6DJEWHU900

I can't see any mention of passive-provision in the masterplan PPP submission. How recently did you work on this? It sounds plausible that it was kept as an option early on but then NR/TS have decided it's not worth it and dropped any requirement for passive-provision.

In the 2043 Route Study Appendices there are a number of possible interventions pencilled in for future control periods:

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Scotland-Route-Study-Appendices.pdf

1.5.1
Calton North Tunnel double tracking + phase 1 East throat remodelling.
Capacity
2
Increase capacity approaching Edinburgh Waverley ahead of anticipated growth in ECML long distance and local services. Consider in
conjunction with options 1.1.2, 1.5.4, 1.5.6 and 1.5.7.
Progress - timetable assessment required and consideration of Waverley East throat / other capacity interventions between Criagentinny
and Waverley. Track lower required to facilitate doubling through the Tunnel.
CP7 (2024-2029)
£113-283m

1.5.6
3-4 track Powderhall Junction to Portobello Junction.
Regulation
2
Increases capacity approaching Waverley - supports future growth in ECML long distance and local services. Aligns with options 1.1.2, 1.5.1 and 1.5.3.
Progress - improves timetable and performance for ECML traffic flows, and capacity for ECS moves to / from Craigentinny and Millerhill.
CP9 (2034-2039)
£££-££££ (£100-250m - more than £250m)

1.5.7
Create Empty Coaching Stock (ECS) turnback facility at Abbeyhill.
Capacity
2
Enables Empty Coaching Stock to vacate Edinburgh Waverley, improving platform availability / reducing station dwell times.
Progress - minimises ECML capacity used for ECS moves between Millerhill / Craigentinny and Edinburgh Waverley. Review in relation to Edinburgh Suburban enhancements and ECML strategy to determine business case.
CP7 (2024-2029)
£16-38m

1.5.7 is essentially bringing back the Abbeyhill turnback proposed in the first iteration of EGIP.

Since there aren't any stations on this part of the ECML, is there any meaningful timetabling difference between a 'fast' and 'slow' service before Musselburgh? The ECML suburban four-tracking should solve those problems pretty comprehensively as it'll affect the track where the greatest speed differentials exist. Before Portobello Junction the slow trains would be the ones heading down to Brunstane or the depot.

While obviously my flyover isn't in the Route Study it would seem to maximise the utility of the proposed slow track via Abbeyhill. Presumably the Abbeyhill route could even be double-tracked or have the turnback facility built alongside to provide a 'pocket' turnback in between the running directions to minimise conflicting movements.

 

[alangla]

The latest on GARL.

This tweet from the leader of Glasgow City Council pretty much confirms that Labour’s tram train plan is not going to happen. She wants something better:-

https://mobile.twitter.com/susaninlangside/status/1088367550407364608

M8 bus lane!!!!!!!! Only needs to be from the M74 split to just before the M77 merge. Similar things exist on the M90 between the bridge & Newbridge.

 

[Aictos]

What actually is needed though here?

There's talk of Tram Trains, Bus lanes etc but what solution is actually better for Glasgow and I don't mean what's easiest for the Politicians!

 

[clc]

What actually is needed though here?

There's talk of Tram Trains, Bus lanes etc but what solution is actually better for Glasgow and I don't mean what's easiest for the Politicians!

For local connectivity - a tram from the city centre to the airport via several major trip generators.

For regional connectivity - cross city tunnel plus an on demand people mover from the airport to Paisley Gilmour Street station.

 

[Photohunter71]

https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.go...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=P2G6DJEWHU900

I can't see any mention of passive-provision in the masterplan PPP submission. How recently did you work on this? It sounds plausible that it was kept as an option early on but then NR/TS have decided it's not worth it and dropped any requirement for passive-provision.

In the 2043 Route Study Appendices there are a number of possible interventions pencilled in for future control periods:

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Scotland-Route-Study-Appendices.pdf

1.5.1
Calton North Tunnel double tracking + phase 1 East throat remodelling.
Capacity
2
Increase capacity approaching Edinburgh Waverley ahead of anticipated growth in ECML long distance and local services. Consider in
conjunction with options 1.1.2, 1.5.4, 1.5.6 and 1.5.7.
Progress - timetable assessment required and consideration of Waverley East throat / other capacity interventions between Criagentinny
and Waverley. Track lower required to facilitate doubling through the Tunnel.
CP7 (2024-2029)
£113-283m

1.5.6
3-4 track Powderhall Junction to Portobello Junction.
Regulation
2
Increases capacity approaching Waverley - supports future growth in ECML long distance and local services. Aligns with options 1.1.2, 1.5.1 and 1.5.3.
Progress - improves timetable and performance for ECML traffic flows, and capacity for ECS moves to / from Craigentinny and Millerhill.
CP9 (2034-2039)
£££-££££ (£100-250m - more than £250m)

1.5.7
Create Empty Coaching Stock (ECS) turnback facility at Abbeyhill.
Capacity
2
Enables Empty Coaching Stock to vacate Edinburgh Waverley, improving platform availability / reducing station dwell times.
Progress - minimises ECML capacity used for ECS moves between Millerhill / Craigentinny and Edinburgh Waverley. Review in relation to Edinburgh Suburban enhancements and ECML strategy to determine business case.
CP7 (2024-2029)
£16-38m

1.5.7 is essentially bringing back the Abbeyhill turnback proposed in the first iteration of EGIP.

Since there aren't any stations on this part of the ECML, is there any meaningful timetabling difference between a 'fast' and 'slow' service before Musselburgh? The ECML suburban four-tracking should solve those problems pretty comprehensively as it'll affect the track where the greatest speed differentials exist. Before Portobello Junction the slow trains would be the ones heading down to Brunstane or the depot.

While obviously my flyover isn't in the Route Study it would seem to maximise the utility of the proposed slow track via Abbeyhill. Presumably the Abbeyhill route could even be double-tracked or have the turnback facility built alongside to provide a 'pocket' turnback in between the running directions to minimise conflicting movements.

Could there be a future use of the old Portobello freightliner terminal route? Suggestion being, dismantle the existing container goliath and modify the track to allow a passing loop, or do the plans to upgrade the junction include some modification of the old freightliner yard?

 

[clc]

‘Top level meeting to thrash out future of Glasgow's airport rail link’

https://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news...ash-out-future-of-glasgows-airport-rail-link/

 

[alangla]

Also this one - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-47054170 if Glasgow Airport’s MD thinks it’s so important to have a rail link, why don’t AGS Airports put their hand in their pocket & pay for one?

 

[clc]

If done properly an on demand people mover could effectively make Gilmour Street station an extension of the airport. Gilmour Street has 11tph so maximum waiting time would be around 6 minutes compared to 15 minutes for a Tram train from the terminal. And if the cross city tunnel was built Gilmour Street would have direct services to Edinburgh, Stirling, Perth, Dundee and numerous towns in between. Tram train could never provide that level of regional connectivity.

 

[railjock]

If done properly an on demand people mover could effectively make Gilmour Street station an extension of the airport. Gilmour Street has 11tph so maximum waiting time would be around 6 minutes compared to 15 minutes for a Tram train from the terminal. And if the cross city tunnel was built Gilmour Street would have direct services to Edinburgh, Stirling, Perth, Dundee and numerous towns in between. Tram train could never provide that level of regional connectivity.

Does Scotland really need two large airports though? Should transport infrastructure ( and services ) be focussed on Edinburgh airport which is better located.

 

[Highland37]

No as it is not better located for many people. I live in Inverness and it's much easier to get to Glasgow Airport.

 

[InOban]

How come it's easier to get to GLA?

 

[Highland37]

Personal circumstances. There is also a bigger population around Glasgow and Ayrshire is also a big area. I also prefer Glasgow Airport and the journey to it. Can't be arsed with pretend integrated transport facilities such as a railway line right next to an airport but no station. Trams are a pain also in Edinburgh relative to the bus.

 

[InOban]

On the other hand my cousin in NE Glasgow flies from EDI because it's easier to get to. My other half and I are going to Dublin next week. We will fly from EDI because we can stay overnight within 5min of one of the four Skyline bus services, which are free to us.

 

[Highland37]

Exactly, horses for courses. Of course, we should be doing less flying overall. It's wrecking the environment.

When I lived in Oban, GLA was much easier also.

 

[railjock]

No as it is not better located for many people. I live in Inverness and it's much easier to get to Glasgow Airport.

Fair enough, but crossing Glasgow to get to the airport is a nightmare, regardless of travel mode.

 

[Highland37]

I find it quite easy. Bike is especially good. Car based is horrendous and it's quite good fun cycling past queues on the way to Braehead. Although, moving a chest of drawers by bike isn't as easy.

When I see the disused railway at Braehead I find myself wondering what the actual issue is with getting it open, apart from lack of will and lack of money.

 

[scotrail158713]

Does Scotland really need two large airports though? Should transport infrastructure ( and services ) be focussed on Edinburgh airport which is better located.

Are you being entirely serious? I see no reason for a whole country to have 2 decent international airports. The population of London is only a bit more than Scotland yet London has 5 (Southend isn’t anywhere near London )

 

[gghdeo]

Are you being entirely serious? I see no reason for a whole country to have 2 decent international airports. The population of London is only a bit more than Scotland yet London has 5 (Southend isn’t anywhere near London )

The London example is a bad comparison, because those airports are the primary airports for the entire south of England. Moreover, Heathrow, and to an extent Gatwick, are the primary international hubs for the entire UK. A better comparison would be Ireland with Dublin being their primary large airport.

 

[boabt]

The London example is a bad comparison, because those airports are the primary airports for the entire south of England. Moreover, Heathrow, and to an extent Gatwick, are the primary international hubs for the entire UK. A better comparison would be Ireland with Dublin being their primary large airport.

I thought the primary international hub for the entire UK was Amsterdam Schipol
Anyway given the expansion that both Edinburgh and Glasgow already are having to make to meet future demand, the idea we should shut one is a bit daft.
Glasgow Airport contributes £1.44bn to the Scottish economy - why we would we want to shift that more towards Edinburgh?

 

[scotrail158713]

The London example is a bad comparison, because those airports are the primary airports for the entire south of England. Moreover, Heathrow, and to an extent Gatwick, are the primary international hubs for the entire UK. A better comparison would be Ireland with Dublin being their primary large airport.

I can agree with you to an extent. Maybe my London analogy wasn’t great. But Dublin isn’t really effective either because I would say it is the only large city in Ireland. I know that there are cities like Cork but Cork and Dublin are hardly equal comparisons with Edinburgh and Glasgow. In Scotland Edinburgh has less people but it is the capital and has the Parliament and Glasgow is a lot bigger in terms of population. With Ireland though, Dublin is bigger and is also the capital of Ireland.

Sorry, I’ve gone right off topic though.

 

[gghdeo]

I thought the primary international hub for the entire UK was Amsterdam Schipol

Haha, true.

Anyway given the expansion that both Edinburgh and Glasgow already are having to make to meet future demand, the idea we should shut one is a bit daft.
Glasgow Airport contributes £1.44bn to the Scottish economy - why we would we want to shift that more towards Edinburgh?

I do agree, actually. I'd say it would be almost impossible politically and financially to force the creation of one primary Scottish international airport. Besides, right now Edinburgh and Glasgow compete and that can't be a bad thing. The only disadvantage that I can see is that we end up with piecemeal developments, although that's perhaps not directly related.

And yeah, we're way off topic now!

 

[route101]

No as it is not better located for many people. I live in Inverness and it's much easier to get to Glasgow Airport.

Do you use the A82 or something?

 

[Dryce]

Fair enough, but crossing Glasgow to get to the airport is a nightmare, regardless of travel mode.

It's not.

The supposed problems are usually inflated by those who want preferential treatment or EDI or what to justify an expensive rail link to GLA.

And the Paisley airport link is not well known by users. I suspect very few people even realise that you can buy a rail ticket to the airport. Though this isn't helped by the offputting operation of the bus link which takes a convoluted and extended route. If I was going to invest in a public transport upgrade for GLA then I'd build an accessible bus station SE of the terminal building with quick dedicated access roads to get to paisley and the motorway access. And I'd have a quick bus link to Gilmour Street that literally didn't go round the houses.