New rail lines in Scotland

[Dennyboy]

Some of these are quite unrealistic.

It would be better to dual the A75 from Gretna to Stranraer.

Why Ullapool when there are towns like Tillicoultry, Clackmannan, Kinross, Crieff where the same £ spent would benefit vastly more people?

St Andrews and Fraserburgh I get.

Inverness to Fort William would be a sustainable key tourist route if electrified.

If you're going to build an HS line to Edinburgh and build a line to Carlisle through the borders. Maybe just build an HS line through the borders instead? With just two HS trains an hour, there'd be plenty of scope to run a "local" 125mph EMU behind each service.

Most redundant trackbed is still intact on the Symington-Galashiels (via Biggar, Peebles etc) is still unobstructed. Reconnecting to WCML @ Symington would bring Glasgow to just over an hour's commute of The Borders.

 

[Dennyboy]

I would expect Edinburgh commuters from East Kilbride to be a minute fraction of those to Glasgow - Apart from anything else, if you worked in or around Edinburgh, East Kilbride would not be high on your list of places to live! Therefore, sadly, the traffic cannot justify the huge cost of a line eastwards from East Kilbride. The route should have been safeguarded, if indeed that was still possible, when East Kilbride was designated a New Town, but railways were not highly thought of back then.

'Want some diagramatic examples of my alignment vision? In essence my 4.023km/2.5mile track construction would feed/connect the Larkhall, Uddingston (inc' WCML) & Edinburgh corridors but I've illistrated a more ambitious Northern continuation. Meanwhile, voila!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Apr 2026 ==

The Herald have recently done a series of articles about Scotland's Railways and published an article by rail engineer and YouTuber Gareth Dennis with his view on where new rail lines in Scotland could/should be in the future.

View attachment 174304

Reimagining Scotland’s railways from the Highlands to the Scottish Borders

Rail expert Gareth Dennis reimagines the future of Scottish railways. Here is how it could look from the Highlands to the Scottish Borders.

www.heraldscotland.com

The


He also did a video going into more detail on these proposals:

Certainly they are ambitious proposals, however I'd be surprised to see any of them built (certainly in the next 25 years) with perhaps the exceptions of possibly a line out to Fraserburgh and an extension of the Borders Railway to Hawick.

The Herald have recently done a series of articles about Scotland's Railways and published an article by rail engineer and YouTuber Gareth Dennis with his view on where new rail lines in Scotland could/should be in the future.

View attachment 174304

Reimagining Scotland’s railways from the Highlands to the Scottish Borders

Rail expert Gareth Dennis reimagines the future of Scottish railways. Here is how it could look from the Highlands to the Scottish Borders.

www.heraldscotland.com

He also did a video going into more detail on these proposals:

Certainly they are ambitious proposals, however I'd be surprised to see any of them built (certainly in the next 25 years) with perhaps the exceptions of possibly a line out to Fraserburgh and an extension of the Borders Railway to Hawick.

A Borders extension, almost as far as WCML/Carlisle, would bring added potential for D&G connectivity were the GSW's Gretna terminus minimally realigned.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Apr 2026 ==

How come Peebles never gets proposed in lists like this? That’s a reasonable sized town with a route not unlike the one built to Tweedbank. Not saying it would be feasible, just curious why it doesn’t at least appear on wish lists like this ahead of nonsense like Fort William to Inverness.

Even if Peebles does lose out, ie should the Borders/Waverley reopening fail.to slign with the town, then this new 'North-Souther' will bolster the case for reopening the Syminton-Gala' 'East-Wester. Why? Because Biggar, Peebles, Innerleithen/Walkerburn and Gala' will be within 75min' commuting distance of Glasgow (Not to mention the Lanarkshires) by joining WCML..

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Apr 2026 ==

How would this work? For what journeys would the GSWR route be superior to the WCML? The only thing I can think of is that it could be used for daytime freight runnings- but how many of those are there, and in what circumstances would any freight operator accept such a roundabout route?

Edinburgh & Borders connectivity with D&G, especially were the Gtetna terminal realigned to join.

 

[waverley47]

Edinburgh & Borders connectivity with D&G, especially were the Gtetna terminal realigned to join.

The borders don't need a railway to Dumfries and Galloway. The Symington - Gala line will never reopen, that's dead and gone.

There is an argument, if you squint, for better connections from the south west to Edinburgh, although for most people, reopening some of the stations down the GSW and having a full 1tph service in each direction from Glasgow through to Carlisle would suffice.

A Borders extension, almost as far as WCML/Carlisle, would bring added potential for D&G connectivity were the GSW's Gretna terminus minimally realigned.

This is also not the way to improve connectivity; trying to link the south west with Edinburgh via a magical mystery tour around the mountains on the old Waverley route would be folly. That would easily be a two and a half hour journey time from Carlisle. At that sort of duration, waiting two hours for the next direct train from Lockerbie would be faster for 95% of journeys.

If you took the hypothetical pot of money that reopening would cost, you could just as easily spend it on reopening Symington and Moffat stations, tag on a few extra EMUs onto the new order, extend some of the loops over Beattock out to 775m, and run a semi-fast stopper down to Carlisle in the opposite hours from the Edinburgh TPE services. I can guarantee it would cost less overall.

'Want some diagramatic examples of my alignment vision? In essence my 4.023km/2.5mile track construction would feed/connect the Larkhall, Uddingston (inc' WCML) & Edinburgh corridors but I've illistrated a more ambitious Northern continuation. Meanwhile, voila!

Realistically, there's never going to be an extension of the line beyond East Kilbride. It's not worth it, and it's an easy change in Glasgow.

If you're looking for better connectivity from North Lanarkshire and south Glasgow to the east of Scotland, then the Shotts line provides a very good service now from Waverley to Central; I'll often get the fast services if I need to be at Central. With journeys at an hour and change, and services generally much quieter than the Falkirk High line, especially in summer, it's a nice jaunt.

If you're after more connections between North Lanarkshire/south Glasgow and the Forth Valley, then the solution is binning off the Cumbernauld extensions from the Argyll line services, and running a 1tph shuttle in each direction between Stirling to Motherwell, with new stations at Abronhill and Bonnybridge.

The questions one must ask when getting the crayon out, in order, are;

1. Is there a genuine problem here, a lack of connectivity, that needs a solution?

2. Have you looked at all the alternative solutions that could be implemented for much less money, and discarded them?

3. Is there a demand that would justify the cost of a new solution?

4. Is building a new railway, with all the costs and problems inherent in that, the right solution?

Only if all the answers are yes, then is it a plan that will be pursued. In this case, I don't really see the demand, I can think of several alternatives that would cost less, I don't think the number of passengers it would benefit would outweigh the cost, and I'm not sure building a new alignment and running brand new services is the best idea for this hypothetical problem. I'm afraid it's probably not going to happen, although I do enjoy the process of crayoning myself, and I can completely respect the art; I did it for a living and I enjoyed it thoroughly.

 

[AlastairFraser]

This is also not the way to improve connectivity; trying to link the south west with Edinburgh via a magical mystery tour around the mountains on the old Waverley route would be folly. That would easily be a two and a half hour journey time from Carlisle. At that sort of duration, waiting two hours for the next direct train from Lockerbie would be faster for 95% of journeys.

Would you be able to free up capacity on the WCML for those services by opening Borders Phase 2 and running Edinburgh intercity traffic that way though?

 

[najaB]

Would you be able to free up capacity on the WCML for those services by opening Borders Phase 2 and running Edinburgh intercity traffic that way though?

Yes. But there are cheaper ways to achieve that additional capacity on the WCML. For example some four-track sections on the north WCML to allow slower services to be passed without having to stop.

 

[stevieinselby]

Would you be able to free up capacity on the WCML for those services by opening Borders Phase 2 and running Edinburgh intercity traffic that way though?

The old route between Galashiels and Carlisle would be totally unsuitable for intercity traffic – with it's twisty and meandering alignment, you'd never get up to any speed and it would be a lot slower than the current route via Carstairs. And that's even before you consider whether you're able to fully double the track north of Galashiels and have bi-di tracks through some stations or other passing loops to avoid intercity trains getting stuck following the local stopping services. Although it looks like a more direct route on a map if you zoom out far enough and squint, when you zoom in the route starts to go a bit fractal and it isn't as direct as you might first think! Carving a new high-speed line through that corridor suitable for even 100mph running would be very expensive and challenging, and certainly not justified by the traffic using it – not even if HS2 was being built in full to make WCML the main route to Edinburgh.

 

[35B]

The old route between Galashiels and Carlisle would be totally unsuitable for intercity traffic – with it's twisty and meandering alignment, you'd never get up to any speed and it would be a lot slower than the current route via Carstairs. And that's even before you consider whether you're able to fully double the track north of Galashiels and have bi-di tracks through some stations or other passing loops to avoid intercity trains getting stuck following the local stopping services. Although it looks like a more direct route on a map if you zoom out far enough and squint, when you zoom in the route starts to go a bit fractal and it isn't as direct as you might first think! Carving a new high-speed line through that corridor suitable for even 100mph running would be very expensive and challenging, and certainly not justified by the traffic using it – not even if HS2 was being built in full to make WCML the main route to Edinburgh.

I believe the analysis was done, and it didn’t come out that badly.

 

[waverley47]

I believe the analysis was done, and it didn’t come out that badly.

It would be an extra hour on journey times, it wouldn't be wired throughout so you couldn't run through EMUs, and the capacity of a very very long single line would kill any promise of rerouting expresses that way. It's never going to reopen anyway, but reopening it for the purpose of diverting expresses that way is folly.

 

[35B]

It would be an extra hour on journey times, it wouldn't be wired throughout so you couldn't run through EMUs, and the capacity of a very very long single line would kill any promise of rerouting expresses that way. It's never going to reopen anyway, but reopening it for the purpose of diverting expresses that way is folly.

My understanding was that the analysis suggested more like 75-90 minutes for a fast train (I think Voyagers were in mind) from Edinburgh to Carlisle. A full hour's slower running would imply rather slower running than in my 1922 Bradshaws.

 

[waverley47]

My understanding was that the analysis suggested more like 75-90 minutes for a fast train (I think Voyagers were in mind) from Edinburgh to Carlisle. A full hour's slower running would imply rather slower running than in my 1922 Bradshaws.

Over the Waverley route???

We were modeling more like two hours and change. It's the best part of an hour to Tweedbank, and there's not capacity to run anything fast. That ship sailed when we had to cut out consecutive signal sections over the single line bits to save money.

The ruling line speed from Hawick over the hills to Newcastleton would be have been something like 50mph, its a very windy route. If you decided to invest significantly and build it as a double track, high speed line, then you could maybe get journey times down to 90-100 minutes, but that's never going to happen.

This is all immaterial anyway, the line isn't going to reopen, but the economics of reopening the Waverley line as a high speed main line are completely warped beyond any recognition of a BCR.

 

[35B]

Over the Waverley route???

We were modeling more like two hours and change. It's the best part of an hour to Tweedbank, and there's not capacity to run anything fast. That ship sailed when we had to cut out consecutive signal sections over the single line bits to save money.

The ruling line speed from Hawick over the hills to Newcastleton would be have been something like 50mph, its a very windy route. If you decided to invest significantly and build it as a double track, high speed line, then you could maybe get journey times down to 90-100 minutes, but that's never going to happen.

This is all immaterial anyway, the line isn't going to reopen, but the economics of reopening the Waverley line as a high speed main line are completely warped beyond any recognition of a BCR.

I agree on the odds - any chance went 25 years ago when the current Borders Line project firmed up. I'm trying to remember my source (I'd thought it was David Spaven's "Waverley Route" book but can't find the reference), but recall the analysis having been done before the changes you mention.

 

[najaB]

This is all immaterial anyway, the line isn't going to reopen, but the economics of reopening the Waverley line as a high speed main line are completely warped beyond any recognition of a BCR.

Indeed. You want to increase capacity of the northern WCML then you'll be making interventions on the WCML itself, not on a winding alternate route.

 

[Zomboid]

And if you really wanted to create space by getting freights out of the way there's the GSW sitting there waiting to be electrified.

Be better to build an uphill "crawler lane" over Beattock though.

 

[najaB]

And if you really wanted to create space by getting freights out of the way there's the GSW sitting there waiting to be electrified.

Be better to build an uphill "crawler lane" over Beattock though.

I reckon you could do both for less than a third of what (re)opening Carlisle to Tweedbank would cost, and also throw a couple of dynamic loops as well.

 

[Zomboid]

I reckon you could do both for less than a third of what (re)opening Carlisle to Tweedbank would cost, and also throw a couple of dynamic loops as well.

Let's build a high speed grade separated junction at Carstairs as well, then.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Yes. But there are cheaper ways to achieve that additional capacity on the WCML. For example some four-track sections on the north WCML to allow slower services to be passed without having to stop.

I'm not sure those enhancements really have the same connectivity benefits or potential to induce modal shift that Borders phase 2 would result in.

The old route between Galashiels and Carlisle would be totally unsuitable for intercity traffic – with it's twisty and meandering alignment, you'd never get up to any speed and it would be a lot slower than the current route via Carstairs. And that's even before you consider whether you're able to fully double the track north of Galashiels and have bi-di tracks through some stations or other passing loops to avoid intercity trains getting stuck following the local stopping services. Although it looks like a more direct route on a map if you zoom out far enough and squint, when you zoom in the route starts to go a bit fractal and it isn't as direct as you might first think! Carving a new high-speed line through that corridor suitable for even 100mph running would be very expensive and challenging, and certainly not justified by the traffic using it – not even if HS2 was being built in full to make WCML the main route to Edinburgh.

I agree that the old route would be unsuitable.
I would envisage a double track electrified 100mph plus new route (not really a reopening as such) from Tweedbank to Carlisle via stations at Selkirk Parkway, Hawick, Langholm and Longtown. It's not going to be cheap to build, because you'd need upgrades and electrification on the extant northern section too.
However, to increase capacity in the long term to Edinburgh while increasing connectivity and viability of communities in a quite isolated part of Scotland, perhaps it's the price you should pay.
Service wise, I'd run 1tph stopper as an extension from Tweedbank to Carlisle and 2tph express if possible (plus lots of freight on any spare paths).

My understanding was that the analysis suggested more like 75-90 minutes for a fast train (I think Voyagers were in mind) from Edinburgh to Carlisle. A full hour's slower running would imply rather slower running than in my 1922 Bradshaws.

It's definitely possible, although I'm not sure if the Scottish Government would be prepared to fork out that much cash for a line that is much lower priority to reopen than the Fraserburgh/Peterhead line/ the Port Road/Grangemouth for example.

And if you really wanted to create space by getting freights out of the way there's the GSW sitting there waiting to be electrified.

Be better to build an uphill "crawler lane" over Beattock though.

I was thinking of the Borders reopening as something to primarily increase capacity for services to Edinburgh/Fife/the North East, in addition
It's also important to note that freight would be probably still be routed via the WCML if the GSW was electrified, because their usual destination is Grangemouth/Coatbridge/Mossend, which are difficult to get to without a reversal somewhere from the GSW.
Best you could probably do is a magical mystery tour of Cambuslang, Hamilton and Motherwell to avoid that.

I reckon you could do both for less than a third of what (re)opening Carlisle to Tweedbank would cost, and also throw a couple of dynamic loops as well.

Barrhead to Carlisle electrification + a WCML upgrade for cheaper than approximately 55 miles of new electrified railway, and an upgrade of the existing Borders line including electrification?

 

[waverley47]

I would envisage a double track electrified 100mph plus new route (not really a reopening as such) from Tweedbank to Carlisle via stations at Selkirk Parkway, Hawick, Langholm and Longtown. It's not going to be cheap to build, because you'd need upgrades and electrification on the extant northern section too.

That's the best part of two billion quid....

 

[najaB]

Barrhead to Carlisle electrification + a WCML upgrade for cheaper than approximately 55 miles of new electrified railway, and an upgrade of the existing Borders line including electrification?

Yup. Scottish electrification projects are running around £3M per single-track kilometre. Assuming worst of worst case, you're looking at between £400M and £600M to electrify the line through to Carlisle (likely to actually be a lot less). As @waverley47 says, you won't get much change from £2B for building a new line from Carlisle to Tweedbank.

 

[Morayshire]

That's the best part of two billion quid....

On which there are far better things to spend said £2 billion quid on railway wise. (Not that the actual tender price would be near £2 billion in any event)

 

[Strathclyder]

Speaking as a near life-long Strathclyde resident, as much as I'd like to see completely new lines in my part of the network, as heavily-used as it is, is fantasy bordering on delusion in the current climate. Alternatively, might I suggest something a tad more realistic, cost-effective and might actually be value for money in the long-term? Redoubling the Balloch, Helensburgh & Milngavie branches. Singling them has turned to be detremental to the network's overall resilience and was a retrograde step in nearly every other aspect besides cost savings in the short-term & asset reuse (reused track & OHLE).

But, if I were pushed to get the crayons out and go off the wall like Gareth did in the video that kick-started this thread, an entirely new line - heavy-rail or tram-train - from Finnieston/Exhibition Centre under the Clyde to Glasgow Airport via QEU Hospital & Renfrew/Braehead. If anything, the original GARL scheme should have been part of a loop line from Shields Junction to Paisley St. James serving these destinations rather than just a stub branching off at Paisley St. James; would've been good future-proofing for the massive new hospital complex then in the planning stages, but that is pure undiluted delusion right there (and would have cost a fortune besides). Failing that, reopening the Maryhill Central line via Kelvinbridge & Botanic Gardens if you want to re-use as much existing/abandoned infrastructure as possible, though I've always puzzled over where you'd put the platform at Exhibition Centre in such proposals.

Or, going full crayonista (fuelled by sleep deprivation so likely even more full of holes than it otherwise would be), create a orbital line for the East End emcompassing Springburn-Gartcosh, Coatbridge Central, the Carmyle line, the City Union Line (with a new station built serving the Gorbals; doesn't have to be on the site of the long-closed station there), Bellgrove, the Springburn branch. A new/reinstated double-track south-facing spur/tunnel taking the line under the M74 & First Glasgow's depot would be built so that trains don't have to change ends at Shields Junction in order to gain access to Rutherglen and points beyond.

But I digress. If anywhere in Scotland were to get a entirely new railway line in this day and age, it would be somewhere in Glasgow or it's immediate environs.

 

[clc]

if I were pushed to get the crayons out and go off the wall like Gareth did in the video that kick-started this thread, an entirely new line - heavy-rail or tram-train - from Finnieston/Exhibition Centre under the Clyde to Glasgow Airport via QEU Hospital & Renfrew/Braehead. If anything, the original GARL scheme should have been part of a loop line from Shields Junction to Paisley St. James serving these destinations rather than just a stub branching off at Paisley St. James; would've been good future-proofing for the massive new hospital complex then in the planning stages, but that is pure undiluted delusion right there (and would have cost a fortune besides).

That corridor is probably the best candidate for a new line, but would heavy rail have a better business case than surface tram? Tram train spending a lot of time on unsegregated roads would likely import delays to the Argyle Line so perhaps wouldn’t be a good idea.

 

[Strathclyder]

That corridor is probably the best candidate for a new line, but would heavy rail have a better business case than surface tram? Tram train spending a lot of time on unsegregated roads would likely import delays to the Argyle Line so perhaps wouldn’t be a good idea.

If it were a tram-train line, I was thinking less of it branching off the existing Argyle line for precisely that reason and more of an entirely new line starting from Finnieston/Exhibition Centre (under the exisiting heavy-rail station), emerging on the south bank of the river somewhere near the Science Centre.

 

[AlastairFraser]

That's the best part of two billion quid....

£2 billion? I think that's a slight overestimate, but fair enough.

Yup. Scottish electrification projects are running around £3M per single-track kilometre. Assuming worst of worst case, you're looking at between £400M and £600M to electrify the line through to Carlisle (likely to actually be a lot less). As @waverley47 says, you won't get much change from £2B for building a new line from Carlisle to Tweedbank.

£3 million a km now? I don't think electrifying the G and SW is a particularly bad idea, I just think it's a bit crazy to do so as a way to relieve the northern WCML.
Wouldn't something like a Southern Uplands base tunnel Wamphray to Carstairs (with a spur to the Edinburgh) save a fair bit of time, if you were to invest in that end of the WCML?

 

[jeffinabox]

https://www.strathspey-herald.co.uk...g-bbc-traitors-railway-between-aviemo-434048/

Renewed hope of linking BBC Traitors’ railway between Aviemore and Grantown

First Minister John Swinney has pledged that a re-elected SNP Government would take forward a scoping exercise to examine the feasibility of connecting Grantown and Aviemore by rail.

Mr Swinney and his battle bus called into Aviemore on a return whirlwind visit to the Highlands - and all three constituencies - as the Holyrood 2026 poll looms large this Thursday.

It coincided with the SNP published its Highlands and Islands Regional Manifesto.

On his third and final stop of the tour last weekend, he visited Badenoch and Strathspey - which will be represented as part of one single seat in the new Scottish Parliament.

And it was just after this visit that he pledged to breathe new life into the bid to get the steam railway - made famous on the BBC’s most popular TV show Traitors - linked to Grantown.

The Strathspey Steam Railway’s volunteers continue to make headway towards the Strathspey capital but crossing the A95 Aviemore-Keith road - plans are for a tunnel at Gaich - will run well into the millions of pounds.

The project is one of the most important on the table to boost tourism and could even create a public transport link.

Mr Swinney said: “It is absolutely true that this project could have a huge economic impact locally and that it would be a real boost to the two communities.

"Equally however, I know there are some genuine logistical and technical issues which undoubtedly complicate matters.

“But if the tenacity of local campaigners who have worked so hard to advocate for this project for many years shows us anything, is that where there is a will there is a way.

"So that is why I am pleased to confirm that a re-elected SNP Government will take forward a scoping exercise to examine the feasibility of connecting Grantown and Aviemore by rail as the next vital step."

A Strathspey Stream Railway spokesman said: “The Rails to Grantown Project warmly welcomes the Scottish Government’s shift in stance, signalling a vital turning point for our region.

“Should the SNP form the next Government, we look forward to translating these expressions of support into the tangible infrastructure our community deserves.

“History proves that rail is the ultimate engine for growth.

“Just as the arrival of the railway 160 years ago first ignited the Strathspey economy, modern re-openings - from the Borders to Levenmouth - demonstrate that rail is a ‘win-win’ investment with no downside.

“These projects consistently exceed expectations, delivering increased tourism, economic growth, community regeneration and sustainable travel.”

 

[najaB]

First Minister John Swinney has pledged that a re-elected SNP Government would take forward a scoping exercise to examine the feasibility of connecting Grantown and Aviemore by rail.

This would be somewhat bittersweet as it would mean a lot of changes to the Strathspey Railway.

The Strathspey Steam Railway’s volunteers continue to make headway towards the Strathspey capital but crossing the A95 Aviemore-Keith road - plans are for a tunnel at Gaich - will run well into the millions of pounds.

Has anyone seen plans of what's intended for this tunnel? Having had a look on Google maps it doesn't look like the extant railway bed is significantly lower than the road.

All in all, for something like 4 miles of railway and a couple of bridges or a bridge and tunnel it looks like a value for money reconnection. That, of course, being dependant on the existing track from Aviemore to Broomhill being up to standard for passenger operations.

 

[MadMac]

It's also important to note that freight would be probably still be routed via the WCML if the GSW was electrified, because their usual destination is Grangemouth/Coatbridge/Mossend, which are difficult to get to without a reversal somewhere from the GSW.
Best you could probably do is a magical mystery tour of Cambuslang, Hamilton and Motherwell to avoid that.

Muirhouse South-Larkfield? Granted, you still have the problem of getting from the Clydesdale Lines across to the Slows to reach the R&C (from where you can get to all of the above) without affecting WCML and Argyle Line traffic, although that was done in the days of the iron ore trains to Ravenscraig.

 

[HighlandStorm]

This would be somewhat bittersweet as it would mean a lot of changes to the Strathspey Railway.

Has anyone seen plans of what's intended for this tunnel? Having had a look on Google maps it doesn't look like the extant railway bed is significantly lower than the road.

For people not familiar with the situation, the A95 used to pass under the railway line at this arch bridge. The Railway formation to the SW of the bridge was demolished to allow a realignment of the road.

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

From what I've heard an undertaking at the time was given that should the Strathspey Railway have the funds to reach Grantown and the line was nearing this area, the road would be back under the bridge. Clearly putting the A95 back under a height restricted narrow arch that would also require a double bend on the road is wholly unacceptable.

However not that much further south from this point the A95 climbs, the road is a fair height above the line just south of Gaich. So there is probably scope to put the road over or under the railway depending how much you tweak either alignment. Clearly to keep the road on its current alignment and the railway to its former, the road would have to be lowered considerably, and quite a substantial structure would be needed because the road crosses the old alignment at a very narrow angle vs right angles under the old bridge.

There is possible scheme plans in this document (PDF page 7) which show the road going over the railway at Gaich: https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/10301/taws-strathspey-railway-scoping-report.pdf

 

[AlastairFraser]

Muirhouse South-Larkfield? Granted, you still have the problem of getting from the Clydesdale Lines across to the Slows to reach the R&C (from where you can get to all of the above) without affecting WCML and Argyle Line traffic, although that was done in the days of the iron ore trains to Ravenscraig.

Yeah that's your other option, but as you say you're dealing with the WCML and Argyle Line then too

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I probably shouldn't advocate for this as it's an excellent cycle path and I'd be sad to lose it, but the track bed of the line from Alloa to the edge of Dunfermline along the old alignment is pretty clear. There's a real awkward few hundred meters where the railway alignment is used by the road, but from there, you could build a new station on the retail park, and the alignment from there to Dunfermline Queen Margaret is also clear.

Potentially some open heart surgery on central Dunfermline, but if the Dunfermline-Alloa line is to be reopened it'd be a much faster route than the coastal line and probably a better return on investment.

 

[najaB]

I probably shouldn't advocate for this as it's an excellent cycle path and I'd be sad to lose it, but the track bed of the line from Alloa to the edge of Dunfermline along the old alignment is pretty clear. There's a real awkward few hundred meters where the railway alignment is used by the road, but from there, you could build a new station on the retail park, and the alignment from there to Dunfermline Queen Margaret is also clear.

Potentially some open heart surgery on central Dunfermline, but if the Dunfermline-Alloa line is to be reopened it'd be a much faster route than the coastal line and probably a better return on investment.

We had a forum walk along that line a few years back, and yes it is mostly clear. But the question is if it would be worth the cost? What is the demand that's not currently being met?