• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

New ScotRail electric services to Cumbernauld and Whifflet

Status
Not open for further replies.

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
3,299
Location
North West
With the lines to Cumbernauld and Whifflet having been electrified recently and electric trains having been introduced there in May, I wonder what classes of stock run there? I hope to ride refurbished class 314, 320 and 318 if possible so hope these are included!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Eng274

Member
Joined
19 Aug 2010
Messages
796
From what I've seen, some of the evening peak cumbernaulds are extensions to the Coatbridge Central services which run via the Hamilton circle, hence are normally booked 318/320 units. I believe 318/320s possibly work the Motherwell-cumbernaulds as well but don't quote me.
 

ianhr

Member
Joined
17 Sep 2013
Messages
534
I was aware that the Cumbernauld line from Springburn and Coatbridge is now live but has the Rutherglen & Coatbridge route to Whifflet been switched on yet?
 

Class 170101

On Moderation
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
8,664
Whifflet to Rutherglen isn't finished yet. I was up there last month and it seems they still had a lot of serious work to do.

Motherwell services now extend to Cumbernauld as electric trains vice terminating at Coatbridge Central.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,357
Location
Bolton
So... has an updated version of this been released? I was under the impression that services via Bellgrove which used to terminate at Springburn now reverse back out and continue to Stepps, Gartcosh, Greenfaulds and Cumbernauld? But the map doesn't show it. The map doesn't even show Cladercruix... but the Roundabout one does!

Could I also ask, not so much in mapping context, have there been any changes to Motherwell - Cumbernauld? It was a 158 when I used it on my visit to the area.
 

Segedunum

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Joined
22 Dec 2013
Messages
4,758
Location
Up North
It was a 320 a couple of weeks back, with the wires being up.
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,856
The South Clyde network is probably one of the most complex timetables to remember! It usually goes Milngavie-Hamilton-Motherwell (shown to terminate / originate)-Bellshill-Yoker-Dalmuir and return. It all goes a bit pear shaped in the peaks however, with the example you linked to usually being a Milngavie-Lanark service off-peak!
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,726
OT... but ouch! This means that in theory trains to Cumbernauld are now slower than the coaches?
 

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
3,299
Location
North West
Whifflet to Rutherglen isn't finished yet. I was up there last month and it seems they still had a lot of serious work to do.

Motherwell services now extend to Cumbernauld as electric trains vice terminating at Coatbridge Central.

I have recently noticed that Whifflet is indeed not yet electrified but due to be completed in December.

I wonder whether these electric trains from Motherwell to Cumbernauld work as a shuttle, or continue to Dalmuir via Springburn and Queen Street?
 

92002

Established Member
Joined
27 Mar 2014
Messages
1,261
Location
Clydebank
I have recently noticed that Whifflet is indeed not yet electrified but due to be completed in December.

I wonder whether these electric trains from Motherwell to Cumbernauld work as a shuttle, or continue to Dalmuir via Springburn and Queen Street?

The other part of the equation are the extension of the Dalmuir to Springburn
services, via Glasgow Queen Street. These are a mixture of 318/320 or 334s.
Some peak devices start from or finish at other destinations.
 

PaxVobiscum

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
2,411
Location
Glasgow
Whifflet to Rutherglen isn't finished yet. I was up there last month and it seems they still had a lot of serious work to do.

According to RailScot, some of the wiring is up now, but clearly there is zero possibility of it being ready for the Commonwealth Games in July as was promised in Keith Brown's speech announcing the Whifflet electrification was being brought forward. Let's just hope that the programme of early evening bus replacements is suspended during "The Glasgow Olympics" which some of the locals seem to be thinking are taking place in July and August.:D
 

SeanG

Established Member
Joined
4 May 2013
Messages
1,378
As a general rule around Glasgow:
Local services from Central High Level are 314s and 380s.
Local services from Queen St & Central L.L are 320s and 318s
 

92002

Established Member
Joined
27 Mar 2014
Messages
1,261
Location
Clydebank
As a general rule the bulk of Queen St LL services are 334s. Which are
on Helensburgh/Milngavie/Bathgate/Edinburgh services, as well as other
odd services for type retention. The balance of services from Dalmuir/Milngavie
to Cumbernauld and Airdrie are 320s or 318s. Which regularly operate in
multiple at peak times.

Odd 334s can be found on Central LL services for type retention.
 

4SRKT

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2009
Messages
4,409
Will electrification of the Springburn > Cumbernauld section and extension of the Dalmuir > Springburn service to Cumbernauld see the end of the diesel service from Queen St High Level? What about through services to Falkirk Grahamston?
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,357
Location
Bolton
Will electrification of the Springburn > Cumbernauld section and extension of the Dalmuir > Springburn service to Cumbernauld see the end of the diesel service from Queen St High Level? What about through services to Falkirk Grahamston?

The electrification you refer to is complete...

The Falkirk Grahamston service still operates at 1tph - I used it the other day. Springburn - Queen St is quicker on that than going via Bellgrove!

I guess it used to operate more frequently? Shame really if so!
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,856
Falkirk G-Cumbernauld has been hourly for as long as I can remember, certainly it was in the years leading up to juicing. Pre-juicing there was only 2tph Queen St-Cumbernauld, now there's 3tph, two of which are somewhat slower however. I believe there are also now a few extra trains per day to Motherwell too - the peaks that used to terminate at Coatbridge Central now run through.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,304
Once Queen Street HL is wired I believe the plan is to return to the previous service pattern, albeit with the Cumbernauld service now electric. Once the E&G mainline is done the next priority is getting Falkirk Grahamston wired so that there's a diversionary route and so that the other service through Cumbernauld can be run with electric trains.
 

Class 170101

On Moderation
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
8,664
Seems strange in a way.

I would have thought it better now to extend the wires from Cumbernauld to Edinburgh and from Cowlairs to Glasgow Queen Street High Level first and then wire the High Level to Polmont (via Falkirk High) section next, particularly since Cumbernauld to Falkirk Grahamston doesn't have a Sunday service.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,304
Seems strange in a way.

I would have thought it better now to extend the wires from Cumbernauld to Edinburgh and from Cowlairs to Glasgow Queen Street High Level first and then wire the High Level to Polmont (via Falkirk High) section next, particularly since Cumbernauld to Falkirk Grahamston doesn't have a Sunday service.

The justification for getting the E&G shuttle done first is that this is where the extra capacity from EMU operation is needed the most out of all the other lines. The plan is for 7 car (3+4) 23m EMUs to run it immediately after electrification and 8 car (4+4) 23m EMUs (i.e. an extra carriage inserted into the 3 car units, just as how the Pendolinos went from 8 to 9 to 11 carriages) to run it once all platform extension works have completed. In the immediate short term extra capacity on the other routes via Cumbernauld can be achieved by using the 170s cascaded off the E&G without needing to do any platform extensions.

To the best of my knowledge all the clearance works are happening across the entire EGIP programme at the same time so by the time the wiring teams have finished with the E&G it will not take them very long to do the remaining routes. For example, recent works have included footbridge work at Dunblane, the replacement of Hope St bridge next to Falkirk Grahamston and the replacement of the Main Street bridge in Larbert.
 

GaryMcEwan

Established Member
Joined
20 Aug 2013
Messages
1,604
Location
Bridgeton, Glasgow
There's also been talk of this Glasgow Crossrail which would link Central and QS instead of having to walk from either station and as a result of it it ever happening, it would give the possibility of Glasgow Cross reopening...
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,304
There's also been talk of this Glasgow Crossrail which would link Central and QS instead of having to walk from either station and as a result of it it ever happening, it would give the possibility of Glasgow Cross reopening...

Strategic Transport Projects Review - Report 3 - October 2008

Appendix D - Interventions Retained after Detailed Appraisal
...
D25 - West of Scotland Strategic Rail Enhancements
This intervention supports the terminal capacity issues in Glasgow, which significantly constrain the future ability of the rail network in the West of Scotland to respond to challenges and facilitate change. This intervention supports the objectives to address rail capacity issues in central Glasgow and increase public transport access to areas of economic activity. It also assists in contributing to objectives within corridors that serve Glasgow. The detail of the strategy to address this includes some or all of the following components, recognising the opportunity for early wins and an incremental and scalable solution:
• The provision of a new city centre surface station to the east of Glasgow Central linking the rail network to the south and east of the city;
• The provision of a new city centre sub-surface station as part of a tunnel below the city centre linking the north and south rail networks; and/or
• The development of a Metro network across Glasgow comprising a mixture of conversion of heavy rail (e.g. part or all of the Cathcart Circle), lines on existing redundant infrastructure (e.g. Great Western Road / Botanic Gardens), new lines (e.g.
Clyde Waterfront) and some on-road or next-to-road sections.
Both of the new city centre station options would provide additional platform capacity in the city centre and permit crosscity services to be provided.
A Metro system could include new stations, improved service frequencies and improved access to and across central
Glasgow. The system would be rolled out on a phased basis. The operational concept for the system using proven
technology could be expanded to include a new crossing of the Clyde to around the Southern General Hospital and other lines to link areas not currently served by the heavy rail network.

Approximate cost of intervention:
£1.5bn – £3bn

Summary: Rationale for selection:
Existing Glasgow rail terminal capacity will be at capacity within the timeframe of STPR. The lack of future rail terminal capacity places a significant constraint on the provision of additional rail services to meet future growth.
The analysis has identified that previous development of the rail network in the West of Scotland has been successful in making best use of the network by implementing small scale interventions and targeting individual constraints. The issue of terminal capacity cannot be addressed in this way, meaning that a ‘step-change’ is required in order to meet predicted future demand. This ‘step-change’ will be supported by some smaller scale interventions and enabling works. Some of these may be deliverable earlier than the major component(s) and allow some interim relief to be gained.
Detailed analysis of the problems has been undertaken to understand the function of the terminal capacity issues within the wider West of Scotland context. This analysis in conjunction with the objectives has allowed the identification of three broad core elements, each of which could form the basis of the strategy to address the objectives:
• New surface station east of Glasgow Central;
• New sub-surface station between Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street; and
• Development of a Metro network.
Development of these core elements has been undertaken to a level to confirm that each could provide a workable solution. This has included consideration of phasing and interaction both within and beyond the STPR period to deliver a meaningful solution. The elements identified vary in terms of cost, risk, phasing, potential benefits, delivery timescale and in the way that they address the objectives. The elements are also not exclusive, so the strategy could for example include a new city centre station and the development of certain Metro lines.

...

Appendix E - Interventions not retained after Detailed Appraisal
...
E3 - Construction of Glasgow Crossrail
This intervention supports the objectives to address rail capacity issues in central Glasgow and increase public transport access to areas of economic activity.
Glasgow Crossrail consists of a range of infrastructure measures that could be implemented in phases over time. For the purposes of this assessment, the intervention consists of the reopening of the Glasgow City Union Line over the Clyde to passenger trains, with two new spurs:
• The Strathbungo Link from Muirhouse to the City Union Line allowing trains from East Kilbride and Kilmarnock to access the City Union Line; and
• The High Street curve from the City Union Line to the North Electric Line heading west at High Street.
Additional services would be provided, such as Ayr to Edinburgh and Croy to Barrhead, with a new turnback facility at Croy.
Some services that currently operate into Central High Level would be diverted to Charing Cross via Queen Street Low Level, such as East Kilbride services, with a new turnback facility at Kelvinhaugh.

Approximate cost of intervention:
£100m - £250m

Rationale for not recommending
On balance, as a ‘stand alone’ intervention, Glasgow Crossrail performs reasonably well, however, it does not make best use of the rail network or integrate well with the menu of schemes required to satisfy the objectives of the STPR. The interventions set out in D25 (West of Scotland Strategic Rail Enhancements) offer better opportunities to enhance connectivity for the heaviest rail demand patterns in and around Glasgow, and could use elements of this intervention.
The committed improvements on the rail network between Edinburgh and Glasgow also provide a ‘step change’ in the connectivity of Glasgow Central to Edinburgh, resulting in enhanced connections for those travelling to and from the south and south west of Glasgow. This is likely to negate much of the potential benefit of Glasgow Crossrail.

When the main planning document for the Scottish Government's long-term transport policy rejects the Glasgow Crossrail concept in favour of a long-term option that would cost ten times more I think it's pretty clear why it hasn't happened yet. Just because something is technically feasible does not mean it is actually a good idea; the City Union line is exactly the same as the Edinburgh South Suburban Line (also included in the STPR document) in that it exists, it can't be closed but it can't really be used either.

EDIT: This shouldn't be interpreted as saying that TS are actually planning to build either option just yet, but as they say they will need to do something because 1. the capacity they are building now with EGIP will eventually fill up and 2. HS2 will eventually, properly reach Glasgow (and Edinburgh), 4x440m GC gauge perfectly-straight 12m wide platforms and all. I strongly suspect that Glasgow Central will be selected for the HS2 terminus given that Piccadilly was chosen over Salford Central for its vastly superior local transport connections.
 
Last edited:

clc

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2011
Messages
1,326
.

EDIT: This shouldn't be interpreted as saying that TS are actually planning to build either option just yet, but as they say they will need to do something because 1. the capacity they are building now with EGIP will eventually fill up and 2. HS2 will eventually, properly reach Glasgow (and Edinburgh), 4x440m GC gauge perfectly-straight 12m wide platforms and all. I strongly suspect that Glasgow Central will be selected for the HS2 terminus given that Piccadilly was chosen over Salford Central for its vastly superior local transport connections.

I admire your optimism but I suspect the Scottish and UK governments will settle for classic compatibles and a 3 hour journey time, which would capture 67% of the overall Scotland-London travel market according to Transport Scotland. The extra cost of building a HSR line all the way to the central belt, new stations and tunneling into central Edinburgh will run to, what, £10 billion perhaps? Assuming the maximum potential market share is 80% would any government be willing to spend that amount in Scotland for an additional 13% of the market? I doubt it.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,304
I admire your optimism but I suspect the Scottish and UK governments will settle for classic compatibles and a 3 hour journey time, which would capture 67% of the overall Scotland-London travel market according to Transport Scotland. The extra cost of building a HSR line all the way to the central belt, new stations and tunneling into central Edinburgh will run to, what, £10 billion perhaps? Assuming the maximum potential market share is 80% would any government be willing to spend that amount in Scotland for an additional 13% of the market? I doubt it.

13% of the market isn't much less than the 20% that rail currently has. That doesn't then include any extra demand that would be created from the move from air to rail. If classic-compatibles running at 3 hour timings still had to share track with freight along the WCML then it will still restrict what is possible for both; keeping them entirely separate makes it possible to optimise the whole length of the WCML and timetable for freight and stopper services. You're not going to get many more services along the length of it if you're still sharing track in the middle unless you want to spend lots of money on lots of dynamic loops. Also, you're not going to fit many more trains into Waverley without considerable works that would only be justified if it enabled captive services, so there's that as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top