Popup Stations

[Altnabreac]

If the Lentran Loop went ahead then an hourly frequency would be possibly between Inverness and Tain, so you could give Evanton a bi-hourly frequency at least.

Errol would fit into the hourly new Glasgow-Dundee-Carnoustie-Arbroath service. Newtonhill would slide neatly onto the Aberdeen CrossRail services.

Remember that this is for experimental platforms only. I'm not saying 'build it and they will come', but it's a good way of testing the waters - otherwise you may as well be building standard stations.

Cambus/Tullibody, Clackmannan and Kincardine would also be possibilities.

I'm just pointing out that you can see pretty clearly which of those stations will be any use without the need to build temporary platforms. You'd be better off doing a couple of stations that actually have a reasonable demand case properly than building 10 poor quality stations of which 6 will generate no passengers.

 

[Darren R]

I'm guessing that all those who think this is a great idea have no mobility issues. Could someone care to explain to (for example) a person in a wheelchair why they won't be able to use the new 'pop-up' station just round the corner from their home or place of work? "Oh you want to use the new station? Well you can't - not until we know there's sufficient demand. Come back in a couple of years - we might have built a proper station by then."

Emergency situations like that which gave rise to the temporary station at Workington North are one thing, but building stations that are not accessible to all is not acceptable in one of the world's wealthiest countries in this day and age. The law requires accessibility and rightly so. People with disabilities travel on public transport and pay taxes too.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm guessing that all those who think this is a great idea have no mobility issues. Could someone care to explain to (for example) a person in a wheelchair why they won't be able to use the new 'pop-up' station just round the corner from their home or place of work? "Oh you want to use the new station? Well you can't - not until we know there's sufficient demand. Come back in a couple of years - we might have built a proper station by then."

Emergency situations like that which gave rise to the temporary station at Workington North are one thing, but building stations that are not accessible to all is not acceptable in one of the world's wealthiest countries in this day and age. The law requires accessibility and rightly so. People with disabilities travel on public transport and pay taxes too.

I'm sure a simple ramp from the lane to the platform could be provided relatively easily in most cases.

 

[Non Multi]

I'm guessing that all those who think this is a great idea have no mobility issues. Could someone care to explain to (for example) a person in a wheelchair why they won't be able to use the new 'pop-up' station just round the corner from their home or place of work? "Oh you want to use the new station? Well you can't - not until we know there's sufficient demand. Come back in a couple of years - we might have built a proper station by then."

Emergency situations like that which gave rise to the temporary station at Workington North are one thing, but building stations that are not accessible to all is not acceptable in one of the world's wealthiest countries in this day and age. The law requires accessibility and rightly so. People with disabilities travel on public transport and pay taxes too.

There are temporary lifts that use a container structure, such as from RECO Hoist. Bolting them to the ends of a Bailey bridge seems feasible.

 

[kkong]

1 would be impossible to timetable (Kittybrewster)

What's the problem with Kittybrewster?

Is the line not going to be doubled through there in a few month's time?

Or does the doubling only start from NW of the old Kittybrewster station site?

I know it was decided not to re-double all the way into Aberdeen because of the Schoolhill and Hutcheon Street tunnels, but I'm not aware of any constraints to double tracking once NW of Hutcheon Street tunnel.

So it would be a shame if they are only starting the double tracking beyond Kittybrewster.

 

[snowball]

I'm guessing that all those who think this is a great idea have no mobility issues. Could someone care to explain to (for example) a person in a wheelchair why they won't be able to use the new 'pop-up' station just round the corner from their home or place of work? "Oh you want to use the new station? Well you can't - not until we know there's sufficient demand. Come back in a couple of years - we might have built a proper station by then."

Emergency situations like that which gave rise to the temporary station at Workington North are one thing, but building stations that are not accessible to all is not acceptable in one of the world's wealthiest countries in this day and age. The law requires accessibility and rightly so. People with disabilities travel on public transport and pay taxes too.

Tio Terry said in #21 that the Equalities Act applies to temporary stations.

 

[Altnabreac]

What's the problem with Kittybrewster?

Is the line not going to be doubled through there in a few month's time?

Or does the doubling only start from NW of the old Kittybrewster station site?

I know it was decided not to re-double all the way into Aberdeen because of the Schoolhill and Hutcheon Street tunnels, but I'm not aware of any constraints to double tracking once NW of Hutcheon Street tunnel.

So it would be a shame if they are only starting the double tracking beyond Kittybrewster.

i'm not a train planner but I'm basing the assumption on the Ellon reopening feasibility study that showed without full redoubling of the tunnels it would only be possible to run an extra 1tph service from Aberdeen to Dyce.

2 additional stations (Bucksburn and Kittybrewster) are likely to use as much if not more capacity as 1tph non stop so it seems very unlikely both could reopen without further money being spend on doubling in the tunnels.

See here:
http://www.nestrans.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FPASTS-1plus-Ellon-Rail-Study_Final-Report.pdf

 

[kkong]

A recent ScotRail presentation [1] says that from the 2019 timetable, Aberdeen-Inverurie will be half-hourly all day and every 20 minutes in the peaks.

So infrastructure is there for 3 tph, so I am sure Kittybrewster could be made to work in a timetabling sense - even if not for all trains.

[1] See page 5: http://www.tactran.gov.uk/documents/1SPRiR2018Timetable.pdf

 

[backontrack]

A recent ScotRail presentation [1] says that from the 2019 timetable, Aberdeen-Inverurie will be half-hourly all day and every 20 minutes in the peaks.

So infrastructure is there for 3 tph, so I am sure Kittybrewster could be made to work in a timetabling sense - even if not for all trains.

[1] See page 5: http://www.tactran.gov.uk/documents/1SPRiR2018Timetable.pdf

They couldn't do much worse than to send one of those trains to Oldmeldrum.

But that's for a different thread.

 

[Bald Rick]

Pop up stations will also need pop up timetable changes, which could be rather tricky in some places. (But by no means all).

 

[Altnabreac]

A recent ScotRail presentation [1] says that from the 2019 timetable, Aberdeen-Inverurie will be half-hourly all day and every 20 minutes in the peaks.

So infrastructure is there for 3 tph, so I am sure Kittybrewster could be made to work in a timetabling sense - even if not for all trains.

[1] See page 5: http://www.tactran.gov.uk/documents/1SPRiR2018Timetable.pdf

Exactly. The infrastructure is there for 3tph with no stops between Dyce and Aberdeen. Different story trying to make a timetable work with two more stops.

 

[InOban]

Essentially, a pop-up station is feasible on a single track line. On a double track, it impossible unless there is a nearby bridge, with good pavement, from which adequate ramps can be provided. No-one would now create a station alongside a level crossing.

 

[kkong]

Exactly. The infrastructure is there for 3tph with no stops between Dyce and Aberdeen. Different story trying to make a timetable work with two more stops.

I'm not suggesting two more stops. I've not mentioned Bucksburn.

And not 3 trains per hour would need to stop at Kittybrewster.

If the infrastructure can support 2 tph Aberdeen-Inverurie all day, rising to 3 tph in the peaks, then surely it can support calls at an intermediate station, at least outside the peaks.

 

[Altnabreac]

I'm not suggesting two more stops. I've not mentioned Bucksburn.

And not 3 trains per hour would need to stop at Kittybrewster.

If the infrastructure can support 2 tph Aberdeen-Inverurie all day, rising to 3 tph in the peaks, then surely it can support calls at an intermediate station, at least outside the peaks.

The original article in the Scotsman suggested Bucksburn and Kittybrewster. One way to guarantee a station fails to attract custom is to only give it a 1tph service with no calls in the peak.

It would need careful looking at by ttain planners but all capacity issues are compromises. Just saying it can cope with 3tph so it must be possible to add 2 new station calls doesn't make it true.

 

[JohnR]

Errol

Population of 1,300, almost a mile distant from the station and poor quality unlit walking route. Also a lack of services to serve the station although future Glasgow – Dundee semi fasts could be of use here. Using Invergowrie as a comparator station and adjusting for relative population gives an annual usage estimate of 3,000 entries and exits. A regular service might help here but even using as a comparator somewhere like Dunkeld suggests 20,000 entries and exits as an upper limit.

Errol has been discussed as a possible location for a large-scale housing development. That was put on the back-burner in the financial crisis, but with the need for housing not going away, is sure to be back on the radar. I'd guess a new station would be part of those plans.

Newtonhill

Population of 3,000 but busy section of line with lack of services for local stops. Might be more achievable once new Montrose – Inverurie local service starts. Using Portlethen as a comparator station and adjusting for relative population gives an annual usage estimate of 20,000 entries and exits.

Unfair to look at Portlethen as a comparator - it currently only has 11 trains each way. As you say, the new local service will be suitable for this station, and I would guess that with a more regular service, usage at Portlethen would increase too.

 

[Altnabreac]

Errol has been discussed as a possible location for a large-scale housing development. That was put on the back-burner in the financial crisis, but with the need for housing not going away, is sure to be back on the radar. I'd guess a new station would be part of those plans.



Unfair to look at Portlethen as a comparator - it currently only has 11 trains each way. As you say, the new local service will be suitable for this station, and I would guess that with a more regular service, usage at Portlethen would increase too.

But that's my whole point. Just building pop up stations is pointless without also investing in new services, redoubled infrastructure, electrification, improved line speeds, housing development strategies etc.

To do those wider things you need a proper business case. A proper business case for those wider enhancements and developments needs a commitment to a permanent station. Which brings us full circle that pop up stations are not going to work as they won't give developers confidence to invest in an Errol new town or give Scotrail confidence to invest in a new Montrose semi fast service.