Reinstating the 2nd platform at North Berwick

[och aye]

Would there be any benefit of reinstating the 2nd platform at North Berwick in terms of being able to stable an additional train there and freeing up space at Waverley or would the benefits be marginal that it wouldn't be worth the cost?

While on the subject of North Berwick, is there much benefit of extending the existing platform so the doors could open on the last carriage on 8 car trains? I think that the current platform can only handle 7 cars.

 

[Ianigsy]

Based on my experience of travelling on the Ilkley line for several years, it can be useful to have somewhere to put a unit out of the way until a fitter can get to it.

 

[Zomboid]

Depends how easy it would be. Is there space on land already owned by the railway? If not then it would almost certainly not be worth the effort.

 

[Falcon1200]

If North Berwick is not a Traincrew Depot, which I am 99.9% sure is the case, stabling a set there overnight would mean having to taxi crew home at night and back out in the morning.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

As a general rule, the terminus of a branch line is the last place you want to add capacity because you can't actually use it to increase frequency without other interventions elsewhere.

 

[waverley47]

It's at the end of a long single line section, that takes about ten minutes in each direction. You can run a reasonably efficient and reliable 2tph service down it, as evidenced by the timetable on Saturdays and at peak times. The reason we don't have a 2tph service all day on weekdays is mostly due to patching along the ECML, and an extra platform at North Berwick isn't going to help you there.

Adding a second platform would help you run extras like charters, but it can't help you run any more than 2tph, because of that single line section.

If you wanted to spend the same amount of money on an improvement that would actually help reliability, you'd add another east facing bay, probably two, at Waverley, because that would help separate out the North Berwick services from the Tweedbank ones for platform occupation.

 

[The exile]

If you wanted to spend the same amount of money on an improvement that would actually help reliability, you'd add another east facing bay, probably two, at Waverley, because that would help separate out the North Berwick services from the Tweedbank ones for platform occupation.

What an indication of the growth over the years since the days when trains arriving down the ECML could only access 5 platforms (+ the “sub” ones which were normally locked out of use!)

 

[Falcon1200]

If you wanted to spend the same amount of money on an improvement that would actually help reliability, you'd add another east facing bay, probably two, at Waverley, because that would help separate out the North Berwick services from the Tweedbank ones for platform occupation.

I have always (and especially since being the NR Controller for the ECML!) thought that relocating Drem Up platform to the Up passenger loop would offer benefits, allowing trains to North Berwick to clear the Up main line faster.

 

[Zomboid]

I have always (and especially since being the NR Controller for the ECML!) thought that relocating Drem Up platform to the Up passenger loop would offer benefits, allowing trains to North Berwick to clear the Up main line faster.

Since we're in the speculation zone, make the loop reversible so down trains could call there too, if necessary, without blocking the main. You'd probably still want a down platform though

 

[waverley47]

I have always (and especially since being the NR Controller for the ECML!) thought that relocating Drem Up platform to the Up passenger loop would offer benefits, allowing trains to North Berwick to clear the Up main line faster.

If you could do that along with increasing the speed into the loop up to sixty, that would be glorious. You'd have to negotiate with the heritage lot over the drastic reshaping of the station, but it's not like it's the busiest station in the world.

I'm sure the loss of the up loop would be felt though, although I'm sure you'd know more about that than I.

There's a lot more cross-border traffic than I ever envisaged when I was working. I remember signing off on building the Dolphinstone Deviation at Prestonpans, saying that a month blockade would be fine because demand meant that 1tph diverting via Carlisle would be enough. How times change.

 

[Zomboid]

You'd have to negotiate with the heritage lot over the drastic reshaping of the station, but it's not like it's the busiest station in the world

Just leave it there, like they've done at Culham.

 

[Falcon1200]

I'm sure the loss of the up loop would be felt though, although I'm sure you'd know more about that than I.

The Up loop would not be lost, the platform would simply be alongside it instead of the Up main - IIRC the Loop is not especially long anyway so it is of limited use for refuging freights.

 

[reb0118]

I recently came across this Imperial War Museum photo showing the Polish army defending the North Berwick branch in 1941. If this train could be found then it could use a reinstalled second platform at North Berwick for stabling purposes.

 

[Meerkat]

In this link in another thread….

https://www.scotrail.co.uk/media/3644/download?inline

On p6 it states that

Terminus capacity constraints mean sets operate strengthened all day, increasing cost.

Would that be improved if you could leave the strengthening set at North Berwick, and would that need a new platform or just some kind of call on signal change?

 

[The exile]

In this link in another thread….

https://www.scotrail.co.uk/media/3644/download?inline

On p6 it states that

Would that be improved if you could leave the strengthening set at North Berwick, and would that need a new platform or just some kind of call on signal change?

Guess that’s more likely to be terminus capacity at Waverley.

 

[milooo]

But then tbf the Lanark branch can do it. I don't think it is much different but please tell me otherwise