Scotland Route Study

[Railsigns]

I don't have the route study downloaded to hand, but I'm pretty sure the objective was to remove the need to reverse. It would be pointless to simply swap one reversal for another.

It wouldn't be pointless because it would relocate the junction station from nowhere (Georgemas) to somewhere (Halkirk).

 

[najaB]

It wouldn't be pointless because it would relocate the junction station from nowhere (Georgemas) to somewhere (Halkirk).

But it's a lot of money to spend for what benefit: five minutes off the Thuso-Inverness journey and a station that will serve a few thousand journeys a year? Spend a little more (to move the plunger operated points so that they face Thurso) and you get that benefit plus shorter journey times for Wick. You would need to have ground frame operated points so that freight can go straight to Georgemas.

 

[Railsigns]

But it's a lot of money to spend for what benefit: five minutes off the Thuso-Inverness journey and a station that will serve a few thousand journeys a year? Spend a little more (to move the plunger operated points so that they face Thurso) and you get that benefit plus shorter journey times for Wick.

Moving the plunger operated junction points so that they face the opposite way is precisely what I envisage, coupled with a relocated station. It would effectively be a mirror image of what exists today, with the station moving west to Halkirk.

What I can't see happening is the creation of two extra junctions to form a triangle. That would put the signalling costs through the roof.

You would need to have ground frame operated points so that freight can go straight to Georgemas.

I don't follow. You could have plunger operated junction points at Halkirk and ground frame operated connections into the sidings at Georgemas.

 

[Altnabreac]

Unless the proposal is to run separate services to Thurso and Wick, the number of reversals will remain the same (unless a triangular junction is proposed, which seems highly unlikely).

No need for a reversal after the chord goes in.

Inverness trains pass a plunger operated ground frame shoetly after leaving Halkirk station that provides access to Georgemas Freight Terminal.

They then pass over points north of the station en route to Thurso.

Reverse at Thurso and pass back over points north of Georgemas that diverge towards Wick.

Pass through the disused station site on plain line that is neither attached to the freight terminal or the Halkirk line en route to Wick.

Same number of S&C components as current layout. Possibly less if freight terminal simplified.

 

[me123]

I'm disappointed but not surprised there's nothing for up here-Aberdeen to Queen Street/Haymarket electrification(only section of the ECML not electrified) but then again we're always the last to get any rail improvements.

Apart from:

• Electrification of Aberdeen to Glasgow and Edinburgh
• 4tph Inverurie - Stonehaven
• Usan bottleneck examined
• new Fife Bypass / Halbeath line to speed journey times through Fife
• new semi fast Arbroath/Dundee - Glasgow service to speed Glasgow - Aberdeen journey times
• new double track at Dalcross to increase frequencies to Inverness
• Perth Remodelling
• new freight loops at Camperdown

You're quite right there is nothing else for NE Scotland...

Typical Aberdonian attitude to life as a whole. Ignoring all the positives and creating negatives to make themselves look like victims. :roll:

 

[Railsigns]

No need for a reversal after the chord goes in.

Inverness trains pass a plunger operated ground frame shoetly after leaving Halkirk station that provides access to Georgemas Freight Terminal.

They then pass over points north of the station en route to Thurso.

Reverse at Thurso and pass back over points north of Georgemas that diverge towards Wick.

Pass through the disused station site on plain line that is neither attached to the freight terminal or the Halkirk line en route to Wick.

Same number of S&C components as current layout. Possibly less if freight terminal simplified.

Therefore you envisage two junctions, as opposed to a full triangle? That's still one more junction than at present. How do you see the new junction north of Halkirk being operated? Whether it's by plungers or by ground frame, there would be a time penalty, unless you introduce an island of conventional signalling, the cost of which would be horrendous.

 

[Altnabreac]

Therefore you envisage two junctions, as opposed to a full triangle? That's still one more junction than at present. How do you see the new junction north of Halkirk being operated? Whether it's by plungers or by ground frame, there would be a time penalty, unless you introduce an island of conventional signalling, the cost of which would be horrendous.

One more plunger operated junction than at present but the same S&C. Time penalty yes but only when heading to Wick or southbound to Inverness.

How remote can plungers be to points? Could it be operated on departure from Thurso?

 

[Railsigns]

One more plunger operated junction than at present but the same S&C. Time penalty yes but only when heading to Wick or southbound to Inverness.

There'd be a time penalty in all directions. The junction would be designated a token exchange point where all trains would have to stop to exchange tokens. All southbound drivers would need to leave the cab to operate the appropriate plunger for their intended destination.

How remote can plungers be to points? Could it be operated on departure from Thurso?

In theory it would be possible to develop a bespoke solution along those lines, but it would require route holding between the plungers and the junction points, requiring continuous train detection and cabling between Thurso and the junction. Expensive!

 

[380101]

I'm gonna be honest, I don't think there is any need for longer trains on the Ayrshire line, we already have the option of upto 8-car 380's, and there is rarely overcrowding even at peak times

There is plenty of overcrowding at peak times. Dwell times are considerably longer due to overcrowding in the mornings - I know this as my delay sheet is always full! More 380 u it's would be ideal so trains that run as 3 or 4 could run in multiple as 6, 7 or 8 if needed.

 

[clc]

My understanding of this report is that the improvements suggested are those that Network Rail will need to deliver in order to continue delivering the rail network that they've been asked to deliver by their licence...

Projects to expand the reach of the rail network are out of the purview of this report, so that's why it doesn't mention any reopenings or major schemes like a cross-Glasgow tunnel or new Edinburgh-Glasgow HSR..

Agreed that is my understanding as well...

Where it gets a bit complicated is where delivery of a new scheme like Edinburgh - Glasgow High Speed Rail could make some of the proposed schemes obsolete / unnecessary. No doubt this will come out in the wash later.

So if projects to expand the reach of the rail network (such as HSR and GARL) are not factored in to the demand forecasts and these forecasts are used to determine how much additional terminal capacity will be required isn't there a risk that the options in the report for Glasgow Central could be inadequate?

 

[NotATrainspott]

So if projects to expand the reach of the rail network (such as HSR and GARL) are not factored in to the demand forecasts and these forecasts are used to determine how much additional terminal capacity will be required isn't there a risk that the options in the report for Glasgow Central could be inadequate?

I suppose, yes. However, any such major project to expand the scope of the rail network would need to cover everything to make it work. For instance, the Crossrail project had to include electrification of the GWML to Maidenhead (including the main lines that Crossrail will never normally use), the Airdrie-Bathgate project included the electrification of the Haymarket north tunnel and of more western bay platforms than necessary and GARL included the Paisley corridor improvements and the two new platforms at Central High Level. Some of the changes proposed for Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley are in the relatively long term, so there would be plenty of time to come up with a more intensive alternative scheme to increase capacity before any real work begins there.

 

[class26]

Surely, given that 50% of the trains reverse at Georgemas Junction anyway, the station may as well be kept open?

I wold have thought that the cost would be such that several minutes would need to be saved to justify the money so a chord from south of Georgemas directly onto the Thurso branch is likely meaning trains can travel non stop towards Thurso. The same when leaving Thurso directly for Inverness. That ought to save at least 5 minutes in each direction. If not why spend the money ?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I do wish that the Edinburgh - Perth route had received a substantial improvement.

Given how the airport is growing (2015 will be its busiest ever year), the sub-standard road network around the airport wont be able to cope with all of the future growth that's for sure. There is a big opportunity for rail here.

So you'll not have been impressed by the offering of the new tram service, then? [no reply neccessary]

Its good to see the Almond Chord included.

Agreed.
For more than one beneficial outcome.

What I can't see happening is the creation of two extra junctions to form a triangle. That would put the signalling costs through the roof.

I guess that assessment could be, and is, applied to scores of potential rail development plans:
A few little lines on a bit of paper, an unconscionable investment by our governments.

 

[swt_passenger]

But that's the point of route studies: to look at schemes and projects to improve routes that currently exist. A new line that doesn't exist yet could hardly be considered part of the route.

We are in agreement then?

 

[47271]

I do wish that the Edinburgh - Perth route had received a substantial improvement.So you'll not have been impressed by the offering of the new tram service, then? [no reply neccessary]

Agreed.
For more than one beneficial outcome.

I guess that assessment could be, and is, applied to scores of potential rail development plans:
A few little lines on a bit of paper, an unconscionable investment by our governments.

Couldn't agree more on Edinburgh-Perth, it's of massive strategic significance but never gets addressed. We take 75 mins to cover 45 miles at best, so long as nothing crops up to upset the uninterrupted 15 miles of single line between Ladybank and Hilton, never mind the crawl round the Fife coast

It's got to be Scotland's most dismal route versus its national importance, although anyone is welcome to nominate another if they wish...

Glenfarg restoration is pie in the sky, but let's get Ladybank-Hilton double tracked, up to 80mph throughout, it's straight enough, and serving Newburgh and Bridge of Earn.

 

[najaB]

Couldn't agree more on Edinburgh-Perth, it's of massive strategic significance but never gets addressed. We take 75 mins to cover 45 miles at best, so long as nothing crops up to upset the uninterrupted 15 miles of single line between Ladybank and Hilton, never mind the crawl round the Fife coast

Ahem...

• Hilton Junction to Ladybank partial double tracking to increase capacity (£££)
• Ladybank Station remodel to four platforms beyond Ladybank junction (£)

 

[47271]

Ahem...

Thank you - pleased to have that pointed out to me!

 

[reb0118]

Glenfarg restoration is pie in the sky, but let's get Ladybank - Hilton double tracked, up to 80mph throughout, it's straight enough, and serving Newburgh, Abernethy, and Bridge of Earn.

There, I've fixed that for you. We must not forget the metropolis that is Abernethy!

Joking aside Abernethy has mushroomed in recent years without a railway station - lots of new housing to the west of the village.

 

[Railsigns]

There, I've fixed that for you. We must not forget the metropolis that is Abernethy!

Joking aside Abernethy has mushroomed in recent years without a railway station - lots of new housing to the west of the village.

Well that takes the biscuit.

 

[clc]

I suppose, yes. However, any such major project to expand the scope of the rail network would need to cover everything to make it work. For instance, the Crossrail project had to include electrification of the GWML to Maidenhead (including the main lines that Crossrail will never normally use), the Airdrie-Bathgate project included the electrification of the Haymarket north tunnel and of more western bay platforms than necessary and GARL included the Paisley corridor improvements and the two new platforms at Central High Level. Some of the changes proposed for Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley are in the relatively long term, so there would be plenty of time to come up with a more intensive alternative scheme to increase capacity before any real work begins there.

I noticed this comment in the report which confirms your point:

"There are a number of projects that are being developed by external organisations that may, depending on the outcome of the necessary development work appraisals, have the potential to interface with the existing rail network in Scotland. Whilst Network Rail continues to work with relevant project proposers, no specific schemes have been included within this Route Study resulting from such activity. Any projects to extend the network need to take account of necessary upgrades to the existing infrastructure within that project."

So in terms of the airport tram-train project the onus would be on the councils to consider how the capacity would be created. If they also had to fund the necessary capacity improvements that would surely kill off the project.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The elephant in the room is High Speed Rail. No mention of it at all and lots of the plans in the Carstairs, Lanarkshire and WCML areas potentially interact with it in different ways.
Suspect there are some projects in here that can be declared surplus if HS Rail opens and thus be presented as future cost savings by creating capacity using High Speed Scotland instead.

Quite agree. The situation at Carstairs is baffling.
There is a significant CP6 project to remodel the area, but it won't work for HS2.
Apart from anything else, the HS2 broad plan is to run combined London-Glasgow/Edinburgh services via HS2 and the WCML, and split them at Carstairs.
This allows 400m trains to Carstairs and 200m trains onwards to Central/Waverley without major changes being needed at the terminals.
But the remodelled junction at Carstairs has a vague spec which does not appear to provide a new route towards Edinburgh, or to accommodate 400m trains.
You would have thought the orginal direct line would be reopened at this stage (the old solum is still visible, passing through only sheep on the way).
Then there's the impact on the ECML if all the London traffic is routed via the WCML - not discussed at all.

 

[och aye]

Am I misreading the map on P. 57 or does it look like the originally proposed Abbeyhill turnback (video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttuus7hJjAk) will in fact now carry on and reconnect with the Powderhall branch line?

If this is the case, could this raise the possibility of the reopening of some or all of the former Abbeyhill, Meadowbank and Portobello stations to be incorporated with the Borders Railway and a service that continues on past Waverley to Haymarket and terminating at Edinburgh Park? *slaps self from dream state*
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If they were going to redevelop Waverley into (yet another expensive) shopping complex, it should have been done during the last works programme.
A Logical move would be to redevelop both the station and Princes Maul together at the same time, moving All station facilities and services into it including First and sleaper lounges, booking office, shops, restaurants and train crewe accom and offices clearing the way for a large scale reorgonisation of the concourse as it stands with high capacity travelater and lifts to the new development and the complete removal of Waverley steps.

Disapointing Re Carstares but the ECML upgrades, South Sub, Glasgow Central, EK and Barhead wiring makes sense!

Princes Maul

Great idea., however I doubt think there would any great appetite for it from the owner of Princes Mall (Sir David Murray ex-Rangers FC owner).

 

[iain-j]

Am I misreading the map on P. 57 or does it look like the originally proposed Abbeyhill turnback (video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttuus7hJjAk) will in fact now carry on and reconnect with the Powderhall branch line?

If this is the case, could this raise the possibility of the reopening of some or all of the former Abbeyhill, Meadowbank and Portobello stations to be incorporated with the Borders Railway and a service that continues on past Waverley to Haymarket and terminating at Edinburgh Park? *slaps self from dream state*

I too was wondering this myself when I read that part but the written text doesn't say to much to be overly useful.

The diagram seems to illustrate a redoubled North Calton tunnel and the current South tunnel feeding a twin track system that leads to Portobello junction such as is in place at the moment.
The diagram also seems to indicate a single feed to the Abbeyhill loop. Granted it's just a diagram but you would think common sense would prevail and the whole loop would be connected and double tracked. Ideally the rest of the line from Piershill junction to Portobello junction should be Quad tracked again allowing the Abbeyhill loop to be used as a passing loop.

The reopening of the stations mentioned would be a bonus but ultimately would it not be possible to use the Powderhall branch to terminate services coming from the West such as the Glasgow Central service. Whether any stations would ever be opened on the Powderhall branch is another question but the use of it at least as a turn-back facility would save Trains sitting in bay platforms at the Waverley for periods of time when not in use.

 

[Senex]

You would have thought the orginal direct line would be reopened at this stage (the old solum is still visible, passing through only sheep on the way).

There was a dramatic picture published during the flooding shewing how clearly the old Edinburgh alignment stood out above the waters, heading directly to the north-east. Why have so many years gone by with no restoration of this route?

 

[oldman]

If this is the case, could this raise the possibility of the reopening of some or all of the former Abbeyhill, Meadowbank and Portobello stations to be incorporated with the Borders Railway and a service that continues on past Waverley to Haymarket and terminating at Edinburgh Park? *slaps self from dream state*

If I was a Midlothian or East Lothian commuter, adding those stops and the slow running round the curves would be more of a nightmare than a dream. Could you not dream about more trams instead?

 

[iain-j]

If I was a Midlothian or East Lothian commuter, adding those stops and the slow running round the curves would be more of a nightmare than a dream. Could you not dream about more trams instead?

Maybe not for everyone though. Having spent many a year working at the top of Easter Road the prospect of being able to get a train from Abbeyhill to my local station at Wallyford sure beats the prospect of sitting on a 44 bus that takes at best 30 mins to do the same journey.
When you look at how clogged Musselburgh High Street is becoming (or has already) the ability to get to the likes of Portobello, Meadowbank and Abbeyhill far more quickly is something that is very appealing for East Lothian residents.

I'd say that if these stations were ever to reopen not all peak services (maybe off peak as well) would call at them as there could be a variety of services passing in their direction such as the currently the North Berwick, Dunbar and Borders Services. Then there is various campaigns for the likes of Penicuik and Haddington services. Even if they were hourly services that would be a train every 10 mins so it's unlikely all would be stopping.

 

[oldman]

the ability to get to the likes of Portobello, Meadowbank and Abbeyhill far more quickly is something that is very appealing for East Lothian residents.

For some, no doubt. For others the extra ten minutes on a half-hour journey may tip them back into their cars. There are always winners and losers, but the bulk flow is to the city centre.

 

[iain-j]

For some, no doubt. For others the extra ten minutes on a half-hour journey may tip them back into their cars. There are always winners and losers, but the bulk flow is to the city centre.

Whilst I agree with you that the bulk flow is to the City Centre and this will remain the case. I would disagree that the extra ten minutes, if that is the amount the journey increases by, would have that drastic an affect as the half hour journey on the North Berwick service gets you to Drem easily enough.
Many people ditch their cars not just because the train is quicker but because it works out cheaper than the cost of fuel and the cost of parking in Edinburgh City Centre combined. It also has the benefit that this half hour is your own time e.g use you phone/laptop or read a book etc.
With the advent of the 10,000 or so houses that Musselburgh, Prestonpans and Wallyford is about to get swamped with, journey times on the A1 and through Musselburgh are about to get worse because there is no planned Road infrastructure improvements to go along side all this building.

As I had said earlier I doubt all services passing them would be calling at these stations anyway because the way the East Lothian services are going I can see the day of peak services being almost every fifteen minutes to keep up with the demand to the City Centre.

Keep in mind that stations at Portobello etc would have the draw of residents commuting to other sides of Edinburgh such as Edinburgh Park, South Gyle and Gogarburn or further afield, where currently the thought of them getting into Edinburgh to then get a train to their destination is less appealing than driving either cross town or round the bypass, both of which are time consuming and fuel heavy.

 

[railjock]

I too was wondering this myself when I read that part but the written text doesn't say to much to be overly useful.

The diagram seems to illustrate a redoubled North Calton tunnel and the current South tunnel feeding a twin track system that leads to Portobello junction such as is in place at the moment.
The diagram also seems to indicate a single feed to the Abbeyhill loop. Granted it's just a diagram but you would think common sense would prevail and the whole loop would be connected and double tracked. Ideally the rest of the line from Piershill junction to Portobello junction should be Quad tracked again allowing the Abbeyhill loop to be used as a passing loop.

The reopening of the stations mentioned would be a bonus but ultimately would it not be possible to use the Powderhall branch to terminate services coming from the West such as the Glasgow Central service. Whether any stations would ever be opened on the Powderhall branch is another question but the use of it at least as a turn-back facility would save Trains sitting in bay platforms at the Waverley for periods of time when not in use.

Was Piershill to Portobello quad track at one time? Travelling on it now doesn't really indicate it's wide enough at some parts for that.

 

[iain-j]

Was Piershill to Portobello quad track at one time? Travelling on it now doesn't really indicate it's wide enough at some parts for that.

The most noticeable part of it once being quad track is just as you approach Craigentinny depot after leaving Piershill junction. The bridge that carries Portobello road over the line is at the junction of Craigentinny Avenue and Restalrig Avenue and one of the two spans is empty underneath.

If you look at the photos below you can see the bridge I mentioned with the current line going under the right hand bridge.

https://www.railscot.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=32241
https://www.railscot.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=27808
https://www.railscot.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=29375
https://www.railscot.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=32796
https://www.railscot.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=37351

If you look at this link you can see a map of how it used to look quad tracked.

http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18&lat=55.9559&lon=-3.1384&layers=170