Scotland Route Study

[MidlandMainlie]

The only major change is Edinburgh to Dundee has moved back into contention for funding in CP6/CP7 but there's no guarantee it'll actually be funded, given the other works needing done first.

The Appendix still has electrification timescales as follows (there's other works which could impact on electrification, all of the following are specifically electrification or route clearance works).

Edinburgh to Dundee

• CP6 - Winchburgh Junction and Almond Junction grade separation, including electrification from Haymarket to Winchburough Junction
• CP8 - Electrification design in vicinity of Edinburgh Airport
• CP8 - Clear Forth Bridge for electrification
• CP8 - Clear North Queensferry Tunnel for electrification
• CP8 - Clear Inverkeithing Tunnels for electrification
• CP8 - Fife Bypass alongside M90 alignment
• CP8 - Strengthen Tay Bridge removing weight restrictions
• CP8 - Prepare Dock Street Tunnel, Dundee for electrification
• CP10 - Electrify Edinburgh Waverley to Dundee via Fife.

Glasgow to Dundee

• CP6 - Greenhill Upper grade seperation
• CP6 - Improve signalling headways between Dunblane and Perth
• CP6 - Clear Moncrieffe Tunnel for electrification + slab track + W12
• CP6 - Perth station remodelling
• CP6&CP7 - Dunblane to Perth and Perth to Dundee electrification

Edinburgh Suburban

• CP6 - Remodel Slateford Junction
• CP6 - Resignal and electrify the South Sub

Glasgow Central to Barrhead

• CP6 - Electrify East Kilbride Line (from Busby Jn)
• CP6 - Lengthen Barrhead Bay platform
• CP6 - Electrify Barrhead Line (from Muirhouse Jn to Busby Jn)
• CP6 - Electrify Barrhead Line (from Busby Jn)
• CP7 - Barrhead to Kilmarnock redoubling or signalling headway alterations

Dundee to Aberdeen

• CP8 - Electrify Dundee to Aberdeen

Perth to Dingwall

• CP10 - Electrify Perth to Inverness

Assorted others

• CP7 - Electrify Gartsherrie South Junction Loop
• CP6 - Electrify Glasgow North suburban - Cowlairs to Anniesland and Westerton

Not much in CP9 or is some of the CP8 stuff expected to run over?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Not much in CP9 or is some of the CP8 stuff expected to run over?

I've missed the CP9 - Kinghorn Tunnel electrification prep works.

The electrification related CP9 works are mainly down to track changes, but will include a bit of rationalisation and realistically, quite a lot of replacement.

The sort of work planned for CP9 (actually, other than that above, all the work listed is)

• CP9 - 3 to 4 track Powderhall Jn to Portabello Jn
• CP9 - Glasgow Central station throat rationalisation + speed increases
• CP9 - ERTMS installation between Cambuslang and Rutherglen Central
• CP9 - Line speed increases to 95mph around Rutherglen Central
• CP9 - Double tracking and electrification preparation Aberdeen to Kittybrewster*

* Note that Aberdeen to Dyce/Inverurie electrification isn't currently planned, and that preparation works may be unnecessary based on electrification business case, capacity or negative impact on the current gauge clearance.

The Glasgow Central station throat rationalisation will be a massive project, particularly if the decision is taken (as it should be) to replace the OLE leading into the station over the Clyde and out for several miles.

There's also lots of fairly old Mark 1 OLE which could be replaced around Glasgow as part of the same/an interconnected project.

 

[clc]

Still no mention of creating capacity for the airport tram-trains. Glasgow City Council will not be happy about that.

 

[snowball]

[*]CP9 - ERTMS installation between Cambuslang and Rutherglen Central

That's about two miles isn't it? Being planned 20 years ahead!?

 

[clc]

Still no mention of creating capacity for the airport tram-trains. Glasgow City Council will not be happy about that.

The council's consultation response shows how unhappy it was with the draft report:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ses/frank mcaveety - glasgow city council.pdf

It's suggestion that capacity for the tram-trains could be created by diverting Shotts and Lanark services via the Low Level line seems simplistic given that the capacity released would be on the wrong side of the station for airport services.

 

[gsnedders]

I'm still surprised by the ten year period during which Edinburgh–Aberdeen services will be running on diesel from Dalmany to Dundee, with the rest of the route electrified. I presume the assumption is we'll be running bi-modes by that point, given CP8 is around the time I heard mentioned for the HSTs being life-expired?

 

[Senex]

Some detail of the plans for Carstairs appears on page 68, in particular the proposed speeds:
"Higher linespeeds, for example 105-125mph on the WCML; 35-50mph on the other through lines (which are currently 15mph). / 1-2 minute journey time improvements on all through routes."

All trackwork will apparently be replaced and realigned, but the work is supposed to involve using only land in present railway ownership.

Does anyone know any more detail? It sounds as if the proposal from BR IC days to go back to the original alignment of the Edinburgh line (not obstructed, but not now in railway ownership) has for some reason been dropped, even though this would be by far the best solution for Edinburgh traffic. And if this is not done, then it is hard to see how the south junction cannot be on the curve, thus inhibiting the amount of superelevation and therefore the Glasgow-route speed (though the layout and land available mean that the west junction is a much easier case). Does it all mean that the 50 mph middling speeds are planned for Glasgow-Edinburgh and the 35 mph low speeds are planned for Carlisle-Edinburgh?

 

[clc]

Is there any point in spending £100m+ on Carstairs if HSR is going to bypass it?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I'm still surprised by the ten year period during which Edinburgh–Aberdeen services will be running on diesel from Dalmany to Dundee, with the rest of the route electrified. I presume the assumption is we'll be running bi-modes by that point, given CP8 is around the time I heard mentioned for the HSTs being life-expired?

It's unavoidable as there's so much route clearance work to do, unfortunately. It's arguably a far greater challenge that the GWML in terms of clearance work despite a far shorter distance.

The bridges are the main concern - the Forth Bridge is Grade A listed and is a World Heritage Site, with planning consents required in two local authority areas (Edinburgh and Fife). The Tay Bridge has almost the same issues - it too is Grade A listed and requires planning consent in two local authority areas (Fife and Dundee).

That's before dealing with the practicalities of actually fitting OLE to bridges which receive significant wind gusts and constant wind speeds - Hurricane force winds are not at all unusual (73mph or above). The Tay Bridge is generally considered to be the worst, the Road Bridge record gust is 108.9mph, the Forth Road Bridge recording equipment only goes upto 90mph and that has been exceeded on occasion.

This is the level of windspeed where aerodynamics, flutter, lift and wind loading of the OLE will need to be very carefully considered and modelled extensively.

The tunnels through Fife and at Dock Street, Dundee, are a less significant concern - slab track the Fife tunnels with rigid overhead conductor, just like the Severn Tunnel, Glasgow QS Tunnel, Winchburgh Tunnel etc. The tunnel at Dock Street is a more significant concern, being as it is below the level of the water table and the River Tay.

The last plan talked about there was to build in-situ a waterproof concrete box and enlarge the structure - this all has to be done ideally without lowering the track through the station and it can't be done by lifting the tunnel roof either.

Finally (I think) there's the electrification design for the line in the vicinity of Edinburgh Airport, which might focus a few minds into reconsidering the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link and abandoning the alignment to the end of the runway.

 

[najaB]

This is the level of windspeed where aerodynamics, flutter, lift and wind loading of the OLE will need to be very carefully considered and modelled extensively.

Has solid conductor bar ever been used over such a long distance other than in a tunnel?

The tunnels through Fife and at Dock Street, Dundee, are a less significant concern - slab track the Fife tunnels with rigid overhead conductor, just like the Severn Tunnel, Glasgow QS Tunnel, Winchburgh Tunnel etc.

I thought Kinghorn tunnel was going to be a bit of a nightmare?

The tunnel at Dock Street is a more significant concern, being as it is below the level of the water table and the River Tay.

The last plan talked about there was to build in-situ a waterproof concrete box and enlarge the structure - this all has to be done ideally without lowering the track through the station and it can't be done by lifting the tunnel roof either.

Especially since the roof was only replaced in the last five or six years for the waterfront improvement project - tbh I'm surprised they didn't do the needful at that time, even though electrification was a distant dream at that point.

Finally (I think) there's the electrification design for the line in the vicinity of Edinburgh Airport, which might focus a few minds into reconsidering the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link and abandoning the alignment to the end of the runway.

Do you think the tunnel under the runway is actually a goer?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Has solid conductor bar ever been used over such a long distance other than in a tunnel?
I thought Kinghorn tunnel was going to be a bit of a nightmare?
Especially since the roof was only replaced in the last five or six years for the waterfront improvement project - tbh I'm surprised they didn't do the needful at that time, even though electrification was a distant dream at that point.
Do you think the tunnel under the runway is actually a goer?

I don't think solid conductor has been used over such a long distance before, Japan deals with plenty of typhoon winds so will undoubtedly be able to help if we need assistance.

I think they're going to sort out the kink prior to electrification, possibly quite a bit earlier than the electrification clearance works in CP9. That could be tricky, electrification of the tunnel as is really won't be, but of course we really want to be more ambitious.

Dundee - I'm embarrassed it's all been so incoherent and farcical. The entire station should have been demolished at the same time as the booking office building, the signal re-controlling from Dundee to Edinburgh ROC should have been done at the same time.

The station, to my mind, looking at the electrification works and infrastructure works for Montrose-Usan double tracking, lacks sufficient through platform capacity for its location, at the junction of the line from Glasgow and the line from Edinburgh. The whole site should have been re-designed from the ground up.

EARL - tunnel under the railway is definitely a go-er, particularly now it would all be tied in with electrification and fume ventilation would largely cease to be an issue - if the station was designed for electric stock only though, it could prevent steam services using the route though, unfortunately, so that would need to be balanced with other needs.

 

[mcmad]

The obvious (albeit costly) solution for Kinghorn would be a similar approach to that Farnworth in England. Fill it with foamed concrete and rebore with a TBM.

Slightly simpler in that there is a ready made diversion round the North half of the Fife circle.

Jeff.

 

[snowball]

The obvious (albeit costly) solution for Kinghorn would be a similar approach to that Farnworth in England. Fill it with foamed concrete and rebore with a TBM.

I see it has houses over it so it would be important to avoid the semi-collapse that happened with the sand at Farnworth.

 

[gsnedders]

I don't think solid conductor has been used over such a long distance before, Japan deals with plenty of typhoon winds so will undoubtedly be able to help if we need assistance.

Both bridges are 40mph, right? At least we don't need to worry about contact at high speed with strong winds! (I presume there's some windspeed at which the bridges would be closed to traffic—as is the case with the road bridges. Any idea as to what it is?)

I think they're going to sort out the kink prior to electrification, possibly quite a bit earlier than the electrification clearance works in CP9. That could be tricky, electrification of the tunnel as is really won't be, but of course we really want to be more ambitious.

The kink? (I presume in the Kinghorn tunnel?)

Dundee - I'm embarrassed it's all been so incoherent and farcical. The entire station should have been demolished at the same time as the booking office building, the signal re-controlling from Dundee to Edinburgh ROC should have been done at the same time.

The station, to my mind, looking at the electrification works and infrastructure works for Montrose-Usan double tracking, lacks sufficient through platform capacity for its location, at the junction of the line from Glasgow and the line from Edinburgh. The whole site should have been re-designed from the ground up.

How could one add further through platforms? Certainly one could add through platforms if one removed the terminating ones, but I thought that wasn't a practical option, especially with electrification for a time ending there?

EARL - tunnel under the railway is definitely a go-er, particularly now it would all be tied in with electrification and fume ventilation would largely cease to be an issue - if the station was designed for electric stock only though, it could prevent steam services using the route though, unfortunately, so that would need to be balanced with other needs.

Are steam services bound by the same rules as diesel services? The Glasgow Low Level tunnels come to mind where AIUI diesel services are simply not meant to draw power (though obviously at least those calling at Queen Street need to on leaving!)—would something similar be viable? Obviously rules out any steam special stopping at the airport! Even if ventilation were still required, I presume one could get away with less of it?

 

[najaB]

Both bridges are 40mph, right? At least we don't need to worry about contact at high speed with strong winds! (I presume there's some windspeed at which the bridges would be closed to traffic—as is the case with the road bridges. Any idea as to what it is?)

I think one of the outputs of the current Tay Bridge works is an increase the line speed, though don't quote me on that one. Removing the one train on the high girders limit is definitely on the cards.

As to wind speeds, in the time I've lived in Dundee the Tay Bridge has only been closed once that I'm aware of and that was when the gusts on the Tay Road Bridge were >100mph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How could one add further through platforms? Certainly one could add through platforms if one removed the terminating ones, but I thought that wasn't a practical option, especially with electrification for a time ending there?

There are loops on both through lines, though it might be nigh on impossible to gain the space needed for platforms given the subterranean nature of the station.

 

[gsnedders]

There are loops on both through lines, though it might be nigh on impossible to gain the space needed for platforms given the subterranean nature of the station.

Yeah—the loops are at the extremes of the "cutting" (doesn't really seem the right term here!), so any platform beyond them would require undermining the drop-off/taxi rank road on the southern side and a car park (IIRC) on the northern side, obviously with need to ensure stability above. Doable, but becomes a very large project in and of itself. Of course, if combined with complete remodelling of the station perhaps not so large in comparison, given there'd need to be some station provision throughout!

 

[HSTEd]

If the Tay Bridge and Forth Bridge are such problems perhaps we should just replace them with immersed tube tunnels.
More expensive but it gets rid of maintenance nightmares.

 

[najaB]

If the Tay Bridge and Forth Bridge are such problems perhaps we should just replace them with immersed tube tunnels.
More expensive but it gets rid of maintenance nightmares.

The recently completed works on the Forth Bridge and soon to be completed works on the Tay Bridge will leave them both in fine physical state for the next 50 years plus, so abandoning them now would be pointless beyond all description. That's a project for the in the 2050's onward.

 

[Clansman]

More expensive

Contradicting your own (sarcastic) argument...

 

[JohnR]

I think one of the outputs of the current Tay Bridge works is an increase the line speed, though don't quote me on that one. Removing the one train on the high girders limit is definitely on the cards.

As to wind speeds, in the time I've lived in Dundee the Tay Bridge has only been closed once that I'm aware of and that was when the gusts on the Tay Road Bridge were >100mph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There are loops on both through lines, though it might be nigh on impossible to gain the space needed for platforms given the subterranean nature of the station.

I think it would be possible (though perhaps expensive) to make a Platform 5 out of the northbound freight loop. For the southbound loop, the are required would start eating into the service road/pavement, and the loop itself isnt big.

 

[YorkshireBear]

A very optomistic document, most impressed by the fife bypass.

Unfortunately i think it might be too ambitious and most of it will not get done, especially not in the wanted time frames...

 

[clc]

A very optomistic document, most impressed by the fife bypass.

Unfortunately i think it might be too ambitious and most of it will not get done, especially not in the wanted time frames...

Yes CP6 alone has over £2 billion worth of potential schemes. Leaving aside smaller projects under £25m the following are being progressed:-

Option rating 1
- Grade separate Winchburgh Junction and build new Almond Junction - £114m-£286m

- 4-track between Wallyford and Drem, locating these stations off the ECML main lines - £69m-£199m

- Upgrade / re-model Portobello Junction single connection layout between the ECML and Borders / Edinburgh Suburban line - £20m-£50m

- Electrify and re-signal the Edinburgh Suburban Line - £34m-£84m

- Carstairs Renewal & Remodelling - £77m-£193m

- Grade separate Greenhill Upper Junction - £50m-£126m

- Perth Station re-modelling - close platforms 3&4 to improve passenger access; create new Platform 8 as an Inverness through line, and an Inverness Up loop for freight / charter trains; optimise station approaches for higher linespeeds and re-signal prior to electrification - £96m-£228m


Option rating 2
- Remodel Slateford Junction for higher speed connection on / off WCML - £12m-£30m

- Upgrade Signalling and Track through the Millerhill Yard route - £17m-£41m

- Extend Glasgow Central platforms 6 to 9 (towards Bridge St and in to concourse) - £29m-£71m

- East Kilbride Line Electrification (from Busby Junction) + additional double track - £61m-£148m

- Clear Moncrieffe Tunnel for electrification and freight gauge (slabtrack solution + W12 gauge clearance) - £49m-£121m

- Dunblane to Perth electrification - £150m-£375m (extends to CP7)

- Perth to Dundee electrification - £69m-£171m (extends to CP7)

- Double tracking between Usan Junction and Montrose Station - £152m-£366m (extends to CP7)

- Glasgow North Suburban Line electrification - Cowlairs to Anniesland and Westerton - £34m-£86m

Option rating 3
- Close Raigmore level crossing - £30m-£70m

- Assess LCs between Stirling & Perth for closure - £25m-£59m

- Electrification to Barrhead from Busby Junction (assumes East Kilbride Line already electrified) - £22m-£54m

- Improve signalling headways between Dunblane and Perth - £83m-£196m

Option rating 4
- Install additional infrastructure between Inverness and Invergordon Stations - £20m-£50m

Delivering even half of these would be a challenge.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

- Double tracking between Usan Junction and Montrose Station - £152m-£366m (extends to CP7).

So much for Usan Junction to Montrose station being funded under the Aberdeen City Deal, it appears the money is being put back into the pot and may if it's lucky be used to improve journey times between Aberdeen and the Central Belt.

 

[clc]

So much for Usan Junction to Montrose station being funded under the Aberdeen City Deal, it appears the money is being put back into the pot and may if it's lucky be used to improve journey times between Aberdeen and the Central Belt.

I don't think it ever was part of the City Deal. It was announced at the same time but was supplementary to the City Deal funding.

 

[HSTEd]

Contradicting your own (sarcastic) argument...

Eh, more expensive in the short term but with government debt negative in real terms it wouldn't be hard for it to be worthwhile over a long review horizon.

 

[tbtc]

Yes CP6 alone has over £2 billion worth of potential schemes. Leaving aside smaller projects under £25m the following are being progressed:-

Option rating 1
- Grade separate Winchburgh Junction and build new Almond Junction - £114m-£286m

- 4-track between Wallyford and Drem, locating these stations off the ECML main lines - £69m-£199m

- Upgrade / re-model Portobello Junction single connection layout between the ECML and Borders / Edinburgh Suburban line - £20m-£50m

- Electrify and re-signal the Edinburgh Suburban Line - £34m-£84m

- Carstairs Renewal & Remodelling - £77m-£193m

- Grade separate Greenhill Upper Junction - £50m-£126m

- Perth Station re-modelling - close platforms 3&4 to improve passenger access; create new Platform 8 as an Inverness through line, and an Inverness Up loop for freight / charter trains; optimise station approaches for higher linespeeds and re-signal prior to electrification - £96m-£228m


Option rating 2
- Remodel Slateford Junction for higher speed connection on / off WCML - £12m-£30m

- Upgrade Signalling and Track through the Millerhill Yard route - £17m-£41m

- Extend Glasgow Central platforms 6 to 9 (towards Bridge St and in to concourse) - £29m-£71m

- East Kilbride Line Electrification (from Busby Junction) + additional double track - £61m-£148m

- Clear Moncrieffe Tunnel for electrification and freight gauge (slabtrack solution + W12 gauge clearance) - £49m-£121m

- Dunblane to Perth electrification - £150m-£375m (extends to CP7)

- Perth to Dundee electrification - £69m-£171m (extends to CP7)

- Double tracking between Usan Junction and Montrose Station - £152m-£366m (extends to CP7)

- Glasgow North Suburban Line electrification - Cowlairs to Anniesland and Westerton - £34m-£86m

Option rating 3
- Close Raigmore level crossing - £30m-£70m

- Assess LCs between Stirling & Perth for closure - £25m-£59m

- Electrification to Barrhead from Busby Junction (assumes East Kilbride Line already electrified) - £22m-£54m

- Improve signalling headways between Dunblane and Perth - £83m-£196m

Option rating 4
- Install additional infrastructure between Inverness and Invergordon Stations - £20m-£50m

Delivering even half of these would be a challenge.

I'm disappointed/ surprised to see that...

...electrifying the Edinburgh Sub (a diversionary line at best, and hardly the only missing link that would allow freight services to move to electric haulage) and the Carstairs remodelling (slow from Edinburgh to Glasgow, but that route will never compete on time against the flagship Falkirk High line)...

...re priorities ahead of electrifying to East Kilbride (a relatively short line that would free up a relatively large number of DMUs, given the peak requirements) and the line through Maryhill (a relatively short island between electrified lines, the only short distance service from Queen Street requiring DMUs, potential to integrate it better with the routes from Partick?).

And, forgive my ignorance (for it has been many years since I used to take the bus to the Cockatoo Inn and walk the short distance to Millerhill to look for Class 26s... ), but what is there in the yard that you could spend £41,000,000 on? Does this just relate to the EMU depot there? Is that a bigger priority than wiring to Barrhead?

Confused.

 

[route101]

I'm disappointed/ surprised to see that...

...electrifying the Edinburgh Sub (a diversionary line at best, and hardly the only missing link that would allow freight services to move to electric haulage) and the Carstairs remodelling (slow from Edinburgh to Glasgow, but that route will never compete on time against the flagship Falkirk High line)...

...re priorities ahead of electrifying to East Kilbride (a relatively short line that would free up a relatively large number of DMUs, given the peak requirements) and the line through Maryhill (a relatively short island between electrified lines, the only short distance service from Queen Street requiring DMUs, potential to integrate it better with the routes from Partick?).

And, forgive my ignorance (for it has been many years since I used to take the bus to the Cockatoo Inn and walk the short distance to Millerhill to look for Class 26s... ), but what is there in the yard that you could spend £41,000,000 on? Does this just relate to the EMU depot there? Is that a bigger priority than wiring to Barrhead?

Confused.

EK line is proirity for capcity improvements ! A lot of money required to double the line ! Every half Hour at the moment so what next every 20 mins?

 

[NotATrainspott]

I'm disappointed/ surprised to see that...

...electrifying the Edinburgh Sub (a diversionary line at best, and hardly the only missing link that would allow freight services to move to electric haulage) and the Carstairs remodelling (slow from Edinburgh to Glasgow, but that route will never compete on time against the flagship Falkirk High line)...

...re priorities ahead of electrifying to East Kilbride (a relatively short line that would free up a relatively large number of DMUs, given the peak requirements) and the line through Maryhill (a relatively short island between electrified lines, the only short distance service from Queen Street requiring DMUs, potential to integrate it better with the routes from Partick?).

And, forgive my ignorance (for it has been many years since I used to take the bus to the Cockatoo Inn and walk the short distance to Millerhill to look for Class 26s... ), but what is there in the yard that you could spend £41,000,000 on? Does this just relate to the EMU depot there? Is that a bigger priority than wiring to Barrhead?

Confused.

The EGIP depot at Millerhill is one of the main reasons. Without wiring the South Sub, any blockages at Waverley would prevent most of the new electrified fleet being able to run. Being able to send ECS trains around the Sub also helps simplify timetabling as capacity through the stations is at a premium.

South Sub electrification is also stated to be a pre-requisite for the planned works on the eastern approach to Waverley. Being able to send electric trains around the Sub makes it possible to run ECML services during long blockade works. Redoubling one of the Calton tunnels will be a comparable task to the current Queen Street HL works.

 

[bluenoxid]

Just reading this document.

Is the Fife bypass line on page 35 the same as the Dunfermline bypass on page 78/79

 

[clc]

Just reading this document.

Is the Fife bypass line on page 35 the same as the Dunfermline bypass on page 78/79

Yes it looks like the same thing.

Edit: Not sure where the wee blue smiley thing came from. Can't delete.