Scotland Route Study

[railjock]

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

Thanks. So it was 4 tracks until the early 70s at least.

 

[iain-j]

Thanks. So it was 4 tracks until the early 70s at least.

Seems roughly then was the case, when you consider that St. Margarets shed was levelled in the early 70's with some of Meadowbank Stadium being built on parts of it.
The sidings depot at Portobello which originally had the quad tracks going around it on a curve had been converted to a Freightliner depot with the curve being taken out and then in the 80’s lay unused for 25 years.
I would then venture that the electrification of the ECML would have taken care of the rest of the sections that were still quad track, as it was easier and cheaper to cut it down to double track and place the catenary where the outer tracks would have been.

 

[jopsuk]

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

a digression, but also on that map- tramlines on Portobello ROad, with a little reversing stub up a side street

 

[route:oxford]

a digression, but also on that map- tramlines on Portobello ROad, with a little reversing stub up a side street

Adjacent to a site marked "travelling crane".

 

[railjock]

Seems roughly then was the case, when you consider that St. Margarets shed was levelled in the early 70's with some of Meadowbank Stadium being built on parts of it.
The sidings depot at Portobello which originally had the quad tracks going around it on a curve had been converted to a Freightliner depot with the curve being taken out and then in the 80’s lay unused for 25 years.
I would then venture that the electrification of the ECML would have taken care of the rest of the sections that were still quad track, as it was easier and cheaper to cut it down to double track and place the catenary where the outer tracks would have been.

To be fair I can't see 4 tracks being necessary any time soon. Improving the waverley line junction at portobello does seem to make sense though.

 

[eastend43]

a digression, but also on that map- tramlines on Portobello ROad, with a little reversing stub up a side street

Sacrilege! You really can't call the wonderful Northfield Broadway, with the magnificent Royal High Preparatory School (my alma mater) a side street! I never knew that there was a signal box at that site, but my earliest memories of walking (aka trespassing) along the path on the railway side of that wall as a short cut home from school would be from the later 1970s.

Fascinating pictures

 

[iain-j]

a digression, but also on that map- tramlines on Portobello ROad, with a little reversing stub up a side street

From what I can gather it was the end of the route for a tram service of the time. It could quite possibly have been for the service 5, which ironically the current service 5 Bus still goes along Northfield Broadway but has had its service extended out over the years so that it currently goes to ASDA at the Jewel.

To be fair I can't see 4 tracks being necessary any time soon. Improving the waverley line junction at portobello does seem to make sense though.

As things are the now I agree that Portobello Junction needs upgraded first.
Some work at the Niddrie junctions could be done as well with this work being at least double tracking the Niddrie North To Niddrie South section again.
This work and an additional platform at both Brunstane and Newcraighall would be worth doing to increase performance out of the Borders Railway and could improve movements into Millerhill.

Quad tracking would have more benefits if the stations at Abbeyhill, Meadowbank and Portobello where to be reopened. Portobello being the station that would justify it the most as Long distance services could use the existing route and locals stoppers would use the Abbeyhill loop plus the other set of tracks from Piershill junction to Portobello. This would essentialy create a passing loop between the Calton tunnels and Portobello.

The part of the study that has me trying to figure out is p.55 where it mentions a new link from Niddrie West to Musselburgh and has the following written

This option consists of the provision of new track connection via a flat junction at Musselburgh through to Niddrie West Junction

If you look at a map the most logical route is along the current Niddrie West to Niddrie South section then diverging along following the old route that went to Wanton Walls Junction.
The problems I see in this, is that the route this used to take is now obliterated by houses that are being built at Newcraighall Road. So much to the extent that the bridge that carried it over Newcraighall Road has had its abutment on the East side removed as part of the redevelopment.
The land to the south side of Newcraighall is also to be developed into housing and I have also seen that East Lothian Council have got the rest of the land between there and Queen Margaret University marked out for development.
This to me seems like unless the proposed route has been preserved they may have difficulties with this.

 

[Railsigns]

As things are the now I agree that Portobello Junction needs upgraded first.
Some work at the Niddrie junctions could be done as well with this work being at least double tracking the Niddrie North To Niddrie South section again.
This work and an additional platform at both Brunstane and Newcraighall would be worth doing to increase performance out of the Borders Railway and could improve movements into Millerhill.

Layout options currently being explored add a second platform at Brunstane but Newcraighall will be staying as a single platform.

 

[iain-j]

Layout options currently being explored add a second platform at Brunstane but Newcraighall will be staying as a single platform.

Would I be right in assuming that if Portobello Junction is being doubled and a second platform is to be added at Brunstane that Niddrie North Junction will have work done on it as well, or at least a crossover before the junction.
Currently the track that doesn't have a platform at Brunstane is a single lead to Niddrie West with the platformed track being a single lead to Niddrie South so some method of moving trains from one track to the other is required.

 

[Railsigns]

Would I be right in assuming that if Portobello Junction is being doubled and a second platform is to be added at Brunstane that Niddrie North Junction will have work done on it as well, or at least a crossover before the junction.

Yes; there will need to be a new crossover at the reinstated Niddrie North Junction.

 

[Altnabreac]

Layout options currently being explored add a second platform at Brunstane but Newcraighall will be staying as a single platform.

So basically the same work that was descoped from Borders Rail a few years ago to save money.

 

[Railsigns]

So basically the same work that was descoped from Borders Rail a few years ago to save money.

I wasn't aware of any upgrades between Portobello and Newcraighall ever being within the scope of the Borders project.

 

[NotATrainspott]

They're almost 30 years old, and any significant sums spent on re-engineering the stock will need them to remain in service through 40 years and possibly toward 50 years - that's the sort of number crunching we're seeing with ScotRail and their refurbished HST sets.

There's already a pretty significant concern at ScotRail that pushing their refurbished HST sets to remain in service through to 2039 and completion of electrification to Inverness is quite possibly asking too much, and that something will need to be done, maybe as early as 2029 when it's intended that electrification will reach Dundee and probably by 2034 when it's intended that electrification reaches Aberdeen.

These units, power cars, coaches, none of them can remain in service indefinitely - bogies will begin to crack (we've been there once with HST already) and structural components will start to fail, electrical and mechanical parts will begin to fail and repairing or replacing them without redesign will be harder, we will see a drop in reliability and lots of hard work needed by depots just to maintain what will be pretty poor casualty figures.

It's easy to say doing something with Class 442 units might save a bit of money, but if it costs you a huge amount of TDA payments to other TOCs, a fortune in delay repay payments to your passengers and it needs your engineering people in on overtime 7 days a week just to ensure you're not short forming sets day in, day out and breaching franchise obligations, you'll be spending more every month than if you had just gone to a ROSCO and ordered up new stock, accepting a hefty lease payment.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2401172&postcount=96

I've just read this post on the "Is the end is nigh for class 442*" thread and it made me remember that in this Route Study Appendices document, the suggested dates for electrification of the Fife Circle and other routes appears to be significantly later than I think most people had anticipated. Onwards from page 137 it lists:

CP6 (2019-24)
6.4 - Stirling to Perth
Clear Moncrieffe Tunnel for electrification and freight gauge (slabtrack solution + W12 gauge clearance).
Dunblane to Perth electrification.

6.5 - Perth to Dundee
Perth to Dundee electrification.

CP7 (2024-29)
5.1 - Haymarket West to Dunfermline Town
Undertake electrification design for the Fife Line in the vicinity of Edinburgh Airport.

5.2 - Inverkeithing to Dundee (via Dalgety Bay)
Clear Dock Street Tunnel for electrification (track lower - noting sea level issues + drainage).

CP8 (2029-34)
5.1 - Haymarket West to Dunfermline Town
Achieve electrification clearances across the Forth Bridge.
Clear North Queensferry Tunnel for electrification.
Clear Inverkeithing tunnels for electrification.

5.4 - Dundee to Montrose
Dundee to Aberdeen Electrification.

CP9 (2034-39)
5.2 - Inverkeithing to Dundee (via Dalgety Bay)
Clear Kinghorn Tunnel for electrification (potential slabtrack).

CP10 (2039-44)
5.2 - Inverkeithing to Dundee (via Dalgety Bay)
Electrification of Fife routes - Haymarket West Junction to Dundee (see Option 5.3.3 re. Ladybank to Hilton Junction route).

5.3 - Ladybank to Hilton
Electrification of Hilton-Ladybank.

6.6 - Perth to Dingwall
Perth to Inverness electrification.

What's intriguing/concerning me the most is that it appears that the priorities for what routes to electrify are all wrong. Doing all of Glasgow to Dundee in CP6 and then waiting almost twenty years to fill in Fife seems to be completely off-the-wall. Previous discussions on this forum suggested that Dunblane to Perth would be one of the later wiring jobs since it alone wouldn't allow any extra services to be converted.

Now, in the same set of tables (unfortunately, the PDF can't be searched, so you would have to look by hand) it doesn't suggest that the works involved would be that complicated. The three clearance works in CP8 are estimated to cost less than £50m each, which doesn't really indicate difficulty to me.

Bizarrely, the option of creating a Dunfermline Bypass along the M90 is estimated to cost less than £50m as well according to the table. I just can't see that being realistic when the works at Stafford, which seem to involve a comparable amount of work, cost £250m or so. If that is an error, then what about the rest of the document?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

If that is an error, then what about the rest of the document?

It's a work of fantasy, unfortunately, and someone at NR needs beaten to death with a ****ing map. It's frankly an embarrassment that **** has been published.

The choices made available to funders in CP6 and CP7 include Edinburgh to Dundee and Perth, Dunblane to Perth, Perth to Dundee, and Dundee to Aberdeen. Perth to Inverness isn't available as an option (Fig 5.24 of the Draft RUS).

Dunblane to Perth is fine, though it will need a feeder at or around Hilton Junction. Perth to Dundee is a problem with Tay Viaduct at Perth as is, don't know if that's going to be electrification ready by 2024.

Electrification design in and around Edinburgh Airport by 2029 makes absolutely no sense at all if Haymarket West Junction to Dundee isn't going to be electrified until 2044 (end CP10). I will actually cry if we think it's going to take 15 years to design some electrification for the route next to the airport, and I despair if we are employing anybody that thinks this*

The works in Fife and on the Forth Bridge in CP8 and CP9 make no sense and only marginal sense if Fife electrification is not due to end 2044.

I've no idea at all why Dock Street Tunnel gauge clearance is in the Fife electrification work package, it's clearly Dundee to Aberdeen, as electrification to Dundee via Fife could stop short of Dock Street Tunnel.

The priority for CP6 and CP7 will be getting wires from Edinburgh to Dundee and Perth, and converting the Fife Circle and Edinburgh to Dundee services to electric traction, East Coast London to Aberdeen will be electric through to Dundee.

It makes sense to then electrify Dundee to Aberdeen first, converting Edinburgh to Aberdeen (or Inverurie/Dyce) to electric traction and keeping all East Coast services on electric operation. The next fill in should probably be Dunblane to Perth, as that allows Glasgow to Perth and East Coast to Inverness to operate as far as Perth on electric, filling in Perth to Dundee for Glasgow to Aberdeen services. Perth to Inverness can be its own little scheme.

* If we're expecting issues with aircraft on the OLE past the airport, I'd plan it almost immediately with a rigid overhead conductor solution to keep heights lower, and any auto transformer cabling to run in a duct or trough past the site, as we're doing in restricted clearance areas on the WCML. I doubt there's any issue, but someone must have noticed 15 years of design work before making that document live. No ?

 

[NotATrainspott]

It's a work of fantasy, unfortunately, and someone at NR needs beaten to death with a ****ing map. It's frankly an embarrassment that **** has been published.

The choices made available to funders in CP6 and CP7 include Edinburgh to Dundee and Perth, Dunblane to Perth, Perth to Dundee, and Dundee to Aberdeen. Perth to Inverness isn't available as an option (Fig 5.24 of the Draft RUS).

Dunblane to Perth is fine, though it will need a feeder at or around Hilton Junction. Perth to Dundee is a problem with Tay Viaduct at Perth as is, don't know if that's going to be electrification ready by 2024.

Electrification design in and around Edinburgh Airport by 2029 makes absolutely no sense at all if Haymarket West Junction to Dundee isn't going to be electrified until 2044 (end CP10). I will actually cry if we think it's going to take 15 years to design some electrification for the route next to the airport, and I despair if we are employing anybody that thinks this*

The works in Fife and on the Forth Bridge in CP8 and CP9 make no sense and only marginal sense if Fife electrification is not due to end 2044.

I've no idea at all why Dock Street Tunnel gauge clearance is in the Fife electrification work package, it's clearly Dundee to Aberdeen, as electrification to Dundee via Fife could stop short of Dock Street Tunnel.

The priority for CP6 and CP7 will be getting wires from Edinburgh to Dundee and Perth, and converting the Fife Circle and Edinburgh to Dundee services to electric traction, East Coast London to Aberdeen will be electric through to Dundee.

It makes sense to then electrify Dundee to Aberdeen first, converting Edinburgh to Aberdeen (or Inverurie/Dyce) to electric traction and keeping all East Coast services on electric operation. The next fill in should probably be Dunblane to Perth, as that allows Glasgow to Perth and East Coast to Inverness to operate as far as Perth on electric, filling in Perth to Dundee for Glasgow to Aberdeen services. Perth to Inverness can be its own little scheme.

* If we're expecting issues with aircraft on the OLE past the airport, I'd plan it almost immediately with a rigid overhead conductor solution to keep heights lower, and any auto transformer cabling to run in a duct or trough past the site, as we're doing in restricted clearance areas on the WCML. I doubt there's any issue, but someone must have noticed 15 years of design work before making that document live. No ?

I thought you would say this, since the document genuinely doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

The bizarre thing about electrification design at Edinburgh Airport is that this was always going to be necessary for the Dalmeny Chord, which was originally included in EGIP. Therefore, it seems quite absurd that design work would need to be done after 2019 when it would originally have been done as part of working out if the Dalmeny Chord was a feasible option.

The main consultation document doesn't mention costs or timescales for projects. What I'm thinking is that NR's intention here would be to have electrification to Fife and beyond funded in the same way as EGIP, from the Scottish Government budget directly. Smaller, separate schemes like Anniesland or East Kilbride would be funded through the standard NR improvements process.

As another thought, when will structures clearance work for the current electrification projects in the Central Belt be completed? If I'm not mistaken, the structures work on the E&G is wrapping up and Shotts is now under way, so what (if anything) are the teams involved scheduled to work on next? Electrification of the South Suburban Line and the Grangemouth branch seems to be the next confirmed jobs but these aren't going to represent many years' worth of work. Since the STPR has confirmed that wires will reach Aberdeen via Perth and Dundee eventually, would NR be able to start work on bridges in Fife and Perthshire before the official electrification works begin?

 

[edwin_m]

I agree these timescales are very strange indeed. Quite apart from anything else they are totally incompatible with rolling stock policy.

The use of refurbished HSTs in the Scotrail franchise is a very sensible stopgap if you expect Edinburgh and Glasgow to Aberdeen and possibly Inverness to be electrified by around 2030, which is about as long as they would be expected to last. Any remaining intercity diesel routes in Scotland would then be covered by cascaded Voyager/Meridian/185/IEP units or by a small new build. But if there is a need for large amounts of diesel operation into the 2030s then it would probably have been better to buy a new fleet now.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I thought you would say this, since the document genuinely doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

The bizarre thing about electrification design at Edinburgh Airport is that this was always going to be necessary for the Dalmeny Chord, which was originally included in EGIP. Therefore, it seems quite absurd that design work would need to be done after 2019 when it would originally have been done as part of working out if the Dalmeny Chord was a feasible option.

The main consultation document doesn't mention costs or timescales for projects. What I'm thinking is that NR's intention here would be to have electrification to Fife and beyond funded in the same way as EGIP, from the Scottish Government budget directly. Smaller, separate schemes like Anniesland or East Kilbride would be funded through the standard NR improvements process.

As another thought, when will structures clearance work for the current electrification projects in the Central Belt be completed? If I'm not mistaken, the structures work on the E&G is wrapping up and Shotts is now under way, so what (if anything) are the teams involved scheduled to work on next? Electrification of the South Suburban Line and the Grangemouth branch seems to be the next confirmed jobs but these aren't going to represent many years' worth of work. Since the STPR has confirmed that wires will reach Aberdeen via Perth and Dundee eventually, would NR be able to start work on bridges in Fife and Perthshire before the official electrification works begin?

There's still a bit of EGIP work to do, the project got stung with the parapet height changes at Stirling too, which needs remedial work. Shotts has indeed begun, and going well from what I hear.

The route clearance people might be able to get to work early if money can be made available, but it will need agreement on what options are to be chosen for CP6 and CP7.

 

[Carntyne]

Are there not clearance works happening on the Sub already? I'm sure old platforms etc were being removed.

 

[clc]

As another thought, when will structures clearance work for the current electrification projects in the Central Belt be completed? If I'm not mistaken, the structures work on the E&G is wrapping up and Shotts is now under way, so what (if anything) are the teams involved scheduled to work on next? Electrification of the South Suburban Line and the Grangemouth branch seems to be the next confirmed jobs but these aren't going to represent many years' worth of work. Since the STPR has confirmed that wires will reach Aberdeen via Perth and Dundee eventually, would NR be able to start work on bridges in Fife and Perthshire before the official electrification works begin?

There's the East Kilbride and Barrhead lines to be done first.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Are there not clearance works happening on the Sub already? I'm sure old platforms etc were being removed.

Sub route clearance is for W12 gauge clearance - but electrification clearance comes at minimal extra cost and will allow the route to be done without much, if any, additional clearance work during CP6.

We had hoped money would be found for CP5 electrification concurrent with W12 clearance, but alas it wasn't to be, though with ongoing wiring elsewhere, including the Shotts Line, there's no reason to be depressed about it.

I'd hope we can also knock out some of the headspans around Slateford and Craiglockhart Junction during CP6, and replace them with portals and the all important independent registration. There's going to be a lot of additional traffic from EMUs going onto the new Hitachi Millerhill EMU depot, so more reliable OLE system would be good too.

 

[XC90]

Kilmarnock. It needs a fast train to Glasgow via Paisley. The track bed is still there and so would be relatively cheap to do. Kilmarnock to Dalry is the missing link.

Also Stirling to Motherwell or beyond to Carlisle needs to introduced urgently.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Kilmarnock. It needs a fast train to Glasgow via Paisley. The track bed is still there and so would be relatively cheap to do. Kilmarnock to Dalry is the missing link.

Also Stirling to Motherwell or beyond to Carlisle needs to introduced urgently.

Stirling to Motherwell and onto Carlisle will be an option for the next West Coast franchise to consider, with the route available to electric traction in December 2018.

 

[edwin_m]

Stirling to Motherwell and onto Carlisle will be an option for the next West Coast franchise to consider, with the route available to electric traction in December 2018.

Would it really be viable to miss both Glasgow and Edinburgh? Stirling has through trains to England via the ECML, and WCML connections are available at Haymarket.

 

[Carntyne]

Sub route clearance is for W12 gauge clearance - but electrification clearance comes at minimal extra cost and will allow the route to be done without much, if any, additional clearance work during CP6.

We had hoped money would be found for CP5 electrification concurrent with W12 clearance, but alas it wasn't to be, though with ongoing wiring elsewhere, including the Shotts Line, there's no reason to be depressed about it.

I'd hope we can also knock out some of the headspans around Slateford and Craiglockhart Junction during CP6, and replace them with portals and the all important independent registration. There's going to be a lot of additional traffic from EMUs going onto the new Hitachi Millerhill EMU depot, so more reliable OLE system would be good too.

Thanks for this. W12 does ring a bell now you've mentioned it.

Slightly off topic, but is the drive to get rid of headspans completely? Such as the headspans at Newton/Rutherglen/Polmadie?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Thanks for this. W12 does ring a bell now you've mentioned it.

Slightly off topic, but is the drive to get rid of headspans completely? Such as the headspans at Newton/Rutherglen/Polmadie?

Yeah, pretty much. They're being removed on the GWML between Stockley Junction and Paddington as part of CrossRail's reliability upgrades, the ECML upgrade (L2E4 - London to Edinburgh in 4 hours) which will see 140mph running can't use headspans, so they're going there too.

They'll eventually be eliminated elsewhere as increased electric train usage will result in increased failure rates, and the existing headspan masts can generally support light weight GWML portal structures.

There are a few places where they can't be removed as their installation was part of planning permission for a listed building or group of buildings, but their widespread use will reduce over the next few years.

 

[Class 170101]

There are a few places where they can't be removed as their installation was part of planning permission for a listed building or group of buildings, but their widespread use will reduce over the next few years.

What if anything can be done to improve the reliability of those headspans that remain through sites like these? They will still be just as disruptive when they inevitability fail.

 

[najaB]

What if anything can be done to improve the reliability of those headspans that remain through sites like these? They will still be just as disruptive when they inevitability fail.

I'd guess that if there's a listed building involved they are likely in areas that are less exposed to the elements. Worse come to worst, clear the wire out of the way and coast through the short section?

 

[Carntyne]

Yeah, pretty much. They're being removed on the GWML between Stockley Junction and Paddington as part of CrossRail's reliability upgrades, the ECML upgrade (L2E4 - London to Edinburgh in 4 hours) which will see 140mph running can't use headspans, so they're going there too.

They'll eventually be eliminated elsewhere as increased electric train usage will result in increased failure rates, and the existing headspan masts can generally support light weight GWML portal structures.

There are a few places where they can't be removed as their installation was part of planning permission for a listed building or group of buildings, but their widespread use will reduce over the next few years.

Sounds great, anything which improves reliability and reduces wires hitting the deck suits me. The aftermath is a nightmare to try and deal with.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

What if anything can be done to improve the reliability of those headspans that remain through sites like these? They will still be just as disruptive when they inevitability fail.

It's mainly station sites - as we saw at Rainhill, for example. They're low speed, low oscillation, low train yaw/pantograph deflection sites, with a knock-on lower dewirement risk.

I dare say a convincing business case could be put together with some bespoke portals or cantilever masts to replace headspans for specific sites too, if money was made available. It's something for a more prosperous time in the future, I'd think.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I'd guess that if there's a listed building involved they are likely in areas that are less exposed to the elements. Worse come to worst, clear the wire out of the way and coast through the short section?

A neutral section in effect then.