Scotland Route Study

[clc]

More whinging from Scottish Labour over the tram train link to Glasgow Airport:-

FINANCE secretary Derek Mackay has told council bosses to get on with building the airport rail link themselves.
Glasgow Labour MSP, Anas Sarwar, clashed with Mr Mackay, in Holyrood over the £144m project.
Mr Sarwar asked for Mr Mackay to give a firm commitment to the project which he said would create 30,000 permanent jobs as well as 15,000 in the construction of the project.
The leaders of Glasgow City and Renfrewshire Councils have called on the project to be fast tracked to deliver it a year early and say transport Scotland has to include in in a list of planning proposals before it can be progressed.

Frank McAveety, Glasgow City Council leader and Renfrewshire leader Mark McMillan are due to meet the Transport Minister, Humza Yousaf, next week to discuss accelerating the project.
Mr Sarwar reminded Mr Mackay it was his predecessor John Swinney who axed the previous plan for a rail link form Glasgow Central to the airport.
He said both councils and business leaders have pressed for the project to be delivered.
He said: “The First Minister, Transport Minister and Finance Secretary all represent a Glasgow or Renfrewshire seat. Why won’t they stand up and deliver for those cities and those communities.”
Mr Mackay said the council had the cash and told them to get on with the project.
He said the Scottish Government supported the City Deal projects including the rail link.
However he added: “So, with a billion pounds to get on with these projects I turn to the Labour Party and say ‘What’s stopping you to get on with the project. If you want to deliver GARL do it’.”
He accused Labour of “artificial grievance” ahead of council elections next year and added the only people stopping GARL is the Labour Party in the West of Scotland.”
Mr Sarwar said later he was outraged by the reply from Mr Mackay.
He said: “The response from Derek Mackay was cheeky, cocky, divisive and playing political games. “Rather than recognising this is a project that can create jobs he basically told Glasgow go do it yourselves.”

Ahead of the meeting with Mr Yousaf, Mr McAveety said: “We’ve been told that accelerating City Deal projects could play a significant role in dealing with any fallout from the UK’s decision to leave the EU and the First Minister has already plans to speed-up capital spending.
“We’ll be looking for the full support of the Scottish Government and its agency, Transport Scotland, to not only commit to helping us deliver the rail link but also to speed up its delivery.”

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/...__Finance_Secretary_tells_councils_over_Garl/

 

[backontrack]

Much more likely would be an extension of the Alloa service to Clackmannan or Kincardine. Since the freight line will be closed, for all intents and purposes, it would be cheap to go and string up some wires and do any necessary upgrade work for passenger operations. Going beyond Kincardine is the problem, as at that point there aren't any towns worthy of a station and it would be faster to drive to Glasgow or park and ride at Inverkeithing for Edinburgh. Paths over the Forth Bridge aren't going to be made available for a Kincardine service, since the entire point of the SAK project was to free up paths for passenger services!

Services that don't go to Glasgow or Edinburgh will always face an uphill struggle in that they will have a difficult time competing with other modes of transport. Frequencies would be low, 1tph at best, which is fine for long distance services to city centres as the added convenience and speed outweighs the longer wait times. That benefit wouldn't really apply on Stirling-Fife services, especially since it's likely that your destination will be some way away from the station. In the end, if TS wants to placate the locals they would be better off phoning up Adrian Shooter and ordering a Class 230 or two to run a wee shuttle service at minimal cost. Anything more than that would be a waste, and exactly the sort of waste that the entire STAG process is designed to prevent. It may well be better to spend money on road or bus improvements than trying to get a passenger service going on the line.

I suggested this a while back - might try to find that suggestion and perhaps refine it a little.

 

[clc]

So what would be the logical sequence of improvements to Scotland's intercity routes?

Phase 1 - Glasgow-Edinburgh HSR.

Phase 2 - Inverkeithing-Perth/Tay Estuary Spur - speeds up Edinburgh-Perth/Dundee/Aberdeen/Inverness journeys.

Phase 3 - Link the G2E HSR line to the Fife Line - speeds up Glasgow- Dundee/Aberdeen journeys.

Phase 4 - ?? To be defined but involving new track north of Dundee - speeds up Glasgow/Edinburgh/Perth/Dundee-Aberdeen journeys.

Phase 1-3 sound about right to me. Doubt Phase 4 would ever have a business case though.

As part of Phase 3 you'd probably want a connection to Edinburgh Airport via the tram. Possibly around Gogarburn sort of area?

Effectively Edinburgh Airport would have two heavy rail stations.

Gateway would be served by Aberdeen-Dundee-Edinburgh, Inverness-Perth-Edinburgh, Perth-Edinburgh regional trains and Fife services.

Gogarburn would be served by Aberdeen-Dundee-Glasgow and Inverness-Perth-Glasgow, so only 1-2tph would stop there.

Any thoughts on how you could beef up the Gogarburn service without sending more trains over the Forth Bridge which presumably would be at capacity?

 

[hibtastic]

Effectively Edinburgh Airport would have two heavy rail stations.

Gateway would be served by Aberdeen-Dundee-Edinburgh, Inverness-Perth-Edinburgh, Perth-Edinburgh regional trains and Fife services.

Gogarburn would be served by Aberdeen-Dundee-Glasgow and Inverness-Perth-Glasgow, so only 1-2tph would stop there.

Any thoughts on how you could beef up the Gogarburn service without sending more trains over the Forth Bridge which presumably would be at capacity?

I may have missed a discussion on this but why not just implement the Dalmeny (or Almond) Chord and divert a number of the Glasgow services via that to serve the Gateway Station. Surely this also solves the capacity issues on the southern tracks into and out of Haymarket / Waverley.

 

[clc]

I may have missed a discussion on this but why not just implement the Dalmeny (or Almond) Chord and divert a number of the Glasgow services via that to serve the Gateway Station. Surely this also solves the capacity issues on the southern tracks into and out of Haymarket / Waverley.

You could do both.

Once the E2G HSR line was built E&G services would lose end to end traffic so would have to stop more frequently to use up all that spare capacity.

Gateway would handle the stopping/semi fast services from Glasgow.

Gogarburn would handle the express services from Glasgow via the HSR line. It would also increase the number of services from the north to the airport.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Could the Scottish Govt be getting behind the tram train link?

A “high level steering group” has been set up as part of moves to deliver a rail link to Glasgow Airport.
The move follows talks between council leaders in the west of the country promoting the plan and ministers who continue to raise concerns about the business plan and costs for the link.
A Glasgow Airport spokesman said work was ongoing to resolve issues including capacity on approach to and within Glasgow Central Station.

After the meeting, transport minister Humza Yousaf said: “The setting up of a high-level steering group with the two councils and chaired by Scottish Government is a clear sign of the commitment to work with them to ensure that success.
“It is important the project team continue work to produce a robust business case setting out impacts and costs to let decisions be made.”

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14744836.Group_set_up_to_deliver_rail_link_to_Glasgow_Airport/

 

[clc]

Any hints coming out from reliable sources about which of the choices the Scottish Govt is planning to implement in CP6?

 

[XC90]

In 2012 I spoke to Derek McKay in his Renfrew campaign shop. He told me then, GARL was a waste of money and each train would only have 3 passengers on average.

It sounds to me like he wants nothing to do with it then or now!

Perhaps he doesn't want to be proven wrong and admit the decision to cancel GARL was a huge mistake by his party. The 2 local authorities involved should take his advice and then the credit when it is delivered!

 

[Altnabreac]

In 2012 I spoke to Derek McKay in his Renfrew campaign shop. He told me then, GARL was a waste of money and each train would only have 3 passengers on average.

It sounds to me like he wants nothing to do with it then or now!

Perhaps he doesn't want to be proven wrong and admit the decision to cancel GARL was a huge mistake by his party. The 2 local authorities involved should take his advice and then the credit when it is delivered!

GARL isn't going to happen.

There is no chance of Labour having a majority on Glasgow City Council so it is either going to be an SNP majority or an administration of some sort supported by the Greens.

Greens will not support new airport links so a new feasibility study will fully look at the costs involved and tram train will be ditched.

 

[clc]

GARL isn't going to happen.

There is no chance of Labour having a majority on Glasgow City Council so it is either going to be an SNP majority or an administration of some sort supported by the Greens.

Greens will not support new airport links so a new feasibility study will fully look at the costs involved and tram train will be ditched.

I'd like to see Labour defeated in Glasgow partly because it's not healthy for one party to rule for so long ie. 50 years. My only worry is a low turnout might benefit them as their core support is mainly pensioners these days.*

Derek Mackay supports Rail to Renfrew so perhaps if the Tram train is cancelled it will come back onto the agenda.

 

[92002]

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.

Think the chances of HS2 ever going beyond Manchester and Leeds to anywhere are rather remote. If indeed it ever gets built at all.

 

[JohnR]

I'd like to see Labour defeated in Glasgow partly because it's not healthy for one party to rule for so long ie. 50 years. My only worry is a low turnout might benefit them as their core support is mainly pensioners these days.*

Derek Mackay supports Rail to Renfrew so perhaps if the Tram train is cancelled it will come back onto the agenda.

Thats news. When he was Transport Minister he refused to even look at the issue.

 

[clc]

Thats news. When he was Transport Minister he refused to even look at the issue.

Two years ago he said publicly that he still supported Rail to Renfrew but Renfrewshire Council had decided not to pursue a bid for a station.

 

[anti-pacer]

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

Whereas on another thread I was slated for sounding surprised that peak services into Glasgow were busy.

Are you confirming that on this line at least they aren't too bad?

 

[JohnR]

Two years ago he said publicly that he still supported Rail to Renfrew but Renfrewshire Council had decided not to pursue a bid for a station.

And Renfrewshire Council said they wernt going to spend money on a GRIP study unless the Transport Minister was going to back it. You can see their point - whats the use in spending £100,000+ of taxpayers money if the report will sit on the ministers desk and he will do nothing about it.

 

[clc]

And Renfrewshire Council said they wernt going to spend money on a GRIP study unless the Transport Minister was going to back it. You can see their point - whats the use in spending £100,000+ of taxpayers money if the report will sit on the ministers desk and he will do nothing about it.

My suspicion is the real reason Renfrewshire Council didn't pursue was it would have made it more difficult for GARL bearing in mind the capacity issue. Labour in Glasgow wanted to use GARL as a political football and their colleagues in Renfrewshire joined in with the silliness rather than pursue the scheme with the most benefits for the people they represent.

 

[Altnabreac]

Whereas on another thread I was slated for sounding surprised that peak services into Glasgow were busy.

Are you confirming that on this line at least they aren't too bad?

Ayrshire services are the most recent to have been lengthened and extended (using the Paisley Corridor capacity and extra trains that were originally for GARL). So in general they are not too badly overcrowded.

Argyll Line and North Clyde trains have also been lengthened and increased in frequency in recent years so they are pretty full but not generally unpleasantly so.

The busiest trains into Glasgow are probably on the East Kilbride line where no further lengthening or capacity enhancement can take place without capital investment. Last investment was platform lengthening back in 2003.

Cathcart Circle and Neilston trains are also full and standing at peak times and the introduction of 385s will enhance the ambience but reduce the number of seats (moving from 3+2 to 2+2) so you'd also hope to see more services here as well.

Both those enhancements would need more terminal capacity at Glasgow Central though so are competing with GARL for a limited (and expensive - see Scotland Route Study) resource.

I'd suggest 4tph electrified trains to East Kilbride should definitely be the priority enhancement for Glasgow suburban services in the next 5 years.

 

[route101]

Ayrshire services are the most recent to have been lengthened and extended (using the Paisley Corridor capacity and extra trains that were originally for GARL). So in general they are not too badly overcrowded.

Argyll Line and North Clyde trains have also been lengthened and increased in frequency in recent years so they are pretty full but not generally unpleasantly so.

The busiest trains into Glasgow are probably on the East Kilbride line where no further lengthening or capacity enhancement can take place without capital investment. Last investment was platform lengthening back in 2003.

Cathcart Circle and Neilston trains are also full and standing at peak times and the introduction of 385s will enhance the ambience but reduce the number of seats (moving from 3+2 to 2+2) so you'd also hope to see more services here as well.

Both those enhancements would need more terminal capacity at Glasgow Central though so are competing with GARL for a limited (and expensive - see Scotland Route Study) resource.

I'd suggest 4tph electrified trains to East Kilbride should definitely be the priority enhancement for Glasgow suburban services in the next 5 years.

Yeah EK services are really busy . Took the 1847 from Glasgow tO EK and it was a full and standing 2 car 156 . Instead of being on the backburner this line should be priority .

 

[och aye]

Possibly a candidate for an upgrade during CP6?

 

[clc]

The busiest trains into Glasgow are probably on the East Kilbride line where no further lengthening or capacity enhancement can take place without capital investment. Last investment was platform lengthening back in 2003.

Cathcart Circle and Neilston trains are also full and standing at peak times and the introduction of 385s will enhance the ambience but reduce the number of seats (moving from 3+2 to 2+2) so you'd also hope to see more services here as well.

I'd suggest 4tph electrified trains to East Kilbride should definitely be the priority enhancement for Glasgow suburban services in the next 5 years.

If the overcrowding and reliability issues on the East Kilbride line aren't addressed in the next few years I wouldn't be surprised to see passenger numbers stop rising or maybe even fall.

I also expect Neilston services to abstract some passengers who currently use Clarkston and Giffnock once the new 385s arrive.

 

[Southsider]

Any hints coming out from reliable sources about which of the choices the Scottish Govt is planning to implement in CP6?

Not sure if this is what you are looking for, was on Twitter this morning.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...ts-out-vision-for-future-of-scotlands-railway

There's a link to the full report near the bottom.

I'm glad to see East Kilbride is being prioritised, capacity increase first then electrification.

 

[clc]

Not sure if this is what you are looking for, was on Twitter this morning.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...ts-out-vision-for-future-of-scotlands-railway

There's a link to the full report near the bottom.

I'm glad to see East Kilbride is being prioritised, capacity increase first then electrification.

Thanks for the link, will have a read later.

 

[clc]

So based on the recommendations in this report and the timescales given in Appendix 06 of the Route Study the likely shortlist for delivery in CP6 would be:

Edinburgh Suburban electrification and junction enhancements.
Carstairs re-modelling.
Greenhill Upper Junction grade separation.
Dalmeny Chord/Winchburgh Junction.
Glasgow Central - extension of platforms 6 to 9.
Perth Station re-modelling plus servicing and stabling facility.
Moncrieffe Tunnel clearance for electrification and freight gauge.
Improved signalling headways between Dunblane and Perth.
East Kilbride and Barrhead electrification plus double tracking between Busby-Hairmyres.
Maryhill electrification.
Edinburgh Waverley platform enhancements.
Aberdeen-Inverness Phase 2.
Far North Line - double-track to the North of Dingwall and South of Invergordon

 

[clc]

It's interesting that CP6 could see construction of the remaining components of the originally planned EGIP, so theoretically the E&G could see a 6tph service by 2025.

 

[och aye]

It's interesting that CP6 could see construction of the remaining components of the originally planned EGIP, so theoretically the E&G could see a 6tph service by 2025.

Almost, the Abbeyhill turnback isn't included.

Obviously, there many factors which could change all of the proposals: Brexit, Scottish independence, change of Holyrood administration etc.

 

[MarkRedon]

The direct link to the Rail Delivery Group document is http://www.raildeliverygroup.com/about-us/publications.html?task=file.download&id=469771815.

From page 3 of a 70 page report:

The industry is working in an increasingly positive and collaborative way with the Scottish Government. Building on the trust and transparency that already exist underpins how longer term strategies can be developed and translated into an efficient, high-quality railway that supports the Scottish Government’s long-term vision for Scotland.

In the short-term, the industry is focusing on improving train punctuality and performance. Delivering and ensuring that performance meets the needs of users is at the heart of the industry’s planning, recognising that there are choices to be made to ensure that more trains and more capacity can be
sustained and delivered consistently. This advice recognises that this requires reliable assets and constant focus on operational reliability.

The choices for funders identified in this advice include continuing investment in the network that deliver improved capacity and improved journey opportunities; focusing on making the best use of the current network.

The document presents the "industry's" attempt to influence the next Scottish HLOS. As such, it probably represents the maximum that might be achieved in a very favourable outturn settlement. Presenting a reasonably unified view as to what the "industry" "wants" is of course much easier in Scotland than it is south of the border.

 

[clc]

The document presents the "industry's" attempt to influence the next Scottish HLOS. As such, it probably represents the maximum that might be achieved in a very favourable outturn settlement. Presenting a reasonably unified view as to what the "industry" "wants" is of course much easier in Scotland than it is south of the border.

The major projects budget in CP5 was £1.4 billion so I'd imagine similar funds will be made available in CP6, though some of the budget will have to cover work carried over from CP5. Perhaps around £1.2 billion will be spent on new projects.

My guess is these projects will be funded:-

Edinburgh Suburban electrification and junction enhancements.
Dalmeny Chord/Almond Junction.
East Kilbride and Barrhead electrification plus double tracking between Busby-Hairmyres.
Glasgow Central platform extensions.
Perth Station re-modelling and servicing and stabling facility.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I would be very surprised if Anniesland electrification didn't make it in as well. It ticks all the boxes now that there are going to be effectively no other diesel suburban services running out of Queen Street HL. No electrical supply work needs done either, as it could be fed off either the E&G or North Clyde Electrics supply. It also very much helps that the line could be closed completely during the works, so the work could be done by non-railway contractors. I can't think of many other lines that share that privilege.

 

[Carntyne]

I would be very surprised if Anniesland electrification didn't make it in as well. It ticks all the boxes now that there are going to be effectively no other diesel suburban services running out of Queen Street HL. No electrical supply work needs done either, as it could be fed off either the E&G or North Clyde Electrics supply. It also very much helps that the line could be closed completely during the works, so the work could be done by non-railway contractors. I can't think of many other lines that share that privilege.

WHL would still need to use the line unless the timetable's being rewritten? Easier to do it the same way as EGIP & Shotts, it's a method that works.

 

[NotATrainspott]

WHL would still need to use the line unless the timetable's being rewritten? Easier to do it the same way as EGIP & Shotts, it's a method that works.

As last summer's works showed, you can send the WHL services down to the low level station without too much hassle. The stopping services would have to be replaced by buses but I doubt this would be the end of the world. The Maryhill route is so marginal that electrification might not be worthwhile without this sort of major closure to reduce costs.

 

[Class 170101]

I would be very surprised if Anniesland electrification didn't make it in as well. It ticks all the boxes now that there are going to be effectively no other diesel suburban services running out of Queen Street HL.

Don't forget the WHL services will still operate with Class 158s

No electrical supply work needs done either, as it could be fed off either the E&G or North Clyde Electrics supply. It also very much helps that the line could be closed completely during the works, so the work could be done by non-railway contractors. I can't think of many other lines that share that privilege.

This would be a reason to wire the line though just string up the wires no extra feeder stations required.