Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

[edwin_m]

A triangle is being electrified with complex tunnel issues at Winchburgh and another Complex tunnel issue at Queen Street. A slightly less complex tunnel issue at Dunblane.

...

Electrifying Edinburgh-Dunblane first would have been an earlier win, release around 5-6 170 units from diagrams to strengthen services elsewhere in Scotland and making sooner use of the capital cost of the infrastructure and also allow IEP and Pendolino to run further North.

Edinburgh-Dunblane would still have needed the Winchburgh and Dunblane tunnel works, but would have resulted in a much lower ratio of mileage converted to EMU per mile electrified (ie still a lot of running under the wires).

In the absence of electrification, the need for more capacity between Edinburgh and Glasgow would have required the Queen Street platform lengthening to go ahead anyway, and running longer trains would have soaked up all the DMUs released from the Dunblane route, with higher operating costs and no increase in speed or comfort.

If there was any case for extra trains from England terminating at Stirling or Dunblane then one of the East Coast operators would have tried this already with a HST.

 

[Altnabreac]

This is the bit of the project that doesn't make sense to me really.

A triangle is being electrified with complex tunnel issues at Winchburgh and another Complex tunnel issue at Queen Street. A slightly less complex tunnel issue at Dunblane.

Is it just out of vanity that it had to be the Edinburgh-Glasgow route that is undertaken first - when there are already electrified routes between the cities?

Electrifying Edinburgh-Dunblane first would have been an earlier win, release around 5-6 170 units from diagrams to strengthen services elsewhere in Scotland and making sooner use of the capital cost of the infrastructure and also allow IEP and Pendolino to run further North.

Also worth remembering the 5 month closure at Queen St next year is not actually due to electrification or part of EGIP. It's a concrete slab replacement because the existing slab is life expired, but the level will actually stay pretty much the same, I believe they could have just wired the tunnel as it is if the slab had been in better condition.

 

[Carntyne]

That's Winchburgh completed and trains are running again.

 

[Southsider]

I'm slightly surprised that Shotts is being electrified in advance of East Kilbride. I would have thought the latter would have taken priority owning to its relatively short length (Muirhouse to EK), high passenger numbers and the 10 or so 156s that could be released. The passenger experience on the 156s is dire - cramped and with dwell times close to 5 minutes at peak. Anyone know why Shotts is first?

 

[NotATrainspott]

I'm slightly surprised that Shotts is being electrified in advance of East Kilbride. I would have thought the latter would have taken priority owning to its relatively short length (Muirhouse to EK), high passenger numbers and the 10 or so 156s that could be released. The passenger experience on the 156s is dire - cramped and with dwell times close to 5 minutes at peak. Anyone know why Shotts is first?

Probably because it comes under the category of 'Edinburgh-Glasgow' and the current major project is the 'Edinburgh-Glasgow Improvements Project'.

Electrification to Barrhead and East Kilbride is something that needs to happen and will happen not long after Shotts. If I'm not mistaken, there is an intention to do some redoubling on the line to enable higher frequencies, and it would be quite sensible to do that work alongside electrification. Shotts, on the other hand, is a relatively simple job since each end is already electrified and the entire route is double track.

Wires to EK and Barrhead would probably be done as one project also stretching to Kilmarnock and the connection to Ayr. Once there are wires to Kilmarnock, it's only Maryhill to be done before Glasgow has no more diesel suburban routes. There are two separate electrification teams operating in Scotland at the moment, and if one of them focuses on Glasgow, the other can focus on Fife. The new ScotRail franchise agreement lists the Nith Valley line (to Carlisle via Kilmarnock) and the line to Dundee as ones which may well be done before the 10 year franchise ends in 2025.

 

[Railsigns]

Anyone know why Shotts is first?

It's needed as a diversionary route for when Carstairs gets remodelled. Three-aspect signalling will also be installed along the Shotts route to add capacity for the diversions.

 

[Altnabreac]

I'm slightly surprised that Shotts is being electrified in advance of East Kilbride. I would have thought the latter would have taken priority owning to its relatively short length (Muirhouse to EK), high passenger numbers and the 10 or so 156s that could be released. The passenger experience on the 156s is dire - cramped and with dwell times close to 5 minutes at peak. Anyone know why Shotts is first?

As well as what has been said above I'd add the following 3 reasons:

Midcalder Junction realignment has recently been carried out, creating a double lead junction so it is a relatively straightforward job to electrify the existing layout. As others have said for East Kilbride there is probably a need for additional double track sections to deliver an enhanced 4tph service.

Freight Usage. The Midcalder line sees some usage and as more freight starts using the ECML this will become a more frequently used route to access central Scotland freight terminals. This is the same reason that Edinburgh South Suburban and Grangemouth electrification have been proceeding in advance of some more obvious passenger focussed schemes.

Glasgow Central Capacity. As the additional capacity created for GARL is used up by other services capacity at CEntral is increasingly constrained. Whifflet electrification allowed diversion of services to Low Level and I would expect at least the Shotts stopping service to also be diverted to Low Level once electrification takes place.

Indeed it could be that diversion of Shotts services to Low Level is a necessary precursor to generate the capacity at High Level to allow a 4tph service to run to East Kilbride.

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding the electrification of the Glasgow & SW Railway routes to East Kilbride and Kilmarnock, I'm sure I've seen on the RTT website that a train works to EK and back, then works to Kilmarnock (or Carlisle Citadel and Newcastle Central) and back, then to EK and so on.

In other words, if EK was electrified first, Kilmarnock would also have to be done too at the same time. By doing Holytown to Midcalder Junction, this would only take a short while to do due to the preparation works already carried out as mentioned at Midcalder Junction. Also, this would mean that all Caledonian Railway metals south of the mighty Clyde are electrified, with the only sections north of the Clyde would be from (What's it called?) Cumbernauld to Inverness, and Inverness to Keith along the Inverness & Aberdeen Joint Railway (it switches to North British Railway metals for the Keith - Aberdeen section).

The only remaining sections south of the Clyde would be the remaining G&SWR metals to Gretna Junction, the Kilmarnock & Troon Railway, and the section of the Glasgow City Union Railway from Shields Junction to Bellgrove, which could be done as preparatory work for a combined HS Rail and Glasgow Crossrail project. Ideally, this should be done (or Aberdeen Crossrail) before the Chelsea - Hackney Crossrail project in London goes ahead, as London already has Thameslink (north - south axis) and the Central Line of London Underground plus London Crossrail on an east - west axis.

 

[Railsigns]

(it switches to North British Railway metals for the Keith - Aberdeen section).

Great North of Scotland Railway, actually.

 

[edwin_m]

Regarding the electrification of the Glasgow & SW Railway routes to East Kilbride and Kilmarnock, I'm sure I've seen on the RTT website that a train works to EK and back, then works to Kilmarnock (or Carlisle Citadel and Newcastle Central) and back, then to EK and so on.

May well be. If it was electrified with the same timetable then the total of EMU and DMU trains in service would be one more than the previous DMU total, and they would spend more time waiting in a platform at Central. By "train" I mean several units coupled together if that is what happens at peak times.

However if the EK service is also being doubled in frequency then this will probably increase the utilisation of the EMUs.

 

[me123]

Indeed it could be that diversion of Shotts services to Low Level is a necessary precursor to generate the capacity at High Level to allow a 4tph service to run to East Kilbride.

Why is that needed? In the rush hour, there's already 2tph via Shotts and 4tph to East Kilbride from the High Level. The capacity is there, and is currently being used. Here's the evidence.I cannot think of any other service enhancements that we're trying to free up space for at the moment. There's 4tph to Barrhead. 4tph to Ayr. 4tph to Inverclyde. 2tph to Ardrossan (one of which to Largs). 2tph to Lanark. 2tph to Paisley Canal. The Cathcart services. What more is there to add?

Why all this obsession with diverting every possible service into the low level? The line through Partick is the only possible destination, and it's already at capacity. You can turn back at Exhibition Centre, but it's not the best set-up at the moment. The Shotts services are already slow, and slowing them further by diverting them to the low level seems to be a retrograde step.

 

[Altnabreac]

Why is that needed? In the rush hour, there's already 2tph via Shotts and 4tph to East Kilbride from the High Level. The capacity is there, and is currently being used. Here's the evidence.I cannot think of any other service enhancements that we're trying to free up space for at the moment. There's 4tph to Barrhead. 4tph to Ayr. 4tph to Inverclyde. 2tph to Ardrossan (one of which to Largs). 2tph to Lanark. 2tph to Paisley Canal. The Cathcart services. What more is there to add?

Why all this obsession with diverting every possible service into the low level? The line through Partick is the only possible destination, and it's already at capacity. You can turn back at Exhibition Centre, but it's not the best set-up at the moment. The Shotts services are already slow, and slowing them further by diverting them to the low level seems to be a retrograde step.

Disclaimer: I am not a timetable planner

Having said that my understanding is that the number of trains Network Rail will allow for a single high peak hour and the number allowed for an all day frequency are not the same.

Allowing for recovery, delay etc means a lower tph permitted.

 

[Southsider]

Regarding the electrification of the Glasgow & SW Railway routes to East Kilbride and Kilmarnock, I'm sure I've seen on the RTT website that a train works to EK and back, then works to Kilmarnock (or Carlisle Citadel and Newcastle Central) and back, then to EK and so on.

In other words, if EK was electrified first, Kilmarnock would also have to be done too at the same .

This type of argument (this is how it is and how it shall be) seems to crop up quite often on these forums. Surely it's not beyond the wit of man to rearrange things if the situation changes?

 

[NotATrainspott]

This type of argument (this is how it is and how it shall be) seems to crop up quite often on these forums. Surely it's not beyond the wit of man to rearrange things if the situation changes?

Yes. This arrangement won't be because it has to be that way, it will be like that because that's the most efficient way of diagramming DMUs running on that line out of Glasgow.

Unless an electric 158-equivalent (a shorter version of the fabled Class 344) is built then the future electric trains used for the journey all the way to Carlisle are likely to be the same as the ones used for East Kilbride, Barrhead and Kilmarnock services. If that is the case, then the future diagramming could be done in the same way as it is today. However, in the meantime, there would be no reason why Kilmarnock and then only Carlisle runs couldn't be diagrammed separately.

 

[Carntyne]

One of those extra EK peak services is a flyer, it doesn't stop until Clarkson, which might help things. EK is being redoubled though around 2019 I think.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Why is that needed? In the rush hour, there's already 2tph via Shotts and 4tph to East Kilbride from the High Level. The capacity is there, and is currently being used. Here's the evidence.I cannot think of any other service enhancements that we're trying to free up space for at the moment. There's 4tph to Barrhead. 4tph to Ayr. 4tph to Inverclyde. 2tph to Ardrossan (one of which to Largs). 2tph to Lanark. 2tph to Paisley Canal. The Cathcart services. What more is there to add?

Why all this obsession with diverting every possible service into the low level? The line through Partick is the only possible destination, and it's already at capacity. You can turn back at Exhibition Centre, but it's not the best set-up at the moment. The Shotts services are already slow, and slowing them further by diverting them to the low level seems to be a retrograde step.

Running services through the low level is a good idea on balance for stopping services since it means passengers have a direct service to more of the city centre. If you want to run more services into Central High Level then the low level option delivers more capacity for a reasonable cost. Exhibition Centre could be remodelled so that the current turnback siding could become the westbound platform, leaving the centre platform for use as a turnback. A plan to turn the eastbound platform into a central turnback at Hyndland was dropped but could be restarted with ease. Both of these would increase capacity through the low level without affecting the Hyndland flat junction, at far lower cost than the other options available at the high level station. Really, there isn't much that can be done now without the need for major changes, such as tram-train conversion or a full heavy rail north-south tunnel. The business case for either would hinge upon there being no other solution, and if capacity could be found going through the low level, neither would go ahead.

 

[adrock1976]

Running services through the low level is a good idea on balance for stopping services since it means passengers have a direct service to more of the city centre. If you want to run more services into Central High Level then the low level option delivers more capacity for a reasonable cost. Exhibition Centre could be remodelled so that the current turnback siding could become the westbound platform, leaving the centre platform for use as a turnback. A plan to turn the eastbound platform into a central turnback at Hyndland was dropped but could be restarted with ease. Both of these would increase capacity through the low level without affecting the Hyndland flat junction, at far lower cost than the other options available at the high level station. Really, there isn't much that can be done now without the need for major changes, such as tram-train conversion or a full heavy rail north-south tunnel. The business case for either would hinge upon there being no other solution, and if capacity could be found going through the low level, neither would go ahead.

In regards to Exhibition Centre terminators, I do not know if anybody has ever examined the possibility of reopening the western part of the Glasgow Central Railway to Maryhill Central, with reopened stations at Kelvinbridge (interchange with the underground), and Botanic Gardens (the very first railway station outwith the G1 -5 postcode area heading westbound along the A82 Great Western Road (or "The Boulie" - short for Boulevard as it is referred to by people from neighbouring Clydebank) is Anniesland. This would connect Hillhead/Dowanhill/Kelvinside to the railway network, and with the reopening of Maryhill Central, would reconnect that part of Maryhill and neighbouring Ruchill and the Wyndford too.

Of course, there is also Glasgow Crossrail which needs no fancy bells and whistles, as the City Union Railway is already operational between Shields Road and Bellgrove, and the platforms at Cumberland Street are already in situ with only the overgrown vegetation needing to be chopped down. Also, the island platform at Glasgow Cross on the GCR is already in situ - the reason why Glasgow Cross station did not reopen in 1979 was (according to a friend of mine who worked in the transport department of Strathclyde Regional Council) because the eastern flank of the motorway box (from Townhead to the southern bank of the Clyde, where it would join with the southern flank from Carlisle to Tradeston and onwards to Greenock) had not been built, and it was intended to use the former platform of Glasgow Cross station to fix concrete pillars to so as to support the elevated motorway above.

As the eastern flank of the motorway box would have meant demolition of Provand's Lordship (the oldest residential building in Glasgow), Barony Hall (part of Strathclyde Uni), all the buildings along High Street including College Bar (believed to be the oldest inn in Glasgow) and the Tollbooth Steeple at Glasgow Cross too. Needless to say, this section of the motorway box was never constructed.

Back to railway matters now, and by reopening Glasgow Cross station as part of Glasgow Crossrail and HS rail, this would regenerate the historic centre of Glasgow. To the west of the Cross, the Merchant City G1 postcode) has had piecemeal regeneration, with some posh flats and posh bars. East of the Cross, go 100 yards or so along London Road and you are into G40 postcode, which is one of the most deprived postcode areas outside of London. Yes, Dalmarnock, Barrowfield, and Bridgeton Cross have had some regeneration recently (attributed to the preparation of the Games last year), but the Calton has hardly had a look in. Also, the Calton has the lowest life expectancy according to a World Health Organisation report from circa 2009, where the residents are not expected to live beyond the age of 56 years. Through the Glasgow Crossrail project, this would help aid regeneration of the areas both west and east of Glasgow Cross.

 

[NotATrainspott]

In regards to Exhibition Centre terminators, I do not know if anybody has ever examined the possibility of reopening the western part of the Glasgow Central Railway to Maryhill Central, with reopened stations at Kelvinbridge (interchange with the underground), and Botanic Gardens (the very first railway station outwith the G1 -5 postcode area heading westbound along the A82 Great Western Road (or "The Boulie" - short for Boulevard as it is referred to by people from neighbouring Clydebank) is Anniesland. This would connect Hillhead/Dowanhill/Kelvinside to the railway network, and with the reopening of Maryhill Central, would reconnect that part of Maryhill and neighbouring Ruchill and the Wyndford too.

Reopening the GCR as a National Rail line would be a 'major project' and I can't see the BCR being particularly good. You would need another flat junction at Exhibition Centre to connect to it, so the added capacity it could bring would be relatively limited.

Of course, there is also Glasgow Crossrail which needs no fancy bells and whistles, as the City Union Railway is already operational between Shields Road and Bellgrove, and the platforms at Cumberland Street are already in situ with only the overgrown vegetation needing to be chopped down. Also, the island platform at Glasgow Cross on the GCR is already in situ - the reason why Glasgow Cross station did not reopen in 1979 was (according to a friend of mine who worked in the transport department of Strathclyde Regional Council) because the eastern flank of the motorway box (from Townhead to the southern bank of the Clyde, where it would join with the southern flank from Carlisle to Tradeston and onwards to Greenock) had not been built, and it was intended to use the former platform of Glasgow Cross station to fix concrete pillars to so as to support the elevated motorway above.

As the eastern flank of the motorway box would have meant demolition of Provand's Lordship (the oldest residential building in Glasgow), Barony Hall (part of Strathclyde Uni), all the buildings along High Street including College Bar (believed to be the oldest inn in Glasgow) and the Tollbooth Steeple at Glasgow Cross too. Needless to say, this section of the motorway box was never constructed.

Back to railway matters now, and by reopening Glasgow Cross station as part of Glasgow Crossrail and HS rail, this would regenerate the historic centre of Glasgow. To the west of the Cross, the Merchant City G1 postcode) has had piecemeal regeneration, with some posh flats and posh bars. East of the Cross, go 100 yards or so along London Road and you are into G40 postcode, which is one of the most deprived postcode areas outside of London. Yes, Dalmarnock, Barrowfield, and Bridgeton Cross have had some regeneration recently (attributed to the preparation of the Games last year), but the Calton has hardly had a look in. Also, the Calton has the lowest life expectancy according to a World Health Organisation report from circa 2009, where the residents are not expected to live beyond the age of 56 years. Through the Glasgow Crossrail project, this would help aid regeneration of the areas both west and east of Glasgow Cross.

The East End would see better regeneration if someone built a tram route or two connecting it to Glasgow Central and Queen Street stations rather than trying to redirect train services there when no one wants to go there. Reopening the City Union line isn't going to turn the area into the next Buchanan Street overnight, and it may even be the case that the existing city centre would lose out. The best option for the whole of Glasgow is to try and encourage development in the city centre, and so long as there are good onward transport links, that development will naturally spread across to where land values are cheaper. You want to improve the whole of Glasgow at a time, not just improve one area at the expense of the other bits.

 

[oldman]

Back to railway matters now, and by reopening Glasgow Cross station as part of Glasgow Crossrail and HS rail, this would regenerate the historic centre of Glasgow. To the west of the Cross, the Merchant City G1 postcode) has had piecemeal regeneration, with some posh flats and posh bars. East of the Cross, go 100 yards or so along London Road and you are into G40 postcode, which is one of the most deprived postcode areas outside of London. Yes, Dalmarnock, Barrowfield, and Bridgeton Cross have had some regeneration recently (attributed to the preparation of the Games last year), but the Calton has hardly had a look in. Also, the Calton has the lowest life expectancy according to a World Health Organisation report from circa 2009, where the residents are not expected to live beyond the age of 56 years. Through the Glasgow Crossrail project, this would help aid regeneration of the areas both west and east of Glasgow Cross.

I think you misunderstand the nature of the problem. There are indeed a lot of deprived people in parts of Glasgow but this is not because there are no transport links to other areas where there is employment. Lots of people in the East End travel to work where it is, in the city centre and elsewhere.

The problem is that in some areas there is an above-average proportion of people who don't find it easy to get work in the Greater Glasgow employment market. If you have chronic poor health or lack qualifications and skills or live in a household where unemployment is the norm, Crossrail is not going to help you. Support to help you improve your individual potential may.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Yes. This arrangement won't be because it has to be that way, it will be like that because that's the most efficient way of diagramming DMUs running on that line out of Glasgow.

Unless an electric 158-equivalent (a shorter version of the fabled Class 344) is built then the future electric trains used for the journey all the way to Carlisle are likely to be the same as the ones used for East Kilbride, Barrhead and Kilmarnock services. If that is the case, then the future diagramming could be done in the same way as it is today. However, in the meantime, there would be no reason why Kilmarnock and then only Carlisle runs couldn't be diagrammed separately.

Exactly. I can also seem them simply cutting the portion on to Newcastle (something I'd personally lose out on) once the vast majority of Scottish services are electric.

 

[me123]

Disclaimer: I am not a timetable planner

Having said that my understanding is that the number of trains Network Rail will allow for a single high peak hour and the number allowed for an all day frequency are not the same.

Allowing for recovery, delay etc means a lower tph permitted.

I still remain to be convinced that 4tph to EK is not possible.

The hour from 16:45 to 17:45 sees a whopping 40 departures from Central HL (four of which are EK trains). By contrast, 12:45-13:45 (to take a random time during the day) sees 32. I would argue that an additional two is definitely possible, although I'd agree that we'd be at least approaching the upper limit, if not hitting it with the additional EK runs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Running services through the low level is a good idea on balance for stopping services since it means passengers have a direct service to more of the city centre. If you want to run more services into Central High Level then the low level option delivers more capacity for a reasonable cost. Exhibition Centre could be remodelled so that the current turnback siding could become the westbound platform, leaving the centre platform for use as a turnback. A plan to turn the eastbound platform into a central turnback at Hyndland was dropped but could be restarted with ease. Both of these would increase capacity through the low level without affecting the Hyndland flat junction, at far lower cost than the other options available at the high level station. Really, there isn't much that can be done now without the need for major changes, such as tram-train conversion or a full heavy rail north-south tunnel. The business case for either would hinge upon there being no other solution, and if capacity could be found going through the low level, neither would go ahead.

I agree. The range of stations offered by both low-level routes in Glasgow is fantastic, and is an excellent feature of our rail network. I recall the outcry of some passengers on the Argyle Line when the new timetable was announced diverting Lanark runs to the High Level (perhaps a bit excessive, given that both Argyle Street and Anderston stations are within walking distance of Central, but the point remains - the convenience was lost).

However, running services through the low level also increases journey times for journeys to and from the city centre. The Shotts line is one of the longer suburban routes Glasgow offers, and the fast trains do in fact offer a feasible end-end journey for those who wish to use it (for example, people transferring to a location only served from Central such as East Kilbride). Yet people consistently suggest that this journey is extended by diverting it to the low level, seemingly not considering the impact not that service as much as thinking about all the additional slots they'll create at Central. All two of them. The Shotts line is probably the only service that can be diverted to the low level, except of course the Lanark runs which have just been diverted to the high level to significantly boost journey times.

The low level is completely appropriate for suburban runs, and is a fantastic service. It's not the answer for everything, as some people seem to think. The extended journey times are an issue, as is capacity. Each line (via QS and Central) has capacity in itself, but that becomes an issue when you run on to Partick. Partick is, in my opinion, more of a bottleneck than Central is. Sadly, 4 tracking isn't possible here due to obvious geographical constraints. I do find the idea of a turn back at Hyndland to be an attractive option, however. It would allow a cross-platform transfer to onward services going Westbound. Eastbound, the same transfer is available at Partick.

 

[Altnabreac]

I still remain to be convinced that 4tph to EK is not possible.

The hour from 16:45 to 17:45 sees a whopping 40 departures from Central HL (four of which are EK trains). By contrast, 12:45-13:45 (to take a random time during the day) sees 32. I would argue that an additional two is definitely possible, although I'd agree that we'd be at least approaching the upper limit, if not hitting it with the additional EK runs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I agree. The range of stations offered by both low-level routes in Glasgow is fantastic, and is an excellent feature of our rail network. I recall the outcry of some passengers on the Argyle Line when the new timetable was announced diverting Lanark runs to the High Level (perhaps a bit excessive, given that both Argyle Street and Anderston stations are within walking distance of Central, but the point remains - the convenience was lost).

However, running services through the low level also increases journey times for journeys to and from the city centre. The Shotts line is one of the longer suburban routes Glasgow offers, and the fast trains do in fact offer a feasible end-end journey for those who wish to use it (for example, people transferring to a location only served from Central such as East Kilbride). Yet people consistently suggest that this journey is extended by diverting it to the low level, seemingly not considering the impact not that service as much as thinking about all the additional slots they'll create at Central. All two of them. The Shotts line is probably the only service that can be diverted to the low level, except of course the Lanark runs which have just been diverted to the high level to significantly boost journey times.

The low level is completely appropriate for suburban runs, and is a fantastic service. It's not the answer for everything, as some people seem to think. The extended journey times are an issue, as is capacity. Each line (via QS and Central) has capacity in itself, but that becomes an issue when you run on to Partick. Partick is, in my opinion, more of a bottleneck than Central is. Sadly, 4 tracking isn't possible here due to obvious geographical constraints. I do find the idea of a turn back at Hyndland to be an attractive option, however. It would allow a cross-platform transfer to onward services going Westbound. Eastbound, the same transfer is available at Partick.

I think 4tph for East Kilbride is certainly coming, either in late CP5 or early CP6. As you point out there may be enough capacity from the last Central upgrade to squeeze out the extra 2tph train paths without any diversions.

As regards Shotts I suspect the future of these services is likely to be some sort of recast. The through slow service is very long winded and I wonder if something more like 2tph semi fasts with slightly more stops than the current semi fast combined with stopping services at each end (possibly extensions from existing Glasgow services such as Whifflet).

The following projects from the Scottish CP5 deliver plan all interact on this topic:

Scottish Network Improvement Fund

The purpose of this fund is to deliver, or support the delivery of, interventions on the Scottish network which support the development of the capacity and capability of general infrastructure and network communications systems in line with the strategic priorities of Scottish Ministers, including improved journey times, improved connectivity and resilience.

The fund should exploit opportunities available through current or planned works. There is £62m available for this purpose.

The following projects are currently being considered as possible candidates for funding in Control Period 5:

• Polmadie to Glasgow bi-directional working;
• Glasgow Central capacity improvements;
• Edinburgh Waverley capacity improvements;
• Exhibition Centre turnback;
• Edinburgh suburban electrification (multi-funded project);

Future Network Development Fund

This will fund or support the development of proposals for strategic interventions to improve the capacity and capability of the Scottish network in Control Period 6 and beyond. There is £11m available for this purpose.

The following strategic projects may be considered for further development under this fund:

• Passenger capacity at Glasgow Central, Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh Waverley , including any requirements resulting from the introduction of High Speed 2 services
• Train handling capability at Glasgow Central
• Train handling capability at Edinburgh Waverley
• Rolling programme of electrification
• East Kilbride station capability

As you can see from the first list under Future Network Development the elephant in the room at Glasgow Central is future capacity for High Speed Rail. If you're running 3-4tph to Edinburgh and 1-2tph extra southwards then extra capacity at Central is certainly required.

Whether this can be achieved by diversions to low level and tinkering with approach tracks or whether something more dramatic like tram train / city centre tunnel is required is the question for Network Rail to try and answer before CP6.

 

[me123]

IAs you can see from the first list under Future Network Development the elephant in the room at Glasgow Central is future capacity for High Speed Rail. If you're running 3-4tph to Edinburgh and 1-2tph extra southwards then extra capacity at Central is certainly required.

Whether this can be achieved by diversions to low level and tinkering with approach tracks or whether something more dramatic like tram train / city centre tunnel is required is the question for Network Rail to try and answer before CP6.

High Speed Rail in Scotland? I thought that was off the table now that we've voted no to independence and therefore there's no incentive to placate us we're not South of the Watford Gap"it's been found not to provide value for money"?

Certainly if HSR is coming to Glasgow then there are genuinely significant challenges with regards to capacity. In this case, thinking about diverting existing services is warranted. I'm not convinced that Shotts services to the low level is the best outcome, and I'm also not convinced about Crossrail - the costs associated with the scheme far outweigh the benefits (I think I've previously questioned the costs of relocating High Street station into the tunnels, which would be required).

Perhaps a Cathcart tram/train option would be the best here? You've currently got 5tph going to the circle lines, which would be the best candidates for a tram/train solution IMO. The lines could get a good boost in frequency as a result and it would free up a significant number of paths into Central with minimal disruption to existing services? (I've obviously not costed this and couldn't come up with a proper plan, but if I get my crayons out, I think using the A77 as far as the tramway theatre looks feasible?).

 

[NotATrainspott]

High Speed Rail in Scotland? I thought that was off the table now that we've voted no to independence and therefore there's no incentive to placate us we're not South of the Watford Gap"it's been found not to provide value for money"?

Certainly if HSR is coming to Glasgow then there are genuinely significant challenges with regards to capacity. In this case, thinking about diverting existing services is warranted. I'm not convinced that Shotts services to the low level is the best outcome, and I'm also not convinced about Crossrail - the costs associated with the scheme far outweigh the benefits (I think I've previously questioned the costs of relocating High Street station into the tunnels, which would be required).

Perhaps a Cathcart tram/train option would be the best here? You've currently got 5tph going to the circle lines, which would be the best candidates for a tram/train solution IMO. The lines could get a good boost in frequency as a result and it would free up a significant number of paths into Central with minimal disruption to existing services? (I've obviously not costed this and couldn't come up with a proper plan, but if I get my crayons out, I think using the A77 as far as the tramway theatre looks feasible?).

The Cathcart tram-train idea seems to be the next step after it's no longer possible to relieve capacity by redirecting into the low level (which can only be done for trains from the WCML end). It would free up all of the current Cathcart/Newton/Neilston trains, and maybe the Paisley Canal ones if desperately required, but it won't do a vast amount more than that since so many services aren't suitable for tram-trains. At that point, it's cross-city tunnel or nothing, a solution which would serve the city and the entire west of Scotland well for decades.

 

[clc]

The Cathcart tram-train idea seems to be the next step after it's no longer possible to relieve capacity by redirecting into the low level (which can only be done for trains from the WCML end). It would free up all of the current Cathcart/Newton/Neilston trains, and maybe the Paisley Canal ones if desperately required, but it won't do a vast amount more than that since so many services aren't suitable for tram-trains. At that point, it's cross-city tunnel or nothing, a solution which would serve the city and the entire west of Scotland well for decades.

I'm not convinced the business case for converting the Cathcart Circle lines to tram-train would be that strong. It would be very expensive and disruptive and would lead to longer journey times for existing passengers due to comparatively slow on-street sections. Also, some sections of the Neilston line are quite fast but tram-trains wouldn't make the most of them with their lower top speed. The benefits would be a very modest increase in capacity of 5tph.

I'd rather keep the money for a north-south tunnel.

 

[Altnabreac]

I'm not convinced the business case for converting the Cathcart Circle lines to tram-train would be that strong. It would be very expensive and disruptive and would lead to longer journey times for existing passengers due to comparatively slow on-street sections. Also, some sections of the Neilston line are quite fast but tram-trains wouldn't make the most of them with their lower top speed. The benefits would be a very modest increase in capacity of 5tph.

I'd rather keep the money for a north-south tunnel.

There is also the fact that any SNP transport minister would rather poke their eyes out with a spoon than fund another tram project. For better or worse I suspect tram train is unlikely to happen for a number of reasons, but mainly because it just won't get political backing.

Like you I tend to think a tunnel is the only way to deliver a step change in capacity by diverting 10-15tph and creating new services.

I suspect with extra approach tracks, throat alterations, platform extensions, etc you can eke out just enough extra capacity to run HS into Central.

The north south tunnel would eventually follow but be further into the future than the High Speed Line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

High Speed Rail in Scotland? I thought that was off the table now that we've voted no to independence and therefore there's no incentive to placate us we're not South of the Watford Gap"it's been found not to provide value for money"?

Certainly if HSR is coming to Glasgow then there are genuinely significant challenges with regards to capacity. In this case, thinking about diverting existing services is warranted. I'm not convinced that Shotts services to the low level is the best outcome, and I'm also not convinced about Crossrail - the costs associated with the scheme far outweigh the benefits (I think I've previously questioned the costs of relocating High Street station into the tunnels, which would be required).

Perhaps a Cathcart tram/train option would be the best here? You've currently got 5tph going to the circle lines, which would be the best candidates for a tram/train solution IMO. The lines could get a good boost in frequency as a result and it would free up a significant number of paths into Central with minimal disruption to existing services? (I've obviously not costed this and couldn't come up with a proper plan, but if I get my crayons out, I think using the A77 as far as the tramway theatre looks feasible?).

Now I haven't read the Arup report (no one outside TS or DfT has) but what has been reported in the press may have been a little misleading. My understanding is the "no business case / value for money" story in the Sunday Express during the election was referring to the costs and benefits of an entirely new, European Gauge route from Golborne to Edinburgh and Glasgow including new stations (fiendishly difficult and expensive to deliver in Edinburgh).

However the plan to reduce London - central belt times to 3 hours using 200m classic compatibles on a mixture of new and existing track has a much stronger business case.

Phase 1 of that would be an Edinburgh - Glasgow route with a south facing spur to somewhere around Carstairs.

Delivering the 3 hour journey time would probably require an additional 2-3 new high speed sections split on both sides of the border.

 

[Highland37]

I think you misunderstand the nature of the problem. There are indeed a lot of deprived people in parts of Glasgow but this is not because there are no transport links to other areas where there is employment. Lots of people in the East End travel to work where it is, in the city centre and elsewhere.

The problem is that in some areas there is an above-average proportion of people who don't find it easy to get work in the Greater Glasgow employment market. If you have chronic poor health or lack qualifications and skills or live in a household where unemployment is the norm, Crossrail is not going to help you. Support to help you improve your individual potential may.

That is very true. Poor health, from lifestyle which follows from low self confidence creates the situation we now face. The housing decisions taken in the 50s and 60s did a lot of harm.

Meanwhile billions from Scotland is being spent on HS2.

The social case is as important as the business case.

 

[Southsider]

Many thanks for the replies - most informative. So it looks like 2019/20 for East Kilbride etc.?

I take it that in addition to some track doubling there will be a fair amount of clearance work required as most of the bridges appear to be arches. The one at Crosmyloof was replaced a few years back so that will presumably be OK. Replacement of Clarkston road bridge adjacent to the station could result in a huge improvement to the road alignment if required for clearance. There must be quite a few others that are too tight for overhead wires.

 

[clc]

Many thanks for the replies - most informative. So it looks like 2019/20 for East Kilbride etc.?

I take it that in addition to some track doubling there will be a fair amount of clearance work required as most of the bridges appear to be arches. The one at Crosmyloof was replaced a few years back so that will presumably be OK. Replacement of Clarkson road bridge adjacent to the station could result in a huge improvement to the road alignment if required for clearance. There must be quite a few others that are too tight for overhead wires.

While they're at it perhaps they could build a pathway from the car park in Clarkston direct to the EK bound platform. Would save crossing the footbridge and going the long way round.

 

[Southsider]

While they're at it perhaps they could build a pathway from the car park in Clarkston direct to the EK bound platform. Would save crossing the footbridge and going the long way round.

Indeed it would. Mind you, it took long enough to reinstate the existing one owing to a wrangle between the local authority and Network Rail I believe. Despite being new it will need to be replaced again come electrification as I doubt it will meet the required standards.