Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

[route:oxford]

The point is, the Scottish budget is being cut. It's being cut by the Tories. The Tories are able to cut the Scottish budget due to the No vote last year despite them having only one MP in Scotland. Now you could argue that within that smaller budget the priorities are wrong but smaller it is and it will be even smaller in the future. That's the reason rail services are the way they are. Not some paranoid belief that people have it in for the Highlands.

Don't worry, as of next year, The Sturgeon can choose the people's tax rate for Scotland to replace the current 20% rate in Scotland.

The workers of Scotland will be able to praise the SNP for increasing income tax - potentially increasing basic rate tax by 2000 basis points and bringing massive cash windfalls for the most vulnerable people in Scotland.

 

[SkinnyDave]

Don't worry, as of next year, The Sturgeon can choose the people's tax rate for Scotland to replace the current 20% rate in Scotland.

The workers of Scotland will be able to praise the SNP for increasing income tax - potentially increasing basic rate tax by 2000 basis points and bringing massive cash windfalls for the most vulnerable people in Scotland.

Lol, Sturgeon could do her worse and it would still be preferable to the rank that the establishment you are fond of throw at Scotland!
Thankfully most of Scotland agrees with her.
Love how the polls today have "Unionist" panties in a twist

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding GARL, the major flaw in how it was not value for money was because it would only run from Glasgow Central to the airport, calling at Paisley Gilmour Street. This would have been a glorified (and expensive) shuttle between Glasgow and Paisley. Furthermore, GARL would have been no use whatsoever for places north of the mighty Clyde, especially as the minimum interchange time between Glasgow Queen Street and Central is 30 minutes, which you can already be halfway along the motorway using the buses from either outside Queen Street or Buchanan Bus Station.

What should have happened with GARL is that it should have been done in conjunction and as a part of Glasgow Crossrail, with platforms constructed at West Street (for interchange with the underground), reopened Cumberland Street (platforms still remain), and reopened Glasgow Cross (interchange with Glasgow Central Railway - platform no longer required for the eastern flank of the motorway box), continuing to Bellgrove (interchange with North British Railway destinations) and the generic direction of Stirling via Springburn.

 

[clc]

What should have happened with GARL is that it should have been done in conjunction and as a part of Glasgow Crossrail, with platforms constructed at West Street (for interchange with the underground), reopened Cumberland Street (platforms still remain), and reopened Glasgow Cross (interchange with Glasgow Central Railway - platform no longer required for the eastern flank of the motorway box), continuing to Bellgrove (interchange with North British Railway destinations) and the generic direction of Stirling via Springburn.

What services would be diverted onto the Crossrail route?

 

[me123]

Regarding GARL, the major flaw in how it was not value for money was because it would only run from Glasgow Central to the airport, calling at Paisley Gilmour Street. This would have been a glorified (and expensive) shuttle between Glasgow and Paisley. Furthermore, GARL would have been no use whatsoever for places north of the mighty Clyde, especially as the minimum interchange time between Glasgow Queen Street and Central is 30 minutes, which you can already be halfway along the motorway using the buses from either outside Queen Street or Buchanan Bus Station.

In addition, GARL created capacity along the line between Glasgow and Paisley only to waste the capacity on running four empty trains every hour to the airport. By cancelling it, we've had the opportunity to significantly increase Ayrshire services, providing a significant benefit to the South West commuter areas and, realistically, providing a greater overall benefit to the region.

I'll still moot my proposed suggestion of a new tunnelled line from Bishopbriggs - Queen Street - Central - South Glasgow University Hospital - Renfrew - Glasgow Airport - Inverclyde as a possible route for an airport rail link that would additionally provide many good local links and potentially free up capacity at both Central and Queen Street. Albeit at an undoubtedly phenomenal cost.

I would, again, disagree that the use of Glasgow Crossrail would be a good solution, as it would take the airport rail link and completely bypass the city centre, once again making the project uncompetitive. Furthermore, you'd also be diverting trains from Stirling in your example (and very probably also from the North Clyde Line) away from the city centre stations where people want to go, onto a convoluted line bypassing the centre to the East. Yes, you could create interchanges, but when you add on the time that takes you are once again going to be quicker on the 500 bus. And you won't have transfer with your luggage!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What services would be diverted onto the Crossrail route?

I'll be very surprised if anyone can suggest an existing service being diverted onto the proposed Crossrail route that actually benefits the existing users of the line.

 

[Argosy]

In addition, GARL created capacity along the line between Glasgow and Paisley only to waste the capacity on running four empty trains every hour to the airport. By cancelling it, we've had the opportunity to significantly increase Ayrshire services, providing a significant benefit to the South West commuter areas and, realistically, providing a greater overall benefit to the region.

I'll still moot my proposed suggestion of a new tunnelled line from Bishopbriggs - Queen Street - Central - South Glasgow University Hospital - Renfrew - Glasgow Airport - Inverclyde as a possible route for an airport rail link that would additionally provide many good local links and potentially free up capacity at both Central and Queen Street. Albeit at an undoubtedly phenomenal cost.

I would, again, disagree that the use of Glasgow Crossrail would be a good solution, as it would take the airport rail link and completely bypass the city centre, once again making the project uncompetitive. Furthermore, you'd also be diverting trains from Stirling in your example (and very probably also from the North Clyde Line) away from the city centre stations where people want to go, onto a convoluted line bypassing the centre to the East. Yes, you could create interchanges, but when you add on the time that takes you are once again going to be quicker on the 500 bus. And you won't have transfer with your luggage!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'll be very surprised if anyone can suggest an existing service being diverted onto the proposed Crossrail route that actually benefits the existing users of the line.

At last a post that doesn't blindly support Glasgow Crossrail. Hear Hear. To me Glasgow XRail is just a scheme dreamed up by Railfutures to justify a piece of railway.

I recall some 10 years ago about perhaps, when my company was engaged to consider GARL, I did ask why a tunnel wasn't considered. Then I was hoping a re-opened Kilbarchan loop line diving under the airport to pop out northside had some merit. The issue was the grade I believe and also the ground conditions.

My own preference since has been the equally expensive flyover from the Ayr lines to the east side of Glasgow Bridge Street across the Clyde on the old bridge pillars and a Chicago/Portsmouth high level style line serving the east side of Central curving away towards a re-opened St Enoch interchange with the Glasgow Underground and regaining the line eastwards towards Airdrie/Springburn.

This did have the advantage of offering substantial improved retail opportunities in an area which is a bit something or nothing.

Unfortunately without a suitable graphics capability to test it I am not sure if it could physically fit, but could be fun trying!

 

[kevin5025]

Yes and it's going to get a whole lot worse with the cuts to come. Do you really expect that more investment will follow by supporting people who have said they want to spend less?

The point is, the Scottish budget is being cut. It's being cut by the Tories. The Tories are able to cut the Scottish budget due to the No vote last year despite them having only one MP in Scotland. Now you could argue that within that smaller budget the priorities are wrong but smaller it is and it will be even smaller in the future. That's the reason rail services are the way they are. Not some paranoid belief that people have it in for the Highlands.

What "Highlander" says is nonsense and based on paranoia. A quick look at Calmac shows that millions have been spent and are being spent on public services in the north.

The dualling work has started on the A9. I saw it myself this morning.

Oh and the small matter of the rail freight grants being maintained. It's a small grant certainly but it's still there.

I can see you are political and a nationalist, so this reply isn't for your benefit, you have your fixed views.

What I am talking about is bad planning. No amount of money can fix incompetance and vested interests. I would like to see integrated transport and good planning. Millions are being spent in the north. The new sleeper and Scotrail franchises are well written (thinking of a lot of possibilities, certainly), and I don't think there is some conspiracy against the north (or against Scotland). But, they need to do better. They need to have integrated transport and spend money wisely. I think the cost of the refurbished toilets at Inverness station were around quarter of a million. I'd like to see several passing loops for that kind of money. Level crossing barriers, we were told it cost £1 per crossing to fit barriers. Then they got it down to £100k.
An example of what I am talking about - Inverness airport got a new terminal building. Millions spent. But its on the wrong side of the runway to serve any useful purpose if they get round to building a station. Its just bad planning.

 

[Highland37]

I can see you are political and a nationalist, so this reply isn't for your benefit, you have your fixed views.

What I am talking about is bad planning. No amount of money can fix incompetance and vested interests. I would like to see integrated transport and good planning. Millions are being spent in the north. The new sleeper and Scotrail franchises are well written (thinking of a lot of possibilities, certainly), and I don't think there is some conspiracy against the north (or against Scotland). But, they need to do better. They need to have integrated transport and spend money wisely. I think the cost of the refurbished toilets at Inverness station were around quarter of a million. I'd like to see several passing loops for that kind of money. Level crossing barriers, we were told it cost £1 per crossing to fit barriers. Then they got it down to £100k.
An example of what I am talking about - Inverness airport got a new terminal building. Millions spent. But its on the wrong side of the runway to serve any useful purpose if they get round to building a station. Its just bad planning.

Agreed. I have tried to change my username but can't work out how to do it.

Re Inverness Airport, I recall it was a PFI that had to be bought out at cost to the government of the day. Not good value.

There are multiple examples of bad planning in Inverness and elsewhere. Certainly you have my support in that and any overhaul of the planning system.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I can see you are political and a nationalist, so this reply isn't for your benefit, you have your fixed views.

What I am talking about is bad planning. No amount of money can fix incompetance and vested interests. I would like to see integrated transport and good planning. Millions are being spent in the north. The new sleeper and Scotrail franchises are well written (thinking of a lot of possibilities, certainly), and I don't think there is some conspiracy against the north (or against Scotland). But, they need to do better. They need to have integrated transport and spend money wisely. I think the cost of the refurbished toilets at Inverness station were around quarter of a million. I'd like to see several passing loops for that kind of money. Level crossing barriers, we were told it cost £1 per crossing to fit barriers. Then they got it down to £100k.
An example of what I am talking about - Inverness airport got a new terminal building. Millions spent. But its on the wrong side of the runway to serve any useful purpose if they get round to building a station. Its just bad planning.

You're not going to get several passing loops for the cost of a set of toilets at Inverness railway station. Railway infrastructure is mindbogglingly expensive in comparison to the things that normal people buy. There are plans to increase capacity on the Highland Main Line and these will involve extra track but there will only be so much that can realistically be done at a reasonable price when the route wasn't built to be double track in the first place.

 

[najaB]

You're not going to get several passing loops for the cost of a set of toilets at Inverness railway station. Railway infrastructure is mindbogglingly expensive in comparison to the things that normal people buy.

An example that came up in another thread: Conon Bridge station features a platform shorter than a single carriage and cost £600K.

 

[kevin5025]

An example that came up in another thread: Conon Bridge station features a platform shorter than a single carriage and cost £600K.

Yes, £600,000 for a platform that can fit one door of the train. £225,000 to refurbish some small toilets. I think a passing loop at Clunes (didn't happen due to cost) was quoted at around 1.5 million (correct me if I am wrong on that). So I am well aware of the costs on the railway. Well above what consumers pay for things, which there is nothing wrong with, but well above what industry pays (unless they are helping their friends through wasteful contracts - I've worked for places like that too). But that is the point. Those are crazy figures. Is it waste, inefficency or corruption? If its any of those lets here from all those who work on the railway and want to defend whatever you are up to. I hope people have more sense than to beleive the nonsense. I've worked in industry, but not railway industry, so I know what things cost, and its not what railways pay.

And, just for comparision I am aware of a shortline in Canada that built a siding, passing loop, and small station building for less than the cost of the toilet at Inverness. Or how about Pentland Ferries (Orkney), an entire new terminal for the cost of the toilets. Or how about Strathspey Railway - 8 coach platform, passing loop and station building (Broomhill) for less than the toilet - about £100,000. The latter used some (not all) vounteer labour - but still!

On the other hand mainline railways in the US, that receive grants, they need millions just to put in a siding. So things are the same all over the world

 

[highlander]

So you're just ignoring all the evidence posted refuting your claims then?

Ironically one of the documents I linked to was the Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR) which is exactly the integrated transport plan you say is lacking above.

That process analysed the transport needs across Scotland over a 30 year timeframe and is now forming the basis for delivery of both road and rail projects.

Massive investment is underway in both the north east and the Highlands although assuming you're from Caithness there is less direct investment there but you'll benefit from both A9 and A96 dualling plus HML and A2I rail projects.

None of these things have actually happened. Plans are fine but my main point is that the north of Scotland only gets consideration after the central belt has had everything it wants. If there are further spending cuts whose to say the A9 project is not cancelled or at least extended? We have had nearly 10 years of nationalist government and the message for the Highlands has been the same jam tomorrow.

Quite how someone form Caithness benefits from the A96 dulling I am not so sure but maybe geography is not your thing.

We don't have an integrated transport policy, the train timetable doesn't tie in with the bus, there are numerous simple improvements that can be made. I do not in any way disagree improvements have been made across Scotland, my point is though only bits of Scotland have benefitted, and the Highlands has seen little benefit at all and constantly shouting about projects that are 5-20 years away is really not good enough.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes and it's going to get a whole lot worse with the cuts to come. Do you really expect that more investment will follow by supporting people who have said they want to spend less?

The point is, the Scottish budget is being cut. It's being cut by the Tories. The Tories are able to cut the Scottish budget due to the No vote last year despite them having only one MP in Scotland. Now you could argue that within that smaller budget the priorities are wrong but smaller it is and it will be even smaller in the future. That's the reason rail services are the way they are. Not some paranoid belief that people have it in for the Highlands.

What "Highlander" says is nonsense and based on paranoia. A quick look at Calmac shows that millions have been spent and are being spent on public services in the north.

The dualling work has started on the A9. I saw it myself this morning.

Oh and the small matter of the rail freight grants being maintained. It's a small grant certainly but it's still there.

Dulling work has not started on the A9. Some design packages are in place, but no work has started at all. Priorities are wrong in the budget, it is firmly focussed on the central belt in exactly the same way the westminster government is focussed on the South east of England.
Ferrys. What a success they are. Scrabster to Stromness ferry, a project with the SNP fingerprints all over it. A route the public don't want to use, a boat built for the route that is far too big, a journey that is far too long.

Beng trounced by a private operator using a shorter route with anew purpose built ferry that has a third of the running costs of the government ferry. yet they insist on putting out tenders for the massive subsidy for their route when no subsidy is required as the private operator has received not a single penny of state aid.

the cost of this transport folly? £243m for 6 years. A lot of passing loops and dulling for that. But you will no doubt stick to your sycophant following of the cult.

 

[Altnabreac]

Dulling work has not started on the A9. Some design packages are in place, but no work has started at all.

Technically true this week but given work starts on dualling next week a little disingenuous in your criticism.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/f...ling-work-to-start-within-the-next-fortnight/

 

[clc]

If there are further spending cuts whose to say the A9 project is not cancelled or at least extended?...

Dulling work has not started on the A9. Some design packages are in place, but no work has started at all.

If the SNP win the next Holyrood election I think A9 Dualling is a certainty to happen. The SNP have proven they are big supporters of roadbuilding and there wont be any other major road schemes competing for funding as all the other major schemes will have been built ie. Central Belt Motorway network, Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route, Forth Replacement Crossing.

You possibly won't realise how much work has been going on behind the scenes at Transport Scotland to develop the scheme in the last few years in terms of the statutory processes required and design work. The fact that TS has signed three legally binding design contracts worth a total of £120 million also demonstrates a strong committment to delivering the project I think.

The first phase of the project actually starts this week when Kincraig to Dalraddy begins construction.

 

[Altnabreac]

If the SNP win the next Holyrood election I think A9 Dualling is a certainty to happen. The SNP have proven they are big supporters of roadbuilding and there wont be any other major road schemes competing for funding as all the other major schemes will have been built ie. Central Belt Motorway network, Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route, Forth Replacement Crossing.

You possibly won't realise how much work has been going on behind the scenes at Transport Scotland to develop the scheme in the last few years in terms of the statutory processes required and design work. The fact that TS has signed three legally binding design contracts worth a total of £120 million also demonstrates a strong committment to delivering the project I think.

The first phase of the project actually starts this week when Kincraig to Dalraddy begins construction.

The one other big road scheme in the future mix is the Dundee Northern Relief Road. It was identified in the STPR as a strategic long term requirement but no design work has been done yet to my knowledge.

To be honest though I wouldn't classify Dundee as Central Belt so with the major road investments over the next 10 years being A9, A96, A82, AWPR and then possibly Dundee there is little evidence of a massive bias to the central belt inroads schemes.

 

[47271]

None of these things have actually happened. Plans are fine but my main point is that the north of Scotland only gets consideration after the central belt has had everything it wants. If there are further spending cuts whose to say the A9 project is not cancelled or at least extended? We have had nearly 10 years of nationalist government and the message for the Highlands has been the same jam tomorrow.

Quite how someone form Caithness benefits from the A96 dulling I am not so sure but maybe geography is not your thing.

We don't have an integrated transport policy, the train timetable doesn't tie in with the bus, there are numerous simple improvements that can be made. I do not in any way disagree improvements have been made across Scotland, my point is though only bits of Scotland have benefitted, and the Highlands has seen little benefit at all and constantly shouting about projects that are 5-20 years away is really not good enough.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



Dulling work has not started on the A9. Some design packages are in place, but no work has started at all. Priorities are wrong in the budget, it is firmly focussed on the central belt in exactly the same way the westminster government is focussed on the South east of England.
Ferrys. What a success they are. Scrabster to Stromness ferry, a project with the SNP fingerprints all over it. A route the public don't want to use, a boat built for the route that is far too big, a journey that is far too long.

Beng trounced by a private operator using a shorter route with anew purpose built ferry that has a third of the running costs of the government ferry. yet they insist on putting out tenders for the massive subsidy for their route when no subsidy is required as the private operator has received not a single penny of state aid.

the cost of this transport folly? £243m for 6 years. A lot of passing loops and dulling for that. But you will no doubt stick to your sycophant following of the cult.

What would you do?

 

[Argosy]

. . . . . Plans are fine but my main point is that the north of Scotland only gets consideration after the central belt has had everything it wants.

We don't have an integrated transport policy, the train timetable doesn't tie in with the bus, there are numerous simple improvements that can be made. I do not in any way disagree improvements have been made across Scotland, my point is though only bits of Scotland have benefitted, and the Highlands has seen little benefit at all and constantly shouting about projects that are 5-20 years away is really not good enough.

Dulling work has not started on the A9. Some design packages are in place, but no work has started at all. Priorities are wrong in the budget, it is firmly focussed on the central belt in exactly the same way the westminster government is focussed on the South east of England.

Ferrys. What a success they are. Scrabster to Stromness ferry, a project with the SNP fingerprints all over it. A route the public don't want to use, a boat built for the route that is far too big, a journey that is far too long.

Beng trounced by a private operator using a shorter route with anew purpose built ferry that has a third of the running costs of the government ferry. yet they insist on putting out tenders for the massive subsidy for their route when no subsidy is required as the private operator has received not a single penny of state aid.

the cost of this transport folly? £243m for 6 years. A lot of passing loops and dulling for that. But you will no doubt stick to your sycophant following of the cult.

Whilst I can concur with your sentiments you get more investment there than south west Scotland! It is the forgotten part of Scotland.

It is now the largest railway-less area in Scotland and the chances of re-opening Dumfries to Stranraer is zero.

The amount of money being poured into the Borders railway by Visit Scotland is criminal. When asked for support by the same organisation down here the local Regional director said "It is not our place to support a transport operator".

In the space of four years it will be
losing its direct service to Glasgow (its most important market)
lost its direct rail linked service to Northern Ireland
losing its direct service to Paisley (for Glasgow Airport)
losing its direct service to Prestwick Airport

By comparison the Highlands has done well and yet our line is arguably the best performing rural rail line in terms of passenger growth with increases twice that the national Scottish average.

We now have the ludicrous situation of station stops being removed just to save a train set. Perhaps it is more than coincidence that Abellio is an anagram of lobelia - a poisonous plant! The reality is of course that Transport Scotland put them up to it as a look at the franchise document shows.

The so called timetable improvements are just a theorists dream urged on by draconian statutory authorities who locally have sadly a reputation of wishing to control everything and deliver nothing. By comparison HiTrans are positively Tfl-esque. And yes I used to work in the Highlands and introduced improvements in connectivity during my time there.

I also agree that the SNP are very roads biased. The one thing they forget is that roads need to be maintained and certainly in South Ayrshire there is probably not a great deal of difference with the quality of those highways in the third world. Regularly locals are replacing broken springs and suspension items on their cars. By contrast Network Rail have spent a fortune on maintenance of the Stranraer line with it being near cwr complete and lots of works to structures.

The SNP government are determined to over-ride local feelings and a beautiful part of the world is being trashed by windfarms. When a windfarm is built on Cairngorm or at Glenfinnan I'll consider it a level playing field but until then the south west is just a convenient dumping ground ignored by the Scottish Government and and with an apathetic populus that has grown accustomed to being permanently disenfranchised. It was a pleasant surprise to see the Infrastructure Committee at least recommend that a rail link to Cairnryan be at least considered.

The reason windfarms are a rail issue is that their wall to wall erection along the 30 mile corridor from Girvan to Luce Bay is hardly conducive to a so called 'scenic rail journey'. The odd wind farm may be a novelty but not continuous ribbon development. Kilgallioch is under construction, Tralorg set to start, so too Assel Valley and others planned at Chirmorie, Glenwhilly and Kinclaer. In 5 years time visitors will see this wonderful rural industrialisation which will benefit no-one locally except farmers/land owners. It will certainly assist in killing off the fragile tourist sector.

The new December timetable will leave the Stranraer line highly vulnerable to coach competition and all it needs is Stagecoach to extend their successful X77 service back to Girvan and I'd say the line would be screwed. All its advantages have been taken away. Nuts.

At the moment the fares/time advantage in the SPT area helps keep rail ahead but it is the only advantage it has. The lack of maintenance by ScotRail to its stations is a disgrace. Girvan looks as it is in the midst of a 'changing rooms' make-over. A state of affairs it has endured for the last two years with paint peeling off its once attractive interior. A fine state of affairs for Scotland's only art deco station.

All rather sad really.

 

[me123]

Quite how someone form Caithness benefits from the A96 dulling I am not so sure but maybe geography is not your thing.

People from Caithness traveling to Aberdeen will certainly benefit.

 

[najaB]

The reason windfarms are a rail issue is that their wall to wall erection along the 30 mile corridor from Girvan to Luce Bay is hardly conducive to a so called 'scenic rail journey'. In 5 years time visitors will see this wonderful rural industrialisation which will benefit no-one locally except farmers/land owners. It will certainly assist in killing off the fragile tourist sector.

Believe it or not, some people (me included) quite like wind turbines.

 

[Altnabreac]

Whilst I can concur with your sentiments you get more investment there than south west Scotland! It is the forgotten part of Scotland.

It is now the largest railway-less area in Scotland and the chances of re-opening Dumfries to Stranraer is zero.

I agree re-opening here is unlikely. But what is the largest railway-less area in Scotland? Without a precise definition that's a tricky question but here's an attempt to come up with some contenders:

Central Dumfries & Galloway

Area Population:
Mid Galloway 11,500
Stewartry 23,500
TOTAL 35,000

Main Towns (2,000+ population):
Castle Douglas 4,000
Newton Stewart 4,000
Dalbeattie 4,000
Kirkcudbright 3,500

Distance of largest town to railway station:
Castle Douglas - Dumfries - 18 miles
Newton Stewart - Barrhill - 18 miles

East Fife

Area Population:
Buckhaven, Methil & Wemyss Villages 18,500
Leven, Kennoway & Largo 18,500
TOTAL 37,000

Main Towns (2,000+ population):
Methil, Leven and Buckhaven 31,000
East Wemyss 2,000

Distance of largest town to railway station:
Methil - Markinch - 6 miles

North East Fife

Area Population:
East Neuk & Landward 12,500
St Andrews 18,500
TOTAL 31,000

Main Towns (2,000+ population):
St Andrews 17,000
Anstruther & Pittenweem 5,000
Crail 2,000

Distance of largest town to railway station:
St Andrews - Leuchars - 5 miles

NE Aberdeenshire

Area Population:
Banff & Buchan 36,500
Buchan 41,500
Formartine 43,000
TOTAL 121,000

Main Towns (2,000+ population):
Peterhead 18,500
Fraserburgh 13,000
Ellon 10,000
Turriff 5,000
Banff 4,000
Macduff 4,000
Oldmeldrum 3,000
Mintlaw 3,000
Balmedie 2,500
Portsoy 2,000

Distance of largest town to railway station:
Peterhead - Dyce - 31 miles

West Aberdeenshire

Area Population:
Dee & Don side (exc Huntly) 30,000

Main Towns (2,000+ population):
Banchory 7500
Aboyne 2500
Alford 2000

Distance of largest town to railway station:
Banchory - Stonehaven - 16 miles

Southern Borders / Eskdale

Area Population:
Teviot & Liddesdale 18,000
Cheviot 18,000
Eskdale 3,500
TOTAL 39,500

Main Towns (2,000+ population):
Hawick 14,000
Kelso 6,000
Jedburgh 4,000
Langholm 2,000

Distance of largest town to railway station:
Hawick - Tweedbank - 17 miles

You could throw in a few other areas like South West Midlothian/Borders (Penicuik & Peebles) or North Angus / East Perthshire (Brechin/Forfar/Blairgowrie) but I don't think they really affect the overall picture.

If you want to strategically connect an area of Scotland that is remote from the railway network and has a large population then everything points at Peterhead being the route you would choose.

 

[kylemore]

Ferrys. What a success they are. Scrabster to Stromness ferry, a project with the SNP fingerprints all over it. A route the public don't want to use, a boat built for the route that is far too big, a journey that is far too long.
.

!?

I think you'll find that the the Scrabster to Stromness ferry route not only pre-dates the SNP Goverment it pre-dates the SNP full stop!

The present vessel was the work of the pre SNP Lib/Lab coalition.

Mind you what all this has to do with Scottish Electrification beats me!

 

[najaB]

If you want to strategically connect an area of Scotland that is remote from the railway network and has a large population then everything points at Peterhead being the route you would choose.

It really should have been done before the Borders railway, but it doesn't have as vociferous a support group behind it. How much of the original route is built on, or is there an alternative route that might be better suited to the current population centres and traffic flows?

 

[47271]

It really should have been done before the Borders railway, but it doesn't have as vociferous a support group behind it. How much of the original route is built on, or is there an alternative route that might be better suited to the current population centres and traffic flows?

The trackbed is the Formartine and Buchan Way at the moment, splitting to Fraserburgh and Peterhead at Maud, so I imagine pretty clear.

I suspect that there's been less of a campaign mounted because the more prosperous population of this part of Scotland are happy zooming around in their big cars - until they hit a jam as they approach Aberdeen.

On the subject of prosperity, I also suspect that there's been less of a regeneration case (than say Borders or Airdrie-Bathgate) around Aberdeen - until now. But they'd better start thinking about reshaping their economy with the way the oil price is going.

 

[snowball]

It really should have been done before the Borders railway, but it doesn't have as vociferous a support group behind it. How much of the original route is built on, or is there an alternative route that might be better suited to the current population centres and traffic flows?

I looked along it on OS 1:25k mapping today, in a skimming sort of way, and it looked all clear.

 

[Altnabreac]

It really should have been done before the Borders railway, but it doesn't have as vociferous a support group behind it. How much of the original route is built on, or is there an alternative route that might be better suited to the current population centres and traffic flows?

Peterhead was last seriously looked at in the Strategic Rail Study in 2003 but even with an (over optimistically low) cost estimate of £101m it was adjudged to be "very poor value for money".

Since then it's been very quiet with not even a local campaign group agitating for it. In the last 12 months it's resurfaced, linked to the City Deal process but it seems increasingly unlikely these sorts of low return Infrastructure projects will be fundable via that mechanism.

I don't think there are any major interruptions to the formation and one option would be to build just to Ellon initially to act as a Park & Ride for the NE Aberdeenshire area.

One problem is what services could operate it? As it branches off at Dyce you either have to run a completely new service from Aberdeen / Stonehaven or divert existing Inverurie terminators reducing frequency at a rapidly growing station.

In some ways the initially wacky sounding Railfuture idea of reopening to Oldmeldrum (presumably a new P&R site on the outskirts of town) might be easier to build and operate as you can extend the hourly Inverurie service and provide a railhead for central Buchan. It wouldn't really be of use to Peterhead or Fraserburgh though.

I still think the best BCR in NE Scotland would probably be for Banchory. A shorter line with more stations serving an existing commuter belt area and some quite large population numbers and some employment areas in Garthdee.

Might link well with Ellon as a crossrail style project but I doubt either will be happening in the near future.

 

[Argosy]

I agree re-opening here is unlikely. But what is the largest railway-less area in Scotland? Without a precise definition that's a tricky question but here's an attempt to come up with some contenders:

Central Dumfries & Galloway

Area Population:
Mid Galloway 11,500
Stewartry 23,500
TOTAL 35,000

Main Towns (2,000+ population):
Castle Douglas 4,000
Newton Stewart 4,000
Dalbeattie 4,000
Kirkcudbright 3,500

Distance of largest town to railway station:
Castle Douglas - Dumfries - 18 miles
Newton Stewart - Barrhill - 18 miles

East Fife

Area Population:
Buckhaven, Methil & Wemyss Villages 18,500
Leven, Kennoway & Largo 18,500
TOTAL 37,000

Main Towns (2,000+ population):
Methil, Leven and Buckhaven 31,000
East Wemyss 2,000

Distance of largest town to railway station:
Methil - Markinch - 6 miles

North East Fife

Area Population:
East Neuk & Landward 12,500
St Andrews 18,500
TOTAL 31,000

Main Towns (2,000+ population):
St Andrews 17,000
Anstruther & Pittenweem 5,000
Crail 2,000

Distance of largest town to railway station:
St Andrews - Leuchars - 5 miles

NE Aberdeenshire

Area Population:
Banff & Buchan 36,500
Buchan 41,500
Formartine 43,000
TOTAL 121,000

Main Towns (2,000+ population):
Peterhead 18,500
Fraserburgh 13,000
Ellon 10,000
Turriff 5,000
Banff 4,000
Macduff 4,000
Oldmeldrum 3,000
Mintlaw 3,000
Balmedie 2,500
Portsoy 2,000

Distance of largest town to railway station:
Peterhead - Dyce - 31 miles

West Aberdeenshire

Area Population:
Dee & Don side (exc Huntly) 30,000

Main Towns (2,000+ population):
Banchory 7500
Aboyne 2500
Alford 2000

Distance of largest town to railway station:
Banchory - Stonehaven - 16 miles

Southern Borders / Eskdale

Area Population:
Teviot & Liddesdale 18,000
Cheviot 18,000
Eskdale 3,500
TOTAL 39,500

Main Towns (2,000+ population):
Hawick 14,000
Kelso 6,000
Jedburgh 4,000
Langholm 2,000

Distance of largest town to railway station:
Hawick - Tweedbank - 17 miles

You could throw in a few other areas like South West Midlothian/Borders (Penicuik & Peebles) or North Angus / East Perthshire (Brechin/Forfar/Blairgowrie) but I don't think they really affect the overall picture.

If you want to strategically connect an area of Scotland that is remote from the railway network and has a large population then everything points at Peterhead being the route you would choose.

I really appreciate the analytical approach but the one thing about re-opening the former Port Road is that it unlocks a whole sub-region and one beyond.

There is a school of thought that the Stranraer line or to be precise Stranraer performs so poorly because it has no connection across Galloway. At the moment the existing link would be like Peterhead being connected across through Banff and Buchan to Inverness. Whereas the logical Peterhead connection is south towards Aberdeen as is promoted.

Now I don't think there is any demand to link Peterhead westwards, whereas with Stranraer, Newton etc there is a need and indeed logic to connect up communities and an area eastwards because it is a logical corridor. Thus the rationale for re-opening the Port Road is very much socio-economic and opens up Galloway.

Interestingly with a tag of £3,000,000 for 80 miles of road upgrade of the A9 a personal estimate of £1,000,000 for 67 miles of railway might not be bad value for money for re-instating the Port Road. (67 miles being the 74 less the 7 miles already in existence). However I expect that the CBR would be a lot less!

 

[Altnabreac]

I really appreciate the analytical approach but the one thing about re-opening the former Port Road is that it unlocks a whole sub-region and one beyond.

There is a school of thought that the Stranraer line or to be precise Stranraer performs so poorly because it has no connection across Galloway. At the moment the existing link would be like Peterhead being connected across through Banff and Buchan to Inverness. Whereas the logical Peterhead connection is south towards Aberdeen as is promoted.

Now I don't think there is any demand to link Peterhead westwards, whereas with Stranraer, Newton etc there is a need and indeed logic to connect up communities and an area eastwards because it is a logical corridor. Thus the rationale for re-opening the Port Road is very much socio-economic and opens up Galloway.

Interestingly with a tag of £3,000,000 for 80 miles of road upgrade of the A9 a personal estimate of £1,000,000 for 67 miles of railway might not be bad value for money for re-instating the Port Road. (67 miles being the 74 less the 7 miles already in existence). However I expect that the CBR would be a lot less!

I agree that part of the problem with the existing Stranraer line is that Stranraer (and Stewartry/Wigtownshire) look partially to Dumfries for services so links to Ayrshire and Glasgow are to some extent underused.

However I think there are 4 big problems with reopening the Port Road.

Population density. This is the percentage of the area population living in the 2 largest towns.
Central Dumfries & Galloway 23%
NE Aberdeenshire 26%
West Aberdeenshire 33%
Southern Borders / Eskdale 50%
North East Fife 55%
East Fife 82%
The Stewartry and Wigtownshire have a dispersed population and only a small percentage of the area population actually lives in Newton Stewart and Castle Douglas.

Actual Town Size. The towns served are just to small to justify rail services. 10,000 really is the minimum to make a rail service work and Stranraer is only just at that size. Every other potential reopening serves a much bigger population catchment.

Commuter Demand Generation. While the Stewartry does look to Dumfries for services and as a regional centre, Dumfries is not a large enough employment centre to actually generate a significant commuting demand to justify a railway. Glasgow / Edinburgh / Aberdeen are really the only employment centres in Scotland that generate enough commuting demand to justify opening entirely new railways. Even if there were commuting demand the distance from Stranraer is such that it is unlikely anyone would be commuting from Stranraer to Dumfries each day. Very few lines can survive on shopping and occasional hospital visits. You need daily commuters to make the numbers stack up.

Distance. Where you have options like Levenmouth which link 30,000 people to the rail network in exchange for 6 miles of track then something like the Port Road where 60 miles of new track links you to less than 10,000 people is going to perform much worse financially.

Altnabreac's 4 Golden Rules of rail reopening are seldom wrong:
1 - Population of 10,000+
2 - 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time of a major employment centre.
3 - Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed
4 - Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required.

Unfortunately the Port Road just doesn't work in terms of geography, demand or cost for reopening.

 

[mcmad]

Interestingly with a tag of £3,000,000 for 80 miles of road upgrade of the A9 a personal estimate of £1,000,000 for 67 miles of railway might not be bad value for money for re-instating the Port Road. (67 miles being the 74 less the 7 miles already in existence). However I expect that the CBR would be a lot less!

I think you're missing at least a couple of zero's. If the Borders link was circa £300M for 30ish miles of new track on an existing trackbed (largely) then double that wouldn't get much change out of £0.5B and thats without any major structures needing replaced.

 

[Greenback]

Is there any chance that this thread can stay on the topic that is meant to be discussed, which is Scottish Electrification? Please?

 

[clc]

This tweet from Network Rail says electrification of the Shotts line is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2018:

https://mobile.twitter.com/NetworkRailSCOT/status/642639438389059584?p=v


That's the first time ive seen 2018 given as the completion date. Previously they've said it would be 2019..