Why do urban Edinburgh stations (Shotts line)have such poor passenger numbers?

[Kingston Dan]

Just looking at passenger numbers for the stations west of Haymarket on the Shotts line and they are all less than 50k per annum. They all have significant catchments (Curriehill has a major university on its doorstep) and journey times into central Edinburgh are very competitive with bus or car.

Is it simply the hourly interval? Are there other places with a similar service patterns with better passenger numbers?

What could be done to boost the numbers?

Mods - not sure where to post this - please relocate if in the wrong place.

 

[Gaelan]

Is it simply the hourly interval?

I suspect so, combined with the very good bus service (at least for Heriot-Watt; I haven't investigated the rest of the line) - very few people are going to bother checking if a train is coming when the bus is turn-up-and-go.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Just looking at passenger numbers for the stations west of Haymarket on the Shotts line and they are all less than 50k per annum. They all have significant catchments (Curriehill has a major university on its doorstep) and journey times into central Edinburgh are very competitive with bus or car.

Is it simply the hourly interval? Are there other places with a similar service patterns with better passenger numbers?

What could be done to boost the numbers?

Mods - not sure where to post this - please relocate if in the wrong place.

It's the variety of locations the bus can take you compared to the train too.
Haymarket is too far west and Waverley too far east for a lot of central Edinburgh, plus the ticket integration on the bus with the tram or other buses means you don't have to pay twice to go further.
A multimodal integrated smartcard/fare scheme within Lothian or even just Edinburgh Council's area to start with would significantly boost patronage.

 

[hux385]

It's a shame that when ScotRail are (re)introducing the extra services on this line that it will be Haymarker-Livingston South non-stop. Would there have been capacity to add in all the additional stops? I would certainly think that the hourly service is one of the main reasons for low passenger numbers.

I'd be interested to know what the comparison is to other suburban Edinburgh stations (which also have quite a low frequency I believe). Since the bus and tram are more establised in the city, I would imagine the train isn't on most people's radar as a way to travel the city. Still, these stations have a good use for connections through to the west so it would be more handy to have more services.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It's a shame that when ScotRail are (re)introducing the extra services on this line that it will be Haymarker-Livingston South non-stop. Would there have been capacity to add in all the additional stops? I would certainly think that the hourly service is one of the main reasons for low passenger numbers.

I'd be interested to know what the comparison is to other suburban Edinburgh stations (which also have quite a low frequency I believe). Since the bus and tram are more establised in the city, I would imagine the train isn't on most people's radar as a way to travel the city. Still, these stations have a good use for connections through to the west so it would be more handy to have more services.

The problem is the capacity between Haymarket and Waverley. There's already around 15tph in each direction, so any additional services have to fit in to a specific slot.
This means you can only stop a certain number of times and naturally the bigger stations are going to get priority.

A much better investment would be a tram-train service every 15 mins from outside Waverley -> existing tram line down to Murrayfield -> onto the Edinburgh South Suburban railway with stations at Gorgie Rd, Slateford Rd, Craiglockhart, Morningside Hospital, Morningside Rd, Blackford, Mayfield, Cameron Toll, Craigmillar, Niddrie and then Fort Kinnaird -> join the Borders railway at Brunstane station, then the main line at Portobello Jcn, stops at Brighton Place (Portobello), Piershill, Meadowbank, Abbeyhill -> a ramp back on road, then down Calton Road to the stop by Waverley station to complete the loop.

This would significantly help orbital Edinburgh travel, which is currently poorly catered for by public transport, take pressure off buses on some very busy corridors into central Edinburgh, and leave sufficient capacity on the South Suburban (which is used frequently for empty stock movements.)

 

[waverley47]

The problem is the capacity between Haymarket and Waverley. There's already around 15tph in each direction, so any additional services have to fit in to a specific slot.
This means you can only stop a certain number of times and naturally the bigger stations are going to get priority.

A much better investment would be a tram-train service every 15 mins from outside Waverley -> existing tram line down to Murrayfield -> onto the Edinburgh South Suburban railway with stations at Gorgie Rd, Slateford Rd, Craiglockhart, Morningside Hospital, Morningside Rd, Blackford, Mayfield, Cameron Toll, Craigmillar, Niddrie and then Fort Kinnaird -> join the Borders railway at Brunstane station, then the main line at Portobello Jcn, stops at Brighton Place (Portobello), Piershill, Meadowbank, Abbeyhill -> a ramp back on road, then down Calton Road to the stop by Waverley station to complete the loop.

This would significantly help orbital Edinburgh travel, which is currently poorly catered for by public transport, take pressure off buses on some very busy corridors into central Edinburgh, and leave sufficient capacity on the South Suburban (which is used frequently for empty stock movements.)

I wrote this two years ago. Not much in the intervening two years has changed;

"Unlikely to happen, we've been over this before.

In my career I oversaw six or seven different feasibility studies into this issue, and the answer was always the same; if you can somehow find the capacity to Waverley, or even Haymarket, you're into a winner. But good luck with that.

The problem with this line is three-fold.

Number 1

Its actually used a fair bit. There are quite a lot of long distance freight trains that would be out of guage for going via Waverley, and that's even if you could find capacity. There is a civils depot at Millerhill, an EMU depot, the line will be used for diversions at various points in the future, it's used to turn units around, as a back way into Haymarket and Craigentinny depots, and it's used to shove stuff out of the way for an hour if a spare platform is needed at Waverley.

All this doesn't amount to a train every fifteen minutes, far from it, but if you took it away, you'd suddenly notice its absence in very dramatic ways.

If you put trains around it, there isn't the capacity at Waverley, by a long, long shot. You'd be looking at a 3bn investment just to open up more capacity into Waverley from one end, just to make the paths work. Try to make it a circle, with capacity at both ends and you'd be doubling that.

Now, this doesn't mean you can't put trams around it, but you need a high frequency to make a tram worth it, and threading a tram every ten minutes around the sub is suddenly going to upset a great many stakeholders. The signalling isn't great and the sections are quite long. That could be fixed, but you'd be looking at either reduced capacity for trains or reduced tram frequencies to fit around the trains. If it's the latter then it quickly becomes uneconomical to convert to trams anyway.

Number 2

The line faces the wrong way. It goes across the southern inner suburbs of Edinburgh, in a big loop. There isn't high demand to go from say Portobello to Mayfield, or from Cameron Toll to Gorgie. The line doesn't work unless you thread the trams into the city centre, which means you need to send them to Haymarket or Waverley.

You can't use the big railway, as there's no capacity, so you'd need to somehow connect to the existing tramline.

At the West end you could maybe do this by coming off the sub, under the E&G line at Murrayfield and joining in the tramline, but that's expensive. At the east end you'd have to thread them from Fort Kinnaird, via Portobello or Willobrae and back to Princes street. Either way is expensive, and the route from the east, although it would serve a lot of people, seems an excessively long way to get to Morningside.

Additionally, if you send trams around the sub, it would still in most cases be quicker to take a direct bus into town. A bus from Morningside station to Princes Street takes 20 minutes and comes about every 4 minutes. There isn't any point taking a tram 'sideways' around the outside of the city and back into town along an east-west axis.

Number 3

For the cost of buying new dual-voltage trams (good luck getting NRScot to agree a 750v wiring system, or even more unlikely to sell the railway) and converting the railway (resignalling, building tram stations, and building the connecting links of tramway to link up with the other bits) you'd be looking at a cost of say £5bn. For that, you could buy a new line to Granton, a new line to Loanhead via Cameron Toll, a new line to the Royal Infirmary, a new line to Musselburgh via Portobello, and still have change left over for the rolling stock and a new depot somewhere.


The sums have never added up with this idea. The capacity isn't there for trains, and if you're buying trams, just stick them where they'd be more useful."

The sub is not the answer to anyone's problems of ridership in west Edinburgh.

A lack of users isn't really solvable on the three stations closest to Haymarket; busses are far more frequent from Slateford, Kingsknowe and Wester Hailes. Most users will always get a bus when the frequency is so high, and the cost at a £2 flat fair (less with a ridacard) makes the train somewhat redundant. Most people taking the train from these three stations will be connecting at Waverley for a different service.

Curriehill could do better with a 2tph frequency, but again, it's not too far to catch regular busses into town.

Kirknewton is in the rough position of being too small a place, too far out for busses, for a regular bus route, and being too close to Livingston for Edinburgh to be the major traffic draw.

Ideally, you'd have a 2tph stopping service via Shotts, as well as the 1tph fast service, but demand will probably never really support this. Apart from Livingston, nome of the towns along this route are really bustling metropolises.

A 4tph metro service would undoubtedly spur demand, but would it be worth doubling the frequency vs sending an extra 2tph via Falkirk for example. Capacity through Haymarket is severely limited, and unfortunately, this line will never win out above the busier lines across the Central Belt

 

[Clansman]

Just looking at passenger numbers for the stations west of Haymarket on the Shotts line and they are all less than 50k per annum. They all have significant catchments (Curriehill has a major university on its doorstep) and journey times into central Edinburgh are very competitive with bus or car.

Is it simply the hourly interval? Are there other places with a similar service patterns with better passenger numbers?

What could be done to boost the numbers?

Mods - not sure where to post this - please relocate if in the wrong place.

I'd guess the same reason why proposed stations in suburban north Aberdeen would never open - trains are too expensive and the buses offer greater destination choice, time flexibility, and faster journey times to multiple city centre locations.

I can imagine that Slateford and Curriehill etc derive their demand for Waverley connecting services more than anything rather than Edinburgh city centre itself.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I wrote this two years ago. Not much in the intervening two years has changed;

"Unlikely to happen, we've been over this before.

In my career I oversaw six or seven different feasibility studies into this issue, and the answer was always the same; if you can somehow find the capacity to Waverley, or even Haymarket, you're into a winner. But good luck with that.

The problem with this line is three-fold.

Number 1

Its actually used a fair bit. There are quite a lot of long distance freight trains that would be out of guage for going via Waverley, and that's even if you could find capacity. There is a civils depot at Millerhill, an EMU depot, the line will be used for diversions at various points in the future, it's used to turn units around, as a back way into Haymarket and Craigentinny depots, and it's used to shove stuff out of the way for an hour if a spare platform is needed at Waverley.

All this doesn't amount to a train every fifteen minutes, far from it, but if you took it away, you'd suddenly notice its absence in very dramatic ways.

If you put trains around it, there isn't the capacity at Waverley, by a long, long shot. You'd be looking at a 3bn investment just to open up more capacity into Waverley from one end, just to make the paths work. Try to make it a circle, with capacity at both ends and you'd be doubling that.

Now, this doesn't mean you can't put trams around it, but you need a high frequency to make a tram worth it, and threading a tram every ten minutes around the sub is suddenly going to upset a great many stakeholders. The signalling isn't great and the sections are quite long. That could be fixed, but you'd be looking at either reduced capacity for trains or reduced tram frequencies to fit around the trains. If it's the latter then it quickly becomes uneconomical to convert to trams anyway.

Number 2

The line faces the wrong way. It goes across the southern inner suburbs of Edinburgh, in a big loop. There isn't high demand to go from say Portobello to Mayfield, or from Cameron Toll to Gorgie. The line doesn't work unless you thread the trams into the city centre, which means you need to send them to Haymarket or Waverley.

You can't use the big railway, as there's no capacity, so you'd need to somehow connect to the existing tramline.

At the West end you could maybe do this by coming off the sub, under the E&G line at Murrayfield and joining in the tramline, but that's expensive. At the east end you'd have to thread them from Fort Kinnaird, via Portobello or Willobrae and back to Princes street. Either way is expensive, and the route from the east, although it would serve a lot of people, seems an excessively long way to get to Morningside.

Additionally, if you send trams around the sub, it would still in most cases be quicker to take a direct bus into town. A bus from Morningside station to Princes Street takes 20 minutes and comes about every 4 minutes. There isn't any point taking a tram 'sideways' around the outside of the city and back into town along an east-west axis.

Number 3

For the cost of buying new dual-voltage trams (good luck getting NRScot to agree a 750v wiring system, or even more unlikely to sell the railway) and converting the railway (resignalling, building tram stations, and building the connecting links of tramway to link up with the other bits) you'd be looking at a cost of say £5bn. For that, you could buy a new line to Granton, a new line to Loanhead via Cameron Toll, a new line to the Royal Infirmary, a new line to Musselburgh via Portobello, and still have change left over for the rolling stock and a new depot somewhere.


The sums have never added up with this idea. The capacity isn't there for trains, and if you're buying trams, just stick them where they'd be more useful."

The sub is not the answer to anyone's problems of ridership in west Edinburgh.

A lack of users isn't really solvable on the three stations closest to Haymarket; busses are far more frequent from Slateford, Kingsknowe and Wester Hailes. Most users will always get a bus when the frequency is so high, and the cost at a £2 flat fair (less with a ridacard) makes the train somewhat redundant. Most people taking the train from these three stations will be connecting at Waverley for a different service.

Curriehill could do better with a 2tph frequency, but again, it's not too far to catch regular busses into town.

Kirknewton is in the rough position of being too small a place, too far out for busses, for a regular bus route, and being too close to Livingston for Edinburgh to be the major traffic draw.

Ideally, you'd have a 2tph stopping service via Shotts, as well as the 1tph fast service, but demand will probably never really support this. Apart from Livingston, nome of the towns along this route are really bustling metropolises.

A 4tph metro service would undoubtedly spur demand, but would it be worth doubling the frequency vs sending an extra 2tph via Falkirk for example. Capacity through Haymarket is severely limited, and unfortunately, this line will never win out above the busier lines across the Central Belt

Perhaps more tram lines are the answer, but the Edinburgh tram has a key problem in the congested sections and that is the traffic holding it up.
If you want an improvement off the buses, I think you have to ultimately take it off road, at least part of the way.

 

[Acfb]

I'd guess the same reason why proposed stations in suburban north Aberdeen would never open - trains are too expensive and the buses offer greater destination choice, time flexibility, and faster journey times to multiple city centre locations.

I can imagine that Slateford and Curriehill etc derive their demand for Waverley connecting services more than anything rather than Edinburgh city centre itself.

The only stations which you'd think might warrant a better service are Wester Hailes and Curriehill possibly for western demand towards Glasgow as well to avoid backtracking but perhaps the demand isn't there and I suppose parts of Wester Hailes nearer to Sighthill also have reasonable access to Edinburgh Park. I've never used my closest station of Slateford even though the bus goes right past as its easier/quicker to carry on to Haymarket and pick up the (4tph on a Saturday) Queen St service there. My Dad has used it a few times though when he's met people near Glasgow Central and it's £2 cheaper than travelling from Haymarket.

I travelled from Wester Hailes to Breich in late 2020 just for the novelty value as I'd never used either station.

 

[EllieAquitrain]

The problem is the capacity between Haymarket and Waverley. There's already around 15tph in each direction, so any additional services have to fit in to a specific slot.
This means you can only stop a certain number of times and naturally the bigger stations are going to get priority.

A much better investment would be a tram-train service every 15 mins from outside Waverley -> existing tram line down to Murrayfield -> onto the Edinburgh South Suburban railway with stations at Gorgie Rd, Slateford Rd, Craiglockhart, Morningside Hospital, Morningside Rd, Blackford, Mayfield, Cameron Toll, Craigmillar, Niddrie and then Fort Kinnaird -> join the Borders railway at Brunstane station, then the main line at Portobello Jcn, stops at Brighton Place (Portobello), Piershill, Meadowbank, Abbeyhill -> a ramp back on road, then down Calton Road to the stop by Waverley station to complete the loop.

This would significantly help orbital Edinburgh travel, which is currently poorly catered for by public transport, take pressure off buses on some very busy corridors into central Edinburgh, and leave sufficient capacity on the South Suburban (which is used frequently for empty stock movements.)

Sorry, what?! Are you an Edinburgh local? Because the new on-road sections of your proposal (between Abbeyhill and Waverley) are ridiculous. I speak from experience as someone who used to live in Abbeyhill and would walk down Calton Road fairly often to Waverley station.

There are two things about this routing that would work very well. Firstly, a tram-train route following the ECML through the eastern surburbs would most likely follow the old loop around the north of Meadowbank and just south of the bridge under the A1 at Abbeyhill this alignment actually runs level and right next to Abbey Lane, so that would be a very easy transition to on-road running. Secondly, I'm sure a Holyrood station (although it wasn't actually in your proposal!), near the Parliament, near Holyroodhouse, at the foot of the Royal Mile, and a very short walk from Holyrood Park, would I'm sure be a great addition to the network!

But the problems with this routing... Immediately after coming onto the road on Abbey Lane, you reach a bridge under the ECML which looks maybe too low to get a tram line and wires under. In any case, the bridges of Abbeyhill and Abbey Mount under the ECML are definitely too low — and also, on the eastern end, far too narrow.

And then the idea of trams down Calton Road, which made me laugh out loud. You're going to put trams down this? https://maps.app.goo.gl/kk5AKEaM7HaGkGr19 (rotate the camera both directions for a full impression). And then once you get to Waverley, to reach the existing tram line would require a long dog-leg northwards to Picardy Place — where the existing tram stop and associated redevelopment of the very busy road junction leaves absolutely no room for a new branch joining from the south.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Sorry, what?! Are you an Edinburgh local? Because the new on-road sections of your proposal (between Abbeyhill and Waverley) are ridiculous. I speak from experience as someone who used to live in Abbeyhill and would walk down Calton Road fairly often to Waverley station.

There are two things about this routing that would work very well. Firstly, a tram-train route following the ECML through the eastern surburbs would most likely follow the old loop around the north of Meadowbank and just south of the bridge under the A1 at Abbeyhill this alignment actually runs level and right next to Abbey Lane, so that would be a very easy transition to on-road running. Secondly, I'm sure a Holyrood station (although it wasn't actually in your proposal!), near the Parliament, near Holyroodhouse, at the foot of the Royal Mile, and a very short walk from Holyrood Park, would I'm sure be a great addition to the network!

But the problems with this routing... Immediately after coming onto the road on Abbey Lane, you reach a bridge under the ECML which looks maybe too low to get a tram line and wires under. In any case, the bridges of Abbeyhill and Abbey Mount under the ECML are definitely too low — and also, on the eastern end, far too narrow.

And then the idea of trams down Calton Road, which made me laugh out loud. You're going to put trams down this? https://maps.app.goo.gl/kk5AKEaM7HaGkGr19 (rotate the camera both directions for a full impression). And then once you get to Waverley, to reach the existing tram line would require a long dog-leg northwards to Picardy Place — where the existing tram stop and associated redevelopment of the very busy road junction leaves absolutely no room for a new branch joining from the south.

Well, most of my dad's side are from the West End - perhaps I've been caught out with my poor familiarity with East of Waverley though (we're all Jambos!)

The low bridges are a fair point, perhaps a better transition point rail-road is needed.

As for the route down Calton Road, I know it seems a little crazy, however I can't see trams past the old Royal High working particularly well. Is there a better routing to Waverley I've ignored in that area?

 

[EllieAquitrain]

Well, most of my dad's side are from the West End - perhaps I've been caught out with my poor familiarity with East of Waverley though (we're all Jambos!)

The low bridges are a fair point, perhaps a better transition point rail-road is needed.

As for the route down Calton Road, I know it seems a little crazy, however I can't see trams past the old Royal High working particularly well. Is there a better routing to Waverley I've ignored in that area?

To connect well into the existing tram line from the east, I'd say it has to be London Road, which seems pretty wide to me for most of its length. You'd then have to stay on road through Abbeyhill. The road-rail link wouldn't be too difficult once you accept all the above though — whether you pass Meadowbank Stadium to the north on Marionville Road or to the south on London Road, there's plenty of disused land where either of those roads cross the railways that seem to leave room for a ramp. Presumably someone owns that land and is planning to develop it, but also presumably they could be persuaded to part with it if it meant a tram station close by their prospective new properties?

 

[VioletEclipse]

There are many reasons, mostly stated above, that make the bus more attractive than the train at Slateford, Kingsknowe, Wester Hailes and Curriehill. The hassle of having to check when the train is (hourly and not even at the same time each hour) and then buy a ticket before boarding, compared to checking the app and getting on a bus (usually less than a 15 minute wait) and paying onboard is quite a factor. Slateford and Wester Hailes stations are right by major shopping centres, but most people won't get a train to or from a suburban shopping centre. Kingsknowe and Curriehill are surrounded by fairly low density residential areas, where most people drive, and if not will often use the bus rather than the train to get into town. Heriot-Watt University may be right by Curriehill station, but is realistically only useful if you're travelling west. The train from Curriehill may be quicker than the bus into town from the university, but to get the train you need to check when the train is coming (some trains skip Curriehill at peak times and it's very infrequent as mentioned before), buy your ticket in advance and then walk the 20+ minutes (from the academic buildings) along either a path through the woods or West Gait and then walk down the very narrow pavement on Curriehill Road, all of which is unlit and not at all signposted. The 20+ minute walk and then 14-20 minutes on the train as well as all that means that it's much easier to just get on a 25 which leaves from the centre of campus every 10-15 minutes throughout the day, with peak extras, and you can pay onboard - and many students have free bus travel. The train doesn't save all that much time compared to the bus, and the extra cost just isn't worth it in most cases going between the city centre and the suburban stations. I write this largely from my own observations and experience, as someone who has used the line many times, but infrequently.

 

[Kingston Dan]

There are many reasons, mostly stated above, that make the bus more attractive than the train at Slateford, Kingsknowe, Wester Hailes and Curriehill. The hassle of having to check when the train is (hourly and not even at the same time each hour) and then buy a ticket before boarding, compared to checking the app and getting on a bus (usually less than a 15 minute wait) and paying onboard is quite a factor. Slateford and Wester Hailes stations are right by major shopping centres, but most people won't get a train to or from a suburban shopping centre. Kingsknowe and Curriehill are surrounded by fairly low density residential areas, where most people drive, and if not will often use the bus rather than the train to get into town. Heriot-Watt University may be right by Curriehill station, but is realistically only useful if you're travelling west. The train from Curriehill may be quicker than the bus into town from the university, but to get the train you need to check when the train is coming (some trains skip Curriehill at peak times and it's very infrequent as mentioned before), buy your ticket in advance and then walk the 20+ minutes (from the academic buildings) along either a path through the woods or West Gait and then walk down the very narrow pavement on Curriehill Road, all of which is unlit and not at all signposted. The 20+ minute walk and then 14-20 minutes on the train as well as all that means that it's much easier to just get on a 25 which leaves from the centre of campus every 10-15 minutes throughout the day, with peak extras, and you can pay onboard - and many students have free bus travel. The train doesn't save all that much time compared to the bus, and the extra cost just isn't worth it in most cases going between the city centre and the suburban stations. I write this largely from my own observations and experience, as someone who has used the line many times, but infrequently.

Thanks that's interesting. Basically it looks like a frequency thing.

But the issue is more complex. When I grew up in Reekie there were just three stations in the city - Waverley, Haymarket and Slateford (and Dalmeny if you take the current City boundaries). How Slateford ever survived the Beeching cuts is weird - perhaps workers going to the then slaughter house (now shopping centre)? Kingsknowe was closed and then reopened in the 1970s on the basis of there being no convenient bus service and in the 80s and 90s Wester Hailes and Curriehill were opened - each would have had to go through some sort of business case which I can't believe ever made sense on 1tph and fewer than 50k passengers per year.

Squeezing an extra path between Haymarket and Waverley clearly would help. But without the Dalmeny chord that's difficult and with HS2 also proposing another path it looks like it's going to remain a Cinderalla service for a while.

 

[AlastairFraser]

To connect well into the existing tram line from the east, I'd say it has to be London Road, which seems pretty wide to me for most of its length. You'd then have to stay on road through Abbeyhill. The road-rail link wouldn't be too difficult once you accept all the above though — whether you pass Meadowbank Stadium to the north on Marionville Road or to the south on London Road, there's plenty of disused land where either of those roads cross the railways that seem to leave room for a ramp. Presumably someone owns that land and is planning to develop it, but also presumably they could be persuaded to part with it if it meant a tram station close by their prospective new properties?

As long as it works without half of Lothian moaning about how they can't drive their tanks directly up Arthur's Seat, I'm all for it!

 

[EllieAquitrain]

As long as it works without half of Lothian moaning about how they can't drive their tanks directly up Arthur's Seat, I'm all for it!

You know perfectly well that they'll do that regardless...

 

[waverley47]

You know perfectly well that they'll do that regardless...

It's my right as an Edinburgh taxpayer!!!

Thanks that's interesting. Basically it looks like a frequency thing.

But the issue is more complex. When I grew up in Reekie there were just three stations in the city - Waverley, Haymarket and Slateford (and Dalmeny if you take the current City boundaries). How Slateford ever survived the Beeching cuts is weird - perhaps workers going to the then slaughter house (now shopping centre)? Kingsknowe was closed and then reopened in the 1970s on the basis of there being no convenient bus service and in the 80s and 90s Wester Hailes and Curriehill were opened - each would have had to go through some sort of business case which I can't believe ever made sense on 1tph and fewer than 50k passengers per year.

Squeezing an extra path between Haymarket and Waverley clearly would help. But without the Dalmeny chord that's difficult and with HS2 also proposing another path it looks like it's going to remain a Cinderalla service for a while.

It's that strange middle ground of stations further out warranting a faster train into the centre, but these stations being too close to the city for anything other than a metro service to attract significant ridership. Especially in a city like Edinburgh where the busses are generally very good.

See also South Gyle.

 

[AlastairFraser]

You know perfectly well that they'll do that regardless...

We can live in hope aye...

 

[Dr Hoo]

Curriehill and Wester Hailes only ever came about because of a 'creative' deal between many parties in 1984 to re-open the Newbridge Junction-Bathgate line to passengers. (This deal was assembled at one meeting, with no analytical back-up.) Lothian Region as it was paid the capital cost of the two stations to generate a revenue stream for ScotRail that would 'subsidise' losses on Bathgate, at least initially.

In practice the two stations probably didn't even cover the costs of fuel and brake wear from the extra calls. Revenue collection in the era before TVMs and during the 'open station' phase at Haymarket and Waverley was very difficult. Curriehill suffered from immediate vandalism and break-ins to parked cars. West Hailes was a magnet for anti-social behaviour. It was a popular spot for the local youth to collect ballast from the track at the platform ends and then sit in the shelters waiting for passing trains to stone. This obviously deterred any genuine customers.

Almost an 'accident of history' as one might say.

 

[Acfb]

This year's figures for the Shotts Line at the eastern end are quite interesting. Slateford and Kingsknowe have had a gain of nearly 50% and are now higher than pre covid but Wester Hailes has stagnated a bit in comparison. Curriehill has also more or less recovered to precovid level, at least its 2018/19 figures. Maybe the explanation for Slateford is that it serves the Corn Exchange which sometimes has concerts but I can't explain Kingsknowe.

The problem is the capacity between Haymarket and Waverley. There's already around 15tph in each direction, so any additional services have to fit in to a specific slot.
This means you can only stop a certain number of times and naturally the bigger stations are going to get priority.

I think it's interesting that they've brought back the semi fast service presumably just to give West Calder, Liv S, Shotts and Bellshill users faster journeys but aren't able to add any extra stops such as Curriehill or even somewhere like Fauldhouse.

 

[AlastairFraser]

This year's figures for the Shotts Line at the eastern end are quite interesting. Slateford and Kingsknowe have had a gain of nearly 50% and are now higher than pre covid but Wester Hailes has stagnated a bit in comparison. Curriehill has also more or less recovered to precovid level, at least its 2018/19 figures. Maybe the explanation for Slateford is that it serves the Corn Exchange which sometimes has concerts but I can't explain Kingsknowe.

I think it's interesting that they've brought back the semi fast service presumably just to give West Calder, Liv S, Shotts and Bellshill users faster journeys but aren't able to add any extra stops such as Curriehill or even somewhere like Fauldhouse.

I think they brought it back bc Livvy and Bellshill have sizeable commuting populations heading into Edi/Glasgow and they want a reasonably timed service to head into the cities and SR are in direct competition with the M8 there particularly.

Perhaps they could swap West Calder for Fauldhouse or Shotts, but I suspect there must be a pathing reason to explain why they chose WC over those too.
Also they sell advances Edi to NW England via the semi fasts to Bellshill, a short hop on a Lanark service to Motherwell, then Avanti from there in the evening.