The passing loop outside Hairmyres looks as though it could be extended quite considerably towards Busby. When the link road to the Eaglesham bypass was being built the bridge over the track was made wide enough for double track and high enough for electrification, hpwever there are many arch bridges on the route that will need attention/replacement. Maybe not so low cost, Hairmyres station would need to have a second platform built and an accessible bridge. It's been 20 years since I was there last and it was really busy back then- I shudder to think what it is like now.
And a couple from Euston?
I’ve mentioned this before, there are not that many bridges on the line and not all of them are arched so, from a structures point of view, one of the easier ones. Of those that are arched, the one at the north end of Clarkston station carries a main road which would require a lengthy diversion unless the opportunity was taken to build a new bridge adjacent and on a better alignment (the current one is difficult for buses and HGVs to negotiate resulting in a fatality a couple of years back) then demolish the arched one. The big worry would be the bridge at Crossmyloof that was rebuilt a number of years ago, does it meet the new clearance regulations?
If you really wanted to split at Stirling, the Aberdeen portion could head off south again to run via Falkirk Grahamston, Winchburgh and Dalmeny. I'm not sure it would offer much of an advantage over splitting at Edinburgh though.
on the Fort William sleeper, it is possible to change to electric traction at Dumbarton Central if CS wanted to but is too much faffing about to be realistic. Now, if a class 88 could have had the bigger diesel engine, we would have a different story.
Electric working of the portions north of wherever they are split/joined would need another electric loco for each portion except the first. These diagrams would only do a very small mileage each night, and diesels would still be needed north of the end of electrification.
In that sequence I think Borders Railway then becomes the only commuter route out of Edinburgh that is diesel?
You would also lose the peak hour 'crossrail' services as well. These are pretty well used by commuters.
I thought 88s were supposed to move 1500 tons on diesel. They should be able to move 250 tons of sleepers on the West Highland at a reasonable uphill speed surely.
I keep seeing the claim that an 88 can haul an 8 car mk3 consist at 40mph on a moderate against gradient.
I think it would be quite a shock if improvement to the EK line wasn't part of CP6.
just done the maths. Assuming a loaded mk3 is 40 tonnes and the loco is 80 (close enough for back of envelope calculation).
The diesel and electric modes on the 88 drive through the same traction motors so the 88 on diesel should be able to haul any train it can on electric. However as speed increases the much lower power available on diesel causes the tractive effort to reduce much more quickly than on electric. So it will be much slower on diesel.
Interesting.
