Probably 95% renewals, with small enhancement works making up the rest. E.g. replacing turnouts with higher-speed ones.Its not for enhancements work, just run of the mill renewals.
Probably 95% renewals, with small enhancement works making up the rest. E.g. replacing turnouts with higher-speed ones.Its not for enhancements work, just run of the mill renewals.
In political terms, the ESSR is one of those ideas that is talked about every few years and then forgotten about, much like the second circle of the Glasgow subway. In 2004, transport planners were commissioned to investigate the case for re-opening the line. Despite finding that upgrading the railway and adding new stations would cost under £30m, and that the benefit-cost ratio would be 1.64, higher than the 1.01 for the Borders Railway, the report stated a business case was not found.
And yet, £776m was spent on Edinburgh's trams. Even factoring in inflation, the cost of a re-opened ESSR pales in significance.
In 2016, the managing director of the Scotrail Alliance, Phil Versters, spoke in favour of re-opening the ESSR, albeit with the caveat that tram-trains be used instead of heavy rail. This would allow the line to connect with the trams at Haymarket, and then travel along Princes Street, thus avoiding the challenge of running more trains through Waverley, already Scotland's second busiest station after Glasgow Central. The Sheffield-Rotherham Tram-Train is the first example of this concept in the UK although there are other successful cases across Europe. However, it would necessitate further tram work east of Princes Street in order to avoid Waverley.
The South-sub is one of those things that makes a load of sense until you start looking at the details. Then it just makes some sense - not saying it's a bad idea though.An opinion piece regarding reopening the Edinburgh South Sub
A while ago there was a project being developed to grade separate Sheriffhall Roundabout. I lost track when I moved away from Edinburgh. Has the BANANA* lobby put a stop to that?I wish I heard more about plans to serve the huge area to the south/southwest of the city which currently has no rail at all.
Unsurprisingly, the city bypass in this region has 3 of the top 10 spots for traffic congestion in the UK and nothing is ever done to alleviate it.
I'd be looking to take the tram lines up over the main lines, interchange just west of Haymarket then head north over the old trackbed towards Granton, to link up with the planned Newhaven extension. Ticks many boxes.Question is how do you get the tram from Princes Street to the south sub if you want to avoid Haymarket. Would it be feasible to take the tram via Lothian Road, and onto the old alignment at the West Approach Road, bulldoze half a dozen houses at Angle Park Terrace, then continue over the railway and turn to join the south sub?
Interesting idea for the West end though I think the question was more for the East end.I'd be looking to take the tram lines up over the main lines, interchange just west of Haymarket then head north over the old trackbed towards Granton, to link up with the planned Newhaven extension. Ticks many boxes.
Is there room to go down Distillery Lane with a stop that aligns with the current footbridge, then behind the houses at Easter Dalry Place, over the line to Carstairs, along Sauchiebank, Russel Road, behind the industrial units and then join the Sub just past the existing mainline junction?Interesting idea for the West end though I think the question was more for the East end.
Yes creating the north loop would be good, would be a shame if it meant the cycle paths were lost though.I'd be looking to take the tram lines up over the main lines, interchange just west of Haymarket then head north over the old trackbed towards Granton, to link up with the planned Newhaven extension. Ticks many boxes.
Interesting suggestion, basically a parallel track from Dalry Road: https://www.google.com/maps/@55.9453515,-3.2182153,75a,35y,249h,73.43t/data=!3m1!1e3 (3d view looking along the line). Biggest challenges would be gaining height from Russell Road to clear the WCML, and of course the actual building of the whole thing!Is there room to go down Distillery Lane with a stop that aligns with the current footbridge, then behind the houses at Easter Dalry Place, over the line to Carstairs, along Sauchiebank, Russel Road, behind the industrial units and then join the Sub just past the existing mainline junction?
not necessarily pie in the sky. The planners have been looking at extending the tram network before the first route was finished, even in the York Place cut back form. As always it's down to money, or lack thereof. I'll try and dig out a link to the map.Interesting idea for the West end though I think the question was more for the East end.
You could build an interchange stop at Brunstane with the line then going over the ECML and taking the Leith Docks route down to meet the proposed New tram line in Leith somewhere. All pie in the sky of course.
Maybe the whole thing could be on a viaduct if clearance at ground-level is an issue.Biggest challenges would be gaining height from Russell Road to clear the WCML, and of course the actual building of the whole thing!
The Edinburgh El has a ring to it.Maybe the whole thing could be on a viaduct if clearance at ground-level is an issue.
The stations on the south suburban line closed to passengers in 1962 because there weren’t many passengers. Most wanted to go into the city centre rather than around it and buses were much quicker. Has anything really changed?
There are a lot of people on the buses heading down Merchiston/Morningside/Craiglockhart way in the mornings to be fair. There a few university campuses down there.
A £218 million plan to cut rail journey times will result in “mere seconds of improvement” across Tayside and Fife, a new report has revealed.
The planned upgrade of the line at at Usan near Montrose now faces being scrapped, a decade after it was first mooted.
The single track stretch was identified as a reason for uncompetitive Dundee to Aberdeen rail journey times as far back as 2003.
The one-and-a-half mile section of single track between Usan and the South Esk viaduct at Montrose Basin, means that at certain times trains have to slow down and wait for others to pass.
The promise to dual it was included in proposals to cut journeys between Aberdeen and Edinburgh by 20 minutes which were first unveiled by the SNP in 2008.
However, a meeting of the Transport Scotland reference group overseeing the project has now heard the planned £218m investment will only scrape a two-minute improvement.
Transport Scotland’s head of rail Bill Reeve spoke to the city deal committee in Aberdeen on Friday where he revealed the much touted improvements around Montrose Basin had been found to offer no time benefits.
That said, £220M is a lot of money - could similar benefits be achieved for less money? E.g. could a resignalling reduce section occupation time?Of course there would only be a marginal time gain from eliminating some, most of all of the Usan section. I don't think its proponents ever claimed that.
Montrose - Usan was resignalled in January 2010. Linespeed over the single line section (which is about 2.5 miles long) is 50mph.That said, £220M is a lot of money - could similar benefits be achieved for less money? E.g. could a resignalling reduce section occupation time?
Ah, I remember that now - that was when Usan box went. Is there any possibility of raising that linespeed, and especially the entry/exit speed at the south end (given that most/all trains call at Montrose)?Montrose - Usan was resignalled in January 2010. Linespeed over the single line section (which is about 2.5 miles long) is 50mph.
What about Grangemouth regaining a passenger service as I believe there was tentative plans to do so as a idea forwarded by Network Rail and supported by Falkirk Council who the last I heard were undertaking a feasibility study into the projects potential.
The idea was that the Falkirk Grahamston terminators would be extended but looking on RTT I can't see any such services but I can see Cumbernauld terminators so in a timetable recast could they be extended to a new Grangemouth station?
Is there any news/update if this is likely to go ahead?
The Grahamston terminators are now being extended through to Edinburgh as stoppers which has resulted in Linlithgow & Polmont being axed from the Edinburgh-Dunblane services. This has probably killed all hope of a Grangemouth station. It’s a shame as I think Grangemouth-Glasgow Queen Street via Cumbernauld 2tph would have been a better idea.