• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

alangla

Member
Joined
11 Apr 2018
Messages
1,178
Location
Glasgow
I thought there was structures work needed there?
A canal aqueduct! If that’s low hanging fruit then it’s pretty rotten. For me, Muirhouse to Busby jct should be the first priority, then onwards to either or both of EK or Killie. Once at Kilmarnock, extend to Barassie.

Alternatively, extend from Ayr to Girvan and finally build Ayr South Parkway station next to the bypass.
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
But haven't wired Anniesland to Glasgow Queen Street via Ashfield which I would expect to be the lowest hanging fruit of all.
As I understand it there's not much benefit to doing it, because the Anniesland shuttles are worked by West Highland diesel stock as an infill turn. You'd wind up running diesels under the wires or using stock inefficiently.
 

d9009alycidon

Member
Joined
22 Jun 2011
Messages
837
Location
Eaglesham
A canal aqueduct! If that’s low hanging fruit then it’s pretty rotten. For me, Muirhouse to Busby jct should be the first priority, then onwards to either or both of EK or Killie. Once at Kilmarnock, extend to Barassie.

Alternatively, extend from Ayr to Girvan and finally build Ayr South Parkway station next to the bypass.

If the station was slightly further south then it could serve the otherwise remote Ayr Hospital, with a short link road to the bypass to car parking
 

Red Onion

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2012
Messages
332
Location
Aberdeen
Was this ever a viable scheme?

Rising costs may end rail link plan between airport and new arena in Aberdeen

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp...ail-link-plan-between-airport-and-new-arena1/

It was completely pie in the sky. There’s no easy route to the airport with all the development, it could have possibly been achieved before the construction of the business park and the car hire centre but all that has eaten up any useful route.

As for the exhibition centre, it’s not a far walk from the line at Stoneywood. A simple station there, even if only open for events, would surely work better.

There’s better rail options that money can go towards in the city including local stations at Bucksburn, Kittybrewster and Cove.

The city council don’t seem the greatest when it comes to public transport, all three park and ride sites are failures along with the general bus network not doing well.
 

adrock1976

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2013
Messages
4,450
Location
What's it called? It's called Cumbernauld
As I understand it there's not much benefit to doing it, because the Anniesland shuttles are worked by West Highland diesel stock as an infill turn. You'd wind up running diesels under the wires or using stock inefficiently.

Being as both the Class 156s and 158s will need to be replaced at some point in the near future (the low numbered ones date from 1987 and 1989 respectively), there could be some prep work done in small stages to get the line ready for wires. This would obviously also include Maryhill Park Junction - Westerton (also useful for diversion of Milngavie trains to Queen Street High Level when Sunday engineering works closes the route through Partick) and it would also be useful to have a short 3 mile tram wire extension from Craigendoran Junction to Helensburgh Upper being as the train switches to and from the Radio Electronic Token Block signalling system. This would enable a new fleet of bimodes to be used for the West Highlands.
 

gingertom

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2017
Messages
1,251
Location
Kilsyth
There ought to be, but if the Scottish Government are looking for a quick result then the Borders Railway could give them that. They've declared a climate emergency so might want to be seen to be doing something quickly.
The Borders Railway was built with passive provision for electrification so there are no structures which require alteration.
pretty straightforward and quick to dangle the wires but if there's a new feeder station needed (near the wind farm near Bowshank tunnel?) that will take some time. Improved journey times would be at the mercy of the passing loops and further infrastructure work to increase the double track sections could be essential to ensure a robust timetable. Both are a considerable cost.
 

Highland37

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
1,259
I wouldn't say irrelevant - the Beaufort Dyke is one of the largest munition dumps in the Western Hemisphere. But yes, the fact that it's over 200m deep is the main challenge.

Funny how Norway can construct tunnels in much deeper water though....
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
Funny how Norway can construct tunnels in much deeper water though....
It's not the absolute depth that matters, it's the slope down to that depth.

The North Channel is both narrow and deep, which isn't a good combination.
 
Last edited:

Highland37

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
1,259
I know. I am not proposing one. All I am saying is that depth isn't an issue. It will never happen in the UK but other countries have done this already.
 

Jordan Adam

Established Member
Joined
12 Sep 2017
Messages
5,514
Location
Aberdeen
Was this ever a viable scheme?

Rising costs may end rail link plan between airport and new arena in Aberdeen

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp...ail-link-plan-between-airport-and-new-arena1/

Nope, just another fantasy dream scheme.

A bus link connecting Dyce, Dyce Railway Station, TECA, Aberdeen Airport & Kirkhill Industrial Estate would be far more viable and work better. FirstBus Aberdeen are away to launch a new route in two weeks time which will run on a 15 minute frequency providing most of those links. This covers the bulk of the market that a rail link would, albeit there's no early morning, evening or Sunday service.
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
Funny how Norway can construct tunnels in much deeper water though....
Technically, building the tunnel would be the easy part. The problem would be the length.

To get under Beaufort's Dyke and back up to sea level (somewhere in the region of 325 metres of descent/climb) with a reasonable gradient of 1:100, you'd need a tunnel perhaps 65km long, 30% longer than the Channel Tunnel. So figure on construction costs being about £23 billion, with any connecting works at either end being extra.

The Norwegian fjord tunnels are all road tunnels. You can easily get a road vehicle up a hill that a train couldn't even think about. Unfortunately, a 21km undersea road tunnel would also suffocate all the drivers - the Rogaland Fixed Link will be this kind of length (and 380 metres deep!) but there's a convenient island half way along where ventilation can be provided.
 

d9009alycidon

Member
Joined
22 Jun 2011
Messages
837
Location
Eaglesham
Not only do you have the issue of the depth of the water, but the coastline in the vicinity of Portpatrick is high cliffs with the ground sloping higher as you go inland. The original station was at the back of the town and had a steeply sloping branch down to the harbour, which didn't last long before everyone agreed that Stranraer was the best option for the port. Even the branch to the town had a fierce climb up to Colfin, I have walked the old line and it was an impressive piece of civil engineering. If anyone was serious about a tunnel they would need to start boring at Stranraer.
All this at the moment is frankly moot, there are discussions on other forums about the viability of the line to Stranrear and it is generally though that if any route in Scotland was under threat it would be this one (beyond Girvan). The harbour station no longer has any ferry connections and is badly placed for the people of Stranraer, patronage is poor as the buses offer a competitive service, the fastest bus is about twenty minutes longer than the train but from Ayr to Stranraer but goes from town centre to town centre
 

route101

Established Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
10,594
A canal aqueduct! If that’s low hanging fruit then it’s pretty rotten. For me, Muirhouse to Busby jct should be the first priority, then onwards to either or both of EK or Killie. Once at Kilmarnock, extend to Barassie.

Alternatively, extend from Ayr to Girvan and finally build Ayr South Parkway station next to the bypass.
EK and Killie at once . Possible with new stock . D
 

clc

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2011
Messages
1,301
I'm now wondering if a revised version of the Almond Chord scheme could drop grade separation at the Winchburgh end of the chord?

If the planned Winchburgh station were moved onto the new chord then there would be very little need for much traffic to use the current mainline at all. Edinburgh Gateway works just as well as Edinburgh Park for access into the west Edinburgh employment sites and the airport so you could just move the vast majority of services (or even all regular services) off the current line and avoid the need for grade separation at the west end of the chord at all.

Only question would be if the north lines at Haymarket could cope with all 10tph (4tph Falkirk High, 2tph Stirling, 2tph Cumbernauld, 2tph extra Falkirk High) going via the chord on top of 8tph to Fife / Dundee?

South lines would be looking much quieter at something more like 10tph (3tph Shotts, 1tph Carstairs, 2tph Carlisle, 4tph Bathgate).

But if all the north line trains are grade separated at Turnhouse it may actually be easier to run 18tph on the north lines than to operate with the existing flat junctions at Newbridge and Haymarket East junction.

How many trains would call at Gateway in this scenario? I had my first visit to Gateway today and it was eerily quiet with not a single person in the large ticket hall.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
How many trains would call at Gateway in this scenario? I had my first visit to Gateway today and it was eerily quiet with not a single person in the large ticket hall.

I'd expect there to be an additional 4tph at Edinburgh Gateway if all trains from Linlithgow direction went on Almond Chord. 2tph from Stirling and 2tph from Glasgow.

If the Stirling trains continues to run via Edinburgh Park then perhaps only an extra 2tph calling at Edinburgh Gateway.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,037
How many trains would call at Gateway in this scenario? I had my first visit to Gateway today and it was eerily quiet with not a single person in the large ticket hall.
The airport isn't all that busy on Sundays, and Gogarburn and the Edinburgh park area are virtually deserted. You wouldn't expect a new railway station that serves them via a not-particularly regular service to be that busy would you?
 

JLUK144

Member
Joined
8 Sep 2017
Messages
89
Location
Glasgow
The airport isn't all that busy on Sundays, and Gogarburn and the Edinburgh park area are virtually deserted. You wouldn't expect a new railway station that serves them via a not-particularly regular service to be that busy would you?
There’s also the more regular tram service.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
The airport isn't all that busy on Sundays, and Gogarburn and the Edinburgh park area are virtually deserted. You wouldn't expect a new railway station that serves them via a not-particularly regular service to be that busy would you?

Indeed, outside of events at Murrayfield and the weekday peak, Edinburgh Gateway is currently a fairly quiet station. But if you are there at 8am on a weekday it does a reasonable trade.
 

railjock

Member
Joined
30 Jun 2012
Messages
373
Indeed, outside of events at Murrayfield and the weekday peak, Edinburgh Gateway is currently a fairly quiet station. But if you are there at 8am on a weekday it does a reasonable trade.
Lots of development planned around it as well now that the old runway has been closed.
 

clc

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2011
Messages
1,301
I'd expect there to be an additional 4tph at Edinburgh Gateway if all trains from Linlithgow direction went on Almond Chord. 2tph from Stirling and 2tph from Glasgow.

If the Stirling trains continues to run via Edinburgh Park then perhaps only an extra 2tph calling at Edinburgh Gateway.

A decent increase in frequency then. And central Glasgow would have a reliable sub 60 minute journey time to Edinburgh Airport and its growing global connections.
 

Tormod

Member
Joined
1 Mar 2017
Messages
66
Location
Leith
Nope. A rail scheme dreamt up by the Scottish local authority that's got to be the most clueless about public transport was never going to happen.

If they'd just focus on delivering two or three stations between Aberdeen and Dyce thereby opening up opportunities for some of the city's most deprived areas then we'd all be a lot better off.

Actually, a challenge for this thread. Is Aberdeen City the most useless in this respect? Considering the population, the state of its bus service and that there are only two rail stations within its boundaries then I can't think of anywhere worse for public transport delivery.
Yeah, for all that oil they've nothing to show. Dundee otoh with a shiny new station and a good selection of stations to Arbroath seem to be doing reasonably well.
 

snookertam

Member
Joined
22 Sep 2018
Messages
774
Is there any other option besides figuring out how to get electric trains (by whatever means) and probably intermediate signal sections onto the bridge?

I think there are already multiple signal sections on the bridge, not sure you could fit any more in without having an effect on line speed, which is already restricted.

Some day (not necessarily soon) the nettle may need to be grasped regarding a new link across the water. It will be very expensive though.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
I think there are already multiple signal sections on the bridge, not sure you could fit any more in without having an effect on line speed, which is already restricted.

Some day (not necessarily soon) the nettle may need to be grasped regarding a new link across the water. It will be very expensive though.
Earlier proposals for the Queensferry Crossing were for a multi-modal bridge or tunnel. A missed opportunity
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top