• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

Call for new stations to create ‘community rail network’ in Aberdeen

Status
Not open for further replies.

och aye

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2012
Messages
865
Anyone would think there was an election happening! :rolleyes::lol:

I keep seeing stories about an "Aberdeen Crossrail" service being talked about from time to time, but are any of the stations realistic? Perhaps someone with local knowledge can give us some realism rather than bluster from politicians.


New stations could be created at Kittybrewster and Bucksburn in addition to Cove – where a site assessment has already been carried out.

Holyrood transport chiefs have been asked to release money for a feasibility study in order to investigate the proposals.

Three SNP parliamentary candidates – Jackie Dunbar, Kevin Stewart and Audrey Nicoll – have written to transport minister Michael Matheson calling on him to back the scheme.

They believe creating new stations could improve links between communities and increase footfall in the city centre.

And they claim a station at Kittybrewster is “ideally placed” to give passengers from Woodside and Tillydrone, as well as Aberdeen University, greater transport links.

Mr Stewart, who is standing in Aberdeen Central, said: “Community train stops would not only benefit city centre foot fall, it would also link up communities throughout Aberdeen like we’ve not seen in decades.

“In Kittybrewster we have the space, the line infrastructure and the history of a station there in the past so it’s absolutely something we should be looking at.

“We’ve got a clear plan to get the ball rolling on assessing these sites as options and I hope it’s something that folk across the city can get behind.”

Aberdeen Donside candidate Ms Dunbar said: “If you look back to the sixties we can see that Bucksburn had a thriving station and I believe we even have part of the platform still in place.


“Stronger transport links to the north of the city can only be a good thing and I actually think community stations could be quite transformative to Aberdeen.”

Ms Nicoll, who is standing in Aberdeen South and North Kincardine, added: “Thanks to investment secured by the SNP, we are already quite far down the line with assessment of Cove as a potential site for a south of the city rail stop.

“Linking even more communities across Aberdeen onto existing rail lines makes a lot of sense and I hope it is something that can be considered.”

However, opponents said the proposal was an “empty election promise”.

Barry Black, Labour’s candidate in Aberdeen Central, said: “The SNP have been in Government for 14 years. Kevin Stewart has been our local MSP for 10 years, and a Minister for five. This simply rings as an empty election promise rather than a serious plan to deliver for Aberdeen.


“If he is now interested in securing rail infrastructure spending for the city, he should chase the £200 million the SNP promised – and didn’t deliver – to upgrade the Aberdeen-Dundee line, which has real strategic importance for the city’s connectivity.”

A spokesman for Transport Scotland said: “Scottish Ministers are committed to ensuring the railway meets future growth needs and are willing to consider proposals for new stations, or reopening existing ones, that arise from a positive transport appraisal which takes account of the impact on the wider rail network.

“Nestrans were awarded £30,669.82 through the Local Rail Development Fund on 22 August 2019 to part fund appraisal studies on Cross Aberdeen Travel. This work will assess the transport needs and opportunities in the Aberdeen area.

“Nestrans are currently redrafting their case for change appraisal, the first of the three appraisal stages in the LRDF process.

“The first draft of their case for change proposed the potential opening of Cove and Newtonhill train stations, with another option proposing the improvement of physical accessibility at the existing stations at Portlethen and Stonehaven.

“It is still early days, but if Nestrans provide robust appraisals which can form a Strategic Business Cases, we will consider them for potential further funding or support through our rail pipeline process.”


Paul Finch, strategy manager for the regional transport body Nestrans, said: “Proposals for enhanced local rail services connecting across Aberdeen have been contained in local and regional transport strategies since at least 2010, and continue to be a key element of Nestrans’ recently updated Regional Transport Strategy, Nestrans 2040.

“In 2019, a local rail service was introduced linking Inverurie, Dyce, Aberdeen, Portlethen, Stonehaven, Laurencekirk and Montrose, which was enabled by enhancement work on the local rail network. In October 2020, Kintore was added to this service.

“The feasibility of introducing additional stations north of Aberdeen Railway Station was reported by Nestrans in June 2019. This found that additional or relocated stations could be accommodated on the Aberdeen to Dyce railway line without the need for additional infrastructure.


“Work is now currently ongoing to consider what options may be appropriate and feasible on the corridor between Aberdeen and Laurencekirk. Strategic investment in the area’s rail network is the responsibility of Transport Scotland and Network Rail, although Nestrans have a role in developing and promoting business cases for such projects.

“Whilst the proposals feature strongly in local and regional policy, there are currently no committed proposals for additional local rail stations at this time.”
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

snakeeyes

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2011
Messages
213
I live in Aberdeen, a Station at Kitybrewster I think would be a good idea, especially with the hourly Inverness service.
Bucksurn too as a lot of new housing has been built, but the station site has long been built over.
Cove and Newtonhill jas been mentioned as well.
Kintore cost around £20 million, so that's £80-100 million in total.
 

och aye

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2012
Messages
865
Thanks for your local knowledge @snakeeyes even at the top end of the scale, this would seem to be a better value for money plan to invest in the North East, than rebuilding the Deeside Railway.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
4,770
Location
Hope Valley
Right; so this is nothing to do with 'Community Rail' as generally understood in terms of volunteering, 'friends of X station' groups, folk trains, ale trails and whatnot.

I recall working on an 'inspection tour' with a Class 158 for local politicians and other stakeholders, with stops at possible station sites south and north of Aberdeen, back in the early 1990s with BR's ScotRail. At least there has been some progress like partial re-doubling and Kintore in the meantime.
 

och aye

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2012
Messages
865
Yet more suggestions from candidates running at next months election. This time regarding the furthering of the next stage of a business case for stations at Cove and Newtonhill, which was submitted to government agency Transport Scotland by the regional body Nestrans about six months ago.


Last November a business case for stops at Cove and Newtonhill was submitted to government agency Transport Scotland by the regional body Nestrans.

Both stations closed in the 1950s as part of the Beeching cuts. However, residents are keen to see them reinstated.

A feasibility study into the possibility of stations in both communities was carried out, while Nestrans compiled a “case for change” last year.

However, nearly six months after submitting it to the Scottish Government, ministers have been urged to outline the next stage.

Liam Kerr, the Scottish Conservatives’ candidate in the Aberdeen South and North Kincardine constituency at next month’s election, wrote to transport chief Michael Matheson asking him to publish Transport Scotland’s response “with urgency”.

“There is already proof this can be done well – look at Laurencekirk and Kintore,” he said.
 

Clansman

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2016
Messages
2,601
Location
Scotland and Hong Kong
I live in Aberdeen, a Station at Kitybrewster I think would be a good idea, especially with the hourly Inverness service.
Bucksurn too as a lot of new housing has been built, but the station site has long been built over.
Cove and Newtonhill jas been mentioned as well.
Kintore cost around £20 million, so that's £80-100 million in total.
I'm all for new stations in the Aberdeen area (especially Newtonhill and Cove), but I feel that Kittybrewster gets unwaranted attention due to its loose proximity to the University when in actual fact it's a 10 minute walk away from the central campus (and a mile away from the nearest student accomdation hubs) and would only be used by kids heading to the railway station and Union Square - and not the city centre (Union Street) where most of the demand is for.

If the debate was about a more metro-style network (say trams?) covering more areas than what the national rail network is able to cover through station reopenings, then it might have merrit. Personally, I don't understand the hype.
 
Last edited:

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,333
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
I'm all for new stations in the Aberdeen area (especially Newtonhill and Cove)
That is a reasonable suggestion. A half-hourly Inverurie-Stonehaven service, calling at Kintore, Dyce, Aberdeen, Cove, Porthlethlen and Newtonhill, could be a viable proposal and doesn't require significantly more infrastructure. 1 tph could originate from Inverness. The extension to Montrose is probably too far, so the Laurencekirk stop would need to be transferred to intercity Edinburgh/Glasgow trains.

Anything above this for the Aberdeen area is probably fantasyland.
 
Last edited:

Clansman

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2016
Messages
2,601
Location
Scotland and Hong Kong
That is a reasonable suggestion. A half-hourly Inverurie-Stonehaven service, calling at Kintore, Dyce, Aberdeen, Cove, Porthlethlen and Newtonhill, could be a viable proposal and doesn't require significantly more infrastructure. 1 tph could originate from Inverness. The extension to Montrose is probably too far, so the Laurencekirk stop would need to be transferred to intercity Edinburgh/Glasgow trains.

Anything above this for the Aberdeen area is probably fantasyland.
Laurencekirk is already built into the timetable for the current Montrose - Aberdeen/Inverurie locals, and deliberatley so, to allow the station to be served by its biggest market (Aberdeen) without compromising the frequency that it had before these locals were introduced (albeit the frequency to Edinburgh/Glasgow being comprimised severely).

Also, Montrose has the infrastructure to allow turnbacks (sidings) that allow I7C services to pass through and not be blocked - this is not possible with Laurencekirk without more meticulous and unneccessary planning that's frankly not worth the time. Not least because of the populous of Laurencekirk, but also the defeating of the purporse by utilising Montrose as the newest interchange on the Scotttish rail network - which 95% or so of services stop at.

And one that has future provision for a third platform, through which it can handle more intense turnarounds in future than the 30 minute reversal in the southbund sidings.

The locals to/from Montrose were intended to allow I7C services from Glasgow/Edinburgh to bypass the local stations south of Aberdeen and speed up journey times. Cove and Newtonhill reopening wouldn't change that.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,333
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Laurencekirk is already built into the timetable for the current Montrose - Aberdeen/Inverurie locals, and deliberatley so, to allow the station to be served by its biggest market (Aberdeen) without compromising the frequency that it had before these locals were introduced (albeit the frequency to Edinburgh/Glasgow being comprimised severely).

Also, Montrose has the infrastructure to allow turnbacks (sidings) that allow I7C services to pass through and not be blocked - this is not possible with Laurencekirk without more meticulous and unneccessary planning that's frankly not worth the time. Not least because of the populous of Laurencekirk, but also the defeating of the purporse by utilising Montrose as the newest interchange on the Scotttish rail network - which 95% or so of services stop at.

And one that has future provision for a third platform, through which it can handle more intense turnarounds in future than the 30 minute reversal in the southbund sidings.

The locals to/from Montrose were intended to allow I7C services from Glasgow/Edinburgh to bypass the local stations south of Aberdeen and speed up journey times. Cove and Newtonhill reopening wouldn't change that.
If Laurencekirk is to remain served by Inverurie-Montrose trains, then 1 tph should suffice, with the other 1 tph running Inverness-Stonehaven. I had thought that transferring Laurencekirk stops to the longer distance trains would save a diagram and thus reduce costs by terminating local trains at Stonehaven.
 

Clansman

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2016
Messages
2,601
Location
Scotland and Hong Kong
If Laurencekirk is to remain served by Inverurie-Montrose trains, then 1 tph should suffice, with the other 1 tph running Inverness-Stonehaven. I had thought that transferring Laurencekirk stops to the longer distance trains would save a diagram and thus reduce costs by terminating local trains at Stonehaven.
I'm not sure you understand what is happening. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

When Laurencekirk was re-opened over 12 years ago, it was served by a rotation of Edinburgh/Glasgow services as no regular local services to Montrose existed.

The locals to Stonehaven from Aberdeen/Inverurie, were initially provided during peak times (utilising the siding at Stonehaven to reverse and run empty back to Aberdeen) so as to not overcapacitate intercity services through to Edinburgh/Glasgow at times when demand is highest. Over the last couple of years, demand has risen to the point where ScotRail introduced 7 and 8 car DMU diagrams to Inverurie to cope with this (the longest in Scotland), which were ran as an effective extension to the Glasgow/Edinburgh services albeit under two seperate diagrams seperated by a mere 5 minutes.

Pre-covid, demand between Stonehaven/Inverurie into Aberdeen was increasing, especially ahead of Kintore's reopening, which lead to future consultations into the reopenings of Newtonhill and Cove (which have populations higher than Portlethen).

Glasgow/Edinburgh services - by which point were struggling with this demand both on a capacity front and on the effects the calls had on journey times - could not cope with this so long as ScotRail was seeking to rebrand it's services and diversify back into the Intercity market.

This is why the locals to Montrose exist. To take Intercity services away from Portlethen, Laurencekirk, and Stonehaven (where demand to Edinburgh/Glasgow is the lowest on the line) - and increase capacity to the Central Belt, and speed up journey times. It also provides adequate future proofing for Cove and Newtonhill to be served without the further detriment to Intercity services that would have otherwise absorbed the call had these locals not existed.
 
Last edited:

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,333
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
I'm not sure you understand what is happening.
Apologies. I didn't realise the extent of the demand for train services on these lines, and was thinking of service economies. I am astonished that "7 and 8 car DMU diagrams" are needed to Inverurie.

My mindset regarding the demand for train services was based on my experiences in the period 1973-2005. For much of that time, I didn't have a car and then I lived adjacent to a railway station for over 20 years. Since 2005, I have made far less use of public transport (as the services locally are limited).
 
Last edited:

Clansman

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2016
Messages
2,601
Location
Scotland and Hong Kong
Apologies. I didn't realise the extent of the demand for train services on these lines, and was thinking of service economies. I am astonished that "7 and 8 car DMU diagrams" are needed to Inverurie.
Pre-Covid that was the case.

Edinburgh to Aberdeen services extended to Inverurie and were booked and advertised as Edinburgh-Inverurie services with 5-10 minute stops at Aberdeen.

Right up until around 2017, there was one or two diagrams from Glasgow per weekday that would run as a 5 or 6 car from Glasgow, which would then drop 2 or 3 coaches at Perth, and pick up a further 4 or 5 at Aberdeen (as part of an Aberdeen to Inverness service that was formed from the same stock coming up from Glasgow 5 minutes before) to run a peak to Inverurie - then drop off another 2 or 3 to work back a local to Stonehaven while the rest runs through to Inverness. Overall you're talking up to 6 or 7 DMUs to work, what is effectively, one through service from Glasgow to Inverness via Aberdeen.

The more calls that are added to Portlethen and Laurcenkirk's frequencies, as well as Cove and Newtonhill - the less viable this arrangement becomes. By which point, the provision of dedicated local services is the answer - especially when the bulk of demand radiates Aberdeen and not Edinburgh/Glasgow and stations inbetween.

2tph in the peaks should suffice well into the next decade I'd presume. 1tph was never sustainable.
 
Last edited:

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,777
The locals to Stonehaven from Aberdeen/Inverurie, were initially provided during peak times (utilising the siding at Stonehaven to reverse and run empty back to Aberdeen)
The sidings at Stonehaven have been out of use for years; terminating services go through the road on the main line.
 

numtot12345

Member
Joined
23 Feb 2021
Messages
100
Location
Glasgow
Obviously a number of years away, however definitely worth them looking into new stations between Inverurie-Aberdeen-Stonehaven now, in anticipation of future electrification. Great if they construct them before, but could possibly see it happening in tandem with electrification. Take example of Kintore Station, which took the opportunity (piggyback??) of the Aberdeen-Inverurie double-tracking scheme as part of A-I improvements.

Also - how much would electrification in itself be an enabler for accommodating new stations into the timetables in the NE? I would also assume re-doubling of Hutcheon St tunnel is a factor for this (particularly if considering new line up to Ellon and beyond).
 

och aye

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2012
Messages
865
Campaign For North-East Rail (CNER) have made a proposal to reopen the line to Peterhead. Interestingly they mention the Borders Railway as a template for the reopening.


Earlier this year Campaign For North-East Rail (CNER) set out plans to bring modern infrastructure to the “forgotten” corners of Aberdeenshire, reopening rail links to Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Banchory.


Primarily the proposals look to offer a lifeline for what they call “isolated communities”. The Buchan towns of Peterhead and Fraserburgh have the dubious honour of being further from the British rail network than any other town in the UK.


But a new environmental report suggests that the impact of reintroducing rail links to the region wouldn’t just benefit residents and local businesses, but would also significantly contribute to saving the planet.
1629294007987.png

1629294023622.png

1629294043927.png
 

Clansman

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2016
Messages
2,601
Location
Scotland and Hong Kong
Rail decarbonisation by 2035, Net-Zero nationwide by 2045, one and an existing rail line of similar length which serves as an expectation-beating precedent through which to squeeze a poor BCR case into reality.

A perfect combination for trying to get a line to Peterhead through Holyrood.
 

och aye

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2012
Messages
865
Rail decarbonisation by 2035, Net-Zero nationwide by 2045, one and an existing rail line of similar length which serves as an expectation-beating precedent through which to squeeze a poor BCR case into reality.

A perfect combination for trying to get a line to Peterhead through Holyrood.
To be fair, perhaps we should applaud them for attempting to play every trick in the book to get the railway line reinstated? Perhaps the "campaign" to reinstate the Stranraer to Dumfries line should take a leaf out of this book. :lol:
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,651
Primarily the proposals look to offer a lifeline for what they call “isolated communities”. The Buchan towns of Peterhead and Fraserburgh have the dubious honour of being further from the British rail network than any other town in the UK.

Has there been a railway opened to Lerwick?
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,385
Location
The UK
That is a reasonable suggestion. A half-hourly Inverurie-Stonehaven service, calling at Kintore, Dyce, Aberdeen, Cove, Porthlethlen and Newtonhill, could be a viable proposal and doesn't require significantly more infrastructure. 1 tph could originate from Inverness. The extension to Montrose is probably too far, so the Laurencekirk stop would need to be transferred to intercity Edinburgh/Glasgow trains.

Anything above this for the Aberdeen area is probably fantasyland.
Hyperbole much? A station in the north of Aberdeen is hardly some kind of panglossian concoction. People have been talking about one for years.

I reckon Persley, rather than Kittybrewster, would be the ideal site mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top