Scotland: Forward thinking with their railways?

edwin_m · 9 Jun 2013

Edinburgh-Glasgow high speed isn't a committed project (they are currently inviting tenders to do a business case). But if they decide it isn't worth taking forward, they have they would have the option of reinstating the missing bits of EGIP to get the best possible service on the existing route. In fact having extended Queen Street there is presumably the option of 6TPH at 8 cars if they ever need it.

RailUK Forums

Altnabreac · 9 Jun 2013

edwin_m said:
Edinburgh-Glasgow high speed isn't a committed project (they are currently inviting tenders to do a business case). But if they decide it isn't worth taking forward, they have they would have the option of reinstating the missing bits of EGIP to get the best possible service on the existing route. In fact having extended Queen Street there is presumably the option of 6TPH at 8 cars if they ever need it.

Yep business case due to go to Ministers in December 2013 and an announcement in spring 2014 or so. It will happen though, politically important to promote continued links to England in the run up to the referendum...

Indeed the Dalmeny curve from EGIP will have to be reinstated as it is a prerequisite for the new HS line. To create space for the new services on the south lines through Haymarket some existing services must be diverted to the Fife lines.

To create space for the services at Glasgow Central you need to electrify and divert Whifflet and Shotts trains:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22716540

edwin_m · 9 Jun 2013

That link confirms Whifflet electrification but doesn't say anything about Shotts electrification or about whether either is necessary to allow E-G high speed.

michael769 · 9 Jun 2013

Mex said:
I advise any skeptics to take a ride on the A-B services some time to verify this. They will usually enjoy a carriage to themselves.

Not at peak they won't carriages arriving at Bathgate from Airdrie are while not full busy enough that people will choose to stand in the vestibule, likewise those going the other way.

You are still completely ignoring the fact that capacity between Bathgate and Edinburgh has been doubled (quadrupled at peak) but despite the extra capacity is still jam packed demonstrating a considerable increase in passenger numbers. You are also ignoring the 32% year on year increase in passengers at Livingston North, with only a small <5% decrease in passengers diverting from Livingston South.

You argument assumes that the sole aim of the improvement was to get people to use the train between Airdire and Bathgate. While this was one aim (and a success given the level of take up in year 1 over 100,000 passengers from a settlement the size or Armadale is a quite considerable success story), but also to provide improvements to the Bathgate to Edinburgh corridor and thus encourage more take-up. The fact that a doubling of capacity has been completely used up in just 2 years is another considerable success story, and clearly demonstrates that provision of extra rail capacity can on its own encourage modal shift.

You also appear to continue to ignore that there are people on this forum who travel on this line regularly and that they know what is actually happening, and as one of those I repeat that claims of carriages to your self and empty trains bears no relationship to the reality that we experience day in day out.

Altnabreac · 9 Jun 2013

edwin_m said:
That link confirms Whifflet electrification but doesn't say anything about Shotts electrification or about whether either is necessary to allow E-G high speed.

True, but don't be surprised when Shotts electrification follows Alloa and Dunblane in the rolling programme during CP6.

It's self evident that removing 4tph from Glasgow Central and the approaches as far as Rutherglen frees up space for extra services on a HS line that is likely to approach the Glasgow suburbs in the Rutherglen area (south of M8 corridor) as set out in the link above. The M74 extension showed how this approach is the best route into SE Glasgow without demolishing residential properties.

If you run extra services on the HS line you have to free up space on existing lines or else cut services as both city approaches are nearly full.

edwin_m · 9 Jun 2013

Altnabreac said:
True, but don't be surprised when Shotts electrification follows Alloa and Dunblane in the rolling programme during CP6.

It's self evident that removing 4tph from Glasgow Central and the approaches as far as Rutherglen frees up space for extra services on a HS line that is likely to approach the Glasgow suburbs in the Rutherglen area (south of M8 corridor) as set out in the link above. The M74 extension showed how this approach is the best route into SE Glasgow without demolishing residential properties.

If you run extra services on the HS line you have to free up space on existing lines or else cut services as both city approaches are nearly full.

I agree, I was just pointing out that an announcement about Shotts hasn't happened yet. There are enough wild rumours on this forum as it is! Presumably the way of reducing usage of Central would be to run these trains through the Argyle Line to somewhere on the west.

I also agree your route to Central is the most likely, though the M74 has taken up some of the space that might otherwise have been used for extra tracks.

John07 · 9 Jun 2013

michael769 said:
Not at peak they won't carriages arriving at Bathgate from Airdrie are while not full busy enough that people will choose to stand in the vestibule, likewise those going the other way.

You are still completely ignoring the fact that capacity between Bathgate and Edinburgh has been doubled (quadrupled at peak) but despite the extra capacity is still jam packed demonstrating a considerable increase in passenger numbers. You are also ignoring the 32% year on year increase in passengers at Livingston North, with only a small <5% decrease in passengers diverting from Livingston South.

You argument assumes that the sole aim of the improvement was to get people to use the train between Airdire and Bathgate. While this was one aim (and a success given the level of take up in year 1 over 100,000 passengers from a settlement the size or Armadale is a quite considerable success story), but also to provide improvements to the Bathgate to Edinburgh corridor and thus encourage more take-up. The fact that a doubling of capacity has been completely used up in just 2 years is another considerable success story, and clearly demonstrates that provision of extra rail capacity can on its own encourage modal shift.

You also appear to continue to ignore that there are people on this forum who travel on this line regularly and that they know what is actually happening, and as one of those I repeat that claims of carriages to your self and empty trains bears no relationship to the reality that we experience day in day out.

I use the Airdrie Bathgate line from time to time and noticed that it will start out very full from Queen Street but empty out after Airdrie. It will take some time for commuting patterns to catch up with the existence of the new line.

The rate of house building around Armadale Station suggests that usage to both Glasgow and Edinburgh is likely to increase over the years.

tbtc · 9 Jun 2013

michael769 said:
You are still completely ignoring the fact that capacity between Bathgate and Edinburgh has been doubled (quadrupled at peak) but despite the extra capacity is still jam packed demonstrating a considerable increase in passenger numbers. You are also ignoring the 32% year on year increase in passengers at Livingston North

If capacity has been quadrupled and services are still jam packed, I'd expect a year on year increase of more than 32% (?)

Altnabreac · 9 Jun 2013

edwin_m said:
I agree, I was just pointing out that an announcement about Shotts hasn't happened yet. There are enough wild rumours on this forum as it is! Presumably the way of reducing usage of Central would be to run these trains through the Argyle Line to somewhere on the west.

I also agree your route to Central is the most likely, though the M74 has taken up some of the space that might otherwise have been used for extra tracks.

Yep to use Argyle line they have to be electrified hence the electrification being the first step. I believe there is a turn back at Finnieston that would be used for now. To send more services west requires remodelling at Hyndland.

In the interim I wonder if more Lanark services will go into High Level (as some do in the peak), effectively swapping with the Whifflet trains?

clc · 9 Jun 2013

Altnabreac said:
It's a relatively simple, cheap project by HS standards. Couple of billion pounds. No untried technology, Class 395 type rolling stock, no stations to build, no property demolition. Just runs in fields and a few industrial areas on the edge o Glasgow.

It's not a coincidence that EGIP has been descoped as Edinburgh - Glasgow high speed has been developed. Hasn't been communicated very well yet though. Expect a big announcement on the route details in early 2014.

It will happen, sooner than you think. A2B was first seriously suggested in the Central Scotland Transport Corridor Study in 2002, no one thought it would happen but it was open 8 years later...

£2 billion for HSR + £3 billion for A9 + £1.5-3 billion for Glasgow terminal capacity. Where's the money for all this going to come from I wonder?

Altnabreac · 9 Jun 2013

clc said:
£2 billion for HSR + £3 billion for A9 + £1.5-3 billion for Glasgow terminal capacity. Where's the money for all this going to come from I wonder?

Scottish HSR should have a similar annual cost to Forth Replacement Crossing. Hence it won't start construction until bridge built.

clc · 9 Jun 2013

Altnabreac said:
Scottish HSR should have a similar annual cost to Forth Replacement Crossing. Hence it won't start construction until bridge built.

I guess the A9 dualling will be put back then.

St Rollox · 10 Jun 2013

We don't really ask for much railway wise.
Couple of airport links and electrification up to UK averages.
Scottish railways are 20% electrified compared to the UKs 40%.
Wonder what the figures are when comparing London with Scotland.
I can guess.
We only ask for our fare share in what is after all, a union.
Maybe 50/50 cut when it to railway expenditure.
Just like a marriage.
Then we can get on with GARL/Crossrail etc.

Altnabreac · 10 Jun 2013

clc said:
I guess the A9 dualling will be put back then.

No need for sarcasm. You could do something useful instead like look up the Scottish Government's annual capital spend: 1,059,000,000
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/09/7829/13

Even assuming your rather high sounding £3Bn is right for the A9 that's only £300M a year while HSR is £200M in the same timescale.

And that budget figure doesn't include Network Rail RAB financed spending like EGIP, Borders Rail or Electrification...

So potentially affordable after all. Amazing what a bit of actual research does for you.

HSTEd · 10 Jun 2013

St Rollox said:
We don't really ask for much railway wise.
Couple of airport links and electrification up to UK averages.
Scottish railways are 20% electrified compared to the UKs 40%.
Wonder what the figures are when comparing London with Scotland.
I can guess.
We only ask for our fare share in what is after all, a union.
Maybe 50/50 cut when it to railway expenditure.
Just like a marriage.
Then we can get on with GARL/Crossrail etc.

So we should electrify rural lines in Scotland before more deserving lines in England just so that you get "UK Average" levels of it?
Population density in Scotland is far lower than England, routes that are good electrification candidates are already electrified or in the programme.

St Rollox · 10 Jun 2013

HSTEd said:
So we should electrify rural lines in Scotland before more deserving lines in Engalnd just so that you get "UK Average" levels of it?
Population density in Scotland is far lower than England, routes that are good electrification candidates are already electrified or in the programme.

Would hardly call the main line from Glasgow to Edinburgh rural.
Anyway in an equal union, how we spend our pocket money is of no concern to anybody at Westminster.
We don't question railway projects in London and vice versa.

HSTEd · 10 Jun 2013

St Rollox said:
Would hardly call the main line from Glasgow to Edinburgh rural.

Which "main line".... there are four, two of which are now electrified with a third in the programme. The 'flagship' route being one of them.

Compare this to the massive holes in intensively worked commuter networks in England, such as those in Leeds and Manchester which keep them predominantly diesel operated.

michael769 · 10 Jun 2013

tbtc said:
If capacity has been quadrupled and services are still jam packed, I'd expect a year on year increase of more than 32% (?)

The station figures are already a year out of date!

St Rollox · 10 Jun 2013

HSTEd said:
Which "main line".... there are four, two of which are now electrified with a third in the programme. The 'flagship' route being one of them.

Compare this to the massive holes in intensively worked commuter networks in England, such as those in Leeds and Manchester which keep them predominantly diesel operated.

You can hardly blame Scotland for the lack of railway investment in the North of England.
Bottom line is the pocket money being given by Westminster to Scotland isn't enough.

HSTEd · 10 Jun 2013

St Rollox said:
You can hardly blame Scotland for the lack of railway investment in the North of England.
Bottom line is the pocket money being given by Westminster to Scotland isn't enough.

Why?
Just because the percentage is lower in scotland doesn't mean that transport in Scotland is underfunded, it just means that there are less lines that are suitable for actual electrification.

YOu can't use a simplistic comparison of electrified route miles when Scotland posseses the majority of all the single line running in the country.

Can you demonstrate that there are reasonable routes that can be electrified to get the percentage in Scotland up to the UK-average level?
I think you will be really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I know it doesn't fit in with the SNPs narrative of a conspiracy against Scotland but it is unreasonable to expect our limited transport resources to be expended in places where they will be ineffective just because some nationalists demand that "their country" deserves more money.

EDIT:

And using this argument Ic an blame Scotland for "underfunding" of railways in the North of England.
The same argument that applies for Scotland also applies for Cornwall.
Why should Cornwall not have any electrified railways at all when the national average is 40%?
Or my native Lincolnshire which has a lot less than 40% of route miles electrified.

bb21 · 10 Jun 2013

St Rollox said:
Scottish railways are 20% electrified compared to the UKs 40%.

I'm not sure what you are trying to show with these figures. Should Caithness also get 40% electrification? Should it have the same percentage as Glasgow? Should it have the same percentage as London?

Whether a line should be electrified should be judged on its own merits, not by juggling these figures.

W230 · 10 Jun 2013

St Rollox said:
Anyway in an equal union, how we spend our pocket money is of no concern to anybody at Westminster.
We don't question railway projects in London and vice versa.

I do love these North v South, England v Scotland, London v Manchester, [insert your gripe here] threads. I think you might be missing the point a little. :lol:

There are benefits to living in a rural area and there are benefits to living in a large city.

Glasgow is never going to see the public transport network than London has - how could it?!

Just like Inverness will never see projects like that of Glasgow's subway and The Orkney Islands will never see a bus frequency to rival that of Inverness.

Apples & Pears...

Invincibles · 10 Jun 2013

St Rollox said:
Would hardly call the main line from Glasgow to Edinburgh rural.
Anyway in an equal union, how we spend our pocket money is of no concern to anybody at Westminster.
We don't question railway projects in London and vice versa.

Per capita spending?

If I was looking for equality that is where I would start.

Which line in particular do you believe should be funded ahead of major routes in England that are not even on the table yet?

Is Stirling to Aberdeen more important than Leicester - Nuneaton - Birmingham? or Ipswich - Peterborough - Leicester?

That is a matter for judgement, but if in the mean time a lot of other routes between major centres are done than it can be no surprise. (and on per capita terms even less so)

anti-pacer · 10 Jun 2013

W230 said:
I do love these North v South, England v Scotland, London v Manchester, [insert your gripe here] threads. I think you might be missing the point a little.

There are benefits to living in a rural area and there are benefits to living in a large city.

Glasgow is never going to see the public transport network than London has - how could it?!

Just like Inverness will never see projects like that of Glasgow's subway and The Orkney Islands will never see a bus frequency to rival that of Inverness.

Apples & Pears...

That said, Metropolitan areas outside London should be pretty much equal in terms of rail service quality (all forms of it) ...... but they're not!

tbtc · 10 Jun 2013

anti-pacer said:
That said, Metropolitan areas outside London should be pretty much equal in terms of rail service quality (all forms of it) ...... but they're not!

How?

On what grounds?

Cities aren't equal (in size, in population density, in income).

anti-pacer · 10 Jun 2013

tbtc said:
How?

On what grounds?

Cities aren't equal (in size, in population density, in income).

Greater Manchester is fairly equal in size to the West Midlands county.

In terms of heavy rail, the West Midlands compares better. OK, Greater Manchester now has an extensive tram system.

Glasgow has the best rail system outside London (imo) but yet it's smaller in population than most Metropolitan areas.

clc · 10 Jun 2013

Altnabreac said:
No need for sarcasm. You could do something useful instead like look up the Scottish Government's annual capital spend: 1,059,000,000
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/09/7829/13

Even assuming your rather high sounding £3Bn is right for the A9 that's only £300M a year while HSR is £200M in the same timescale.

And that budget figure doesn't include Network Rail RAB financed spending like EGIP, Borders Rail or Electrification...

So potentially affordable after all. Amazing what a bit of actual research does for you.

I wasn't being sarcastic. In fact I found your posts on this quite interesting and informative. I was just thinking that with all the competing demands on the capital budget it wouldn't be possible to take forward all the big transport projects simultaneously. I'll expand on my thinking:

A lot of the programmed infrastructure spend is to be financed under the SNP's Non Profit Distributing model (PFI in old money). However, they have a self-imposed limit on borrowing to the extent that repayments on PFI/DBFO/NPD cannot exceed 4% of their total budget. I assume RAB borrowing is factored in also but I'm not certain about that. That borrowing cap is likely to be reached in a few years time when unitary charge payments on the two big NPD-financed road schemes (M8/M73/M74 Improvements and AWPR) become payable. So the borrowing capability reduces. Then consider that overall budgets will continue to shrink (another 7 years of austerity we now hear). Consequently the transport capital budget will come under pressure if schools, hospitals etc are to continue to get built.

There is of course the prospect of additional borrowing powers but it's only a few billion and I don't think the SG would want to spend it all on one project.

With regard to the A9, £3 billion is not my figure its the Government's estimate. It wont be spread evenly over 10 years as most of the construction spend is scheduled for the period 2020-2025 as can be seen from the Programme Document:http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk...erth_to_Inverness_-_Programme_-_June_2012.pdf.

Taking all these financial factors into account I think its highly unlikely the A9 and HSR would be constructed at the same time. I take on board your point about the political importance of HSR. Hence why I think it will take priority and the later phases of the A9 will be deferred.

Eagle · 10 Jun 2013

anti-pacer said:
Glasgow has the best rail system outside London (imo) but yet it's smaller in population than most Metropolitan areas.

What are you defining as a "metropolitan area"? That term has no official definition. There is a term urban areas but that includes everything with a population over 50,000, so for instance I live in the Leamington-Warwick urban area, 87th largest in the country.

HSTEd · 10 Jun 2013

Larger Urban Zones are probably the best indicator of transport demand because they reflect commuting habits.
But then people don't like how big "London" grows in such a model.

anti-pacer · 10 Jun 2013

Eagle said:
What are you defining as a "metropolitan area"? That term has no official definition. There is a term urban areas but that includes everything with a population over 50,000, so for instance I live in the Leamington-Warwick urban area, 87th largest in the country.

What used to be Metropolitan counties and/or TPE areas. OK, Glasgow wasn't in a Metropolitan county as they didn't exist north of the border.

To summarise, my use of Metropolitan area includes the following;

Greater London
Greater Manchester
Merseyside
South Yorkshire
Strathclyde (Greater Glasgow area)
Tyne & Wear
West Midlands
West Yorkshire

To break this down some more, I'd say the following are the major 'Metro' areas outside London;

Greater Manchester
Merseyside
Strathclyde
West Midlands
West Yorkshire

Three of these areas are under 'Northern Rail', although the bulk of services in Merseyside are of course run by 'Merseyrail', so they're slightly more fortunate.

Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire definitely have a raw deal compared to both Strathclyde and West Midlands.

142, 150 or a 321 compared to a 172, 350 or a 380? ..... Exactly!

Scotland: Forward thinking with their railways?

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Emeritus Moderator

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member