GARL strikes me as a very inefficient use of capacity just shuttling back and forward between Central and the airport. I'd rather the airport was served by longer distance inter-regional services such as Ayrshire to Edinburgh. Obviously you'd need Crossrail to enable this. Also, the only shuttling that takes place should be between the terminal and the existing line; surely there must be a viable alternative to building a very expensive heavy rail line right into the terminal?
-
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!
Borders Railway - Now Open
- Thread starter PaxVobiscum
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Both Glasgow and Edinburgh airports could, in principle, be served by building or relocating stations on existing lines and linking with some form of light rail, similar to the Gatwick monorail.
Glasgow - move Paisley St James a mile or so west and build a link along the route of GARL (more or less).
Edinburgh - move South Gyle a few hundred yards north and build a shuttle to the terminal.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
As a supplementary query to your point above about GARL, was it the Class 380 "Desiro" units the ones that were to be specified to operate this service before the spending cut-backs put an end to the project. How far advanced was the placed order before the embargo was made ?
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,461
Yes, there were a number earmarked for GARL, the provision of which has left a bit of slack in the fleet, but these units will be put to good use soon.
The tram will connect Edinburgh Park and "Edinburgh International Gateway station" (beside the Gogar Roundabout) to the airport. So this is rather being done, sort of.
So the airport would be served by the existing 4tph on that line. Would a monorail to Gilmour St be feasible? If so, existing services through GS would give you 10tph to the airport without having to run any additional trains.
Zoidberg
Established Member
There is, at last, an end in sight http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...rams-on-princes-street-by-christmas-1-3096728
The building site that is central Edinburgh will soon be no more, thank goodness.
That assumes the trams were a good idea
When you have landing planes practically touching the railway line, it seems madness not to have a station nearby, served by some form of light rail (whether that be a tram, monorail or something DLR-esque).
I know there was uproar when the trams were stopping at Haymarket, which meant changing from plane-tram-train to get to the centre of Edinburgh, but correctly implemented as part of the airport infrastructure, a shuttle to a national rail station would be seen as not much different to the North/South transfer at Gatwick.
A monorail to Gilmour St would be too long, I think - as with Edinburgh, it would need to be a short enough trip to seem like part of the airport experience. Move St James station (or build a new one) to just before the A737 bridge and you're within a mile of the terminal building.
Is the Paisley Corridor at capacity? Could the 4tph along the Inverclyde line be doubled as far as St James, which could gain terminating platforms in its move?
(All just back of an envelope thoughts, which are no doubt full of holes!)
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I would be interested to know what the total project costs would be envisaged concerned with the provision of this suggested monorail line.
Altnabreac
Established Member
That assumes the trams were a good idea
When you have landing planes practically touching the railway line, it seems madness not to have a station nearby, served by some form of light rail (whether that be a tram, monorail or something DLR-esque).
I know there was uproar when the trams were stopping at Haymarket, which meant changing from plane-tram-train to get to the centre of Edinburgh, but correctly implemented as part of the airport infrastructure, a shuttle to a national rail station would be seen as not much different to the North/South transfer at Gatwick.
A monorail to Gilmour St would be too long, I think - as with Edinburgh, it would need to be a short enough trip to seem like part of the airport experience. Move St James station (or build a new one) to just before the A737 bridge and you're within a mile of the terminal building.
Is the Paisley Corridor at capacity? Could the 4tph along the Inverclyde line be doubled as far as St James, which could gain terminating platforms in its move?
(All just back of an envelope thoughts, which are no doubt full of holes!)
The Paisley Corridor improvements part of GARL went ahead despite cancellation of the airport link.
This gives capacity for an additional 4tph in the Paisley corridor and at Glasgow Central.
However since the cancellation of GARL 2tph of this capacity has been used to introduce Ayr/Irvine semi-fasts.
So you'd probably be looking at strengthening the Inverclyde services to 6tph. 4tph to Gourock would be easy enough and is the peak hour service anyway. Wemyss Bay would need some significant new infrastructure to take 2tph so you'd probably have to run a service in the opposite half hour terminating at Port Glasgow. Not sure what if any turnback facilities exist there.
Could see that being a reasonable use of the extra capacity even without any airport service and 6tph would provide a decent frequency.
Would also allow a recast of the fast / semi fast split in Inverclyde to a possible skip stop pattern.
Can't imagine you'd get much change out of £50m for your people mover though so it seems very unlikely to be a goer.
£50m seems a good deal compared to GARL if I've understood correctly:
GARL - £200m = 4tph to airport + 8tph to Ayrshire/ Inverclyde.
People Mover - £50m = 12tph to airport/Ayrshire/ Inverclyde.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
I doubt it'd be able to keep up with anything like the demand if frequency was that high.
Altnabreac
Established Member
What you've forgotten is that GARL at £200m included the Paisley Corridor Improvements programme to create those extra 4tph. While GARL was cancelled PCI went ahead at a cost of £170m (not directly comparable as the new PCI included some additional elements that were not part of GARL).
However £100m+ of that £200m has already been spent so the monorail will probably bring costs up to a similar outlay for the original GARL project. With the mode change the time penalty is likely to put off potential travellers so you are looking at similar costs but fewer passengers.
It was around £200m for GARL alone. By the time it was cancelled the combined cost of GARL and PCI was officially £397 million. Here's a link:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/p...&ReferenceNumbers=S3W-31237&ResultsPerPage=10
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/p...&ReferenceNumbers=S3W-31237&ResultsPerPage=10
Altnabreac
Established Member
No wonder it was cancelled! Nearly £400m for the whole thing starts to make the trams look good value...
Ha...Bear in mind the ongoing thinking, and justification, for the rebuilding of the 'old' line via Glanfarg of Forth bridge to Perth. Given that there is a motorway on some of the route, £1 billion seems a fair guess. Of course this is justified in time saving to the North and as a longer term solution to just doubling bits of the A9. Would be rather nice to see though! Look forward to KWVR's Dubdee working up the bank with as many mineral wagons as can be mustered. WJV Anderson would hear it from his grave!!
That assumes the trams were a good idea
When you have landing planes practically touching the railway line, it seems madness not to have a station nearby, served by some form of light rail (whether that be a tram, monorail or something DLR-esque).
I know there was uproar when the trams were stopping at Haymarket, which meant changing from plane-tram-train to get to the centre of Edinburgh, but correctly implemented as part of the airport infrastructure, a shuttle to a national rail station would be seen as not much different to the North/South transfer at Gatwick.)
A dedicated system running from a station at the runway end would make the trams seem like value for money. What is being implemented is a sensible solution.
PaxVobiscum
Established Member
Meanwhile, back at the topic 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-24107619
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And as for progress on the Whifflet electrification:
All of which I am aware.
I took a run out to Cumbernauld via Whifflet this morning (Friday 20/9/13) just to see the progress. Work has indeed started at the Cumbernauld end. OLE masts, signalling cable ducts and signals are being installed from Cumbernauld through Greenfaulds and has reached just short of Garnqueen South Junction. Obviously the line is electrified anyway as it approaches Coatbridge.
Absolutely no sign of anything happening yet on the Whifflet to Rutherglen line which was my point. However, there's still another 9 months left which is enough time for many things to happen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-24107619
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And as for progress on the Whifflet electrification:
All of which I am aware.
I took a run out to Cumbernauld via Whifflet this morning (Friday 20/9/13) just to see the progress. Work has indeed started at the Cumbernauld end. OLE masts, signalling cable ducts and signals are being installed from Cumbernauld through Greenfaulds and has reached just short of Garnqueen South Junction. Obviously the line is electrified anyway as it approaches Coatbridge.
Absolutely no sign of anything happening yet on the Whifflet to Rutherglen line which was my point. However, there's still another 9 months left which is enough time for many things to happen.
Last edited:
onyxcrowle
Member
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 35
Hi guys im New on the forum and avidly following the Bordets route.
I think thst the line needs to push onto hawick eithin ten years, its quite possible to extend an extra mile to Melrose.
To take frieght up It from carlise has to be a major plus.
As for St Boswel there should be serious attention given to thatnas it will not only open yet more of the borders to rail but provide a bypass for the Ecml.
it might promote the fact you could link Berwick to Edinburgh via Boswell and provide a local service there,
in reality though I forsee hawick soon and before that perhaps even five years electrification.
Now all they need is full doubling.
Id also reopen the Stirling callander to oban line. its criminal It was ever shut .
Good photo of work to cross the city Bypass on the bbc website.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24507627
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24507627
Attachments
Last edited:
Eagle
Established Member
I'm surprised they've bothered to replicate the rumble strips and signage on the temporary carriageway.
In fact with the amount of earthworks they've put in just to move the road, they could have built a flyover for Sheriffhall roundabout.
Last edited:
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,692
Councils are rather strict on that kind of thing now a days... they wouldn't have been allowed with them.
Eagle
Established Member
Council doesn't come into it, it's a trunk road and is the responsibility of TS. :P
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,692
Well that is me told.
Drove along the bypass today and the underpass for the railway is certainly taking shape. The bridge over the A7 at Gore Glen should be in place next weekend. I can't remember what the previous bridge looked like and can't find any photos of it either, shame.
Don't click if you are a worrier.
http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=45251
more pictures of the new Gore Glen A7 bridge here
http://waverleyrouteha.wordpress.com/
Am I correct in presuming that this bridge is wide enough for double-track, thus complying with the "passive provision for double-track as far as Gorebridge" ?
http://waverleyrouteha.wordpress.com/
Am I correct in presuming that this bridge is wide enough for double-track, thus complying with the "passive provision for double-track as far as Gorebridge" ?
Certainly looks like it could but not sure.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I see the latest online news-sheet is in my inbox. Do any other forum members subscribe to this ?
- Status