Im sure those things were included in the original scope. I think the main reason for the budget increase is they are building a larger concourse than originally planned and this will involve buying and demolishing an adjacent office block.
-
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!
Scottish Electrification updates & discussion
- Thread starter Altnabreac
- Start date
- Status
Im sure those things were included in the original scope. I think the main reason for the budget increase is they are building a larger concourse than originally planned and this will involve buying and demolishing an adjacent office block.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
Yes, it was to compensate for there not being 6x6 EMU carriages per hour. Instead they are just replacing the 4tph 3/6 car 23m 170s with 4/8 car 23m EMUs. The work required to allow 6tph involved grade-separating some of the junctions which would be nice, but unnecessary once the plans for the E&G HSR line are done. Effectively EGIP was de-scoped so that the HSR line would be a bigger improvement than otherwise because it will then become just another local/regional commuter line rather than the one for the E&G shuttle.
Photohunter71
Member
Also what should have been factored in was the Abbeyhill triangle.Fully reinstating that would have been sensible.So reading that passage,still hope for railtours out of Queen Street etc!
The Industry Strategic Plan stated that EGIP Phase 1 Edinburgh Glasgow would probably require 20-24 95m EMUs, and Glasgow/Edinburgh to Dunblane/Alloa would require 18-20 73m EMUs.
I noticed this at 2.2.2 of the EGIP Business Plan: "EGIP includes the procurement of 40-50 EMUs each of around 96m in length."
So it seems they now plan to procure 4-car units for the Dunblane/Alloa routes as well. That's pleasing.
I noticed this at 2.2.2 of the EGIP Business Plan: "EGIP includes the procurement of 40-50 EMUs each of around 96m in length."
So it seems they now plan to procure 4-car units for the Dunblane/Alloa routes as well. That's pleasing.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
Presumably that would allow them to be one pooled fleet rather than two separate ones, which makes diagramming the services that much easier. It also means they are almost guaranteed to make full use of the platform extensions as there won't be many two-car units left (it would only ever be 156s and 158s and they're going to become a lot less common in Queen Street HL over the next decade) to fill in the two-car space left by a six-car unit in the eight-car platforms.
tbtc
Veteran Member
I agree, but this goes against the "procuring Intercity quality stock for the Falkirk High service" theories that we were seeing recently.
(I think that a common pool of units makes more sense, rather than a microfleet of high class EMUs for the "Shuttle")
2.1.2.1 of the Scotrail ITT states:
"December 2017 all services on the route to be operated by new electric trains with 7 23m car electric train formations..."
If they're only procuring 4-car units, how are they going to be able to form 7-car formations? Do they currently have a lot of spare 3-car 380s?
"December 2017 all services on the route to be operated by new electric trains with 7 23m car electric train formations..."
If they're only procuring 4-car units, how are they going to be able to form 7-car formations? Do they currently have a lot of spare 3-car 380s?
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
The 'InterCity' routes comprise of:
Glasgow - Aberdeen
Glasgow - Inverness
Edinburgh - Inverness
Edinburgh - Aberdeen
Aberdeen - Inverness
All of these routes will remain diesel or bi-mode until beyond the end of the new franchise, so cannot share rolling stock with the EGIP services. The E&G shuttle is mostly a fast commuter/regional route where 1/3-2/3rd doors and room for standing passengers is perfectly suitable. Currently it is only around 50 minutes end-to-end depending on stopping pattern with stops every fifteen minutes or so so there is no real need for any InterCity accommodation.
InterCity stock would find a home on the E&G HSR line, which would be limited to 225km/h by the distance between the cities and the maximum possible speed available for high-speed points for the continuation down south to HS2. As a result any 'InterCity' stock ordered wouldn't be far off being able to be used on this line, most certainly if class 800/801s or a derivative were ordered for its bi-modal capability (which would be most useful seeing as how NR won't have that much more routes left in the Central Belt to electrify after EGIP/East Kilbride etc is finished). There aren't many other choices for a small fleet of 225km/h units - mini Pendolinos would be capable but their expensive tilting capacity would be wasted on the new line and Javelins would truly be a micro-fleet far from anywhere they can be serviced already. It's just my thoughts, but Transport Scotland were suggested as possibly ordering some IEPs in the original documentation and I don't think that will have changed much in the meantime. It has been also been suggested that Voyagers might be used but I feel that TS would not be happy accepting them without their toilet stink problems being not only remedied but scrubbed from the public's mind, notwithstanding the fact that they wouldn't be a real increase in capacity over the current 170s and 2x158s used on the 'InterCity' routes. Suggestions of enabling tilt were put down by NR when they said that the weight and speed of the trains would be too much for the tracks to bear, so they wouldn't be any faster than a non-tilting train along the same route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I imagine that the 4-car Dunblane/Stirling/Alloa trains could be delivered as 3-car first with the fourth car added at a later date. Some of the original batch of Pendolinos were delivered as 8-car units, so it's not unheard of. The production line would be kept open so it's not like adding extra carriages to pre-existing trains like 185s or 220s.
I see, that makes sense.
tbtc
Veteran Member
I was referring to the "Intercity" thread here (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=95586) where people were suggesting something "Intercity" for the Falkirk High service, rather than a "common or garden" EMU.
Photohunter71
Member
And what I'd like to know is,what contingency plans have they got incase of an electrical network failure? EMU to the rscue? Thunderbird loco's?
Altnabreac
Established Member
Some interesting info in the final business case http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk...BC_ Publically available version_27012014.pdf
Looks like the upgraded design for Queen St station might involve additional track works compared to the Jacobs proposed design of 2012. That only involved lengthening platforms 5, 6 and 7 to take 8 car trains.
The new business case now prices this upgrade at £120m, up from £50m so obviously more work is happening and it looks like demolishing the SPT offices is definitely on the cards now, I wouldn't be surprised if the new plans don't include additional 8 car platforms for flexibility of service: especially platforms 1 and 2. Either way we should know soon as:
Transport Scotland Jan 2014 said:
Of course 8 car operation on the Stirling route would still need either SDO or platform extensions. The final business case confirms platform extensions are the preferred solution at Croy, Falkirk, Polmont and Linlithgow so the stock may not necessarily be SDO compatible?
If not then running a 96m train on the Stirling route would need extensions at most stations. I think Stirling (exc Bays) and Dunblane can take longer trains but Alloa, Bridge of Allan, Larbert, Camelon, Falkirk Grahamston, Lenzie and Bishopbriggs would all need extending. Possibly this is part of longer term plans but they aren't wanting these costs to get included in EGIP (and hence lead to negative "costs rise" headlines?
The other interesting thing in the Final Business Case is the return to explicitly talking about Phase 2 in 2025 with Greenhill, Croy, Dalmeny chord etc all back on the table as a second phase rather than ditched altogether. Suspect that this will depend how the perform as an option against the new high speed line though.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,419
I think it might be covered in this thread, or by following the links therein:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=95586
Do you think the BCR for Glasgow-Edinburgh HSR will be as good as for EGIP phase 2?
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
It isn't going to cost anywhere near HS2 will and can be completed in much less time because the only new sections of track needed are in effectively flat countryside with very few NIMBYs. Until the rest of HS2 is built, there is no need to spend the billions on (re)building the stations in the city centre or creating expensive routes through populated areas, which is a huge amount of the cost of the plans for HS2. As the E&G HSR would need to be built anyway as part of the extension of HS2 to the Central Belt, spending the money now just reduces the cost of the HS2 extension and improves its chances of being built sooner rather than later.
The market for E-G journeys is already very large: between 1600 and 1700 this Friday there are 11 trains from Glasgow to Edinburgh whereas in the same time between Manchester and Liverpool there are only 6. HSR would increase this to at least 14 without any of the further increases on the classic lines from EGIP, and would effectively create a common commuter belt between the two cities: Heathrow to Canary Wharf on Crossrail at 45 minutes will definitely take longer than the journey between the two cities after HSR.
-- EDIT --
Oopsies, I didn't see the EGIP phase 2 bit. Most of my points still stand, especially seeing as how the E&G route is two-track along its whole length and the cost of allowing many non-stop paths would be very high for the limited journey time saving that would result. The Dalmeny Chord scheme will almost certainly go ahead eventually, as it's required to allow the HSR paths through the southern Haymarket lines, and would allow all Falkirk High services to connect to the Airport and surrounding areas via the tram and the Gateway station. The other improvements would be nice to have, even just to enable the route to work even higher numbers of trains per hour at higher reliability, but the terminating capacity at Queen St HL will be the limiting factor until they get around to building Crossrail in some form.
Last edited:
Altnabreac
Established Member
I suspect the BCR for EGIP phase 2 will be poor as the extra speed is marginal and phase 1 will probably create enough extra capacity to last a fair while.
Glasgow - Edinburgh HSR does a lot of additional benefits around capacity, cross border journeys and faster connections at Glasgow Central (to Ayrshire etc) that EGIP phase 2 can't.
I suspect only the Dalmeny chord element will be taken forward (as it also benefits HSR).
The figures from the EGIP Business Case (see 1.7-1.8) are:
Present Value of Benefits including wider economic benefits (£m):
Overall £1,505
Phase 1 £575
Present Value of Costs (£m):
Overall £904
Phase 1 £703
BCR Overall = 1.7
BCR for Phase 1 only = 0.8
So, based on the above Ive done my own calculation for EGIP Phase 2:
PVB £930m (1505-575)
PVC £201m (904-703)
BCR = 4.6
Maybe I'm looking at this too simplistically but it appears EGIP phase 2 has a very strong BCR.
Present Value of Benefits including wider economic benefits (£m):
Overall £1,505
Phase 1 £575
Present Value of Costs (£m):
Overall £904
Phase 1 £703
BCR Overall = 1.7
BCR for Phase 1 only = 0.8
So, based on the above Ive done my own calculation for EGIP Phase 2:
PVB £930m (1505-575)
PVC £201m (904-703)
BCR = 4.6
Maybe I'm looking at this too simplistically but it appears EGIP phase 2 has a very strong BCR.
Last edited:
Altnabreac
Established Member
Definitely something not right with those numbers. Figure 5 shows a net infrastructure cost for phase 2 of £60m and operating costs of £40m pa.
Given Dalmeny Chord was talked about as £150-200m and the net saving for dropping phase 2 was circa £300m this obviously doesn't cover all the required infrastructure costs. I suspect it only includes those parts of Phase 2 which are currently costed (probably Stirling electrification). There's obviously a lot of numbers redacted from the report and I suspect we've lost something important!
Photohunter71
Member
I'd gladly swap homes with a NIMBY! I'm a WIMBY (Welcome in my back yard!) Why they just didn't get on with the Dalmeny link in the initial phase is going to haunt them until they get EIGP phase 2 up and running.
Altnabreac
Established Member
The "dropped" elements of EGIP are likely to happen in drips and drabs over the next 15 years or so. In likelihood of happening:
- Stirling electrification - no sooner was this dropped then it was clarified this was merely postponed and would happen anyway.
- Abbeyhill turnback - Waverley capacity is going to be an issue whatever service proposals are progressed and turning trains back in Waverley uses more capacity than through running.
- Dalmeny Chord - There is a capacity imbalance between north and south lines at Haymarket and to run more services whether EGIP or HSR the imbalance needs addressing and Dalmeny Chord is the way to do this.
- Greenhill junction - First project that may not happen, as without EGIP phase 2 its not completely required but would still increase capacity and help speed up Glasgow - Stirling/Aberdeen times which is listed as a strategic priority for the Scottish Government in CP6.
- Croy station rebuild - Least likely project to go ahead, not needed without EGIP phase 2.
So in my fag packet calculation if I add £240m to the PVC, to reflect the full infrastructure costs, that brings the BCR down to around 2.1. That's still pretty good. It will be interesting to see how the BCR for the*HSR line compares.
Altnabreac
Established Member
My calculations would be £350m or so extra as the net saving quoted was £300m and at that point they were assuming an extra £50m on Queen St redevelopment.
Still gives a benefit of more than 1 so it definitely isn't going to be ditched without being replaced by something better. Will have to see what the BCR for HSR comes out as.
Photohunter71
Member
With re-opening of lines such as the Borders route,how many more will follow and have they planned for any future new lines which if re-instated/opened,will need electrified?
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
- There isn't any definitive plan yet but both Leven and St Andrews will be up there. Both aren't currently possible due to the GB-wide shortage of DMUs to run them but there may be enough after EGIP, depending on how many are needed to scrap the Pacers/153s. Future Fife Circle/rolling electrification after this would definitely include these two, with St Andrews most probably being done at the same time as Dundee.
- If the commuter demand from the northern section of the Borders railway is high enough, it will likely be electrified before the rest of it. This could possibly include an extension/reopening towards Penicuik to serve more areas.
- The Ayr line will fill up again, especially if GARL is ever built, so re-opening the Paisley Canal route through to Elderslie could be a possible solution. This would require a rebuild of the existing route past Corkerhill depot as it was mostly singled and there are low bridges which were only cheaply electrified so would need to be done properly for a through route.
- The City Union and the South Suburban lines will be electrified eventually just because so much of the network surrounding them is electric, regardless of whether they reopen stations on them or not.
- The Fraserburgh line could also see a reopening but it would stay unelectrified until all of the Aberdeen line is finished. That electrification would continue through to at least Inverurie so that trains would still be able to travel through rather than terminating at Aberdeen.
I think to make the BCR for the Glasgow-Edinburgh HSR line respectable they'll have to anticipate some of the benefits from extending the Uk HSR line over the border. Otherwise I can't see it comparing favorably.
Altnabreac
Established Member
You'd be surprised the impact 10-15 mins journey time reduction on cross border journey times could make.
Fag packet numbers:
Total mode share at the moment is around 25% rail, 75% air.
Air passengers Glasgow/Edinburgh - London is around 7million.
So each 1% gained of the air market is 100,000 new passengers.
Predicted post HS2 time to Ed/Glasgow is 3 hours 40 minutes.
Studies show this equates to a likely mode share of around 35%.
http://www.silverrailtech.com/blog/when-do-people-switch-train-over-flying-35hrs
Getting the time down to 3.30 or better would increase market share to 50%.
So you're looking at 1-1.5m extra passengers to rail. Basically each minute you save on journeys between 4 and 3 hours will give you very big market share benefits.
- Status