-
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
- Thread starter och aye
- 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
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
You might as well allow XC to run that
as it seems more a XC service then a TPE service.As to TPE, instead of proposing a Liverpool to Edinburgh service via Newcastle I rather they offer a Liverpool to Edinburgh via Carlisle service as it would be quicker and would give Merseyside a direct link to Scotland.
As to Dunbar the reason I asked if they were going to reinstate the lifted northbound loop is because of all the extra traffic that the station will see, it might be a good idea for services stopping there to use the loop platforms and allow the non stop services to continue to use the though lines.
Voyager lad
Member
TPE are meant to start a direct Glasgow - Liverpool service in December, 5tpd in each way I believe. Although publicity on that new service that TPE seemed to be bigging up for a while has gone quiet all of a sudden...You might as well allow XC to run that
As to TPE, instead of proposing a Liverpool to Edinburgh service via Newcastle I rather they offer a Liverpool to Edinburgh via Carlisle service as it would be quicker and would give Merseyside a direct link to Scotland.
As to Dunbar the reason I asked if they were going to reinstate the lifted northbound loop is because of all the extra traffic that the station will see, it might be a good idea for services stopping there to use the loop platforms and allow the non stop services to continue to use the though lines.
Altnabreac
Established Member
It's no different for Linlithgow and Polmont passengers unless they are heading for Stirling. If not heading for Stirling then the services will be faster and quieter. What's not to like?
kje7812
Member
I'm pretty sure the general delay/cancellation of the December 2018 timetable changes has push this back to May 2019.
Agreed. I think most Linlithgow passengers will be heading for Edinburgh. Will the Cumbernauld and/or Dunblane trains stop at Edinburgh Park?
According to Network Rail, it will be delivered by 2020.
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/scotland/dunbar-station-new-platform/
Altnabreac
Established Member
Dunblane and Cumbernauld services both stopping at Edinburgh Park I believe giving it 8tph each way in total.
Eventually post Almond Curve you might expect that to fall back to 6tph again with the other services going to Edinburgh Gateway.
How certain do you think the delivery of the Almond Curve to be. It seems a vital piece of infrastructure for South East Scotland.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
Delayed until May 2019 and should be 3 trains per day via the WCML.
It’s worse for Linlithgow/Polmont passengers as they lose a useful link to Stirling and it’s replaced by a pretty useless service to Glasgow via Cumbernauld.
There’s also the con that while Dunblane services will likely be 6-car trains, despite not being necessary after the loss of these two calls. On the other hand, the Cumbernauld services will likely be 3 or 4 car 385s, leaving Linlithgow/Polmont passengers with less capacity.
Linlithgow deserves 6tph towards Edinburgh, and will continue to recieve only 4tph, despite the 7/8-car peak services already being full and standing by the time they leave there.
Winchburgh station passengers will also be unable to change on to a E-G fast service to Glasgow. With 12tph going through Newbridge Junction, I very much have concerns about the reliability issues post-timetable change.
There just seems to be a lack or improvement for all of the intermediate stations on the E-G. New, less comfortable rolling stock, slightly faster journey times but still full and standing train journeys.
These ridiculous changes have left a lot of Linlithgow passengers unhappy, and is making myself, and a couple of other commuters I know, consider switching to the car.
I'd imagine that following the changes the passengers from Polmont and Linlithgow would stand more of a chance of getting a seat on the via Cumbernauld services than they will be on the ex Dunblane services.
The loss of the direct service to Stirling is unfortunate but having commuted from Polmont to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Stirling at one point or another the number of people from there going to Glasgow outstrips Stirling passengers at a guess by at least 20 to 1. As long as a timely connection is available at Grahamston this shouldn't be the big issue its being made out to be.
The loss of the direct service to Stirling is unfortunate but having commuted from Polmont to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Stirling at one point or another the number of people from there going to Glasgow outstrips Stirling passengers at a guess by at least 20 to 1. As long as a timely connection is available at Grahamston this shouldn't be the big issue its being made out to be.
The Cumbernauld service is supposed to be a 3 or 4-car 385 even at peak times. There is no ‘extra seats’ for Polmont or Linlithgow passengers.
EGIP promised so much, but it has barely improved, and in some cases worsened the services on intermediate stations.
EGIP promised so much, but it has barely improved, and in some cases worsened the services on intermediate stations.
Unless Cumbernauld, Stepps and Gartcosh suddenly becomes a commuting Mecca for people working in Edinburgh Falkirk Grahamston, Polmont and Linlithgow are effectively getting their own service and will not have to share it with loads of people travelling to/from Larbert and beyond.
So in effect there will be more seats and more space for Polmont and Linlithgow whilst Stirling passengers also get more seats and space due to the removal of Polmont and Linlithgow passengers.
To suggest that nothing is being done to improve the quality of the journey for the vast majority of passengers from those two stations is in my opinion wrong. The only group being disadvantaged is the smallest one which is those that travel from Polmont or Linlithgow to Larbert or beyond and as long as a timely connect exists at Grahamston this shouldn't be a major problem.
I'd happily bet the total number of passengers in an average day travelling from Linlithgow to Stirling would struggle to fill an eight car 385.
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
That's all very well but instead of extending TPE from Newcastle to Edinburgh they should just allow XC to have these paths and extend their services to Edinburgh where possible and instead run more TPE services between Liverpool and Scotland via the WCML instead of the 3 or 5 a day that's proposed.
As to the South Sub stations on the outskirts around Edinburgh is there any reason why they can't be reopened?
The other question I had was Dalmeny has loops so why couldn't the station be resited so the platforms are on the loops?
You obviously don’t know much about Linlithgow.
We have waited the best part of a decade, and all EGIP has delivered for the intermediate stations is a slight increase in capacity (still full and standing in the mornings) and a slight increase in journey times (still held at Newbridge every morning, and is only going to get worse with the Cumbernaulds added), as well as a removal of an important link, replaced with a single-unit, almost pointless westbound service.
There has been no increase in service, and frankly not much at all to benefit Linlithgow, or any of the intermediate stations. EGIP has been a disaster, and can only be saved (only maybe) by the Almond Chord.
Altnabreac
Established Member
Well obviously it’s not committed at present. I’m not certain it will happen in CP6 but if not then it seems inevitable it would then happen in CP7.
It’s the only real way to create significant extra capacity for Waverley’s western approaches so will have to happen sooner or later.
Unfortunately, for Linlithgow, it's one of the smaller stations on the route but I hardly think it's a disaster.
Altnabreac
Established Member
So EGIP is delivering Linlithgow 2tph longer trains that will get you to Edinburgh and Glasgow faster with more capacity and 2tph of quieter trains that will get you to Edinburgh and Falkirk faster. It also provides a new commuting opportunity to Cumbernauld and Gartcosh for the Scottish Crime Campus.
These are all benefits.
There is a disbenefit for those travelling to Larbert and Stirling. But really that is a very small number of people compared to those going to Edinburgh and Glasgow who will have longer, faster trains with less people on them.
Glenmutchkin
Member
You need to take a look at the passenger numbers.
Is this a joke?
Glenmutchkin
Member
It's the sort of comment that appears on here from people who haven't a clue.
2tph slightly longer trains would be a benefit if the 8-car 365 and 7-car 380s and 385s weren’t already full and standing most mornings.
People keep saying the Edinburgh service from Cumbernauld will now be quieter, but it will also likely be a single unit most of the time. Linlithgow-Edinburgh could pack out a 385 on it’s own in the mornings, while Dunblane will get 6-car services which will be much emptier than usual due to these passengers not being on that service.
A northbound loop at Dunbar would only be of use for freight, and I'm not sure if it's long enough to be useful. It's not much longer than the platform. And building a northbound platform on the mainline means that trains don't have to slow down (approach control) and cross the southbound line.
Sadly this is true.
Around 1.1 million official passengers a year, and I reckon the true figure is probably around 1.5 million.
I noticed a lot of fare evasion when travelling to Stirling/BoA when I was younger.
Nope don’t know much about Linlithgow other than having lived within six miles of the place for more than a third of my life. My mother is from the town, three aunts still live there and I’m sitting typing this in my sisters living room - in Linlithgow Bridge. Care to make any more assumptions?
I’d imagine if you were to as any commuter from either of those two stations that doesn’t travel to Stirling what they would prefer - crammed into a stopper to/from Dunblane and struggle to get a seat or get on the newly extended service from Glasgow via Cumbernauld where there will more than likely be more space and a better chance of getting a seat as due to the end to end journey time very few people will use it full route unless the E2G is up the spout. They would pick the Cumbernauld one without a doubt.
Yes they both need more services but until the chord is done that won’t even be remotely possible. To suggest that what is being proposed won’t relieve the problems passengers along the entire Edinburgh to Dunblane route face is totally disingenuous as splitting the calls will improve probably 90%+ of the journeys on the route.
after Stirling Linlithgow is probably the next busiest station on the route.
It does need a better service but until the chord is built that isn’t going to happen.
There is absolutely no way that putting an extra 2tph, electric or not, through Newbridge Jn will sort out any problem.
As someone who has commuted from Linlithgow for years, I can tell you that plenty of passengers are very disgruntled. I know 2 personally that are heading for their cars, and I’m considering doing the same. Absolutely 0 improvement at Linlithgow, the new long trains are still full and standing every morning.
As someone who has commuted from Linlithgow for years, I can tell you that plenty of passengers are very disgruntled. I know 2 personally that are heading for their cars, and I’m considering doing the same. Absolutely 0 improvement at Linlithgow, the new long trains are still full and standing every morning.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
Platforms on loops off of mainlines are useful for terminating trains, but not so useful for trains which are then meant to continue onwards. The loop at Dunbar is only long enough for a train to be overtaken when completely stopped at the station. This is helpful compared to no loop at all, but it creates a very tight binding in the timetable and most likely results in very long journey times beyond. Since there's an aspiration to run trains to Reston and Berwick-upon-Tweed this wouldn't exactly be helpful.
Meanwhile, there are other overtaking solutions being considered for the Edinburgh end of the ECML. The four-tracking east of Wallyford would provide a dynamic loop so that the slow trains could still make meaningful progress while being overtaken. Having this big long overtaking section will mitigate a lot of timetabling constraints for the local ScotRail services. Coupled with other freight overtaking sections suggested for the line further south there should be plenty of space for better local services in future. I believe that Transport Scotland and Network Rail still see the value of classic enhancements to the ECML between Newcastle and Edinburgh because of how it would have to remain the primary link between the two even once HS2 has taken on most other long-distance travel.
I think it might well be handy to put in a third platform at Berwick-upon-Tweed as this would be an appropriate place to turn ScotRail services back, and also a reasonable point for any Edinburgh-Newcastle stopping services to have an extended dwell for overtaking. Making it take 10-15 minutes longer to get from Chathill to Edinburgh or Reston to Newcastle is hardly going to scupper the economics of a through service (whereas that time might make Reston or Berwick-upon-Tweed unviable for commuters to Edinburgh). It'd end up being the joining point between local services for Edinburgh and for Newcastle, which would just happen to run through rather than turning back at the border.
Meanwhile, there are other overtaking solutions being considered for the Edinburgh end of the ECML. The four-tracking east of Wallyford would provide a dynamic loop so that the slow trains could still make meaningful progress while being overtaken. Having this big long overtaking section will mitigate a lot of timetabling constraints for the local ScotRail services. Coupled with other freight overtaking sections suggested for the line further south there should be plenty of space for better local services in future. I believe that Transport Scotland and Network Rail still see the value of classic enhancements to the ECML between Newcastle and Edinburgh because of how it would have to remain the primary link between the two even once HS2 has taken on most other long-distance travel.
I think it might well be handy to put in a third platform at Berwick-upon-Tweed as this would be an appropriate place to turn ScotRail services back, and also a reasonable point for any Edinburgh-Newcastle stopping services to have an extended dwell for overtaking. Making it take 10-15 minutes longer to get from Chathill to Edinburgh or Reston to Newcastle is hardly going to scupper the economics of a through service (whereas that time might make Reston or Berwick-upon-Tweed unviable for commuters to Edinburgh). It'd end up being the joining point between local services for Edinburgh and for Newcastle, which would just happen to run through rather than turning back at the border.
Glenmutchkin
Member
You agree that it needs a better service but you are happy to advocate an inferior one for the forseeable future. Seems barking to me.
The new trains have significantly better acceleration than the 170s. Why can't the Dunblanes stop at Polmont and Linlithgow while still delivering a faster service Dunblane - Edinburgh?
Last edited:
- Status