The problem is that it's not double track which has been singled - it's just a single track formation. Realistically it's never actually going to get doubled.
You could install masts to the Far side of the line and cantilever the fittings to the current line. Then add a second line later. It all depends on what is specified at the contract tender stage?
I thought that it could support 3tph, hence the loop BR put in between Hairmyres and EK?
A potential complicating factor is that the formation is generally only wide enough for the existing track. Doubling would require widening of embankments and cuttings. I don't know how big a difficulty that would or wouldn't be.
I think it can only support 3tph in one direction at a time, which results in lots of very awkward stock movements.
You could of course install a dynamic loop, rather than the full blown double tracking. I'm not convinced that it needs to be totally doubled.
That would make sense, because the 3tph was only ever towards Glasgow in the morning and EK in the evening but I assumed that was just for demand reasons.
We still only have the assertion of one member that it isn't.
Very good point re. Glasgow Metro. If they plan for Metro going ahead, it would relieve space/capacity in Glasgow Central, therefore quashing any issues re no space left for more EK services coming into Central. Obvs that is a loooong way off though!
See for example #590 and #597 on page 20 of this thread.
I don't remember seeing one which put it quite as specifically as that. If so it would mean work doesn't start on the branch until 2024 or the end of 2023. The nearest equivalent I can think of is
www.transport.gov.scot
How would you serve Thornliebank and Giffnock?
Follow the one-time BR/SPTE plan and don't?
You beat me to it. That was the “Strathclyde Rail Review” plan which included cutting the Neilston line back to Whitecraigs and reusing the recovered electrification equipment.Follow the one-time BR/SPTE plan and don't?
Indeed, I actually had a copy of the official plans given to me. I since passed it to a friend but I remember the various diagrams and costings which led one to (gently persuaded?) conclusion that most of the SPTE network was a financial basket case that needed massive pruning!
I travel the line on a daily basis and theres been no updates for a while apart from the odd tree or 2 being cut back, which may not even be related to the works.
As far as the decarbonisation plans go for radical investment in battery units in future, EK not being wired all the way would make a decent in service test bed for that technology ahead of 2030. Then when its a success, it's used to justify not wiring up elsewhere at the pre-planned times, and basically do what Westminster done to the MML and say 'well we have bi-modes - better yet, green bi-modes'.
Even if you only go to Busby, you've still got the major problem of Clarkston Toll to sort out.
Unless the Scottish government and Scotrail are about to abandon the electrification plan they announced less than two years ago, they will have to deal with some difficult locations.
The Scottish Government now run Scotrail and still have a massive electrification plan in place. The challenge of East Kilbride has been well known for many years.
Is Clarkston Toll a major problem? It’s just the replacement of a bridge to provide electrical clearance with the added opportunity to provide a better road alignment if the parties involved can agree a scope of work. If I recall correctly, a number of road improvements happened in conjunction with Shotts electrification.
As well as improving the road alignment I’d like them to provide step free access from the main car park to the EK bound platform.
I can't remember sorry, I'd need to ask the friend of mine who now has the document in his possession.
