Edinburgh South Sub - feasibility study

[och aye]

A feasibility study into fully or partially reopening the Edinburgh South Sub by the Council looks like it could be on the cards. I think the last one was conducted in the early 2000s which concluded that the benefit of reopening it for passenger traffic would have a negligible positive effect.

Capital could get new tramline, bus lanes and ferry to Fife under new ambitious transport plans

A tramline to the Royal Infirmary, possible reopening of the South Sub railway, more bus lanes to speed journeys to the city centre and potentially even a ferry to Fife are to feature in a public transport plan for Edinburgh to be unveiled later this year.

www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com

Edinburgh public transport action plan: new tramline, more bus lanes, possibly re-opening South Sub and potentially even a ferry to Fife​

The city's minority Labour administration said it was determined to achieve the Capital's 2030 net zero target and prioritise public transport. Council leaders and officials are working on the strategy now and the detailed plans are set to be published on December 2.

Transport convener Scott Arthur said: "This is a key part of our ambition to hit net zero and reduce car use in the city."

New north-south tram route

He said the proposal for a new tramline from Granton in the north into the city centre and on to the infirmary, expected to cost at least £1 billion, would double the capacity of the existing network.

But the council would have to ask the Scottish Government to help fund the project. "It would need support from the Scottish Government to progress so we're keen to work in partnership with them to deliver this investment which is of national importance, and help us meet our shared ambitions."

Councillor Arthur said he understood the government was backing the Clyde metro, a light rail system for the Glasgow area, which is estimated to cost up to £30 billion. "If we're seeing that amount of money going into Glasgow I think we're confident we can make the case for the tram line through Edinburgh, but it is about working in partnership."

He promised consultation on the route and said the optimistic aim was for completion by 2030.

"The initial tram project did have significant problems and because of that people lost faith in investment in trams in Edinburgh, but extending the line to Newhaven has by and large been a successful project and people can now look at what we're doing with a bit more confidence."

Meanwhile, Newhaven could be one end of a new passenger-only ferry route over the Forth to Fife.

Ferry from Newhaven to Kirkcaldy

Councillor Arthur said: "Off the back of the Newhaven line nearing completion there is now interest in a ferry connection across to Kirkcaldy. There have been technical discussions inside the council about this and at the political level I'm in the process of setting up a meeting with Fife Council early next month to look at how we could take this forward."

He said there were a lot of people commuting from Kirkcaldy to Edinburgh by car. "This is about taking some of those cars off the road and getting them to use what would essentially be public transport and connecting with the tramline to get into Edinburgh."
More bus lanes on key routes

The action plan also includes investment in key bus corridors into the Capital, putting in new bus lanes to allow buses to get into the centre more quickly.

"It's about reallocating road space on the arterial routes into Edinburgh to give greater priority to buses, making bus journeys more reliable and encouraging people to use public transport rather than drive."

He hopes the new bus lanes will be in place by 2025.

Reopening South Sub rail line

And the council plans to look again at reviving the South Suburban railway, which connected the city centre with Gorgie, Craiglockhart, South Morningside, Cameron Toll, Craigmillar and Portobello, but closed to passenger services in 1962.

"We're going to look at the feasibility of reopening it wholly or in part." He said previous studies showed overall there was a positive case for it, but the section of the line between Waverley and Haymarket was too congested to take any new services. There have been many calls over the years for the line to be reopened.

Councillor Arthur said: "The administation is absolutely committed to hitting our net zero ambition and reducing car miles by 30 per cent so we're looking at new tram lines, investing in bus corridors and also more speculative ideas like reopening the South Sub and a ferry link to Fife.

"This public transport action plan is a big strategic piece of work which will be subjected to extensive public engagement between December and into the spring.

"These are major projects so it's important people have a say on them as we develop them.

"The tramline alone will be the biggest expansion in public transport we've had this century because it will have more capacity than the line all the way from Newhaven to the aiprort. It's a huge expansion."

 

[waverley47]

Unlikely to happen, we've been over this before.

In my career I oversaw six or seven different feasibility studies into this issue, and the answer was always the same; if you can somehow find the capacity to Waverley, or even Haymarket, you're into a winner. But good luck with that.

The problem with this line is three-fold.

Number 1

Its actually used a fair bit. There are quite a lot of long distance freight trains that would be out of guage for going via Waverley, and that's even if you could find capacity. There is a civils depot at Millerhill, an EMU depot, the line will be used for diversions at various points in the future, it's used to turn units around, as a back way into Haymarket and Craigentinny depots, and it's used to shove stuff out of the way for an hour if a spare platform is needed at Waverley.

All this doesn't amount to a train every fifteen minutes, far from it, but if you took it away, you'd suddenly notice its absence in very dramatic ways.

If you put trains around it, there isn't the capacity at Waverley, by a long, long shot. You'd be looking at a 3bn investment just to open up more capacity into Waverley from one end, just to make the paths work. Try to make it a circle, with capacity at both ends and you'd be doubling that.

Now, this doesn't mean you can't put trams around it, but you need a high frequency to make a tram worth it, and threading a tram every ten minutes around the sub is suddenly going to upset a great many stakeholders. The signalling isn't great and the sections are quite long. That could be fixed, but you'd be looking at either reduced capacity for trains or reduced tram frequencies to fit around the trains. If it's the latter then it quickly becomes uneconomical to convert to trams anyway.

Number 2

The line faces the wrong way. It goes across the southern inner suburbs of Edinburgh, in a big loop. There isn't high demand to go from say Portobello to Mayfield, or from Cameron Toll to Gorgie. The line doesn't work unless you thread the trams into the city centre, which means you need to send them to Haymarket or Waverley.

You can't use the big railway, as there's no capacity, so you'd need to somehow connect to the existing tramline.

At the West end you could maybe do this by coming off the sub, under the E&G line at Murrayfield and joining in the tramline, but that's expensive. At the east end you'd have to thread them from Fort Kinnaird, via Portobello or Willobrae and back to Princes street. Either way is expensive, and the route from the east, although it would serve a lot of people, seems an excessively long way to get to Morningside.

Additionally, if you send trams around the sub, it would still in most cases be quicker to take a direct bus into town. A bus from Morningside station to Princes Street takes 20 minutes and comes about every 4 minutes. There isn't any point taking a tram 'sideways' around the outside of the city and back into town along an east-west axis.

Number 3

For the cost of buying new dual-voltage trams (good luck getting NRScot to agree a 750v wiring system, or even more unlikely to sell the railway) and converting the railway (resignalling, building tram stations, and building the connecting links of tramway to link up with the other bits) you'd be looking at a cost of say £5bn. For that, you could buy a new line to Granton, a new line to Loanhead via Cameron Toll, a new line to the Royal Infirmary, a new line to Musselburgh via Portobello, and still have change left over for the rolling stock and a new depot somewhere.



The sums have never added up with this idea. The capacity isn't there for trains, and if you're buying trams, just stick them where they'd be more useful.

 

[Falcon1200]

The Edinburgh Sub is surely a classic example of 'there's a railway, it used to have passenger trains so they must be brought back' without stopping to consider why the passenger service was withdrawn in the first place, and how it could now be accommodated on today's railway. Not to mention whether people on the south side of Edinburgh really want to go several miles east or west, before heading north and then east or west again to actually get to the city centre !

 

[Kingston Dan]

Unlikely to happen, we've been over this before.

In my career I oversaw six or seven different feasibility studies into this issue, and the answer was always the same; if you can somehow find the capacity to Waverley, or even Haymarket, you're into a winner. But good luck with that.

The problem with this line is three-fold.

Number 1

Its actually used a fair bit. There are quite a lot of long distance freight trains that would be out of guage for going via Waverley, and that's even if you could find capacity. There is a civils depot at Millerhill, an EMU depot, the line will be used for diversions at various points in the future, it's used to turn units around, as a back way into Haymarket and Craigentinny depots, and it's used to shove stuff out of the way for an hour if a spare platform is needed at Waverley.

All this doesn't amount to a train every fifteen minutes, far from it, but if you took it away, you'd suddenly notice its absence in very dramatic ways.

If you put trains around it, there isn't the capacity at Waverley, by a long, long shot. You'd be looking at a 3bn investment just to open up more capacity into Waverley from one end, just to make the paths work. Try to make it a circle, with capacity at both ends and you'd be doubling that.

Now, this doesn't mean you can't put trams around it, but you need a high frequency to make a tram worth it, and threading a tram every ten minutes around the sub is suddenly going to upset a great many stakeholders. The signalling isn't great and the sections are quite long. That could be fixed, but you'd be looking at either reduced capacity for trains or reduced tram frequencies to fit around the trains. If it's the latter then it quickly becomes uneconomical to convert to trams anyway.

Number 2

The line faces the wrong way. It goes across the southern inner suburbs of Edinburgh, in a big loop. There isn't high demand to go from say Portobello to Mayfield, or from Cameron Toll to Gorgie. The line doesn't work unless you thread the trams into the city centre, which means you need to send them to Haymarket or Waverley.

You can't use the big railway, as there's no capacity, so you'd need to somehow connect to the existing tramline.

At the West end you could maybe do this by coming off the sub, under the E&G line at Murrayfield and joining in the tramline, but that's expensive. At the east end you'd have to thread them from Fort Kinnaird, via Portobello or Willobrae and back to Princes street. Either way is expensive, and the route from the east, although it would serve a lot of people, seems an excessively long way to get to Morningside.

Additionally, if you send trams around the sub, it would still in most cases be quicker to take a direct bus into town. A bus from Morningside station to Princes Street takes 20 minutes and comes about every 4 minutes. There isn't any point taking a tram 'sideways' around the outside of the city and back into town along an east-west axis.

Number 3

For the cost of buying new dual-voltage trams (good luck getting NRScot to agree a 750v wiring system, or even more unlikely to sell the railway) and converting the railway (resignalling, building tram stations, and building the connecting links of tramway to link up with the other bits) you'd be looking at a cost of say £5bn. For that, you could buy a new line to Granton, a new line to Loanhead via Cameron Toll, a new line to the Royal Infirmary, a new line to Musselburgh via Portobello, and still have change left over for the rolling stock and a new depot somewhere.



The sums have never added up with this idea. The capacity isn't there for trains, and if you're buying trams, just stick them where they'd be more useful.

That's good analysis. It's clearly a bit of politicking by the new minority Labour led council playing to the gallery and giving the appearance of doing something (and appealing to voters in the only Labour held constituency in the capital).

If you look at the pre-1962 timetable for both the South sub and the 'north equivalent' - the Princes Street to Leith North service the difference was stark. Barely an hourly service on the South Sub while a frequent almost clock face type service out of Princes Street with three or four trains an hour at the peaks.

I would think if you could run a Morningside - Craiglockart - Gorgie - Haymarket - Waverley service with a journey time of c12-14 minutes with at least 15 minute frequency then you would have a strong business case. The route is reasonably direct (unlike the other direction) and serves both the West and East Ends of town. But there is no capacity between Haymarket and Waverley for that kind of service and squeezing in a single hourly train even if it took only 12 minutes still wouldn't compete with buses.

The only way it could come about would be if there were two additional lines constructed between Haymarket and Waverley. But that would cost more than running a tram down Morningside Road.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The South London Line suffered a similar problem - there were much less circuitous ways of getting to London Bridge, and capacity there (and to a lesser extent at Victoria) was at a premium. The solution there was to open it out and run the service to Clapham Junction at one end, and the Brunel tunnewl and beyond at the other.
Maybe that suggests a purpose for the "sub"? rather than conecting Morningside etc with Waverley, for which the buses are just as quick and will always be more frequent, why not use it to connect it to other parts of Scotland? I have in mind something like Newcraighall - Morningside - Edinburgh Park, with connections to existing services at each end (or, capacity permitting, through running to, e.g Bathgate)

 

[waverley47]

The South London Line suffered a similar problem - there were much less circuitous ways of getting to London Bridge, and capacity there (and to a lesser extent at Victoria) was at a premium. The solution there was to open it out and run the service to Clapham Junction at one end, and the Brunel tunnewl and beyond at the other.
Maybe that suggests a purpose for the "sub"? rather than conecting Morningside etc with Waverley, for which the buses are just as quick and will always be more frequent, why not use it to connect it to other parts of Scotland? I have in mind something like Newcraighall - Morningside - Edinburgh Park, with connections to existing services at each end (or, capacity permitting, through running to, e.g Bathgate)

If they are additional services, why would you send them round the sub? Send them to Waverley, and you serve all of Edinburgh centre, where the jobs are. You serve Leith via the trams, where more jobs are. And you serve Haymarket and Waverley, where the other trains are.

There aren't enough potential passengers to warrant even 2tph crawling around the sub, which is slower than going via Waverley in the first place, stopping at all the new potential stations.

If you're talking about diverting existing services, then definitely forget it. All those commuters aren't going to be pleased you've just halved their commuting options into the city centre.



The only, and I do mean only, way the sub would ever be feasible for trams would be a Croydon Tramlink Beckenham Junction style scenario, with two single bi-di tracks with loops.

 

[InOban]

Unlikely to happen, we've been over this before.

In my career I oversaw six or seven different feasibility studies into this issue, and the answer was always the same; if you can somehow find the capacity to Waverley, or even Haymarket, you're into a winner. But good luck with that.

The problem with this line is three-fold.

Number 1

Its actually used a fair bit. There are quite a lot of long distance freight trains that would be out of guage for going via Waverley, and that's even if you could find capacity. There is a civils depot at Millerhill, an EMU depot, the line will be used for diversions at various points in the future, it's used to turn units around, as a back way into Haymarket and Craigentinny depots, and it's used to shove stuff out of the way for an hour if a spare platform is needed at Waverley.

All this doesn't amount to a train every fifteen minutes, far from it, but if you took it away, you'd suddenly notice its absence in very dramatic ways.

If you put trains around it, there isn't the capacity at Waverley, by a long, long shot. You'd be looking at a 3bn investment just to open up more capacity into Waverley from one end, just to make the paths work. Try to make it a circle, with capacity at both ends and you'd be doubling that.

Now, this doesn't mean you can't put trams around it, but you need a high frequency to make a tram worth it, and threading a tram every ten minutes around the sub is suddenly going to upset a great many stakeholders. The signalling isn't great and the sections are quite long. That could be fixed, but you'd be looking at either reduced capacity for trains or reduced tram frequencies to fit around the trains. If it's the latter then it quickly becomes uneconomical to convert to trams anyway.

Number 2

The line faces the wrong way. It goes across the southern inner suburbs of Edinburgh, in a big loop. There isn't high demand to go from say Portobello to Mayfield, or from Cameron Toll to Gorgie. The line doesn't work unless you thread the trams into the city centre, which means you need to send them to Haymarket or Waverley.

You can't use the big railway, as there's no capacity, so you'd need to somehow connect to the existing tramline.

At the West end you could maybe do this by coming off the sub, under the E&G line at Murrayfield and joining in the tramline, but that's expensive. At the east end you'd have to thread them from Fort Kinnaird, via Portobello or Willobrae and back to Princes street. Either way is expensive, and the route from the east, although it would serve a lot of people, seems an excessively long way to get to Morningside.

Additionally, if you send trams around the sub, it would still in most cases be quicker to take a direct bus into town. A bus from Morningside station to Princes Street takes 20 minutes and comes about every 4 minutes. There isn't any point taking a tram 'sideways' around the outside of the city and back into town along an east-west axis.

Number 3

For the cost of buying new dual-voltage trams (good luck getting NRScot to agree a 750v wiring system, or even more unlikely to sell the railway) and converting the railway (resignalling, building tram stations, and building the connecting links of tramway to link up with the other bits) you'd be looking at a cost of say £5bn. For that, you could buy a new line to Granton, a new line to Loanhead via Cameron Toll, a new line to the Royal Infirmary, a new line to Musselburgh via Portobello, and still have change left over for the rolling stock and a new depot somewhere.



The sums have never added up with this idea. The capacity isn't there for trains, and if you're buying trams, just stick them where they'd be more useful.

An excellent summary to which I could add:
The route is structurally cleared for electrification although it will need several parapets, fencing and vegetation clearance.
There are longstanding plans for a traditional grid connection at Currie, although whether the new SFC at Portobello will replace this, don't know. The wiring is on hold until the freight TOCs have bimodes with sufficient grunt on diesel to haul trains from the east coast container ports to the existing wires. Then a lot of trains to Mossend will be sent up the ECML overnight.
Haymarket junction already causes delays to trains coming from Shotts /Carstairs. There's no way it could handle anything more. (unless a new Bay platform 5 was built to allow Shotts trains to terminate there)

 

[norbitonflyer]

If they are additional services, why would you send them round the sub? Send them to Waverley, and you serve all of Edinburgh centre, where the jobs are.

There aren't enough potential passengers to warrant even 2tph crawling around the sub, which is slower than going via Waverley in the first place, stopping at all the new potential stations.

If you're talking about diverting existing services, then definitely forget it. All those commuters aren't going to be pleased you've just halved their commuting options into the city centre.

I think you've misunderstood. A service from, say, Newcraighall to Edinburgh Park via Morningside etc would give Morningside etc direct connections into services to other parts of Scotland without getting a bus into Waverley first. No need to divert any existing services.

 

[The exile]

I think you've misunderstood. A service from, say, Newcraighall to Edinburgh Park via Morningside etc would give Morningside etc direct connections into services to other parts of Scotland without getting a bus into Waverley first. No need to divert any existing services.

Seriously, how many people would that be on a daily basis?

 

[2192]

....There are longstanding plans for a traditional grid connection at Currie, although whether the new SFC at Portobello will replace this, don't know....

SFC - meaning?

 

[InOban]

Doesn't it stand for static frequency converter? The new smaller units which use all three phases and are therefore easier to attach to the grid. I think all the new feeders in Scotland will be of this type. (Or have I got the initials wrong )

 

[snowball]

Doesn't it stand for static frequency converter? The new smaller units which use all three phases and are therefore easier to attach to the grid. I think all the new feeders in Scotland will be of this type. (Or have I got the initials wrong )

No, that's right, they've been much discussed in the electrification threads. It remains to be seen (unless someone knows) how many of the six new Scottish feeder stations covered by the current contract will be SFCs. I had been wondering if they were going to become standard but Ferguslie is reportedly not an SFC.

 

[71_OHE]

Hopefully the study will take account of the road usage from east to west, along the A1, A720, M8 and M9. The purpose is to encourage a modal shift to rail. The service need not call at Haymarket or Waverley. There are opportunities to connect the Fife circle and Galashiels services.

 

[tbtc]

A circle from Waverley to Waverley via Morningside is silly; circular service suggestions tend to be silly, but this one in particular!

However, cynical bugger that I can be, there’s a part of me that likes the idea of a “Wallyford - Newcraighall - Jewel - Prestonfield - Morningside - Slateford - Edinburgh Park” service on paper (paper covered in crayons, admittedly)

(Yes, there’s nowhere at either terminus to terminate, but humour me for a moment, k?)

Lothian Buses seemed to have got more growth in recent years from “orbital” links (generally between suburbs and the booming destinations around the fringe of the city like the Infirmary, Kinnaird Park, Gyle/ Edinburgh Park/ Airport/ Ocean Terminal) rather than into the city centre

However, it’s easy to introduce a brand new orbital bus route like the 200 (Ocean Terminal - various suburbs like Muirhouse - Gyle - Airport) because you can fit it into the road without needing to squeeze any existing bus routes away (sure, there’s the opportunity cost of needing a handful of extra drivers, vehicles, garage space etc, but I mean there roads aren’t so congested that the only way one more bus movement can happen at a junction is by physically removing other vehicles)

Whereas, given how busy the railway is, it’d be Very tough to ask for a half hourly Walford - Edinburgh Park service to do things like cross off the ECML at the Flat junction near Queen Margaret university

We’ve already seen a number of long established train services reduced further south on the ECML (e.g. Nottingham to Lincoln, Sheffield to Scunthorpe) because taking those away (e.g. cutting the Sheffield service so it terminated On the western half of Doncaster station and then running a separate Scunthorpe stopper from the eastern side of Doncaster station, so that it didn’t cross the ECML tracks on the flat… cutting the Lincolnshire services at Newark so that the Nottingham one terminated at Newark Castle and a separate Lincoln service ran from Newark Northgate)

So, given the opportunity cost, would passengers on the North Berwick line be happy if half the services no longer served Waverley but instead took a diversion via Morningside ? Would be very unpopular, I’d guess (which is why the Glasgow Crossrail idea sounds nice on paper until you realise that it’s the services from YOUR Southside line that might lose their paths into Central and be diverted towards The Gorballs instead so that other lines can get more paths into Central!)

But, there might be a solution here that gives Morningside etc a station and links it to other existing stations… what about having EMUs that layover at Millerhill then commence service at Newcraighall, stop at Morningside and a handful of other new stations (I think one near Fort Kinnaird/ Jewel would be good, not that the denizens of Morningside will shop at ASDA… one near Cameron Toll… obviously Morningside itself… then you hit a problem… the obvious routes are either curving clockwise into Haymarket or anti-clockwise towards Edinburgh Park, but those involve flat crossings into congested routes that have no spare paths… so how about a leftfield suggestion and , after going under the canal, we curve anti-clockwise there to Slateford, terminating there?

As this would be a stand alone service, it isn’t doesn’t need to wait until the Sub gets electrified, it would be run by a DMU

Unfortunately, although there’s a nearby set of carriage sidings accessible from the Haymarket direction, there doesn’t look like anywhere “secure” that we can terminate a Newcraighall service at Slateford or any accessible a sidings anywhere on the line beyond there towards Currie etc (?)

It’s be a false economy to run this South Edinburgh Shuttle all the way to West Lothian to find some sidings where it can lay over without blocking the Shotts/Carstairs services, so I’ll instead make the imperfect suggestion of terminating on the main line at Slateford for as short a time as possible and scurrying back towards Newcraighall, with the justification that we have plenty of spare sidings at Millerhill for a proper recovery there… I don’t have track maps etc to hand (Real Time Trains doesn’t show on the freight service I found that did run from Newcraighall to Slateford - https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C65732/2022-09-02/detailed ) but let’s say it’s seven miles roughly, I’d file the service as a Newcraighall- Newcraighall one that could hopefully get away with an urgent charge of ends at Slateford… not perfect but I’m being honest… however running a route like this means very little conflict with existing services at the same time as allowing interchange with some existing services at both Newcraighall and Slateford … too silly? Yeah, probably

(Puts crayons away)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

SFC - meaning?

Doesn't it stand for static frequency converter? The new smaller units which use all three phases and are therefore easier to attach to the grid. I think all the new feeders in Scotland will be of this type. (Or have I got the initials wrong )

Correct. Static Frequency Converter - as opposed to a traditional Grid Feeder Station.

 

[waverley47]

A circle from Waverley to Waverley via Morningside is silly; circular service suggestions tend to be silly, but this one in particular!

However, cynical bugger that I can be, there’s a part of me that likes the idea of a “Wallyford - Newcraighall - Jewel - Prestonfield - Morningside - Slateford - Edinburgh Park” service on paper (paper covered in crayons, admittedly)

(Yes, there’s nowhere at either terminus to terminate, but humour me for a moment, k?)

Lothian Buses seemed to have got more growth in recent years from “orbital” links (generally between suburbs and the booming destinations around the fringe of the city like the Infirmary, Kinnaird Park, Gyle/ Edinburgh Park/ Airport/ Ocean Terminal) rather than into the city centre

However, it’s easy to introduce a brand new orbital bus route like the 200 (Ocean Terminal - various suburbs like Muirhouse - Gyle - Airport) because you can fit it into the road without needing to squeeze any existing bus routes away (sure, there’s the opportunity cost of needing a handful of extra drivers, vehicles, garage space etc, but I mean there roads aren’t so congested that the only way one more bus movement can happen at a junction is by physically removing other vehicles)

Whereas, given how busy the railway is, it’d be Very tough to ask for a half hourly Walford - Edinburgh Park service to do things like cross off the ECML at the Flat junction near Queen Margaret university

We’ve already seen a number of long established train services reduced further south on the ECML (e.g. Nottingham to Lincoln, Sheffield to Scunthorpe) because taking those away (e.g. cutting the Sheffield service so it terminated On the western half of Doncaster station and then running a separate Scunthorpe stopper from the eastern side of Doncaster station, so that it didn’t cross the ECML tracks on the flat… cutting the Lincolnshire services at Newark so that the Nottingham one terminated at Newark Castle and a separate Lincoln service ran from Newark Northgate)

So, given the opportunity cost, would passengers on the North Berwick line be happy if half the services no longer served Waverley but instead took a diversion via Morningside ? Would be very unpopular, I’d guess (which is why the Glasgow Crossrail idea sounds nice on paper until you realise that it’s the services from YOUR Southside line that might lose their paths into Central and be diverted towards The Gorballs instead so that other lines can get more paths into Central!)

But, there might be a solution here that gives Morningside etc a station and links it to other existing stations… what about having EMUs that layover at Millerhill then commence service at Newcraighall, stop at Morningside and a handful of other new stations (I think one near Fort Kinnaird/ Jewel would be good, not that the denizens of Morningside will shop at ASDA… one near Cameron Toll… obviously Morningside itself… then you hit a problem… the obvious routes are either curving clockwise into Haymarket or anti-clockwise towards Edinburgh Park, but those involve flat crossings into congested routes that have no spare paths… so how about a leftfield suggestion and , after going under the canal, we curve anti-clockwise there to Slateford, terminating there?

As this would be a stand alone service, it isn’t doesn’t need to wait until the Sub gets electrified, it would be run by a DMU

Unfortunately, although there’s a nearby set of carriage sidings accessible from the Haymarket direction, there doesn’t look like anywhere “secure” that we can terminate a Newcraighall service at Slateford or any accessible a sidings anywhere on the line beyond there towards Currie etc (?)

It’s be a false economy to run this South Edinburgh Shuttle all the way to West Lothian to find some sidings where it can lay over without blocking the Shotts/Carstairs services, so I’ll instead make the imperfect suggestion of terminating on the main line at Slateford for as short a time as possible and scurrying back towards Newcraighall, with the justification that we have plenty of spare sidings at Millerhill for a proper recovery there… I don’t have track maps etc to hand (Real Time Trains doesn’t show on the freight service I found that did run from Newcraighall to Slateford - https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C65732/2022-09-02/detailed ) but let’s say it’s seven miles roughly, I’d file the service as a Newcraighall- Newcraighall one that could hopefully get away with an urgent charge of ends at Slateford… not perfect but I’m being honest… however running a route like this means very little conflict with existing services at the same time as allowing interchange with some existing services at both Newcraighall and Slateford … too silly? Yeah, probably

(Puts crayons away)

Eh, the orbital bus routes are popular because they have a lot of churn and they serve 'anchor' destinations: think the airport or Herriot Watt or the Royal Infirmary.

They'd never work with trams because trams need end to end and churn to be worth it, and even then they only become economical after you have a bus every 3 minutes on a route.*

Once you put down tram tracks or start running a train, you're suddenly limited by the distance between stops and the hard route it can drive along. You loose flexibility, you become a hostage to the frequency you can run, and inevitably you loose out on some routes because it's quicker going into and out of the city centre.

Orbital routes are much better suited to busses, and the busy arterial routes into and out of city centres, that's where trams and trains work brilliantly.

The sub is never going to work because it's a problem looking for trains around it. If you were building it now for passengers, you'd build it as a metro line under Princes Street, not as a slow rail line around the back of town.

*because the maths of increasing bus frequency actually mean that increasing frequency of bus routes beyond a total of about 30 busses per hour along a single artery actually decreases frequency as busses get held up by eachother and other road traffic.

 

[tbtc]

Eh, the orbital bus routes are popular because they have a lot of churn and they serve 'anchor' destinations: think the airport or Herriot Watt or the Royal Infirmary.

They'd never work with trams because trams need end to end and churn to be worth it, and even then they only become economical after you have a bus every 3 minutes on a route.*

Once you put down tram tracks or start running a train, you're suddenly limited by the distance between stops and the hard route it can drive along. You loose flexibility, you become a hostage to the frequency you can run, and inevitably you loose out on some routes because it's quicker going into and out of the city centre.

Orbital routes are much better suited to busses, and the busy arterial routes into and out of city centres, that's where trams and trains work brilliantly.

The sub is never going to work because it's a problem looking for trains around it. If you were building it now for passengers, you'd build it as a metro line under Princes Street, not as a slow rail line around the back of town.

*because the maths of increasing bus frequency actually mean that increasing frequency of bus routes beyond a total of about 30 busses per hour along a single artery actually decreases frequency as busses get held up by eachother and other road traffic. This might not increase capacity, depending on other road traffic, but in Edinburgh this undoubtedly would.

I’m not talking about building a tram though, I’m not talking about building any new railway lines either, I’m just trying to find a way in which we can put a feasible service along a bit of existing railway line (the central section on the Sub) without coming into conflict with too many trains on existing services

For example, you could run a train from a new station at Fort Kinnaird to a new station near Cameron Toll and a new station at Morningside (and reverse it there) and say to the people of Morningside who’ve been agitating for change “look, now you have a train service”, box ticked, hope they don’t notice that it doesn’t particularly go anywhere useful for them, but that would be a huge waste of money

My plan would be running a service from Newcraighall to Slateford via the Sub, so it connects with ScotRail services at each end but doesn’t conflict with them too much (and doesn’t impact on the ECML/ Waverley/ busy lines out of Haymarket towards Edinburgh Park).

I’m thinking that we could put a battery charging facility at Millerhill, maybe have a fleet of three “230” style trains, with two providing a twenty or thirty minute frequency from Newcraighall to Slateford (with time to recharge at Millerhill) and one spare, nothing too extravagant for an experimental service

 

[waverley47]

I’m not talking about building a tram though, I’m not talking about building any new railway lines either, I’m just trying to find a way in which we can put a feasible service along a bit of existing railway line (the central section on the Sub) without coming into conflict with too many trains on existing services

For example, you could run a train from a new station at Fort Kinnaird to a new station near Cameron Toll and a new station at Morningside (and reverse it there) and say to the people of Morningside who’ve been agitating for change “look, now you have a train service”, box ticked, hope they don’t notice that it doesn’t particularly go anywhere useful for them, but that would be a huge waste of money

My plan would be running a service from Newcraighall to Slateford via the Sub, so it connects with ScotRail services at each end but doesn’t conflict with them too much (and doesn’t impact on the ECML/ Waverley/ busy lines out of Haymarket towards Edinburgh Park).

I’m thinking that we could put a battery charging facility at Millerhill, maybe have a fleet of three “230” style trains, with two providing a twenty or thirty minute frequency from Newcraighall to Slateford (with time to recharge at Millerhill) and one spare, nothing too extravagant for an experimental service

But this is the perennial problem: is this a bit of railway that once had trains, that now doesn't, and therefore are we saying "here is a railway without trains, we should put trains along it, what is a solution that works"

Just because a railway doesn't have a passenger service, it doesn't mean that a passenger service should run.

It definitely doesn't mean that we should be buying trains and building stations to serve that hypothetical service, without asking the serious question 'is this worth it?'

 

[Captain Bigwig]

Or, we could save a lot of time and money by pointing out that Cross Country service 1C99 (2105 from Glasgow Central to Edinburgh Waverly) goes round the sub full of passengers every day anyway, so there already is south suburban passenger service (of a sort).

If a politician ever demanded the sub be given a passenger service for political reasons and I was tasked with implementing it in the least damaging way possible, my answer would be as follows. Firstly, electrify the sub, which would be useful for freight anyway, and then divert the Shotts services via the sub. Have them serve a couple of new stations on the way round and terminate in the east end of Waverley as opposed to the west. This would give the residents of Cameron Toll and Morningside a direct hourly service to Glasgow, albeit at the cost of adding about 15-20 minutes to the journey time between Edinburgh and Shotts. I'm not sure exactly how the platforming would work at Waverley but since you're not adding in any extra trains it might be possible.

 

[Stewart2887]

Or, we could save a lot of time and money by pointing out that Cross Country service 1C99 (2105 from Glasgow Central to Edinburgh Waverly) goes round the sub full of passengers every day anyway, so there already is south suburban passenger service (of a sort).

Yes, but passengers can't get off at Morningside or whatever. That service just slows everyone's journey for a tour of rural Edinburgh in the dark. Transport in Edinburgh is a nightmare, I cycled everywhere and that was 30+ years ago. I can't see how a resource like the Sub can't be better used, though if it keeps freight etc going, fair enough. Edinburgh does have a great bus service

 

[Tayway]

Deleted – forgot this wasn't in the speculation section!

 

[Falcon1200]

Just because a railway doesn't have a passenger service, it doesn't mean that a passenger service should run.

Absolutely; A railway is simply one form of transport and is not necessarily always the best solution, the Edinburgh South Sub being a perfect example of that; There are better ways of getting from the south of Edinburgh to the city centre (which is why the Sub lost its passenger service in the first place). And sorry @tbtc, I just can't see how there could ever be sufficient passenger numbers to justify a service on the Sub which did not even serve Edinburgh !

 

[tbtc]

sorry @tbtc, I just can't see how there could ever be sufficient passenger numbers to justify a service on the Sub which did not even serve Edinburgh !

Oh, it’d be a waste of resources, sure, I’m not saying it’s a priority, I should have explained that I was more focused on “if we HAVE to have a service round the Sub then how could we do it so that it doesn’t inconvenience too many existing passengers” (since all the options being discussed seemed to mean cramming more services into the already congested Waverley/ extending existing journey times by diverting trains/ conflicts at flat junctions)

In an ideal world we might be able to use the Sub to provide cross-Edinburgh links not feasible at Waverley, or try to link some leisure destinations, but I take a “first, do no harm” approach to these kind of reopenings and any new service that can only exist by disrupting and restricting existing services feels like it’d come at too high a price

 

[och aye]

I suspect if the feasibility study goes ahead, it will probably come to the same or similar conclusions as the last one that was conducted. In many respects I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing to do if there are changes in population demographics and/or an overall transport review for the entire city, if for no other reason to come to the same conclusion and to justify that the money for reinstatement would be better spent on other transport options such as trams, segregated cycle lanes, electric buses etc.

 

[317 forever]

A circle from Waverley to Waverley via Morningside is silly; circular service suggestions tend to be silly, but this one in particular!

However, cynical bugger that I can be, there’s a part of me that likes the idea of a “Wallyford - Newcraighall - Jewel - Prestonfield - Morningside - Slateford - Edinburgh Park” service on paper (paper covered in crayons, admittedly)

(Yes, there’s nowhere at either terminus to terminate, but humour me for a moment, k?)

Lothian Buses seemed to have got more growth in recent years from “orbital” links (generally between suburbs and the booming destinations around the fringe of the city like the Infirmary, Kinnaird Park, Gyle/ Edinburgh Park/ Airport/ Ocean Terminal) rather than into the city centre

However, it’s easy to introduce a brand new orbital bus route like the 200 (Ocean Terminal - various suburbs like Muirhouse - Gyle - Airport) because you can fit it into the road without needing to squeeze any existing bus routes away (sure, there’s the opportunity cost of needing a handful of extra drivers, vehicles, garage space etc, but I mean there roads aren’t so congested that the only way one more bus movement can happen at a junction is by physically removing other vehicles)

Whereas, given how busy the railway is, it’d be Very tough to ask for a half hourly Walford - Edinburgh Park service to do things like cross off the ECML at the Flat junction near Queen Margaret university

We’ve already seen a number of long established train services reduced further south on the ECML (e.g. Nottingham to Lincoln, Sheffield to Scunthorpe) because taking those away (e.g. cutting the Sheffield service so it terminated On the western half of Doncaster station and then running a separate Scunthorpe stopper from the eastern side of Doncaster station, so that it didn’t cross the ECML tracks on the flat… cutting the Lincolnshire services at Newark so that the Nottingham one terminated at Newark Castle and a separate Lincoln service ran from Newark Northgate)

So, given the opportunity cost, would passengers on the North Berwick line be happy if half the services no longer served Waverley but instead took a diversion via Morningside ? Would be very unpopular, I’d guess (which is why the Glasgow Crossrail idea sounds nice on paper until you realise that it’s the services from YOUR Southside line that might lose their paths into Central and be diverted towards The Gorballs instead so that other lines can get more paths into Central!)

But, there might be a solution here that gives Morningside etc a station and links it to other existing stations… what about having EMUs that layover at Millerhill then commence service at Newcraighall, stop at Morningside and a handful of other new stations (I think one near Fort Kinnaird/ Jewel would be good, not that the denizens of Morningside will shop at ASDA… one near Cameron Toll… obviously Morningside itself… then you hit a problem… the obvious routes are either curving clockwise into Haymarket or anti-clockwise towards Edinburgh Park, but those involve flat crossings into congested routes that have no spare paths… so how about a leftfield suggestion and , after going under the canal, we curve anti-clockwise there to Slateford, terminating there?

As this would be a stand alone service, it isn’t doesn’t need to wait until the Sub gets electrified, it would be run by a DMU

Unfortunately, although there’s a nearby set of carriage sidings accessible from the Haymarket direction, there doesn’t look like anywhere “secure” that we can terminate a Newcraighall service at Slateford or any accessible a sidings anywhere on the line beyond there towards Currie etc (?)

It’s be a false economy to run this South Edinburgh Shuttle all the way to West Lothian to find some sidings where it can lay over without blocking the Shotts/Carstairs services, so I’ll instead make the imperfect suggestion of terminating on the main line at Slateford for as short a time as possible and scurrying back towards Newcraighall, with the justification that we have plenty of spare sidings at Millerhill for a proper recovery there… I don’t have track maps etc to hand (Real Time Trains doesn’t show on the freight service I found that did run from Newcraighall to Slateford - https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C65732/2022-09-02/detailed ) but let’s say it’s seven miles roughly, I’d file the service as a Newcraighall- Newcraighall one that could hopefully get away with an urgent charge of ends at Slateford… not perfect but I’m being honest… however running a route like this means very little conflict with existing services at the same time as allowing interchange with some existing services at both Newcraighall and Slateford … too silly? Yeah, probably

(Puts crayons away)

Maybe the Borders Railway could be diverted at Newcraighall to Slateford via Morningside?

This would even reduce overcrowding at Waverley.

 

[waverley47]

Maybe the Borders Railway could be diverted at Newcraighall to Slateford via Morningside?

This would even reduce overcrowding at Waverley.

Hmmmm.

If they are additional services, why would you send them round the sub? Send them to Waverley, and you serve all of Edinburgh centre, where the jobs are. You serve Leith via the trams, where more jobs are. And you serve Haymarket and Waverley, where the other trains are.

There aren't enough potential passengers to warrant even 2tph crawling around the sub, which is slower than going via Waverley in the first place, stopping at all the new potential stations.

If you're talking about diverting existing services, then definitely forget it. All those commuters aren't going to be pleased you've just halved their commuting options into the city centre.

Firstly, you're not serving the main station in the city, where most of the people want to go, where most of the jobs are, and where all the other trains stop.

Secondly, sure, you're reducing overcrowding at Waverley, but you'd be luck to fill out a single carriage if you start sending them around the sub to terminate at Slateford.

This is a poor, bordering on outrageous, plan.

 

[Falcon1200]

Maybe the Borders Railway could be diverted at Newcraighall to Slateford via Morningside?

What on earth for? Slateford is not where 99.9% of Borders Railway passengers want to go!

This is a poor, bordering on outrageous, plan.

It certainly is, as is any plan for a circuitous and operationally unachievable passenger service over the Sub; It doesn't best serve the market, and cannot be delivered anyway.

 

[David M]

Maybe the Borders Railway could be diverted at Newcraighall to Slateford via Morningside?

This would even reduce overcrowding at Waverley.

I use the Borders Railway very regularly. I am never getting off before Waverley (except for the very rare time I'm going to a concert at MacArts and get the train in from Tweedbank to Galashiels). More often than not, I'm heading onwards to Queen St and, very occasionally to Shotts or Springburn. Even more occasionally to Camelon to change to a bus to Cumbernauld Village.
The vast majority on the Borders line are travelling to or from Waverley so your suggestion is a non-starter.

 

[och aye]

Hmmmm.




Firstly, you're not serving the main station in the city, where most of the people want to go, where most of the jobs are, and where all the other trains stop.

Secondly, sure, you're reducing overcrowding at Waverley, but you'd be luck to fill out a single carriage if you start sending them around the sub to terminate at Slateford.

This is a poor, bordering on outrageous, plan.

You never know, perhaps there is a big demand from passengers in the Borders to visit the 24 hour ASDA across the road from Slateford.

 

[waverley47]

You never know, perhaps there is a big demand from passengers in the Borders to visit the 24 hour ASDA across the road from Slateford.

There is a 24 hour Asda at Fort Kinnaird. But you never know, you do have to shop around these days.