Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[najaB]

In that case, we might see it Haddington back on the railway map sooner than I thought.

Well, it was only a study.

 

[och aye]

Well, it was only a study.

Hence the "might"

 

[railjock]

I thought the main reason they routed through Shawfair, instead of reinstating Millerhill was because of the new town development?

Both reasons were given.

 

[railjock]

In that case, we might see it Haddington back on the railway map sooner than I thought.

Hard to think there is ever much chance of Haddington being back on the railway map tbh.

 

[oldman]

What's your better rail suggestion? (Given that this is primarily a rail-focused forum)

Priorities, priorities. Mine, in order:

1 Improving connectivity in and around the two major cities. Especially Edinburgh, starting from a low transport-infrastructure base, but growing and expected to go on growing rapidly. In and around includes Tranent, Bonnyrigg, Prestonpans etc, where you have higher-density, more affordable developments, and where some households may only have one car, rather than Haddington and still less East Linton, where the developments I have seen are be low-density, double-garaged detached houses. Anyway there are park and rides at Longniddry and Wallyford.

There are of course improvements possible around Glasgow, East Kilbride being the obvious one, though around Edinburgh heavy rail may not be the solution.

2 Improving intercity speeds between the Central Belt and the North. The route through Newburgh looks like a cheapish win, but other more expensive projects are regularly discussed here - HML loops etc.

3 Longer distance commuting to the big cities from rural and semi-rural locations, sometimes dubiously justified as regeneration. Let rural areas stay rural.

So when I've got my Edinburgh metro, and our friends in the North can visit civilisation more easily, you can have your Haddington branchline.

 

[najaB]

Priorities, priorities. Mine, in order:

None of which really speak to rail projects in the Lothians.

you can have your Haddington branchline.

I have, as our American cousins would say, zero skin in that game seeing as I don't live in and have never even visted Haddington.

 

[Steamysandy]

One advantage of reopening the Haddington line is that non car owners like my son would have a direct route which is only 4 miles long . Ironically he does a wee bit of presenting at the community radio station located on the old station site but to get there needs two or three buses via Prestonpans or Wallyford.The one bus alternative is limited by timing and the route is a long way round ( via Gullane and Drem) for a short cut!
So that would be one gap filled
Regarding Old man's comments about the Park and Rides,the one at Longniddry is in process of being extended because of overflow on street parking and Wallyford is a fair distance from the station which I've always thought was in the wrong place.

 

[Ginaro]

One advantage of reopening the Haddington line is that non car owners like my son would have a direct route which is only 4 miles long . Ironically he does a wee bit of presenting at the community radio station located on the old station site but to get there needs two or three buses via Prestonpans or Wallyford.The one bus alternative is limited by timing and the route is a long way round ( via Gullane and Drem) for a short cut!
So that would be one gap filled

He could go to Longniddry and use the Haddington line, as it's still open - for bikes

 

[Steamysandy]

He could go to Longniddry and use the Haddington line, as it's still open - for bikes

He doesn't need to go to Longniddry--- we live here!

 

[oldman]

None of which really speak to rail projects in the Lothians.

If there has to be one in East Lothian (there have been several in West and Mid), the suggested quadrupling of part of the ECML would be more sensible than a branch.

 

[Steamysandy]

If there has to be one in East Lothian (there have been several in West and Mid), the suggested quadrupling of part of the ECML would be more sensible than a branch.

I agree but it will be interesting to see how they would fit the second pair of tracks in at certain points.
It would also possibly be a reason why a Haddington Branch reopening might never happen.

 

[NotATrainspott]

If there has to be one in East Lothian (there have been several in West and Mid), the suggested quadrupling of part of the ECML would be more sensible than a branch.

The branch couldn't happen without the quadrupling. As it is the ScotRail ECML services are starved of paths, and a new branch would necessitate an extra service all the way to Waverley. Extra services are already most of the reason for the four-tracking, so it would be perfectly logical to look at new places to terminate them rather than sending them to North Berwick or Dunbar. This study (and all of them) might well find out that it's not actually worthwhile to do the thing suggested.

On another note, what could improved access to HMNB Clyde look like? A new station on the WHL? One idea could be to set up a regular hourly commuter service along the southern end of the line. The 2043 Route Study had an hourly service to Crianlarich, and this could be a precursor which would hold the paths through the suburban network until then. I don't think it would be at all viable to extend North Clyde electrics services there as Helensburgh Central can't really go down from 2tph and there's no more paths for other trains along the city centre section.

 

[Steamysandy]

The branch couldn't happen without the quadrupling. As it is the ScotRail ECML services are starved of paths, and a new branch would necessitate an extra service all the way to Waverley. Extra services are already most of the reason for the four-tracking, so it would be perfectly logical to look at new places to terminate them rather than sending them to North Berwick or Dunbar. This study (and all of them) might well find out that it's not actually worthwhile to do the thing suggested

As I see it in the long term I think there could be capacity problems at Waverley East End.
Tokyo Central has two platforms up in the roof reached by a ramp as well as underground platform's with long tunnelled approaches.
Is this the way forward?

 

[NotATrainspott]

As I see it in the long term I think there could be capacity problems at Waverley East End.
Tokyo Central has two platforms up in the roof reached by a ramp as well as underground platform's with long tunnelled approaches.
Is this the way forward?

NR already have plans to maximise capacity at the eastern end of Waverley. Right now we're getting those two new full-length platforms 5 and 6, and the extension of 12 to 8-car length means there will be fewer trains needing to use the through platforms. The plan for later is to add a third track all the way from the eastern throat through to Portobello, longer through platforms, extra linked-up through platforms and for the remaining terminus platforms to have higher capacity. All in all it'll probably be the last major programme of works before something much more serious has to be done. With the strong likelihood that long distance services will largely switch over to the western approach due to HS2 and other high speed works, I don't think there will be that much need for extra capacity in the very long term. It'll be much easier than today to link up services east and west of the station.

I agree but it will be interesting to see how they would fit the second pair of tracks in at certain points.
It would also possibly be a reason why a Haddington Branch reopening might never happen.

Those NR plans have the quadrupling as a fairly standard affair, paired by direction with the fast tracks in the middle. I imagine they'll continue to look at alternative options - it isn't that implausible to imagine it being easier and cheaper to just build a new fast pair following the A1 and leave the old line completely alone. It's the sort of option they're likely to investigate as part of the further development process and with the amount of disruption required to the existing line, I think they'll have to release the option comparison publicly.

 

[Steamysandy]

I doubt that they would build a new line alongside the A1 because of the gradients and as I understand it the section to be quadrupled is from Wallyford to Drem which is at least 3 miles and a range of hills away from the A1.
That it could well take a different route to the present line is more than likely given the amount of curvature there is over the length of the section.The long removed footbridge at Lochhill farm looking east gave a really good view of the s bend past Ballencrieff towards Drem for example.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I doubt that they would build a new line alongside the A1 because of the gradients and as I understand it the section to be quadrupled is from Wallyford to Drem which is at least 3 miles and a range of hills away from the A1.
That it could well take a different route to the present line is more than likely given the amount of curvature there is over the length of the section.The long removed footbridge at Lochhill farm looking east gave a really good view of the s bend past Ballencrieff towards Drem for example.

Once you're far enough away from the existing railway that you don't need railway construction procedures (e.g. line blockages, rail safety training) it doesn't really matter how far away you really are. I don't believe there would be any need for services to switch between the fast and slow tracks in the quadrupled section, so it doesn't really matter if the new tracks are actually adjacent. So long as they start and end on the existing line, it doesn't really matter where it goes in between.

The reason I suggested the A1 is that it's an existing blight corridor where people wouldn't get too deeply upset about having a new quasi-HSR line built alongside it. The problem with classic railway alignments is that civilisation normally abuts them at various points along the route, making it not fantastically easy to widen them. It might be just about doable on this part of the ECML, but there would still be complications. It might be possible to just forge a new alignment someway between the A1 and the ECML but this creates a third blight corridor and divides up the land into less useful parcels.

A new fast pair of tracks might not have a problem with gradients. The only trains using the line would be express EMUs which should be more than capable of handling a few ups and downs. Freight would go via the old line as it's already got enough gauge clearance. Whether a new line is built would just depend on whether it's a more affordable and worthwhile option than carefully rebuilding many, many miles of intensively-used double-track railway. I don't know of many recent equivalents - maybe the WCML Trent Valley upgrade scheme? There's a reasonable risk that upon four-tracking, what would end up happening would be complete reconstruction of the entire route rather than simply adding an extra pair of tracks. If the quad-track section is to be paired by direction it'll already be necessary to rebuild half of each station along the route. There's plenty that could go wrong, like a need to strengthen bridges or embankments. Building an all-new line means the existing one can be left essentially entirely untouched except from the tie-in points at either end. And as I said, the new line can be built without a need for railway construction costs too. It'd definitely help with scheduling as the railway people only need to be brought in fairly late on in the process for a simple set of work, rather than being needed from the very start for every little thing.

 

[gsnedders]

On another note, what could improved access to HMNB Clyde look like? A new station on the WHL? One idea could be to set up a regular hourly commuter service along the southern end of the line. The 2043 Route Study had an hourly service to Crianlarich, and this could be a precursor which would hold the paths through the suburban network until then. I don't think it would be at all viable to extend North Clyde electrics services there as Helensburgh Central can't really go down from 2tph and there's no more paths for other trains along the city centre section.

I was wondering that; there was a line into HMNB Clyde, closed 1981. I presume this doesn't mean reopening that, given it wouldn't be a passenger line (presumably) unlike everything else to be considered.

 

[Steamysandy]

Playing Devils Advocate,if you build the new pair of tracks alongside the A1,the Haddington Branch from Longniddry wouldn't need to be reopened - the new line would pass along the North side of Haddington and cross the trackbed of the old line!
At which point it would be where I suggested could be the site for a Park and Ride!!

 

[railjock]

Playing Devils Advocate,if you build the new pair of tracks alongside the A1,the Haddington Branch from Longniddry wouldn't need to be reopened - the new line would pass along the North side of Haddington and cross the trackbed of the old line!
At which point it would be where I suggested could be the site for a Park and Ride!!

Possibly, but then you are mixing local and long distance services again.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Playing Devils Advocate,if you build the new pair of tracks alongside the A1,the Haddington Branch from Longniddry wouldn't need to be reopened - the new line would pass along the North side of Haddington and cross the trackbed of the old line!
At which point it would be where I suggested could be the site for a Park and Ride!!

It wouldn't happen. That new line following the A1 would need to remain an express route. Haddington would need to be served by stopping ScotRail services that would need to go via the old line. The bypass line and the Haddington branch could be somewhat symbiotic, as the new branch would be a sweetener to get the locals to accept the new line while the need to fit in the new line might mean the A1 needs reconstructed in a way which provides a space for the branch to run underneath. A park-and-ride station on the wrong side of the A1 might not be fantastically useful for the town given that park and ride passengers would probably prefer a station on the main route with more services, while local passengers wouldn't appreciate having to go more than 2km from the town centre to the station.

Still, this idea is all conjecture right now. The 2043 Route Study only talks about a traditional four-tracking for CP6. I imagine it might be slightly challenging to get a totally new line (very likely requiring fresh legislation) approved and constructed in the same time-frame.

 

[najaB]

I imagine it might be slightly challenging to get a totally new line (very likely requiring fresh legislation)

Would it though?

 

[deltic08]

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.

It is not the flow from Liverpool to Edinburgh that would justify extension of TPE to Edinburgh but the flow from West Yorkshire. At present passengers from Huddersfield have to change either at Leeds (XC), York or Newcastle (East Coast). Halifax, Bradford, Dewsbury, Bingley and Keighley, all large settlements, will have a better spread of services from Leeds without having to change at Leeds and again at York or Newcastle. You know what they say about changes in a journey deter passengers. It would also give Northallerton more choice of East Coast or TPE.

Stops at Reston and East Linton could be added to TPE services as a condition of extension to Edinburgh without having to extend Edinburgh-Dunbar services all the way to Berwick.

 

[deltic08]

It wouldn't happen. That new line following the A1 would need to remain an express route. Haddington would need to be served by stopping ScotRail services that would need to go via the old line. The bypass line and the Haddington branch could be somewhat symbiotic, as the new branch would be a sweetener to get the locals to accept the new line while the need to fit in the new line might mean the A1 needs reconstructed in a way which provides a space for the branch to run underneath. A park-and-ride station on the wrong side of the A1 might not be fantastically useful for the town given that park and ride passengers would probably prefer a station on the main route with more services, while local passengers wouldn't appreciate having to go more than 2km from the town centre to the station.

But you could still build a cut-off for Dunbar following the route of the new A1. It would cut out the speed restricted reverse curves on the mainline (80mph) and allow a continued 125mph without braking. The old line could then be used for looping long freights using fast entry and exit speeds.

There is still a corridor between new houses and the A1 road for this to happen.

 

[Class 170101]

Stops at Reston and East Linton could be added to TPE services as a condition of extension to Edinburgh without having to extend Edinburgh-Dunbar services all the way to Berwick.

Why not just turn the service over to TPE operation rather than Scotrail operation? Similarly the Northern service between Newcastle and Morpeth / Chathill to reduce paths.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Would it though?

It's definitely well beyond standard railway operator development rights. What I'm then thinking is that it's probably also too big for the TAWS process, since it would involve a very significant amount of new railway which has never existed before. Now, I don't imagine there would be too many political complaints about it, but the fact that Parliamentary time would be required to get it done, and that there's been no forward planning either, makes it somewhat difficult to deliver before the end of CP6. Of course, it's up to NR and TS to plan a programme of works and it might be enough to concentrate on the South Sub and Waverley eastern approaches for now while the legal processes for this new line get started.

But you could still build a cut-off for Dunbar following the route of the new A1. It would cut out the speed restricted reverse curves on the mainline (80mph) and allow a continued 125mph without braking. The old line could then be used for looping long freights using fast entry and exit speeds.

There is still a corridor between new houses and the A1 road for this to happen.

I don't think there would be a lot of benefit from doing that. Linespeed has to drop not far south of here for the curves through Grantshouse, so extending the non-stop speeds wouldn't give a huge amount of journey time reduction. With the A1 line, there'd be little reason for other traffic regulation/separation works north of Berwick-upon-Tweed.

 

[najaB]

I don't think there would be a lot of benefit from doing that. Linespeed has to drop not far south of here for the curves through Grantshouse, so extending the non-stop speeds wouldn't give a huge amount of journey time reduction.

Northbound though it would allow acceleration sooner so might save a few minutes.

 

[Rambling Syd]

I was wondering that; there was a line into HMNB Clyde, closed 1981. I presume this doesn't mean reopening that, given it wouldn't be a passenger line (presumably) unlike everything else to be considered.

The line into the Faslane Base was closed in '81 becuase Shipbreaking Industries (who only used it sporadically) closed down. It had been considered that materials relating to the upgrading of the base for Vanguard might be brought in that way, but this was rejected because it would be too easy for protestors to block the line. It was also felt to be a security risk as a weak point in the perimeter security. It was a great pity that it closed as it would have been very useful for goods and transport to the base in happier times. There were 26 miles of track, all told. It did actually carry passengers during wartime (embarking troops) and it had a platform at its top end. It's in the back of my mind that one of the first passengers was none other than Sir Winston himself. I always felt that it would could have been extended to Garelochhead, providing a more attractive alternative to the existing stratospheric station. Who knows; if independence ever happens and HMS Neptune closes down and is converted to a civilian shipping facility, the line might rise from the dead?

 

[InOban]

You're correct that rail was rejected. The government were convinced that the unions would, for political reasons, block the supply of materials.
Now we have several thousand employees who are brought in largely in a fleet of coaches from the whole of greater Glasgow. (If you chance to drive up the A82 at the wrong/right time you will meet them as they come across from garelochead on the purpose-built road, the A817.) More people commute from helensburgh to garelochead than do to central Glasgow.

The problem isn't that the existing station is high up, it's that it's a very slow mile further on. They would need a 'company' station connected by a bridge over the road directly into the yard.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Northbound though it would allow acceleration sooner so might save a few minutes.

I don't think pure journey times are the focus here, rather the increase in capacity for freight and local stopping services. If a big chunk of the stopping services would have split off to North Berwick or Haddington there's not so much point four-tracking through Dunbar. I don't think they would bother grade-separating the eastern end of a new line given that slow line traffic would be in the minority there.

 

[Steamysandy]

I don't think pure journey times are the focus here, rather the increase in capacity for freight and local stopping services. If a big chunk of the stopping services would have split off to North Berwick or Haddington there's not so much point four-tracking through Dunbar. I don't think they would bother grade-separating the eastern end of a new line given that slow line traffic would be in the minority there.

I believe that is why the section being spoken about for quadrupling is Wallyford to Drem and I believe it will be either next to the existing line or very close to it.