Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[railjock]

Penicuik does have potential and most of the route from Gilmerton to Milton Bridge is reasonably clear.

It never got very close to Penicuik itself but a bus served Park & Ride site would be a reasonable prospect.

The difficulties however are between Gilmerton and Newcraighall.

The new Borders Rail alignment through Shawfair cuts right across the old Penicuik alignment and the power lines south of Shawfair make a new alignment tricky.

Even more problematic is the new road layout through Shawfair and around Sheriffhall Park & Ride which takes no account of any reopening.

Midlothian Council have done a very poor job of safeguarding a future alignment here.

So Penicuik can be done but won't be cheap and will involve expensive changes to recently built infrastructure.

The other route to penicuik was via Bonnyrigg and Rosewell but a small housing scheme on the old goods yard in Bonnyrigg makes that problematic.

 

[najaB]

One opening I'm supporting, however, is from Thurso to Scrabster. It would make a lot of sense.

Without street running it isn't going to happen.

 

[kylemore]

Without street running it isn't going to happen.

Why bother, Pentland Ferries at Gill's Bay is the future!

 

[clc]

I see that a STAG refresh is currently being undertaken for Levenmouth, funded by Fife Council:

http://www.fifedirect.org.uk/news/i...&objectid=38A67EBC-CFE5-C48E-83E39BCF2F4249EA

 

[MarkRedon]

== My comments bracketted by == - MarkRedon
Among the flaws of Starlink are:
Junction faced wrong way.
== The Tata Consultancy proposition is for a triangular junction giving access both to the Dundee and Edinburgh directions. ==
Leuchars is close by so time saving would be limited.
== This is currently the time taken to transfer to a bus and the bus journey itself, which together are significant – and off-putting for many. ==
No obvious service to extend so more paths into the crowded Waverley western throat needed.
== This is clearly an issue, and there is an opportunity cost. ==
Difficult station site with little car parking potential.
Potential detriment to setting of the Old Course.
Relatively small population, of which relatively few are likely to commute because of the large number of both students and academics.
== But both populations are more frequent train users than many. ==
Relatively long journey time to Edinburgh that is at the edge of regular commuting distance.
== True. Shorter to Dundee, which is of course much less of a commuting centre. ==
Affluent town so little regeneration potential; local plan assigns little housing expansion to St Andrews and more growth likely to be controversial with locals; what housing growth there is in the area is more likely to be around Leuchars anyway.
== You make good points. However, the fact that it is a university town creates significant demand for longer distance travel, which would certainly be of significance if any serious reopening proposition were being investigated. ==
I won't say it will never happen (better case than Hawick - Carlisle say) but I think it has a fairly poor business case and certainly wouldn't make a top 5 Scottish reopening schemes and probably be towards the bottom of a top 10.

I am reviving this thread because one factor working in favour of a St. Andrews reopening is the strong local pressure for it to occur. Whence a new story today:
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/hopes-for-st-andrews-rail-link-boosted-1.909033

Campaigners involved with the St Andrews Rail Link (StARLink) initiative have been invited by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to meet Transport Scotland officials.
They will discuss their blueprint for the future and how it could fit in with local and regional transport strategies…
A Tata Steel study produced in 2012 proposed an alternative 7.7km route that is now being pursued.
That would similarly follow the A91 to the Eden Valley but would make a triangular junction with the East Coast Main Line at Seggie, travelling west and southwards via Cupar and northwards via Leuchars.
An indicative timetable was also produced and suggested hourly services to Edinburgh and Dundee.

 

[Altnabreac]

I am reviving this thread because one factor working in favour of a St. Andrews reopening is the strong local pressure for it to occur. Whence a new story today:
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/hopes-for-st-andrews-rail-link-boosted-1.909033

I suspect the most relevant part of the article is this quote from Transport Scotland:

“Although the St Andrews Rail Link does not feature in our current investment programme, we are committed to ongoing improvements to rail services and connectivity and are willing to consider proposals for new stations where there is clear evidence of benefits, subject to affordability and a suitable business case being identified.”

my bolding.

This is bog standard electioneering by Willie Rennie (who as well as being leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats is coincidentally the candidate for Fife North East in 2016).

In return the SNP led government do a bog standard "We'll look at it, if it has a business case" response.

None of which makes it any more likely that it has a business case (because it probably doesn't).

You make some relevant points in your responses above, I agree the business case is not as hopeless as some but the fundamental point is that the reopening of St Andrews won't generate enough traffic because of a lack of commuters. Too far from Edinburgh, too close to Leuchars, too many students and not enough demand to Dundee.

Altnabreac's 4 golden rules of a successful rail reopening:

• Population of 10,000+
• 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time of a major employment centre.
• Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed
• Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required.

St Andrews scores at best 3 half points from this checklist:

• The population is 10,000+ but too many are students
• Slow train form Leuchars is 65-75 minutes already
• Trackbed has small flaw of being adjacent to one of Scotland's most famous and iconic tourist attractions.

1.5 out of 4 does not get you a business case unfortunately.

 

[Liam]

I suspect the most relevant part of the article is this quote from Transport Scotland:

my bolding.

This is bog standard electioneering by Willie Rennie (who as well as being leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats is coincidentally the candidate for Fife North East in 2016).

In return the SNP led government do a bog standard "We'll look at it, if it has a business case" response.

None of which makes it any more likely that it has a business case (because it probably doesn't).

You make some relevant points in your responses above, I agree the business case is not as hopeless as some but the fundamental point is that the reopening of St Andrews won't generate enough traffic because of a lack of commuters. Too far from Edinburgh, too close to Leuchars, too many students and not enough demand to Dundee.



St Andrews scores at best 3 half points from this checklist:

• The population is 10,000+ but too many are students
• Slow train form Leuchars is 65-75 minutes already
• Trackbed has small flaw of being adjacent to one of Scotland's most famous and iconic tourist attractions.

1.5 out of 4 does not get you a business case unfortunately.

There are also a number of homes built on the former trackbed in Guardbridge, a bridge over the Eden missing and the junction at Leuchars faces the wrong way for Edinburgh. A new alignment West of Guardbridge might be required.

 

[47271]

I'm not piling in here or making a case against, but I've never been convinced of a St Andrews reopening happening in the forseeable future. It's just that I can't think of many Scottish towns that are less in need of urgent economic regeneration.

Larkhall, Alloa, Bathgate, Armadale, Caldercruix, Galashiels, Levenmouth yes. St Andrews hmm.

Given the likely need to reinvent the economy of the NE fairly swiftly, planned capacity improvements between Aberdeen and Dyce, and the large populations in Ellon, Peterhead and Fraserburgh, we may even see the Buchan Line popping up the list of priorities again in the next ten years, but that's just my instinct.

 

[clc]

There's also the issue of funding as I've mentioned previously. In the last few days Labour have bounced the SNP into giving a commitment to mitigate the tax credit cuts which could cost the SG up to £400 million per annum. As I feared, welfare pledges will mean money diverted from other areas, including infrastructure.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Although regenerating down-and-out places is a worthwhile cause there still is a case for building infrastructure to boost an already-successful place if that boost would then help the economy in general. St Andrews is one of the few small towns in Scotland which can actually self-sustain due to the tourists and the knowledge economy that the university brings, but it is held back by the NE Fife road network. Building the railway would allow St Andrews to grow even more without requiring massive road improvements or more suburban sprawl, and the jobs that growth would bring would then be much more accessible to the people of Fife and Tayside. At rush hours the roads are not at all pleasant, and even if someone theoretically could use the bus at the moment we know fine well that people just won't bother. A good suburban rail link between Dundee and St Andrews would do well given that both ends would be destinations in themselves rather than just sources of passengers.

 

[Class 170101]

Altnabreac's 4 golden rules of a successful rail reopening:

Population of 10,000+
60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time of a major employment centre.
Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed
Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required.

St Andrews scores at best 3 half points from this checklist:

• The population is 10,000+ but too many are students
• Slow train form Leuchars is 65-75 minutes already
• Trackbed has small flaw of being adjacent to one of Scotland's most famous and iconic tourist attractions.

1.5 out of 4 does not get you a business case unfortunately.

I could argue 2.5
Divert the Dundee terminators to St Andrews perhaps?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I could argue 2.5
Divert the Dundee terminators to St Andrews perhaps?

Why would you want to divert a train that services a city of 165,000 to a town of 18,000 ?

 

[Class 170101]

Why would you want to divert a train that services a city of 165,000 to a town of 18,000 ?

Granted you wouldn't however note it was in contest of point 4 as below
Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required

 

[Altnabreac]

Granted you wouldn't however note it was in contest of point 4 as below
Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required

Maybe I should have specified the extension / diversion should have the effect of generating more passengers than it loses!

I'd file your suggestion under technically feasible but worsens the business case.

 

[snakeeyes]

would it not be possible to extend the line through St Andrews to Leven and then on to Edinburgh?

 

[najaB]

would it not be possible to extend the line through St Andrews to Leven and then on to Edinburgh?

It is more than possible (largely following the route of the East Fife railway), but it is a long route with comparatively few population centres to support it.

 

[Altnabreac]

would it not be possible to extend the line through St Andrews to Leven and then on to Edinburgh?

25 miles at £5-10m per mile = £200m or so.

Population served:
Anstruther 3,500
Pittenweem 2,000
Crail 1,500
Elie 1,000
Largo 1,000

So £200m to serve less than 10,000 people.

You could build it but the Business Case would be awful.

 

[backontrack]

25 miles at £5-10m per mile = £200m or so.

Population served:
Anstruther 3,500
Pittenweem 2,000
Crail 1,500
Elie 1,000
Largo 1,000

So £200m to serve less than 10,000 people.

You could build it but the Business Case would be awful.

How about from Thornton to Anstruther/Crail only?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

How about from Thornton to Anstruther/Crail only?

It serves almost nobody and doesn't even go somewhere that has a significant population, at least get the route to St Andrews where students, tourist traffic and golf traffic every 5 years takes the business case up from non existent to microscopic.

 

[Altnabreac]

How about from Thornton to Anstruther/Crail only?

25 miles was only for Leven - St Andrews.

Adding in Leuchars - St Andrews and Thornton - Leven adds circa 10 miles / £100m on top of that.

I was assuming it was an incremental post Levenmouth reopening.

Crail - Leven is circa 15 miles so maybe £125m to serve 10,000 people. Plus the Levenmouth reopening cost of £40m or so.

 

[snakeeyes]

25 miles was only for Leven - St Andrews.

Adding in Leuchars - St Andrews and Thornton - Leven adds circa 10 miles / £100m on top of that.

I was assuming it was an incremental post Levenmouth reopening.

Crail - Leven is circa 15 miles so maybe £125m to serve 10,000 people. Plus the Levenmouth reopening cost of £40m or so.

but running the service round the coast from Dundee to St Andrews to Leven then back on the main line would be better than having two branch lines.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

but running the service round the coast from Dundee to St Andrews to Leven then back on the main line would be better than having two branch lines.

It depends on how you organise services in Fife - if the Levenmouth services are extended from one of the Fife Circle services to Glenrothes, then there's no pressing requirement to send services round the Fife Coast, and you then have the option (and money) to put a triangular junction in somewhere around Cupar or Leuchars, giving access to St Andrews from both the north and the south, which allows the Edinburgh-Dundee terminator to run via St Andrews with a reversal.

 

[backontrack]

Still, St Andrews is an obvious priority.

 

[Altnabreac]

Still, St Andrews is an obvious priority.

They have a noisy campaign group but I don't see them being a priority. They're well down the bottom of the top 10 Scottish reopening schemes and I suspect the biggest problem would be objections from the R&A.

Add that to a lack or regeneration opportunities, little development potential, tricky timetabling issues and you have a scheme that is unlikely to progress.

Levenmouth however alongside Grangemouth should be the 2 highest priority reopenings in Scotland in CP6.

 

[Tobbes]

Altnabreac,

What are your Top 10 CP6 Scottish enhancements? I'm sure I've seen them somewhere but can't recall.

Many thanks

Tobbes

 

[Altnabreac]

Altnabreac,

What are your Top 10 CP6 Scottish enhancements? I'm sure I've seen them somewhere but can't recall.

Many thanks

Tobbes

Probably earlier in this thread! From memory (I'll probably come up with different order this time but give me a break as its late) something like maybe these 12 schemes as having a higher priority than St Andrews:

Levenmouth
Grangemouth
Penicuik
Hawick
Banchory
Peterhead (maybe only Ellon as phase 1)
Bridge of Weir
Renfrew
Edinburgh South Sub
Alloa - Dunfermline
Glasgow Crossrail (as a local not regional scheme)
Glasgow Airport Rail Link

Excluding strategic schemes like E-G High Speed Rail and Inverkeithing - Perth and capacity enhancements like Dalmeny Curve.

I'd only expect 1-2 schemes to be delivered in CP6 and it seems to me Levenmouth and Grangemouth are clear favourites.

 

[NotATrainspott]

They have a noisy campaign group but I don't see them being a priority. They're well down the bottom of the top 10 Scottish reopening schemes and I suspect the biggest problem would be objections from the R&A.

Add that to a lack or regeneration opportunities, little development potential, tricky timetabling issues and you have a scheme that is unlikely to progress.

Levenmouth however alongside Grangemouth should be the 2 highest priority reopenings in Scotland in CP6.

The most recent plans for the alignment into St Andrews show that the line never actually strays that far into any of the golf courses, and doesn't affect the Old Course itself at any point, so the R&A would have nothing to complain about. It takes a small sliver off of the Golf Academy land and would require the fairway of the 12th hole of the Strathyrum Course to be re-positioned but apart from that it doesn't really affect it at all. Any negative impact the route could have upon the Old Course Hotel would be mitigated by the fact that the line would bring in even more visitors.

 

[Jonny]

I would have thought that a "corner-cut" from Tain to Golspie would be relatively easy and inexpensive (especially if linked to ERTMS/ETCS adoption) and would speed up existing journeys. Add to that Dornoch, which is a popular tourist destination, as a possible station and it becomes quite an attractive concept.

 

[Altnabreac]

The most recent plans for the alignment into St Andrews show that the line never actually strays that far into any of the golf courses, and doesn't affect the Old Course itself at any point, so the R&A would have nothing to complain about. It takes a small sliver off of the Golf Academy land and would require the fairway of the 12th hole of the Strathyrum Course to be re-positioned but apart from that it doesn't really affect it at all. Any negative impact the route could have upon the Old Course Hotel would be mitigated by the fact that the line would bring in even more visitors.

You've obviously never dealt with the R&A! They can and will complain loudly about any change.

 

[NotATrainspott]

You've obviously never dealt with the R&A! They can and will complain loudly about any change.

What I'm saying though is that there isn't a clear means by which they would be able to do anything other than make noise. The spur proposals wouldn't directly affect the R&A by requiring compulsory purchase of their land or anything of the sort. As a result, I can't really see why they would have a problem with the spur in the first place. Would they not want to be able to have even more people coming to St Andrews in future?