Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[najaB]

Barry Links only had 52 passengers in 17-18. Breich had 102. Does it have PIS as well now?

They just spent £2.6 million upgrading it.

 

[Highlandspring]

Barry Links only had 52 passengers in 17-18. Breich had 102. Does it have PIS as well now?

The rebuilt Breich has PIS and from May will have an hourly service in each direction all day. I think PIS and CCTV at all stations is a franchise commitment..?

 

[scosutsut]

The railway goes agile.

Hopefully it won't end up 'fragile' as some in my line of work often consider it!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Give the tight location at the winchburgh end, getting the height from the existing track to get up and over wasn't going to be cheap or easy in the first place. Having to now extend that due to the additional height required will add to the cost. By how much only time will tell.

Uh? I don't know much about the area, but I'm assuming you're referring to putting in grade separation at the existing junction north of Winchburgh. If so... from Google Maps, the railway there looks like it's in completely open countryside. Would it really be that hard to get some additional land there to build a flyover? Or have I misunderstood something?

 

[mcmad]

The railway is in a cutting with either a rock face or wall there. There was an incident about a year ago when the wall collapsed onto the line following the OLE masts being built. The masts are installed at the top of the cutting slope.

You've also got the canal adjacent to the railway at the junction. Reconfiguring the 'lie' of the junction so that the flyover is formed from the Edinburgh bound existing E&G may help things albeit more work

 

[d9009alycidon]

Uh? I don't know much about the area, but I'm assuming you're referring to putting in grade separation at the existing junction north of Winchburgh. If so... from Google Maps, the railway there looks like it's in completely open countryside. Would it really be that hard to get some additional land there to build a flyover? Or have I misunderstood something?

The topography of the area is not really apparent on Google Maps. West fro the junction, the Forth and Clyde Canal runs close to the line on the south side, then the line is in a rock cutting for a number of miles. This view on the Railscot site https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/50/998/ is taken from the junction looking west and just about sums up the difficulties that would be encountered

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The railway is in a cutting with either a rock face or wall there. There was an incident about a year ago when the wall collapsed onto the line following the OLE masts being built. The masts are installed at the top of the cutting slope.

You've also got the canal adjacent to the railway at the junction. Reconfiguring the 'lie' of the junction so that the flyover is formed from the Edinburgh bound existing E&G may help things albeit more work

The topography of the area is not really apparent on Google Maps. West fro the junction, the Forth and Clyde Canal runs close to the line on the south side, then the line is in a rock cutting for a number of miles. This view on the Railscot site https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/50/998/ is taken from the junction looking west and just about sums up the difficulties that would be encountered

Ah, thanks! Yes, that explains the problem.

 

[Altnabreac]

Uh? I don't know much about the area, but I'm assuming you're referring to putting in grade separation at the existing junction north of Winchburgh. If so... from Google Maps, the railway there looks like it's in completely open countryside. Would it really be that hard to get some additional land there to build a flyover? Or have I misunderstood something?

I'm now wondering if a revised version of the Almond Chord scheme could drop grade separation at the Winchburgh end of the chord?

If the planned Winchburgh station were moved onto the new chord then there would be very little need for much traffic to use the current mainline at all. Edinburgh Gateway works just as well as Edinburgh Park for access into the west Edinburgh employment sites and the airport so you could just move the vast majority of services (or even all regular services) off the current line and avoid the need for grade separation at the west end of the chord at all.

Only question would be if the north lines at Haymarket could cope with all 10tph (4tph Falkirk High, 2tph Stirling, 2tph Cumbernauld, 2tph extra Falkirk High) going via the chord on top of 8tph to Fife / Dundee?

South lines would be looking much quieter at something more like 10tph (3tph Shotts, 1tph Carstairs, 2tph Carlisle, 4tph Bathgate).

But if all the north line trains are grade separated at Turnhouse it may actually be easier to run 18tph on the north lines than to operate with the existing flat junctions at Newbridge and Haymarket East junction.

 

[d9009alycidon]

IIRC one of the early proposals for what is now known as the Dalmeny Chord was as a direct replacement for the existing line, removing the need to maintain Winchburgh Tunnel and the Almond Viaduct

 

[47271]

I'm now wondering if a revised version of the Almond Chord scheme could drop grade separation at the Winchburgh end of the chord?

If the planned Winchburgh station were moved onto the new chord then there would be very little need for much traffic to use the current mainline at all. Edinburgh Gateway works just as well as Edinburgh Park for access into the west Edinburgh employment sites and the airport so you could just move the vast majority of services (or even all regular services) off the current line and avoid the need for grade separation at the west end of the chord at all.

Only question would be if the north lines at Haymarket could cope with all 10tph (4tph Falkirk High, 2tph Stirling, 2tph Cumbernauld, 2tph extra Falkirk High) going via the chord on top of 8tph to Fife / Dundee?

South lines would be looking much quieter at something more like 10tph (3tph Shotts, 1tph Carstairs, 2tph Carlisle, 4tph Bathgate).

But if all the north line trains are grade separated at Turnhouse it may actually be easier to run 18tph on the north lines than to operate with the existing flat junctions at Newbridge and Haymarket East junction.

An interesting point, not least in relation to construction of a new station at Winchburgh. If it was built on the Dalmeny line (I take it that this is what you mean and not on the chord itself) then it would be on a much more open and accessible site than in the cutting. Also a lot of the new housing is appearing off the B8020 Hopetoun road, so it may even be more convenient for development.

A separated junction between Edinburgh Gateway and Dalmeny would be a far easier undertaking than at Winchburgh, if that's all that's needed to get enough capacity on the Fife lines.

 

[caliwag]

Out of curiosity Scosutsut, can you enlighten me on the origins of that strange triangular cross-section train that is your avatar? Cheers.

 

[najaB]

Out of curiosity Scosutsut, can you enlighten me on the origins of that strange triangular cross-section train that is your avatar? Cheers.

Off topic, but here you go: https://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/blog-post/1865576/toblerone-train-pointless

 

[JohnR]

The rebuilt Breich has PIS and from May will have an hourly service in each direction all day. I think PIS and CCTV at all stations is a franchise commitment..?

Would only seem sensible if Barry Links were to be getting a better service. I dont think one train south at 6.18am and one return at 6.55 pm really justifies it.

 

[sqrtc]

Would only seem sensible if Barry Links were to be getting a better service. I dont think one train south at 6.18am and one return at 6.55 pm really justifies it.

I believe it was reported elsewhere that as of the May timetable it's set to receive 4 services a day. Not an increase to justify the spend but worth noting.

 

[EISL]

A separated junction between Edinburgh Gateway and Dalmeny would be a far easier undertaking than at Winchburgh, if that's all that's needed to get enough capacity on the Fife lines.

Easier but not easy. The Fife line runs to the east of the existing airport runway 06/24 and no construction would be allowed to restrict the potential for a second runway. When I did the EISL plans a decade ago it included the prospective second runway and the proposal then avoided tunnelling under either of those runways (a key objection to EARL).

The gradients are a constraint, as the low point of the Fife line is near the end of the existing runway, where the railway crosses the River Almond. From there, the line rises in each direction with 1:100 gradients, so a grade separated junction would require going under the existing line if it would otherwise foul the aircraft protected corridor. From that new junction, getting back up to the level of the existing Dalmeny - Winchburgh chord would be a steep climb if the new line is to avoid having to build another bridge under the M90 spur. I'm not saying it cannot be done, but it would be a far from easy design.

 

[najaB]

The Fife line runs to the east of the existing airport runway 06/24 and no construction would be allowed to restrict the potential for a second runway.

The odds of Edinburgh ever getting a second runway are next to zero.*

The gradients are a constraint, as the low point of the Fife line is near the end of the existing runway, where the railway crosses the River Almond. From there, the line rises in each direction with 1:100 gradients, so a grade separated junction would require going under the existing line if it would otherwise foul the aircraft protected corridor. From that new junction, getting back up to the level of the existing Dalmeny - Winchburgh chord would be a steep climb if the new line is to avoid having to build another bridge under the M90 spur. I'm not saying it cannot be done, but it would be a far from easy design.

Building a tunnel under a prospective runway is a lot easier to sell than tunnelling under an active one.

*Edit:Using today as a typical example there are 288 scheduled movements according to Flightradar24. That compares with over 750 at Gatwick which is also a single-runway airport.

 

[clc]

I'm now wondering if a revised version of the Almond Chord scheme could drop grade separation at the Winchburgh end of the chord?

If the planned Winchburgh station were moved onto the new chord then there would be very little need for much traffic to use the current mainline at all. Edinburgh Gateway works just as well as Edinburgh Park for access into the west Edinburgh employment sites and the airport so you could just move the vast majority of services (or even all regular services) off the current line and avoid the need for grade separation at the west end of the chord at all.

Only question would be if the north lines at Haymarket could cope with all 10tph (4tph Falkirk High, 2tph Stirling, 2tph Cumbernauld, 2tph extra Falkirk High) going via the chord on top of 8tph to Fife / Dundee?

South lines would be looking much quieter at something more like 10tph (3tph Shotts, 1tph Carstairs, 2tph Carlisle, 4tph Bathgate).

But if all the north line trains are grade separated at Turnhouse it may actually be easier to run 18tph on the north lines than to operate with the existing flat junctions at Newbridge and Haymarket East junction.

The freed up capacity on the south lines would allow Airdrie-Bathgate to go to 6tph as well as more Shotts services. And the money saved by not grade separating Winchburgh could be used to re-open Levenmouth so Fife wont feel left out.

 

[mcmad]

Would the North lines have capacity for all that traffic though?

6 tph E&G via high
2 tph E&G via Cumbernauld
2 tph Dunblane (with additional peaks?)
4 tph Fife circle
1 tph Inverness
1 tph Aberdeen
1 tph Arbroath
plus paths for freight, LNER and XC

call it 18 tph unless I've missed anything?

 

[Stopper]

Would the North lines have capacity for all that traffic though?

6 tph E&G via high
2 tph E&G via Cumbernauld
2 tph Dunblane (with additional peaks?)
4 tph Fife circle
1 tph Inverness
1 tph Aberdeen
1 tph Arbroath
plus paths for freight, LNER and XC

call it 18 tph unless I've missed anything?

There may not even be 2tph Cumbernauld by the time of the Almond Chord. The 2tph extra shuttles could replace them as they would retain the Linlithgow/Polmont/Falkirk link to Edinburgh Park through Gateway, and they’d be a far better use of paths. Or they could just be replaced with better more useful services, or have the Lin/Pol calls reinstated onto the Dunblanes.

Even with grade separation at Winchburgh and a lack of crossovers at Haymarket, I don’t think we need to send everything via the Almond Chord. As far as I’m aware the plan for the new Winchburgh station to be in the new town centre, on the section between Newbridge Jn and Winchburgh Jn, not the chord. This would require at least 2tph (of any service) in that direction to remain on the south lines. This wouldn’t be a problem considering frequency increases on the A-B are unlikely and the same goes for Shotts due to capacity issues on the WCML sections.

You could have something like this:

North Lines (15/16tph)

6tph E-G shuttles
2tph LIN/PMT/FKG commuter service (to Stirling or Cumbernauld)
4tph Fife Circle
1tph Aberdeen
1tph Inverness/Perth
1tph Dundee/Arbroath
+ extra LNER/XC

South Lines (10tph max)

4tph A-B
2tph Stirling/Dunblane
2tph Shotts
1tph Carstairs (XC/LNER/ScotRail)
1tph WCML (TPE/VTWC)

 

[Altnabreac]

Would the North lines have capacity for all that traffic though?

6 tph E&G via high
2 tph E&G via Cumbernauld
2 tph Dunblane (with additional peaks?)
4 tph Fife circle
1 tph Inverness
1 tph Aberdeen
1 tph Arbroath
plus paths for freight, LNER and XC

call it 18 tph unless I've missed anything?

Currently there is 16tph on the south lines (4 Falkirk, 2 Cumbernauld, 2 Stirling, 4 Bathgate, 2 Shotts, 1 Carstairs, 1 WCML) with two flat junctions at Newbridge and Haymarket East.

18tph with a grade separated junction at Turnhouse is almost certainly easier to operate than 16tph with those 2 flat junctions.

 

[JohnR]

I believe it was reported elsewhere that as of the May timetable it's set to receive 4 services a day. Not an increase to justify the spend but worth noting.

I think 4 services each way per day would be enough, but I havnt seen anything on those changes in May. Thought the next big change was supposed to be December.

 

[mcmad]

Even with grade separation at Winchburgh and a lack of crossovers at Haymarket, I don’t think we need to send everything via the Almond Chord. As far as I’m aware the plan for the new Winchburgh station to be in the new town centre, on the section between Newbridge Jn and Winchburgh Jn, not the chord. This would require at least 2tph (of any service) in that direction to remain on the south lines. This wouldn’t be a problem considering frequency increases on the A-B are unlikely and the same goes for Shotts due to capacity issues on the WCML sections.

This was in response to Altnabreac suggestion to do away with the Winchburgh to Newbridge section as an alternative to Almond Chord and reroute everything via the North lines.

 

[Altnabreac]

This was in response to Altnabreac suggestion to do away with the Winchburgh to Newbridge section as an alternative to Almond Chord and reroute everything via the North lines.

I'm not saying to do away with in terms of close it. Just not to run services over it in usual service.

it really comes down to a question of timetable planning. Is it better to have an even split of 14tph on each line at Haymarket or is it better to have an 18tph / 8tph split but with the flat junctions avoided and less capital spend on the Almond Chord?

My gut feeling is that the latter might be the better option.

 

[Put Kettle On]

Be a very tight squeeze getting 18 tph on that section , given 3 aspect signalling & South Gyle & Gateway stations .

 

[najaB]

Be a very tight squeeze getting 18 tph on that section , given 3 aspect signalling & South Gyle & Gateway stations .

If they're going to be spending the better part of a quarter billion pounds on a flying junction, they can probably pay for a few new lights on sticks.

 

[Put Kettle On]

Yes , but signalling there has been upgraded fairly recently , so would need reworking again , when other sections , ie Slateford - Midcalder & Midcalder - Carstairs are still running with 2 aspect , & therefore should be upgraded to improve capacity there , rather than do something again , when it really should have been future proofed at time of original upgrade .

 

[Highlandspring]

other sections , ie Slateford - Midcalder & Midcalder - Carstairs are still running with 2 aspect , & therefore should be upgraded to improve capacity there , rather than do something again , when it really should have been future proofed at time of original upgrade .

There was a scheme developed to increase capacity through the introduction of three aspect signalling and improve linespeeds on the Cobbinshaw line at the same time as Kirknewton and Kingsknowe level crossings were upgraded to MCB-OD and Torphin became MSL but the funding to take it forward never materialised. It would be a pretty straightforward CP6 win though.

 

[najaB]

Yes , but signalling there has been upgraded fairly recently , so would need reworking again , when other sections , ie Slateford - Midcalder & Midcalder - Carstairs are still running with 2 aspect , & therefore should be upgraded to improve capacity there , rather than do something again , when it really should have been future proofed at time of original upgrade .

I agree, but we are where we are and if resignalling to four aspect is what's needed to make the Almond Chord work then that's what needs to be done - not doing it would be even more ridiculous.

 

[mcmad]

Looking at the 2043 ITSS, I don;t see how that could be delivered without splitting the load between North and South lines. Whether they take the slightly cheaper option and just rebuild Newbridge as a high(ish) speed flat junction or spend the money now and grade separate it only time will tell.

 

[Highlandspring]

Be a very tight squeeze getting 18 tph on that section , given 3 aspect signalling & South Gyle & Gateway stations .

I agree, but we are where we are and if resignalling to four aspect is what's needed to make the Almond Chord work then that's what needs to be done - not doing it would be even more ridiculous.

ECN2 is already four aspect from Haymarket to Dalmeny and vice versa.