Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[Altnabreac]

How much additional capacity would Glasgow require in order to meet future needs based on confirmed or realistic potential new services/increased frequency on existing services?

HS2 - 1-2tph
E2G HSR - 3tph
East Kilbride - 2tph
Neilston - 2tph
Circle - 1tph
Airport Tram Train - 4tph
Renfrew - 2tph
Total - 15-16tph

Anything else?

I think the maximum Cross Border demand is potentially something like:

• 2tph HS London,
• 1tph HS Birmingham,
• 1tph HS Manchester,
• 1tph HS Liverpool,
• 1tph WCML legacy service,
• 1tph ECML legacy service via Edinburgh

So that is 7tph maximum.

It's probably more likely that 2-3 of those services would be 1tp2h so 5-6tph is a more realistic demand.

At the moment you are looking at 3-4 tph demand at Glasgow Central for these services (2tph VWC, 1tp2h TPE, 1tp2h cross country via ECML).

So for your theoretical maximum you maybe want to allow for an increase of 3-4tph rather than 1-2tph.

Domestic demand wise I could imagine a few more services than above:

I'd suggest the maximum demand for E-G HS2 might be 4tph rather than 3tph although you could run the ECML cross country service in the 4tph slot so there might be an element of double counting here.

You might want to consider a 2tph Bridge of Weir reopening. It keeps appearing in things like the STPR but never quite making the cut but if you are looking 30 years into the future then demand might be there.

In Inverclyde you could potentially see there being demand for 2tph to Wemyss Bay in future (subject to infrastructure work), with Greenock going from 3tph to 4tph for a net gain of 2tph.

In terms of Ayrshire I could imagine Largs being served by 2tph as well for a net increase of 1tph.

You could maybe also see an electrified Kilmarnock line with a 2tph service to Kilmarnock (as now) but with an additional 1tp2h Dumfries service running fast between Kilmarnock and Glasgow to keep time with electric stopping services.

So that is an extra 9tph to take you to 25tph. For that sort of extra capacity you're looking at needing a Cross City Tunnel rather than just a tram train arrangement for Cathcart circle services.

 

[clc]

I think the maximum Cross Border demand is potentially something like:

• 2tph HS London,
• 1tph HS Birmingham,
• 1tph HS Manchester,
• 1tph HS Liverpool,
• 1tph WCML legacy service,
• 1tph ECML legacy service via Edinburgh

So that is 7tph maximum.

It's probably more likely that 2-3 of those services would be 1tp2h so 5-6tph is a more realistic demand.

At the moment you are looking at 3-4 tph demand at Glasgow Central for these services (2tph VWC, 1tp2h TPE, 1tp2h cross country via ECML).

So for your theoretical maximum you maybe want to allow for an increase of 3-4tph rather than 1-2tph.

Domestic demand wise I could imagine a few more services than above:

I'd suggest the maximum demand for E-G HS2 might be 4tph rather than 3tph although you could run the ECML cross country service in the 4tph slot so there might be an element of double counting here.

You might want to consider a 2tph Bridge of Weir reopening. It keeps appearing in things like the STPR but never quite making the cut but if you are looking 30 years into the future then demand might be there.

In Inverclyde you could potentially see there being demand for 2tph to Wemyss Bay in future (subject to infrastructure work), with Greenock going from 3tph to 4tph for a net gain of 2tph.

In terms of Ayrshire I could imagine Largs being served by 2tph as well for a net increase of 1tph.

You could maybe also see an electrified Kilmarnock line with a 2tph service to Kilmarnock (as now) but with an additional 1tp2h Dumfries service running fast between Kilmarnock and Glasgow to keep time with electric stopping services.

So that is an extra 9tph to take you to 25tph. For that sort of extra capacity you're looking at needing a Cross City Tunnel rather than just a tram train arrangement for Cathcart circle services.

Your knowledge of Scottish rail never fails to impress!

I omitted Bridge of Weir as I envisaged that service running on an extension of the Paisley Canal line hence no impact on capacity.

However something we both overlooked was the possibility of additional Glasgow Airport services if a heavy rail link was ever built to the terminal. The Strategic Rail Study suggested 8tph to the airport compared with 4tph for the tram train service. So that would add 4tph to the total.

Long term we might also see an increase in the frequency of some services which currently terminate at Queen Street once the tunnel released capacity there. Cumbernauld, Aberdeen, Inverness and Oban come to mind.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Shotts Line Electrification Twitter feed now up and running.

@shottslineelec

 

[Altnabreac]

Shotts Line Electrification Twitter feed now up and running.

@shottslineelec

I would thoroughly recommend all of Network Rail Scotland's twitter accounts, EGIP, A2I and the main one. They do a great job at being informative and patiently deal with the inevitable troublemakers patiently - see the Polmont bridge discussion ad nauseam for examples.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I would thoroughly recommend all of Network Rail Scotland's twitter accounts, EGIP, A2I and the main one. They do a great job at being informative and patiently deal with the inevitable troublemakers patiently - see the Polmont bridge discussion ad nauseam for examples.

Polmont Bridge ate my homework. It was ongoing for days, and I'm slightly glad they got a horrible concrete bridge instead of one of the nice looking fake stone designs. There was even an argument about what day of the week 6(?) months would take you to, for the re-opening.

 

[Altnabreac]

I think the maximum Cross Border demand is potentially something like:

• 2tph HS London,
• 1tph HS Birmingham,
• 1tph HS Manchester,
• 1tph HS Liverpool,
• 1tph WCML legacy service,
• 1tph ECML legacy service via Edinburgh

So that is 7tph maximum.

It's probably more likely that 2-3 of those services would be 1tp2h so 5-6tph is a more realistic demand.

At the moment you are looking at 3-4 tph demand at Glasgow Central for these services (2tph VWC, 1tp2h TPE, 1tp2h cross country via ECML).

So for your theoretical maximum you maybe want to allow for an increase of 3-4tph rather than 1-2tph.

Domestic demand wise I could imagine a few more services than above:

I'd suggest the maximum demand for E-G HS2 might be 4tph rather than 3tph although you could run the ECML cross country service in the 4tph slot so there might be an element of double counting here.

You might want to consider a 2tph Bridge of Weir reopening. It keeps appearing in things like the STPR but never quite making the cut but if you are looking 30 years into the future then demand might be there.

In Inverclyde you could potentially see there being demand for 2tph to Wemyss Bay in future (subject to infrastructure work), with Greenock going from 3tph to 4tph for a net gain of 2tph.

In terms of Ayrshire I could imagine Largs being served by 2tph as well for a net increase of 1tph.

You could maybe also see an electrified Kilmarnock line with a 2tph service to Kilmarnock (as now) but with an additional 1tp2h Dumfries service running fast between Kilmarnock and Glasgow to keep time with electric stopping services.

So that is an extra 9tph to take you to 25tph. For that sort of extra capacity you're looking at needing a Cross City Tunnel rather than just a tram train arrangement for Cathcart circle services.

Your knowledge of Scottish rail never fails to impress!

I omitted Bridge of Weir as I envisaged that service running on an extension of the Paisley Canal line hence no impact on capacity.

However something we both overlooked was the possibility of additional Glasgow Airport services if a heavy rail link was ever built to the terminal. The Strategic Rail Study suggested 8tph to the airport compared with 4tph for the tram train service. So that would add 4tph to the total.

Long term we might also see an increase in the frequency of some services which currently terminate at Queen Street once the tunnel released capacity there. Cumbernauld, Aberdeen, Inverness and Oban come to mind.

There is an indicative demand graph on the Scotland Route study appendices p130
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Scotland-Route-Study-Draft-for-Consultation-Appendices.pdf

It confirms most of these frequencies with Wemyss Bay and Largs at 2tph, Kilmarnock at 3tph, EK and Neilston at 4tph and Cross Border Services at 6tph.

The other additional service it shows is Newton at 4tph with 2tph via Mount Florida and 2tph via Shawlands combined with more Cathcart circle services to give 4tph frequency at Shawlands. This is a net increase of 6tph to 12tph with 4tph at Pollokshields West and 8tph at Pollokshields East.

Interestingly 1tph of the Mount Florida - Newton services is proposed to continue to Hamilton and Motherwell.

Obviously it doesn't include Bridge of Weir or GARL, doesn't propose a cross city tunnel and doesn't mention High Speed Rail.

 

[clc]

There is an indicative demand graph on the Scotland Route study appendices p130
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Scotland-Route-Study-Draft-for-Consultation-Appendices.pdf

It confirms most of these frequencies with Wemyss Bay and Largs at 2tph, Kilmarnock at 3tph, EK and Neilston at 4tph and Cross Border Services at 6tph.

The other additional service it shows is Newton at 4tph with 2tph via Mount Florida and 2tph via Shawlands combined with more Cathcart circle services to give 4tph frequency at Shawlands. This is a net increase of 6tph to 12tph with 4tph at Pollokshields West and 8tph at Pollokshields East.

Interestingly 1tph of the Mount Florida - Newton services is proposed to continue to Hamilton and Motherwell.

Obviously it doesn't include Bridge of Weir or GARL, doesn't propose a cross city tunnel and doesn't mention High Speed Rail.

It was also interesting that demand between Glasgow and Edinburgh on the Airdrie-Bathgate line could rise to 6tph, with 4tph semi fast and 2tph stopping and fastest end to end journey time of 60 mins. Demand on the western section of the line (Helensburgh/Milngavie) would remain at 4tph so presumably you'd need a turn back at Kelvinhaugh. Perhaps they could also re-open the old station in Finnieston, an area which has really taken off in recent years. It would also provide the Hydro/SECC with direct services to Edinburgh.

 

[paul1609]

I think the maximum Cross Border demand is potentially something like:

• 2tph HS London,
• 1tph HS Birmingham,
• 1tph HS Manchester,
• 1tph HS Liverpool,
• 1tph WCML legacy service,
• 1tph ECML legacy service via Edinburgh

So that is 7tph maximum.

It's probably more likely that 2-3 of those services would be 1tp2h so 5-6tph is a more realistic demand.

At the moment you are looking at 3-4 tph demand at Glasgow Central for these services (2tph VWC, 1tp2h TPE, 1tp2h cross country via ECML).

So for your theoretical maximum you maybe want to allow for an increase of 3-4tph rather than 1-2tph.

Domestic demand wise I could imagine a few more services than above:

I'd suggest the maximum demand for E-G HS2 might be 4tph rather than 3tph although you could run the ECML cross country service in the 4tph slot so there might be an element of double counting here.

You might want to consider a 2tph Bridge of Weir reopening. It keeps appearing in things like the STPR but never quite making the cut but if you are looking 30 years into the future then demand might be there.

In Inverclyde you could potentially see there being demand for 2tph to Wemyss Bay in future (subject to infrastructure work), with Greenock going from 3tph to 4tph for a net gain of 2tph.

In terms of Ayrshire I could imagine Largs being served by 2tph as well for a net increase of 1tph.

You could maybe also see an electrified Kilmarnock line with a 2tph service to Kilmarnock (as now) but with an additional 1tp2h Dumfries service running fast between Kilmarnock and Glasgow to keep time with electric stopping services.

So that is an extra 9tph to take you to 25tph. For that sort of extra capacity you're looking at needing a Cross City Tunnel rather than just a tram train arrangement for Cathcart circle services.

I would suggest that using Eurostar as a model for Paris to London there is never likely to be anywhere near that demand for the HS services.

 

[AndrewE]

Without sounding like a cracked record, if the right stock was specified some of these could easily run coupled...
Obviously Lpool and Manc
1 of the Londons and Brum?
WCML legacy to both London direct and to Brum?
etc...

All these could serve both Glasgow and Edinburgh...

 

[najaB]

BBC News Article

The re-opening of a railway link between Ellon and Dyce is being recommended by the Scottish Association for Public Transport.

SAPT believes the 14-mile line would "revolutionise" transport in the area. SAPT chairman Dr John McCormick said the train service would appeal to commuters and help reduce journey times, congestion and pollution.

It comes as a consultation about transport in the north east of Scotland draws to a close on Tuesday.

Transport partnership Nestrans has been asking for feedback on several options aimed at improving links to the north of Aberdeen.

 

[backontrack]

Hmm. Would direct trains run from Edinburgh, and the Inverurie services diverted to Glasgow?

 

[och aye]

BBC News Article

To me, this along side the Levenmouth link seem like no brainers for next extensions to the Scottish rail network, if/when the money is available!

 

[backontrack]

Where would intermediate stops go? I would guess at Newmachar, Mintlaw and Strichen.

 

[Altnabreac]

Where would intermediate stops go? I would guess at Newmachar, Mintlaw and Strichen.

Unlikely if it's only going as far as Ellon...

But they are the obvious station sites on any north east reopenings. Udny and Maud the other candidates but I don't think either would have sufficient demand without targeted development activity.

I still think Banchory has as good a case as Ellon especially if you are looking for somewhere for the Ellon line to run through to.

Perhaps an initial phase could operate as far as Milltimber for Park and Ride?

 

[backontrack]

Unlikely if it's only going as far as Ellon...

I know that.

But they are the obvious station sites on any north east reopenings. Udny and Maud the other candidates but I don't think either would have sufficient demand without targeted development activity.

I still think Banchory has as good a case as Ellon especially if you are looking for somewhere for the Ellon line to run through to.

Perhaps an initial phase could operate as far as Milltimber for Park and Ride?

Banchory would have intermediate stops at, I guess, Ruthrieston (or Aberdeen West), Cults, Culter, Park and Crathes (or Milton of Crathes, where the heritage railway is).

Any stop at Crathes is a bit of a doubt, though.

 

[Altfish]

All great ideas but if this article is true then new schemes may be on hold...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ain-holyrood-borrowing-could-hit-50bn-by-2020

Public sector debt in Scotland has mushroomed to record levels after an SNP government spending spree funded by billions of pounds’ worth of borrowing from pension funds, international banks and the Treasury.

An investigation by the Guardian has found that total borrowing to build schools, roads, railway stations, colleges and hospitals under the devolved government could reach £50bn by the end of the decade, putting a heavy strain on the public finances.

The scale of the debt, which dwarfs Holyrood’s annual budget of £30bn, has never been set out by ministers or investigated by the Scottish parliament. It has led to calls by Scotland’s auditor general, Caroline Gardner, and opposition parties for greater openness over public finances....

 

[clc]

Campaigners want to restore Lanark-Edinburgh services. Just a few hundred yards of new track would be required at Cleghorn:

http://www.carlukegazette.co.uk/news/local-headlines/call-to-restore-edinburgh-train-link-1-3994737

 

[najaB]

Campaigners want to restore Lanark-Edinburgh services. Just a few hundred yards of new track would be required at Cleghorn.

I'm guessing that this is where the track is required?

 

[Class 170101]

Perfectly feasible now. Route would be Lanark, Motherwell, Coatbridge Central, Falkirk Grahamston, Haymarket and Edinburgh Waverley.

 

[najaB]

Perfectly feasible now. Route would be Lanark, Motherwell, Coatbridge Central, Falkirk Grahamston, Haymarket and Edinburgh Waverley.

How long would that take end-to-end?

 

[NotATrainspott]

If there were intermediate stations between Carstairs and Kirknewton with extra commuting demand to Edinburgh then it would make perfect sense to reinstate the chord and terminate a service there. However, as there aren't any, any train to Edinburgh would be carrying only Lanark passengers (i.e. almost no one) for the majority of its journey. If you want to increase capacity between Kirknewton and Edinburgh, then you may as well terminate at Livingston or continue across the entire Shotts line, where there are actually stations and some passengers to make the service worthwhile.

 

[Altnabreac]

Perfectly feasible now. Route would be Lanark, Motherwell, Coatbridge Central, Falkirk Grahamston, Haymarket and Edinburgh Waverley.

I wouldn't run it that way. Assuming you had capacity in the western throat at Edinburgh then it could be logical to run a 2nd Shotts line semi fast to Motherwell from Edinburgh.

It could then easily extend back to Wishaw and Lanark giving a faster journey and some decent intermediate demand.

Sort of thing I wouldn't be surprised to see post electrification of Shotts line.

 

[marks87]

What about reinstating the chord at Cleghorn and having Lanark as a stop (with a reversal) on an existing Edinburgh-Ayr service?

Incidentally, looking on Google it appears there used to be a line going south of Lanark. Where did that go?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.6687102,-3.7552837,1384m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

 

[najaB]

Incidentally, looking on Google it appears there used to be a line going south of Lanark. Where did that go?

I'm guessing it was this.

 

[me123]

Perfectly feasible now. Route would be Lanark, Motherwell, Coatbridge Central, Falkirk Grahamston, Haymarket and Edinburgh Waverley.

A completely pointless service, as all the major settlements on the route will have existing faster services to Edinburgh. Motherwell direct via Carstairs, Coatbridge via Bathgate, Cumbernauld via Croy... Even the Lanark people would probably be quicker to change somewhere en route to be honest!

What about reinstating the chord at Cleghorn and having Lanark as a stop (with a reversal) on an existing Edinburgh-Ayr service?

The service is already one of the longer ways between the two cities, and it would be lunacy to increase journey times even more by trundling off to Lanark, turning around and heading back the way you came. By my reckoning, you'll add at least 13* minutes to the journey time to serve a town with a population of just 8,253. That has already got two trains an hour to Glasgow (a very good service).

Creating a direct train to serve just that small population is probably not the best use of resources. P&R at Carstairs (with a connecting bus) would be a much more efficient way IMO.

I wouldn't run it that way. Assuming you had capacity in the western throat at Edinburgh then it could be logical to run a 2nd Shotts line semi fast to Motherwell from Edinburgh.

It could then easily extend back to Wishaw and Lanark giving a faster journey and some decent intermediate demand.

Sort of thing I wouldn't be surprised to see post electrification of Shotts line.

That's probably a more sensible way of providing this service if there was demand for it.

*4 minutes in each direction = 8 minutes, + 5 minutes to turn around gives 13.

 

[clc]

BBC News Article

Not much chance of this happening any time soon given the Aberdeen City Deal funding is less than a tenth of what was asked for:-

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/f...t-be-overlooked-in-city-region-deal-says-msp/

 

[Altnabreac]

Not much chance of this happening any time soon given the Aberdeen City Deal funding is less than a tenth of what was asked for:-

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/f...t-be-overlooked-in-city-region-deal-says-msp/

I did try and warn you the current round of city deals were less likely to have infrastructure capital spend than the Glasgow one.

Can certainly see a feasibility study going ahead but suspect it's more likely to be a CP7 scheme than a CP6 one.

 

[clc]

I did try and warn you the current round of city deals were less likely to have infrastructure capital spend than the Glasgow one.

Can certainly see a feasibility study going ahead but suspect it's more likely to be a CP7 scheme than a CP6 one.

Yes you did. Media reports of a £3 billion pot of money for Aberdeenshire proved to be way off the mark.

I refuse to abandon hope that Levenmouth could be City Deal funded though.

I think your timescale for Ellon-Dyce will be difficult to achieve. As I've said before, any reopening which relies on direct Scottish Govt funding will have a very long wait given the schemes the SG is already committed to as set out in the updated Infrastructure Plan:

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/12/5962/5

Lots of good stuff planned so we can't really complain.

Being Glasgow-centric I'm especially impatient to find out what form 'Glasgow Terminal Stations' costing £1.3-£3 billion will take.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Is it time now for the South Suburban Railway?

http://www.theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2016/02/is-it-time-now-for-the-south-suburban-railway/

Perhaps a viable scheme would be a tram train line starting at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary then joining the South Sub at Cameron Toll, continuing west around the Sub, crossing the mainline on a tram spec viaduct to connect with the existing tram line near Haymarket, then on to York Place (and eventually Leith).

This wouldn't take up any capacity at Haymarket or Waverley.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Is it time now for the South Suburban Railway?

http://www.theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2016/02/is-it-time-now-for-the-south-suburban-railway/

Perhaps a viable scheme would be a tram train line starting at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary then joining the South Sub at Cameron Toll, continuing west around the Sub, crossing the mainline on a tram spec viaduct to connect with the existing tram line near Haymarket, then on to York Place (and eventually Leith).

This wouldn't take up any capacity at Haymarket or Waverley.

Most of the employment growth in Edinburgh is going to happen outside of the city centre, such as in the new Edinburgh International Gateway business zone near the Airport. The South Suburban can't compete with radial buses for trips into the city centre, but it could more than compete for journeys out to the Airport from most of south Edinburgh. The City Bypass is already a nightmare for traffic at peak hours, so providing some efficient way of getting out to the west from the parts of Edinburgh which are too far from the city centre would be a very welcome thing. All of the radial bus routes to the centre have to cross the South Sub at some point, so it would be possible to use all of them as feeder services to a basic turn-up-and-go (maybe 4tph) tram-train service along the route that would then head out west. Any passengers for the city centre would stay on the buses as they currently do. The line is being electrified for freight and ECS, and is already double track, so the amount of infrastructure needed to get trams running on it would be minimal. As there would be no stopping passenger services, all stations could be tram-spec to reduce costs further.

 

[clc]

Wouldn't a western route mean bypassing Haymarket?