Grangemouth Train station - Developments?

[DuncanS]

They're not going to remove the extension to Edinburgh so any Grangemouth station would need to be served by a completely new service.

Judging by passenger numbers so far I wouldnt be too sure about that. Coupled with a very public outcry over the reduced services at Dunblane, BoA, Stirling, Larbert, Pomont and Linlithgow we may see some changes.

It may be picking up people once it gets beyond Falkirk towards Edinburgh but aside from that the passenger numbers between Falkirk and Cumbernauld look to be very similar to what it was prior to the extension. Over the last month when I've been on it there have been 3, 7, 7 and 8 other passengers on a normal service.

It was rammed last Saturday but that was owing to the many cancellations between Edinburgh and the West owing to a broken down train at Haymarket.

 

[Stopper]

Everyone without an agenda knew that those services were always going to be lightly loaded. ScotRail have basically acknowledged this to several disgruntled customers but have said that they can’t do much about it as they cannot increase Stirling/Dunblane journey times again. So it will be staying in the short term at least. I can’t see how it can realistically last given the outcry from passengers though.

 

[Stopper]

Judging by passenger numbers so far I wouldnt be too sure about that. Coupled with a very public outcry over the reduced services at Dunblane, BoA, Stirling, Larbert, Pomont and Linlithgow we may see some changes.

It may be picking up people once it gets beyond Falkirk towards Edinburgh but aside from that the passenger numbers between Falkirk and Cumbernauld look to be very similar to what it was prior to the extension. Over the last month when I've been on it there have been 3, 7, 7 and 8 other passengers on a normal service.

It was rammed last Saturday but that was owing to the many cancellations between Edinburgh and the West owing to a broken down train at Haymarket.

Would be interested to know the numbers on these trains (or hear from any regular user of this train - if there is any?). At present it seems like a waste of units and paths. The ticket sellers at Falkirk Grahamston acknowledged it last week to an elderly woman who was complaining, they said that it was odd and they didn’t understand the changes. This isn’t the first time ScotRail employees have said this.

 

[Starmill]

If the trains really are empty, they could create new cheaper off peak tickets valid only via Cumbernauld. Given the current prices there is scope for this, although it seems fairly unlikely given the E&G trains are not full off peak, so a price cut might end up losing them money.

It is very unlikely that the change could be described as a waste of units though. I'm not sure I can see how the resources it uses could be better employed.

 

[Stopper]

It is very unlikely that the change could be described as a waste of units though. I'm not sure I can see how the resources it uses could be better employed.

Plenty of things such as doubling up on peak services elsewhere. Or the idea of an alternative service that would be a better use of paths. An Edinburgh-Stirling stopper to complement the Edinburgh-Dunblane semi-fasts has been suggested before, which would allow for Camelon to be taken off the semi-fasts to speed them up, as well as reinstatement of Linlithgow/Polmont-Larbert/Stirling/BofA/Dunblane links, and frequency doubling of SDA-Edinburgh.

I suspect nothing will ever change until a possible Almond/Dalmeny chord though, but the passengers can’t be ignored forever.

 

[Altnabreac]

Plenty of things such as doubling up on peak services elsewhere. Or the idea of an alternative service that would be a better use of paths. An Edinburgh-Stirling stopper to complement the Edinburgh-Dunblane semi-fasts has been suggested before, which would allow for Camelon to be taken off the semi-fasts to speed them up, as well as reinstatement of Linlithgow/Polmont-Larbert/Stirling/BofA/Dunblane links, and frequency doubling of SDA-Edinburgh.

I suspect nothing will ever change until a possible Almond/Dalmeny chord though, but the passengers can’t be ignored forever.

I'd have thought a 2tph Grahamston - Stirling stopper (80mins usage plus turn round time per hour) would need more units than would be saved from reducing the Cumbernauld - Grahamston frequency from 2tph to 1tph (60 mins usage plus turn round time per hour). That's without considering whether going back to a combination of Cumbernauld and Grahamston reversals makes diagramming less efficient then the current through services.

So its not impossible to do that but I don't think you could do it in a unit neutral change from the current service.

 

[Stopper]

I'd have thought a 2tph Grahamston - Stirling stopper (80mins usage plus turn round time per hour) would need more units than would be saved from reducing the Cumbernauld - Grahamston frequency from 2tph to 1tph (60 mins usage plus turn round time per hour). That's without considering whether going back to a combination of Cumbernauld and Grahamston reversals makes diagramming less efficient then the current through services.

So its not impossible to do that but I don't think you could do it in a unit neutral change from the current service.

It may well use more units but given the number of 385s that will be here once they are all delivered I think it would be doable. Having 2tph E-G via Cumbernauld (unsure of how many diagrams) carting around fresh air all day apart from around an hour spell between Grahamston and Edinburgh each morning/evening isn’t really an efficient use of units or paths.

An extra 2tph between Grahamston & Stirling may well result in slightly more units being used, but at least they will actually be used. They would also solve a number of current problems such as peak-time congestion on Dunblane/Alloa services, journey times on Dunblane services, loss of direct links around the Linlithgow/Falkirk/SDA area and the removal of the high number of passengers that have to change at Grahamston each day.

I don’t think ScotRail should be making such changes based on their operational needs. All passengers should come before that. I just don’t see how this service can continue to run with such low passenger numbers.

 

[Starmill]

An Edinburgh-Stirling stopper to complement the Edinburgh-Dunblane semi-fasts has been suggested before, which would allow for Camelon to be taken off the semi-fasts to speed them up, as well as reinstatement of Linlithgow/Polmont-Larbert/Stirling/BofA/Dunblane links, and frequency doubling of SDA-Edinburgh.

So it seems that what you really want is something that uses more units to create a slightly better service for your journey specifically, and you think that complaining about the current service "wasting" units is a sensible way to achiave that? OK!

 

[Altnabreac]

It may well use more units but given the number of 385s that will be here once they are all delivered I think it would be doable. Having 2tph E-G via Cumbernauld (unsure of how many diagrams) carting around fresh air all day apart from around an hour spell between Grahamston and Edinburgh each morning/evening isn’t really an efficient use of units or paths.

An extra 2tph between Grahamston & Stirling may well result in slightly more units being used, but at least they will actually be used. They would also solve a number of current problems such as peak-time congestion on Dunblane/Alloa services, journey times on Dunblane services, loss of direct links around the Linlithgow/Falkirk/SDA area and the removal of the high number of passengers that have to change at Grahamston each day.

I don’t think ScotRail should be making such changes based on their operational needs. All passengers should come before that. I just don’t see how this service can continue to run with such low passenger numbers.

Presumably there is a plan for those units and which routes they will be on so you proposing:
Removing planned usage of 385s from routes somewhere (strengthening Cathcart?, 3tph Shotts? somewhere else?)
Reducing Grahamston - Cumbernauld from 2tph to 1tph
Removing direct Springburn, Robroyston, Stepps, Gartcosh, Greenfaulds, Cumbernauld - Edinburgh services completely.

And the benefit is:
Linlithgow / Polmont - Stirling customers don't have to change (but Linlithgow / Polmont - Bridge of Allan / Dunblane still do)
2tph extra slow services for Larbert / Stirling - Edinburgh (that may not be much faster than waiting for the next semi fast service)

I'd want to see some demand figures for Linlithgow - Stirling journeys to show that they attract more passengers than all the opportunities lost from the above changes.

 

[Stopper]

So it seems that what you really want is something that uses more units to create a slightly better service for your journey specifically, and you think that complaining about the current service "wasting" units is a sensible way to achiave that? OK!

In terms of wasting units I was referring to the fact this new service was created in December and uses more units. The other service was just a seperate suggestion.

Presumably there is a plan for those units and which routes they will be on so you proposing:
Removing planned usage of 385s from routes somewhere (strengthening Cathcart?, 3tph Shotts? somewhere else?)
Reducing Grahamston - Cumbernauld from 2tph to 1tph
Removing direct Springburn, Robroyston, Stepps, Gartcosh, Greenfaulds, Cumbernauld - Edinburgh services completely.

And the benefit is:
Linlithgow / Polmont - Stirling customers don't have to change (but Linlithgow / Polmont - Bridge of Allan / Dunblane still do)
2tph extra slow services for Larbert / Stirling - Edinburgh (that may not be much faster than waiting for the next semi fast service)

I'd want to see some demand figures for Linlithgow - Stirling journeys to show that they attract more passengers than all the opportunities lost from the above changes.

On the first point, there’s not evidence an extra service (one or two extra units extra maximum) would reduce any other service given the number of 385s involved.

On the second point, Grahamston-Cumbernauld managed just fine with 1tph for years and didn’t suffer from any overcrowding. Given the numbers between all of those stations (between Springburn & Cumbernauld) to Edinburgh, it wouldn’t change much.

On the third point, the benefits obviously don’t stand out as huge, but neither did (or still do) the benefits for the E-G via Cumbernauld. The passenger numbers are very low as any user of the service will tell you, and at least using the paths/units on a different (more proven and actually used) route would help to reduce congestion and reinstate direct links.

As for Lin/Pol passengers still having to change for BofA/Dunblane, I did this as I cannot see capacity (or demand) to have 4tph turn around in Dunblane, and I decided to leave them with the ‘faster’ service. As for your last point, it’s not just ‘Linlithgow-Stirling’, you see people from Linlithgow & Polmont get off at Grahamston going North, and waiting. You also see people from Larbert & Stirling getting off at Grahamston going South, and waiting. You only have to take a ride on one of these trains.

I can guarantee you that such a service would be far more used than the current E-G via Cumbernauld.

 

[Esker-pades]

In terms of wasting units I was referring to the fact this new service was created in December and uses more units. The other service was just a seperate suggestion.

That is incorrect. It is a combination of the slow part of the Edinburgh to Dunblane service and the Falkirk to Glasgow via Cumbernauld service.

On the first point, there’s not evidence an extra service (one or two extra units extra maximum) would reduce any other service given the number of 385s involved.

On the second point, Grahamston-Cumbernauld managed just fine with 1tph for years and didn’t suffer from any overcrowding. Given the numbers between all of those stations (between Springburn & Cumbernauld) to Edinburgh, it wouldn’t change much.

Incorrect. This service replaces the temporary extension of North Clyde services from Springburn to Cumbernauld to give a more direct service into Central Glasgow.

On the third point, the benefits obviously don’t stand out as huge, but neither did (or still do) the benefits for the E-G via Cumbernauld. The passenger numbers are very low as any user of the service will tell you, and at least using the paths/units on a different (more proven and actually used) route would help to reduce congestion and reinstate direct links.

As for Lin/Pol passengers still having to change for BofA/Dunblane, I did this as I cannot see capacity (or demand) to have 4tph turn around in Dunblane, and I decided to leave them with the ‘faster’ service. As for your last point, it’s not just ‘Linlithgow-Stirling’, you see people from Linlithgow & Polmont get off at Grahamston going North, and waiting. You also see people from Larbert & Stirling getting off at Grahamston going South, and waiting. You only have to take a ride on one of these trains.

I can guarantee you that such a service would be far more used than the current E-G via Cumbernauld.

Could a possible solution be replacing the current Edinburgh Park stop on the Edinburgh to Dunblane services with Linlithgow?

 

[Altnabreac]

Incorrect. This service replaces the temporary extension of North Clyde services from Springburn to Cumbernauld to give a more direct service into Central Glasgow.

Grahamston - Cumbernauld section was only 1tph and to be honest I don't think it justified 2tph as a standalone service without the extension to Edinburgh. We saw with Airdrie - Bathgate that it took a long while for travel and commuting patterns to adapt to the new possibilities though so I think its much too early to judge the demand for Edinburgh - Cumbernauld / Gartcosh / Stepps travel after a few months.

If there is really no North Lanarkshire - Edinburgh demand after the service has been up and running for a couple of years then we could look at cutting back these services. I think it will continue to grow however. I'd certainly be interested in seeing some peak time numbers for the new route so far.

Could a possible solution be replacing the current Edinburgh Park stop on the Edinburgh to Dunblane services with Linlithgow?

There are likely to be 10x more Stirling - Edinburgh Park travellers than Linlithgow - Stirling customers. Can't see that working well at all. Extra Linlithgow calls in the reverse peak direction Stirling semi fasts may be worth considering though.

 

[Stopper]

That is incorrect. It is a combination of the slow part of the Edinburgh to Dunblane service and the Falkirk to Glasgow via Cumbernauld service.

Incorrect. This service replaces the temporary extension of North Clyde services from Springburn to Cumbernauld to give a more direct service into Central Glasgow.

Could a possible solution be replacing the current Edinburgh Park stop on the Edinburgh to Dunblane services with Linlithgow?

Neither of these are incorrect. They didn’t combine two existing services. They split an existing service, and combined one half to another existing service. Cumbernauld/Springburn-Queen Street direct could still exist without the extension to Edinburgh.

As for your last point, I would suggest not. While Edinburgh Park isn’t as busy all day long, my observations are that the majority of SDA passengers travelling to Edinburgh Park get on at Falkirk or earlier and that removal of that call wouldn’t be a good idea. Reinstating the Linlithgow call on the Dunblane service is something that probably should, but likely won’t happen.

 

[alangla]

Edinburgh Park is a major destination station in the peaks- if anything, the E&G should be calling there rather than it being missed by more services. Outside of working hours it seems deserted though.

 

[Stopper]

Edinburgh Park is a major destination station in the peaks- if anything, the E&G should be calling there rather than it being missed by more services. Outside of working hours it seems deserted though.

I’m not entirely convinced by that. It’s busy during the peaks but it has 8tph each way which is probably more than enough. The E&G shuttles don’t need to be stopping there.