New rail lines in Scotland

[waverley47]

I'd imagine something at Portobello, reinstating at least 1 more line through Calton tunnel and the Abbeyhill loop and potentially moving Drem station onto the loops. Or remove the TPE's north of Newcastle and leave it to LNER to service Reston, Dunbar and East Linton.

Mucking around at the Edinburgh end actually buys you more paths to and from the Borders Line, but not to and from Musselburgh. For that you need a four tracked section, most likely between any three of the stations, but that's expensive and a lot of civils.

 

[Transilien]

Mucking around at the Edinburgh end actually buys you more paths to and from the Borders Line, but not to and from Musselburgh. For that you need a four tracked section, most likely between any three of the stations, but that's expensive and a lot of civils.

Four-tracking this section would be a great opportunity to open a station at Portobello and perhaps another one closer to Waverley at Piershill.

 

[Kingston Dan]

Mucking around at the Edinburgh end actually buys you more paths to and from the Borders Line, but not to and from Musselburgh. For that you need a four tracked section, most likely between any three of the stations, but that's expensive and a lot of civils.

Wasn't there putative proposals for four tracking Drem to Wallyford a few years ago? If you could take the fasts off the line, then you could also probably run Dunbar - Waverley half hourly and give the stations nearer Edinburgh a 15 minute interval service. Perhaps with an hourly extension to Berwick to deal with the Reston problem.

 

[Tayway]

Would sending some trains (probably Dunbar ones) via Brunstane make any sense. They'd have to miss Musselburgh but would allow them to get looped by fasts.

 

[waverley47]

Would sending some trains (probably Dunbar ones) via Brunstane make any sense. They'd have to miss Musselburgh but would allow them to get looped by fasts.

Given the lines through Millerhill are permissively signaled for freight only, and have a low max speed (30mph down to 5mph) I think the journey time penalty alone might kill that idea. Let alone the lack of capacity through Millerhill. There's an aspiration for a fully signalled route through the yard, but that's a big big job.

Wasn't there putative proposals for four tracking Drem to Wallyford a few years ago? If you could take the fasts off the line, then you could also probably run Dunbar - Waverley half hourly and give the stations nearer Edinburgh a 15 minute interval service. Perhaps with an hourly extension to Berwick to deal with the Reston problem.

Yes, but that's also a big big job. Putting those four on a four tracked section would buy you a couple of extra paths, but either way you're still sending up freight across Monktonhall Jn on the flat at 20mph, and down North Berwick services at Drem Jn at 25mph. Those both eat a few paths in each direction.

Fundamentally the solution is a high speed bypass along the A1 from Musselburgh to Dunbar, but that's an even bigger job.

A bear minimum basically consists of:
1. Four tracking part of the route, including putting three stations at a minimum on the four track section
2. Two extra east facing bays and remodelling the east end at Waverley, including:
2a. Double tracking through Calton North tunnel and
2b. A new single track around Abbeyhill to tuck ECS to/from Craigentinny and Millerhill depots
3. Completely remodelling Portobello Jn through to Newcraighall

That would buy you enough leeway for 2tph to North Berwick, an extra path to the Borders line, 1tph semi-fast to Dunbar/Berwick, and enough spare capacity for extra freight and the full complement of LDHS Anglo-Scottish services.

 

[Dennyboy]

Clackmannan and Culross perhaps - the latter a conservation village and growing tourist destination - but reopening has been proposed many times over the past forty years or so and nothing has ever come of it.

I'd love to be wrong but bus patronage via this corridor id alegedly too low to encourage further rail investment. In common with Glasgow's City Union Line, the standard of track for Freight and Empty Stock Transfers needn't be up to that of Passenger Safety ie needing costly upgrades.

 

[Kingston Dan]

Given the lines through Millerhill are permissively signaled for freight only, and have a low max speed (30mph down to 5mph) I think the journey time penalty alone might kill that idea. Let alone the lack of capacity through Millerhill. There's an aspiration for a fully signalled route through the yard, but that's a big big job.



Yes, but that's also a big big job. Putting those four on a four tracked section would buy you a couple of extra paths, but either way you're still sending up freight across Monktonhall Jn on the flat at 20mph, and down North Berwick services at Drem Jn at 25mph. Those both eat a few paths in each direction.

Fundamentally the solution is a high speed bypass along the A1 from Musselburgh to Dunbar, but that's an even bigger job.

A bear minimum basically consists of:
1. Four tracking part of the route, including putting three stations at a minimum on the four track section
2. Two extra east facing bays and remodelling the east end at Waverley, including:
2a. Double tracking through Calton North tunnel and
2b. A new single track around Abbeyhill to tuck ECS to/from Craigentinny and Millerhill depots
3. Completely remodelling Portobello Jn through to Newcraighall

That would buy you enough leeway for 2tph to North Berwick, an extra path to the Borders line, 1tph semi-fast to Dunbar/Berwick, and enough spare capacity for extra freight and the full complement of LDHS Anglo-Scottish services.

Thanks - very interesting.

 

[Dennyboy]

How much scope is there for new urban railways around Edinburgh or Glasgow which wouldn't be better-served as tram or subway routes (e.g. maybe orbital routes south / west of Glasgow)?

Undeveloped farmpand permitting there's ample scope for a N-S feeder track to Glashow's eastern greenbelt. Most realistically a northern spur from East Kilbride's (currently) disused track would abridge the Larkhall line and merge with the E'burgh/WCML. My more fanciful aspiratiins involve continuing said Connector Track as far north as Gartcosh, Falkirk, C'nauld & Stirling E-W lines but viaducts over the A80 & M80 would challenge the deliverabilty of such expenditure. Only EK's NE outskirts (St Keonards & Calderwood) have the luxury of a 15min bus jny to Ruthetglen Station.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jul 2025 ==

How much scope is there for new urban railways around Edinburgh or Glasgow which wouldn't be better-served as tram or subway routes (e.g. maybe orbital routes south / west of Glasgow)?

An eastern N-S feeder running near parallel to M73 motorway and beyond, continuing from where East Kilbride currently terminates and crossing the E'burgh/WCML imm' east of Uddingston. The individual less-economic connections would 'stack up' eg Stirling, Falkirk, Cumbernauld, various Coatbridge Lines, Highland-Line etc.

 

[Falcon1200]

Had the route beyond East Kilbride to Blantyre survived, or been safeguarded, it would have allowed, with upgrading and electrification, a useful service linking Glasgow C/E Kilbride/Hamilton/Motherwell/Coatbridge/Stirling or Falkirk But a look at the map shows that such a route is now impossible.

 

[Dennyboy]

Had the route beyond East Kilbride to Blantyre survived, or been safeguarded, it would have allowed, with upgrading and electrification, a useful service linking Glasgow C/E Kilbride/Hamilton/Motherwell/Coatbridge/Stirling or Falkirk But a look at the map shows that such a route is now impossible.

I dare to differ (Thanks for your prompt response, just the same!), Falcon1200, as only the EK swathe of disused line would be utilised and not the Hunthill Viaduct. Also, there's an abundance of undeveloped farmland (still no cheap CPO, I appreciate, nor is Road Bridge Construction) between Nerston, Newton & Uddingston to run a N-S alignment. But none of the E-W routes north of E'burgh/WCML can be accessed from Rutherglen or any direct EK bus services. True, there are much less EK-E'burgh commuters than EK-Glasgow. That said, I'm confident that all the 'east-westers' from Larkhall Link to Croy could jointly support a feeder-route, esp' with the addition of a station on the busy bus-route between Moodiesburn & Mollinsburn. Lastly, I would've trusted CLYDEmetro bosses to explore routes unillustrated in their diagram (poss' inc' mine) but their mention has already been made of 'watering down' train and tram proposals.

 

[waverley47]

I dare to differ (Thanks for your prompt response, just the same!), Falcon1200, as only the EK swathe of disused line would be utilised and not the Hunthill Viaduct. Also, there's an abundance of undeveloped farmland (still no cheap CPO, I appreciate, nor is Road Bridge Construction) between Nerston, Newton & Uddingston to run a N-S alignment. But none of the E-W routes north of E'burgh/WCML can be accessed from Rutherglen or any direct EK bus services. True, there are much less EK-E'burgh commuters than EK-Glasgow. That said, I'm confident that all the 'east-westers' from Larkhall Link to Croy could jointly support a feeder-route, esp' with the addition of a station on the busy bus-route between Moodiesburn & Mollinsburn. Lastly, I would've trusted CLYDEmetro bosses to explore routes unillustrated in their diagram (poss' inc' mine) but their mention has already been made of 'watering down' train and tram proposals.

I'm getting very confused. Are you saying there's no link to an East - West route to Edinburgh from EK?

Of course not, the same as Kilmarnock, and Barrhead, and Paisley don't have direct trains to Edinburgh. Motherwell does, several times a day, although I appreciate for most of the time, it's a change at Bellshill.

Fundamentally, there just isn't enough of a combination of capacity and demand, although, for the sake of understanding, could you draw a map of where your proposed line would go, and outline what your proposed services would be to use it, and their proposed stopping patterns, including where they go at the Lanarkshire and Edinburgh ends of the line. Once we have a proper understanding, it's a lot easier to say 'no, and here are the reasons why, but have you thought about this' instead of just saying it's not possible.

 

[Falcon1200]

True, there are much less EK-E'burgh commuters than EK-Glasgow.

I would expect Edinburgh commuters from East Kilbride to be a minute fraction of those to Glasgow - Apart from anything else, if you worked in or around Edinburgh, East Kilbride would not be high on your list of places to live! Therefore, sadly, the traffic cannot justify the huge cost of a line eastwards from East Kilbride. The route should have been safeguarded, if indeed that was still possible, when East Kilbride was designated a New Town, but railways were not highly thought of back then.

 

[numtot12345]

I've always felt there's platforms missing at Cathcart on the Newton arm. It would really only be served by Newton via Maxwell Park services, but would be useful for strengthening the frequency of services at Cathcart itself. Interchanging between Newton and Neilston services (which could be done at Mount Florida anyway).

 

[TheMexicanBean]

Inverness to Fort William via Loch Ness is a non starter, however, linking Tulloch and Newtonmore is about half the distance, better terrain etc, but, the most important thing is that you would be linking two of the biggest outdoor centres by train directly. A station stop at Aonoch Mor would add to the appeal. Journey time between the two places would likely be just under two hours, and as anyone who has the misfortune to use the A82 between Inverness and FW knows, that is very favourable. There would also be a better arrival time for the sleeper service if it split and joined at Kingussie, possibly even mean that CS could run a dedicated INV/FW train.
Cheers

 

[A S Leib]

There would also be a better arrival time for the sleeper service if it split and joined at Kingussie, possibly even mean that CS could run a dedicated INV/FW train.

So Dalmuir, Dumbarton and Crianlarich would lose their sleeper service?

 

[TheMexicanBean]

Dalmuir and Dumbarton can easy use the Lowlander, as for Crianlarich, it’s not regularly used. The overwhelming majority of journeys are end to end.

 

[NIT100]

Inverness to Fort William via Loch Ness is a non starter, however, linking Tulloch and Newtonmore is about half the distance, better terrain etc, but, the most important thing is that you would be linking two of the biggest outdoor centres by train directly. A station stop at Aonoch Mor would add to the appeal. Journey time between the two places would likely be just under two hours, and as anyone who has the misfortune to use the A82 between Inverness and FW knows, that is very favourable. There would also be a better arrival time for the sleeper service if it split and joined at Kingussie, possibly even mean that CS could run a dedicated INV/FW train.
Cheers

Sub 2-hours seems optimistic. Currently just over 30 mins Fort William to Tulloch and 1 hour Newtonmore to Inverness. To go below 2 hours you would then need to average 60 mph linespeed between Tulloch and Newtonmore. sub 2 hours might be possible with improved linespeeds or electrification / battery units, but cost would be significant. 919 is timetable at 2hr 9mins although accept that this isn't always achieved, you aren't replacing the hourly service. Ember will likely be running this route within the year, so can't argue rail is better from an environmental position. If there was a market for running Fort William to Inverness via Aviemore Citylink would be running it now?

 

[HighlandStorm]

If there was a market for running Fort William to Inverness via Aviemore Citylink would be running it now?

I think the unimproved sections of the A86 are a considerable disincentive to this - it just isn’t two lanes wide! Also it’s a slog through lengthy 20mph limits at Kingussie and Newtonmore. You can avoid these in a car from Ralia using the Glen Truim road, but good luck in a coach with the limited passing places !

 

[najaB]

Inverness to Fort William via Loch Ness is a non starter, however, linking Tulloch and Newtonmore is about half the distance, better terrain etc, but, the most important thing is that you would be linking two of the biggest outdoor centres by train directly.

North bank of the loch (next to the A86) or the south?

 

[NIT100]

I think the unimproved sections of the A86 are a considerable disincentive to this - it just isn’t two lanes wide! Also it’s a slog through lengthy 20mph limits at Kingussie and Newtonmore. You can avoid these in a car from Ralia using the Glen Truim road, but good luck in a coach with the limited passing places !

It is a narrow road in sections. It is not much worse than A82 on Loch Lomond bank, and before their demise Fishers tours did used to run a couple of fortnightly services along it.

 

[35B]

Inverness to Fort William via Loch Ness is a non starter, however, linking Tulloch and Newtonmore is about half the distance, better terrain etc, but, the most important thing is that you would be linking two of the biggest outdoor centres by train directly. A station stop at Aonoch Mor would add to the appeal. Journey time between the two places would likely be just under two hours, and as anyone who has the misfortune to use the A82 between Inverness and FW knows, that is very favourable. There would also be a better arrival time for the sleeper service if it split and joined at Kingussie, possibly even mean that CS could run a dedicated INV/FW train.
Cheers

I just find it interesting that the NB didn't reach Fort William till 1890, and that the one attempt to put a railway up the Great Glen ended up one of the biggest white elephants in British railway history.

The Highland/NB rivalry was all about access to Inverness, and was settled once the Highland bit the bullet and built the direct line from Aviemore. If you compare journey times, it's easy to see why no-one serious tried to join the dots once the West Highland had been built - it takes longer to do the 120-odd miles from Fort William to Glasgow than it does to do the 180-odd from Inverness.

 

[najaB]

I just find it interesting that the NB didn't reach Fort William till 1890, and that the one attempt to put a railway up the Great Glen ended up one of the biggest white elephants in British railway history.

To be fair, the second attempt was a little more successful.

 

[Dennyboy]

Long term lurker here. Live very close to the relatively new distillery/brewery in Inverness that produces a very session-able pale ale that goes by my screen name! No connection to the place btw.

I’m only going to comment on the Inverness to Fort William suggestion. I’ve done this by citylink numerous times and fair to say it’s not the most comfortable coach journey given the A82 is a century old alignment for the most part and has a carriageway width that has improved little over that century.

It is however perhaps the most glaring gap in the rural rail network in Scotland, this lack of East West through connectivity.

My understanding is the rail line up the Great Glen was never completed because of competing rail companies playing games. The West Highland extension took traffic from the Kyle Line and the Highland / later North British were determined to prevent a connection via the Great Glen and a stake in the canal was used to thwart the line going beyond Fort Augustus.

Nice as it would be, surely the way to effect such a link would be the A86 corridor linking somewhere around Tulloch to Newtonmore or Dalwhinne.

Citylink simply can’t provide reliable journey times on this corridor, due to weather issues in winter and significant traffic issues in summer. The Scottish Government aims to reduce private car km by a fifth by 2030 and further beyond. Rebuilding the A82 do improve the coach service is not going to achieve that.

A 20% shift from road to rail would double the ScotRail passenger journeys from current levels - the existent railway in Scotland can not support that as is. If substantial modal shift is the goal, a paradigm shift is required on how we value investment in non road transport.

How's this for a Viable Case Combinec ie collection of lesd economic cases? Take Glasgow & E Dunb"s imm' eastern Greenbelt (eg between Newton & Uddingston) and construct a N-S Feeder line from East Kilbride to Kirkintilloch's norther reaches (not quite Milton Of Campsie rather Birdston). The number of east-westers it'd provide connectivity to would certainly 'stack up' and shave 25% off current journeys from Central or Queen St. Beyond EK the E Renf' communities of Thorntonhall, Busby, Clarkston & Giffnock would also bolster demand for such a linking track.

 

[clc]

How about a new line to Glasgow Airport? I like the idea of branching off the Argyle Line just west of Exhibition Centre station, descending into a new tunnel under the Clyde and with surface stations at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Braehead (serving Renfrew), Advanced Manufacturing District and terminating at the Airport.

You could operate a 4tph service, bypassing the Hyndland-Partick bottleneck and increasing frequencies on the Argyle Line where a lot of new developments are under construction or planned. Anderston in particular is seeing a huge amount of development.

It’s possibly the only corridor in Glasgow which could potentially justify a new heavy rail line.

 

[snookertam]

How about a new line to Glasgow Airport? I like the idea of branching off the Argyle Line just west of Exhibition Centre station, descending into a new tunnel under the Clyde and with surface stations at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Braehead (serving Renfrew), Advanced Manufacturing District and terminating at the Airport.

You could operate a 4tph service, bypassing the Hyndland-Partick bottleneck and increasing frequencies on the Argyle Line where a lot of new developments are under construction or planned. Anderston in particular is seeing a huge amount of development.

It’s possibly the only corridor in Glasgow which could potentially justify a new heavy rail line.

This could be more likely as a light rail corridor, but yes when we’re talking about rail expansion this is the sort of stuff that should be considered. The amount of traffic on the M8 generated by the advanced manufacturing district and braehead speaks for itself. Crazy that no fixed transport link has been developed.

Arguably more cause for this than any mooted suggestion outside of the Glasgow area.

 

[AlastairFraser]

How about a new line to Glasgow Airport? I like the idea of branching off the Argyle Line just west of Exhibition Centre station, descending into a new tunnel under the Clyde and with surface stations at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Braehead (serving Renfrew), Advanced Manufacturing District and terminating at the Airport.

You could operate a 4tph service, bypassing the Hyndland-Partick bottleneck and increasing frequencies on the Argyle Line where a lot of new developments are under construction or planned. Anderston in particular is seeing a huge amount of development.

It’s possibly the only corridor in Glasgow which could potentially justify a new heavy rail line.

This is planned as a light metro corridor under the Clyde Metro I believe.

https://www.spt.co.uk/media/ajvhfr3j/clydemetro_cfistage1_overviewcommunicationnote_spring2025.pdf

 

[Uncle Buck]

This could be more likely as a light rail corridor, but yes when we’re talking about rail expansion this is the sort of stuff that should be considered. The amount of traffic on the M8 generated by the advanced manufacturing district and braehead speaks for itself. Crazy that no fixed transport link has been developed.

Arguably more cause for this than any mooted suggestion outside of the Glasgow area.

Now, now…why propose something useful like this that would help tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, in an area of critical economic importance to the country, when instead we could plan building huge lines through the middle of nowhere with one empty Sprinter per hour on them?

 

[D6130]

Now, now…why propose something useful like this that would help tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, in an area of critical economic importance to the country, when instead we could plan building huge lines through the middle of nowhere with one empty Sprinter per hour on them?

Like!

 

[snookertam]

Now, now…why propose something useful like this that would help tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, in an area of critical economic importance to the country, when instead we could plan building huge lines through the middle of nowhere with one empty Sprinter per hour on them?

To be fair, there is the risk of the whole advanced manufacturing district upping sticks and leaving in the time that it takes to build a railway line, and let’s be honest, these things are almost designed with encouraging car transport in mind, but we should be doing far more to make places like this more accessible by public transport. If nothing else, it opens up the jobs in these places to more people by taking away the necessity to drive there.

We then wonder why people drive everywhere, and appeals to ‘do the right thing’ by ditching the car on the basis of green choices really don’t have any impact.

But it’s Scotland, we’ll get told why it can’t be done. ‘Oh that’s a big project’, ‘that’ll need a lot of alterations to fit that route in’. Doesn’t seem to be a problem across numerous other countries but Scotland were good at seeking out reasons not to do stuff that would be an obvious choice elsewhere. Ever since both the GARL and EARL projects got unceremoniously binned without even any consideration of scaling down, this has been apparent.