A West to North curve at Gretna Green for Dumfries to Edinburgh/Glasgow services?

[waverley47]

Some (re)openings look better because there's a service you can divert/extend (and no new paths are required through bottlenecks). Alloa was helped by the fact that there were Glasgow - Stirling services that could serve Clackmannanshire (in roughly the same time that a Stirling - Dunblane - Stirling service takes). Tweedbank was just the extension of the existing Newcraighall services (no new paths required at Waverley).

But other proposals become more complicated because there's nothing "easy" to extend/divert. That's why I'm not convinced (well, that and the long distance meaning that I doubt many people would make the trip daily). Paths over Beatock already have to be carefully flighted because of the time difference between fast passenger trains and freight paths (whether or not the service actually runs, the paths are in the timetable, and long heavy freight takes a long time to get up and over from the "Clyde" to the "Annan". So you may struggle to find space over Beatock and then into Glasgow/ Edinburgh, given that there are no obvious services to extend (divert one of the two Lanark services per hour? doubt that would go down well, but what else is there, without trying to find another path into central Glasgow/ Edinburgh?)

So, slight wibble but it's relevant I promise.

Ages back we did a feasibility study for reopening stations at Beattock and Abington, with a 1tph semi fast local service picking up the stops from Carlisle to Carstairs. Timed on a 100mph emu (think class 385) it's actually very possible, with a loop somewhere. Down the hill you slot behind the TPE, and up the hill behind the Scotland via Birmingham service. (Not going to go into the calculations of service levels or actual timings). As long as your train can make it up the hill in 6.5 minutes, you can basically have your pick of paths available.

The problem comes past Carstairs. Getting a path through Haymarket both ways is virtually impossible, let alone platform capacity at Waverley.

Going to Glasgow it's even worse. You have to weave through the Glasgow suburban network, freight into Mossend, the flat junctions at Motherwell and the two track sections through cambuslang, and then platform capacity at Glasgow Central is non existent.

Basically, such a service is possible provided it serves nowhere that people want to go.

 

[tbtc]

So, slight wibble but it's relevant I promise.

Ages back we did a feasibility study for reopening stations at Beattock and Abington, with a 1tph semi fast local service picking up the stops from Carlisle to Carstairs. Timed on a 100mph emu (think class 385) it's actually very possible, with a loop somewhere. Down the hill you slot behind the TPE, and up the hill behind the Scotland via Birmingham service. (Not going to go into the calculations of service levels or actual timings). As long as your train can make it up the hill in 6.5 minutes, you can basically have your pick of paths available.

The problem comes past Carstairs. Getting a path through Haymarket both ways is virtually impossible, let alone platform capacity at Waverley.

Going to Glasgow it's even worse. You have to weave through the Glasgow suburban network, freight into Mossend, the flat junctions at Motherwell and the two track sections through cambuslang, and then platform capacity at Glasgow Central is non existent.

Basically, such a service is possible provided it serves nowhere that people want to go.

That's interesting.

It's a shame, because I'm not unsympathetic to Dumfries's plight (lack of long distance/ fast services), but I just don't know how the problem gets solved.

It's a little like the suggestions/plans for stations at places like Reston - there's no existing service that can easily be diverted/extended.

It'd be a lot of money to spend on just a Dumfries - Carstairs service, and hope that passengers want to change there for services to Edinburgh/ Glasgow!

(whereas, a re-opening to Methil can be served by a diverted Fife Circle service, so wouldn't require a path over the Forth Bridge, which improves the chances of it working)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

So, slight wibble but it's relevant I promise.

Ages back we did a feasibility study for reopening stations at Beattock and Abington, with a 1tph semi fast local service picking up the stops from Carlisle to Carstairs. Timed on a 100mph emu (think class 385) it's actually very possible, with a loop somewhere. Down the hill you slot behind the TPE, and up the hill behind the Scotland via Birmingham service. (Not going to go into the calculations of service levels or actual timings). As long as your train can make it up the hill in 6.5 minutes, you can basically have your pick of paths available.

The problem comes past Carstairs. Getting a path through Haymarket both ways is virtually impossible, let alone platform capacity at Waverley.

Going to Glasgow it's even worse. You have to weave through the Glasgow suburban network, freight into Mossend, the flat junctions at Motherwell and the two track sections through cambuslang, and then platform capacity at Glasgow Central is non existent.

Basically, such a service is possible provided it serves nowhere that people want to go.

I think the greatest indication of this is some of the paths the existing intercity services have to make do with once they get within a few miles of Glasgow and Edinburgh ex Carstairs. The relative crawl from Newton (if you're lucky) into Glasgow Central and the wait between Slateford and Haymarket are only made worse if the trains don't need the engineering time given in their schedules after Carlisle. I'm sure I've waited seven or eight minutes approaching Haymarket before. There can't be many other locations left in a timetabling sense where an intercity service essentially has to wait its turn every hour. It's generally a different story heading the other way obviously!

 

[EastisECML]

But that's the problem. There wouldn't be enough demand to run this service on its own, as neither Carlisle nor Dumfries are large enough markets. If you run this service, the only people served by this route who weren't served before would be passengers from Edinburgh to Dumfries, which wouldn't be enough to justify this service.

This implies that in order to try and attract passengers, you'd need to run through to somewhere, and while I wasn't actually implying that London trains would use this route, adding an extra hour onto the through journey (of which London trains account for approximately half) would be detrimental to journey times.

Basically, if this line is instead of fast services, you screw over passengers, and if it's on top of, then you don't have enough people to justify the demand.

Carlisle to Dumfries and Dumfries to Edinburgh passengers exist, but you'd attract more passengers to the service by having a half hourly service to Kilmarnock than you ever would with fast trains to Edinburgh.

I guess it depends if you want the railways to offer new journey opportunities that make people travel more. Or if it's better to just cater to existing demand only and improve on that. My question would be what is the road demand from Dumfries and Carlisle to Edinburgh and if it's worth the railways trying to attract that, but no idea how someone can determine that.

 

[Bald Rick]

I guess it depends if you want the railways to offer new journey opportunities that make people travel more. Or if it's better to just cater to existing demand only and improve on that. My question would be what is the road demand from Dumfries and Carlisle to Edinburgh and if it's worth the railways trying to attract that, but no idea how someone can determine that.

Census data and traffic counts can help.

 

[EllieAquitrain]

Case study: Lanark is at the end of a small branch, with a chord off the WCML, about 50 minutes by train from Edinburgh if direct services ran. The capacity is there, it would be very very easy to reinstate the south facing chord. You'd be able to serve local stations with better frequencies. Lanark is within commuting range and already attracts large numbers driving from Edinburgh. Lanark serves a large hinterland of faint communities.

Lanark hasn't been built, because demand isn't there. Yes there is a decarbonisation and infrastructure argument that providing trains provides a public good, but it would never pay for itself. Simply, there lost is so long that its unrealistic to expect we'd get there before 2040

Once high-speed rail finally reaches the Central Belt from England might there be a case for diverting a current Edinburgh-Glasgow path into a reversal at Lanark?

(I'm assuming there's no way a triangle junction wouldn't be built allowing HS Edinburgh-Glasgow)

 

[Huntergreed]

As a Dumfries resident, I can confirm that currently anyone who wants to travel up to Edinburgh from here will either go via Lockerbie (20-30 mins on the bus then approx 1 hour on TPE) or just get the direct 102 bus service (timetabled to take exactly 3 hours).

Routing an Edinburgh service via Gretna junction does seem like it would be an awfully long journey (the current 156’s cleared for the GSW are only permitted up to 75mph, and Gretna Jn - Edinburgh is quite a long journey at that speed!)

It would in theory be possible, but the money would be better spent elsewhere, such as on reopening the port road line from Dumfries to Stranraer or building a link line from Dumfries to Lockerbie (this would make a connection to Edinburgh much quicker and easier).

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Routing an Edinburgh service via Gretna junction does seem like it would be an awfully long journey (the current 156’s cleared for the GSW are only permitted up to 75mph, and Gretna Jn - Edinburgh is quite a long journey at that speed!)

It would in theory be possible, but the money would be better spent elsewhere such as on reopening the port road line from Dumfries to Stranraer or building a link line from Dumfries to Lockerbie (this would make a connection to Edinburgh much quicker and easier).

Surely the latter two options, i.e. reopening the old Dumfries to Stranraer line and/or building a link from Dumfries to Lockerbie, no matter how laudable, would necessitate an order of magnitude of expenditure far, far larger than that of installing a West to North chord in the Gretna area.

 

[EllieAquitrain]

Surely the latter two options, i.e. reopening the old Dumfries to Stranraer line and/or building a link from Dumfries to Lockerbie, no matter how laudable, would necessitate an order of magnitude of expenditure far, far larger than that of installing a West to North chord in the Gretna area.

If you take into account that 75mph limit on the GSW stock though, any trains using a Gretna Chord with no further infrastructure work would presumably wreck the WCML timetable. So much more expenditure would be required than you imagine (although, I concede, still much less than those new-build lines).

 

[Mcr Warrior]

If you take into account that 75mph limit on the GSW stock though, any trains using a Gretna Chord with no further infrastructure work would presumably wreck the WCML timetable.

Are they that slow? Suppose there would be no possibility of looping the "slow" services into the various sidings at Carstairs/ Abington South / Beattock Summit / Beattock and/or Lockerbie (probably southbound only) so as to allow faster WCML services the opportunity to overtake as and when required?

 

[waverley47]

Once high-speed rail finally reaches the Central Belt from England might there be a case for diverting a current Edinburgh-Glasgow path into a reversal at Lanark?

(I'm assuming there's no way a triangle junction wouldn't be built allowing HS Edinburgh-Glasgow)

Potentially, its a reasonable railhead for a large area with a decent tourist trade. It does seem to be one of the missing links in the central belt, but even so, it's decades away before ot would happen.

Are they that slow? Suppose there would be no possibility of looping the "slow" services into the various sidings at Carstairs/ Abington South / Beattock Summit / Beattock and/or Lockerbie (probably southbound only) so as to allow faster WCML services the opportunity to overtake as and when required?

See post 31. You'd need to loop once between Carstairs and Gretna in the down direction, however on the up direction you can slot quote easily into the paths.

The general plan, if it ever happens (which is unlikely) is that either Beattock or Abington stations would be on the loops, so you wouldn't have to loop somewhere random. Even then, the paths might not work out ideally, so you might have to loop somewhere else. Getting into and out of loops eats up capacity, so by slowing down the path somewhere to do this you might find yourself getting caught up by the following fast path, so you need more loops overall.

 

[EllieAquitrain]

The general plan, if it ever happens (which is unlikely) is that either Beattock or Abington stations would be on the loops, so you wouldn't have to loop somewhere random. Even then, the paths might not work out ideally, so you might have to loop somewhere else. Getting into and out of loops eats up capacity, so by slowing down the path somewhere to do this you might find yourself getting caught up by the following fast path, so you need more loops overall.

At what point do we just quad Carlisle-Carstairs?

 

[Cheshire Scot]

If you take into account that 75mph limit on the GSW stock though, any trains using a Gretna Chord with no further infrastructure work would presumably wreck the WCML timetable. So much more expenditure would be required than you imagine (although, I concede, still much less than those new-build lines).

Why the assumption it would be 75mph stock? As these would require additional diagrams there might be potential to allocate stock with 90/100mph capability which might help, maybe even something with bi-mode capability to make use of the OLE.

 

[waverley47]

Why the assumption it would be 75mph stock? As these would require additional diagrams there might be potential to allocate stock with 90/100mph capability which might help, maybe even something with bi-mode capability to make use of the OLE.

Wouldn't even be able to timetable 75mph stock, NR control would laugh you out of the building. It's 100mph or nothing, think class 385 or equivalent. Even then, unless you get a battery hybrid, it would probably end up easier to just wire the remaining 20 miles of plain line.

Also bear in mind the need to get up Beattock in 6.5 minutes (7 at a push) in order to slot in behind fast services. Anything longer than that and you'd need to think about looping somewhere , which again eats more capacity as loops are slow to get in and out of.

At what point do we just quad Carlisle-Carstairs?

Hopefully not long after 2035, post HS2 phase 2b. A new fast alignment all the way to Glasgow/Edinburgh would basically solve a large number of the capacity problems in the central belt at the moment.

Bear in mind though, that Carlisle to Carstairs solves next to nothing, it's the other bits (especially Carstairs to Glasgow) that needs doing.

 

[EllieAquitrain]

Hopefully not long after 2035, post HS2 phase 2b. A new fast alignment all the way to Glasgow/Edinburgh would basically solve a large number of the capacity problems in the central belt at the moment.

Do you mean a new parallel HS line *and* quadding? I would have thought the new line itself functions as the new pair of tracks.

 

[gingertom]

If the object of this exercise is to achieve a decent journey time from Dumfries-Edinburgh then sending sending the train to Gretna for it to head north on the WCML will add so much time to the journey people won't use it for commuting. Similarly heading to Annan to take a left through the school's playing fields on the old line to Kirtlebridge, whilst better, still doesn't give a decent journey time. There's always the old route through Lochmaben, but that route has been crossed by the A74(m) so will need bridged over or tunnelled under. It also points the wrong way, so either a reversal at Lockerbie is needed or a new route skirting round the south of the town to join the WCML pointing north. Not impossible, but adds to the route length, and so journey time, and cost.

What would result in a significant improvement to the journey time is to head north out of Dumfries and hang a right after Carronbridge on a new alignment following the A702 to join the WCML at Elvanfoot (at least Elvanfoot is a convenient site for a power feeder ). As has been pointed out upthread this line doesn't pass though much in the way of population so the first stop is likely to be Slateford, or Haymarket. So that's 17 or so miles of new railway, with land purchase and a few new bridges to build- is that about £500m? What is the predicted footfall? Is it worth this level of investment?

 

[waverley47]

If the object of this exercise is to achieve a decent journey time from Dumfries-Edinburgh then sending sending the train to Gretna for it to head north on the WCML will add so much time to the journey people won't use it for commuting. Similarly heading to Annan to take a left through the school's playing fields on the old line to Kirtlebridge, whilst better, still doesn't give a decent journey time. There's always the old route through Lochmaben, but that route has been crossed by the A74(m) so will need bridged over or tunnelled under. It also points the wrong way, so either a reversal at Lockerbie is needed or a new route skirting round the south of the town to join the WCML pointing north. Not impossible, but adds to the route length, and so journey time, and cost.

What would result in a significant improvement to the journey time is to head north out of Dumfries and hang a right after Carronbridge on a new alignment following the A702 to join the WCML at Elvanfoot (at least Elvanfoot is a convenient site for a power feeder ). As has been pointed out upthread this line doesn't pass though much in the way of population so the first stop is likely to be Slateford, or Haymarket. So that's 17 or so miles of new railway, with land purchase and a few new bridges to build- is that about £500m? What is the predicted footfall? Is it worth this level of investment?

There is no predicted footfall, because this is a speculative exercise, but I would conservatively guess 50000 pax from Dumfries and Lockerbie combined to Edinburgh annually, on an hourly service.

And nope, £500m over 50,000 does not square nicely.

The reasons for this have already been discussed, but in short: it's too far, Dumfries isn't big enough, there isn't an existing service that could be extended easily, and it's at the bottom of the pile for perspective investment in Scotland.

 

[ac6000cw]

but I would conservatively guess 50000 pax from Dumfries and Lockerbie combined to Edinburgh annually, on an hourly service.

..which works out to a rough average of 10 to 15 people per train - barely enough to justify a bus service, let alone an expensive train with two crew members.

 

[Bald Rick]

..which works out to a rough average of 10 to 15 people per train - barely enough to justify a bus service, let alone an expensive train with two crew members.

4 people a train, based on a 17 hour operating day (0600-2300), 1 train an hour each way, 360 days a year.

“Taxi!”

 

[waverley47]

4 people a train, based on a 17 hour operating day (0600-2300), 1 train an hour each way, 360 days a year.

“Taxi!”

..which works out to a rough average of 10 to 15 people per train - barely enough to justify a bus service, let alone an expensive train with two crew members.

I'm actually gonna have to point out that that was 50000 new passengers that would make the journey. This is of course on top of however many (about another 50000 from a rough back of a tag packet sum)* who make the journey from Lockerbie to Edinburgh already. There would obviously be more passengers again from Anna, but not many, and from any new station at Beattock, but not enough.

All in all, this is still a bit of a redundant discussion. The question should be how many people do you need to make the journey worth the investment. The answer to that is about three times as many people as live in the whole of Dumfries and Galloway.

*Calculating potential passengers is a dark art. I've spoken a bit about this before but there is usually a program you shove many, many numbers into and it works it out. There is no existing public service (private busses only which makes comparison difficult) and no existing service.

Lockerbie has roughly 220,000 pax annually. Half that for one way journeys, and subtract roughly half for all stations south and journeys to Glasgow gives you 50,000 pax a year each way who travel to Edinburgh. About two thirds of those would probably still travel to Lockerbie for the faster journey, and anything left it people who would be served by the new calls at Annan and Dumfries.

So about 10 people per train served by a new service to Dumfries, who wouldn't otherwise be served/wouldn't make the journey.

Definitely not enough.