East Kilbride/Barrhead electrification updates

[92002]

The business case linked in #729 narrowed it down to two options, both including double tracking at EK station.



The article linked in #801 suggests the last sentence may be out of date, and four trains per hour may be possible with most of the present single track remaining single.

There's however a big difference in double track in the station and double tracking the complete branch. If 4 trains an hour can be achieved with the existing single line, a longer passing loop, platform extensions for larger trains and no expectation of considerably more passengers. Looks like a good improvement to me.

 

[Falcon1200]

I remain to be convinced that 4 trains an hour at East Kilbride will ever be necessary, or indeed feasible; Should passenger traffic increase to such an extent, ie doubled, would that not be likely to apply to other routes into Glasgow too ? Capacity at Central could simply not handle that.

 

[92002]

I remain to be convinced that 4 trains an hour at East Kilbride will ever be necessary, or indeed feasible; Should passenger traffic increase to such an extent, ie doubled, would that not be likely to apply to other routes into Glasgow too ? Capacity at Central could simply not handle that.

If passenger numbers ever exceeded the 4 trains an hour. The obvious answer would be to extend the Neilston line to join the East Kilbride line. With no Central station capacity problems.

 

[Falcon1200]

The obvious answer would be to extend the Neilston line to join the East Kilbride line. With no Central station capacity problems.

Not quite sure what you mean by that; The Neilston and East Kilbride lines are separate routes serving, largely, different areas, and the predominant traffic flow on both is to and from Glasgow.

 

[92002]

Not quite sure what you mean by that; The Neilston and East Kilbride lines are separate routes serving, largely, different areas, and the predominant traffic flow on both is to and from Glasgow.

There were plans to connect the East Kilbride line to the Neilston line by providing a curve at Williamwood. Which was connected many years ago and lifted.

 

[Roger B]

There were plans to connect the East Kilbride line to the Neilston line by providing a curve at Williamwood. Which was connected many years ago and lifted.

Not sure how that would solve the problem, if the majority of journeys on the EK and Neilston branches are to/from central Glasgow. What are the demand drivers for travel between EK and Neilston?

 

[92002]

Not sure how that would solve the problem, if the majority of journeys on the EK and Neilston branches are to/from central Glasgow. What are the demand drivers for travel between EK and Neilston?

It would not be East Kilbride passengers travelling to Neilston. It would be additional East Kilbride trains using the Neilston line to go to Glasgow Central.

Chances are it would not be needed. Unless demand from East Kilbride exceeded the planned 4 trains an hour. With more space on the electric trains and more coaches.

 

[snowball]

Wasn't it called the Garngad chord? The only place I've ever seen the name Garngad.

 

[Falcon1200]

here were plans to connect the East Kilbride line to the Neilston line by providing a curve at Williamwood. Which was connected many years ago and lifted.

The only problem with that plan was that it also included closing parts of both the East Kilbride and Neilston lines ! Plus running additional East Kilbride service via the Neilston branch would not address capacity issues between Muirhouse North Jc and Glasgow Central.

 

[Railsigns]

Wasn't it called the Garngad chord? The only place I've ever seen the name Garngad.

The Garngad Chord was a proposed connection between the Springburn lines and the Stepps lines, in the north of Glasgow.

 

[92002]

The only problem with that plan was that it also included closing parts of both the East Kilbride and Neilston lines ! Plus running additional East Kilbride service via the Neilston branch would not address capacity issues between Muirhouse North Jc and Glasgow Central.

That would only apply if the other East Kilbride trains went that way. However the proposal would be to run any additional trains that way.


Chances of which will be remote, with 4 trains an hour. Longer trains giving extra capacity and a longer passing loop on the single line.

Just now most of the day there are 2 trains an hour for most of the day. With a third in traffic in the peak.

 

[Falcon1200]

That would only apply if the other East Kilbride trains went that way. However the proposal would be to run any additional trains that way.

Any additional trains at East Kilbride running via a new connection (the formation was built but the track was never actually linked) to the Neilston branch would share the same double track between Muirhouse North Jc and Eglinton St Jc, and the same platforms at Central.

 

[92002]

Any additional trains at East Kilbride running via a new connection (the formation was built but the track was never actually linked) to the Neilston branch would share the same double track between Muirhouse North Jc and Eglinton St Jc, and the same platforms at Central.

With many other trains from many other destinations too. However there currently are no capacity problems in that area. Many platforms at Central Station can handle up to 3 trains at a time.

 

[Southsider]

It would not be East Kilbride passengers travelling to Neilston. It would be additional East Kilbride trains using the Neilston line to go to Glasgow Central.

Chances are it would not be needed. Unless demand from East Kilbride exceeded the planned 4 trains an hour. With more space on the electric trains and more coaches.

With many other trains from many other destinations too. However there currently are no capacity problems in that area. Many platforms at Central Station can handle up to 3 trains at a time.

Is your proposal that some EK trains would travel via a new link leaving the current line between Clarkston and Giffnock and joining the Neilston line between Williamwood and Muirend, running to and from Glasgow via Mount Florida? Whilst the alternative travel options might be appealing, would that not add traffic to an already well served and congested bit of track?

 

[92002]

Is your proposal that some EK trains would travel via a new link leaving the current line between Clarkston and Giffnock and joining the Neilston line between Williamwood and Muirend, running to and from Glasgow via Mount Florida? Whilst the alternative travel options might be appealing, would that not add traffic to an already well served and congested bit of track?

Probably not since either via Mount Florida or King's Park are not anywhere nearing capacity.

The proposal as I have said before is if the 4 trains an hour on the East Kilbride line grows to need more services. Although with 2 or 3 shorter trains an hour being replaced with 4 longer trains it would need to see massive growth.

 

[Southsider]

Probably not since either via Mount Florida or King's Park are not anywhere nearing capacity.

The proposal as I have said before is if the 4 trains an hour on the East Kilbride line grows to need more services. Although with 2 or 3 shorter trains an hour being replaced with 4 longer trains it would need to see massive growth.

Would the constraint on services beyond 4 trains per hour be the single track with passing loops beyond Busby? Additional routes north of Busby would make no difference unless I am missing the point.

 

[92002]

Would the constraint on services beyond 4 trains per hour be the single track with passing loops beyond Busby? Additional routes north of Busby would make no difference unless I am missing the point.

The point is if it was decided to add the connection to the Neilston line. It would be considerably cheaper than construction of a second track on the East Kilbride line.

Academic for now since what is being is being delivered should handle considerable growth.

 

[snowball]

The point is if it was decided to add the connection to the Neilston line. It would be considerably cheaper than construction of a second track on the East Kilbride line.

But how would it help capacity? It would enable EK trains to bypass a a section that's already double track, while they would still have to use the whole of the single track section.

 

[Southsider]

The point is if it was decided to add the connection to the Neilston line. It would be considerably cheaper than construction of a second track on the East Kilbride line.

Academic for now since what is being is being delivered should handle considerable growth.

The connection would not resolve any capacity issues - it’s in the wrong place to help. The EK line is double track at that point and beyond to Busby.

 

[drb61]

If East Kilbride were ever to get 4tph off-peak, I'd imagine that two would be 'fast' - i.e. calling Clarkston and Hairmyres only and the other two would leave GLC a few minutes later calling all stations. Same stopping pattern in the reverse direction leaving EK roughly every 15 mins with the fast arriving in GLC about 5 mins behind the stopper. With a turnaround time at EK of about 8-10 minutes this should just about work with the existing passing loop extended to the new relocated Hairmyres station.

 

[james73]

There were plans to connect the East Kilbride line to the Neilston line by providing a curve at Williamwood. Which was connected many years ago and lifted.

Yes, that was a proposal drawn up in 1983 and the document can be found on the Scot Rail discussion board. What's noticeable in the report is that they state public transport journeys had fallen in the previous 25 years. I'd imagine it's a far different picture now.

http://www.scot-rail.co.uk/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=211

There were 5 key issues in the document regarding the rail network under the heading 'Routes at Risk Examined':

• Ardrossan - Largs to be electrified & singled beyond Hunterston, and excess land at Largs sold off - this happened
• Half-hourly service to Barrhead, hourly service to Kilmarnock & new stations at Kilmaurs & Auchinleck - this happened
• Bellgrove - Springburn closed to passenger traffic and Cumbernauld - Coatbridge electrified, accessed by reversing at Coatbridge Sunnyside via Gunnie and a new station called Cumbernauld South (now Greenfaulds?) with Cumbernauld having 'Central' tagged onto it - this NEVER happened
• Restoration of the North - East Muirhead chord to allow trains to run to East Kilbride via Cathcart, with the line between Clarkston - Busby junction, along with the stations at Thornliebank & Giffnock, closing and a new station built at Queensway - this NEVER happened
• The Neilston line would've been cut back to Whitecraigs and the recovered OHLE used to electrify the East Kilbride line, with Patterton & Neilston stations closing - this NEVER happened

At the back of the document is a (badly) hand drawn altered version of the network map. So I made my own version.

Here's how the map could've ended up looking. It would've been bye bye to Duke Street, Alexandra Parade, Barnhill, Springburn, Thornliebank, Giffnock, Patterton and Neilston...

 

[route101]

If East Kilbride were ever to get 4tph off-peak, I'd imagine that two would be 'fast' - i.e. calling Clarkston and Hairmyres only and the other two would leave GLC a few minutes later calling all stations. Same stopping pattern in the reverse direction leaving EK roughly every 15 mins with the fast arriving in GLC about 5 mins behind the stopper. With a turnaround time at EK of about 8-10 minutes this should just about work with the existing passing loop extended to the new relocated Hairmyres station.

I have an old SPT timetable from the 1980s and the calling pattern then was fast and slow. I think 3 trains per hour is most realistic for the branch.

 

[Falcon1200]

Should more than a half-hourly service on the East Kilbride line become necessary (which, I have to say, is IMHO unlikely) a possible solution would be two all stations trains per hour between Central and Busby, and two East Kilbrides an hour express between Busby and Central. No doubling required, but it still does not address the issue that if this line became so busy, would other routes not also, thus creating major capacity problems ?

 

[snowball]

Just out of curiosity, is it common or rare for trains to pass in the loop east of Hairmyres?

 

[Watershed]

Just out of curiosity, is it common or rare for trains to pass in the loop east of Hairmyres?

It only happens in the peak. Some ECSs and a handful of passenger services pass each other there.

 

[MadMac]

It only happens in the peak. Some ECSs and a handful of passenger services pass each other there.

The loop was put in to enable a robust half-hourly service and facilitate removal of the siding at EK - it used to have empties there particularly in the mornings as five Glasgow-bound trains used to depart in 45 minutes in the morning peak. There was also an additional section (down direction only) provided at Giffnock around the same time so that trains in the morning peak could move beyond Busby without waiting for the preceding one to get onto the main line.

 

[Southsider]

The loop was put in to enable a robust half-hourly service and facilitate removal of the siding at EK - it used to have empties there particularly in the mornings as five Glasgow-bound trains used to depart in 45 minutes in the morning peak. There was also an additional section (down direction only) provided at Giffnock around the same time so that trains in the morning peak could move beyond Busby without waiting for the preceding one to get onto the main line.

Giffnock is in the double track area?

 

[MadMac]

Giffnock is in the double track area?

Yes.

 

[drb61]

I have an old SPT timetable from the 1980s and the calling pattern then was fast and slow. I think 3 trains per hour is most realistic for the branch.

If I recall correctly, the frequency was hourly all stops up until about 1986. Following the Ayrshire electrification (which presumably increased DMU availability) it was increased to 3 trains every 2 hours, alternating between all stops and Clarkston, Hairmyres only. IMHO less than ideal - as more likely you'd need to check a timetable to find out when the next train was and meant that some stations on the route (Thornliebank, Giffnock, Busby and Thorntonhall) only had a train every 80 minutes instead of hourly! Thankfully this was short-lived and when the 156s arrived in 1989 their greater acceleration facilitated a more regular half-hourly service serving all stations.

 

[Southsider]

Yes.

So what was added? Something to do with signalling?