Found this on planning portal.
Mentions 8 car EMUS
4X hourly freq.
Double tracked
Mentions 8 car EMUS
4X hourly freq.
Double tracked
Last edited by a moderator:
The scope of works to support these enhancements is awaiting client approval and the proposal described here is the maximum scope of works likely to be required to facilitate the necessary passenger enhancements. This is to ensure that the full environmental effects of the project can be assessed at an early enough stage.
Only a small section of the route is single track and of this up to 6km will be double-tracked by forming a new line parallel to the existing track to be accommodated within the existing rail corridor where possible.
The single track goes from 3m 66c to 7m 64c, so 6.4km which suggests a doubling of it all (the Hairmyers loop being 32c which is about 0.6km).
If electrification to Barrhead is finally happening then great. It surprises me how electrification has eluded that line when nearby (and less busy?) lines have been electrified for quite some time - in the case of the Neilston branch, nearly sixty years ago.
Quite radical proposals. Luckily they never came about.During the 80s the usage of these lines had dropped quite a bit, and there were proposals to simplify the network. Some of this might have included electrification, but only to allow the existing electrified services to take over other routes and allow parts of the network to be shut down. I think the plan was to build the chord between the Cathcart and EK lines, serve EK as a Cathcart network branch, and then close the rest of the G&SW line. Similarly Cumbernauld was to be served only as an electrified extension of the North Clyde line. I'm not completely sure but I think the plan was to reverse at Coatbridge via a reinstated chord, and close the line through Stepps.
During the 80s the usage of these lines had dropped quite a bit, and there were proposals to simplify the network. Some of this might have included electrification, but only to allow the existing electrified services to take over other routes and allow parts of the network to be shut down. I think the plan was to build the chord between the Cathcart and EK lines, serve EK as a Cathcart network branch, and then close the rest of the G&SW line. Similarly Cumbernauld was to be served only as an electrified extension of the North Clyde line. I'm not completely sure but I think the plan was to reverse at Coatbridge via a reinstated chord, and close the line through Stepps.
Thanks for starting a new thread. I personally prefer that any new Scottish scheme has its own thread and does not get buried in the general Scottish Electrification updates thread - too unwieldly. Sounds like a good scheme.
Sounds like the scheme is was thinking of. I believe it would've left Clarkston/Giffnock unserved, perhaps one reason it didn't go ahead
The single track goes from 3m 66c to 7m 64c, so 6.4km which suggests a doubling of it all (the Hairmyers loop being 32c which is about 0.6km).
I don't know the line well, I've only travelled on it once and that was back in the 80's on a first generation DMU. But I'd be interested to know how much work is involved in doubling the line: was it once double track throughout; was it built to a double formation, but only ever single; or will heavy earthworks be required to widen the formation to accomodate the second line?
In any event, it's good to hear that the Scottish Government's commitment to electrification is continuing.
Thanks in advance for any information.
for most future Scotrail things, when they talk about 8 cars presumably they mean 8x23m, as the 380 and 385 fleets are 23m stock? If so, it's significantly longer - 184m trains rather than 160m (it would be good to see such a length be the future target standard for the Strathclyde and Forth electric networks)
Clarkston would still be served. Giffnock and Thornliebank not.
Thanks, I saw a map showing the plans somewhere in the sort of London Underground-style TransClyde style but can't find it
Which other (current) journey opportunities would you be willing to lose to allow this?A wee chord allowing 2 per hour or 1 even to go EK via Mount Florida would be cool.
A wee chord allowing 2 per hour or 1 even to go EK via Mount Florida would be cool.
There definitely needs to be a decision made as to whether there’s going to be a standard Strathclyde train length or if it will be route specific. If the decision is a standard 184m then there’s going to need to be some serious work at places like High Street, Carntyne, Partick, Hyndland and pretty much the whole Argyle line. Personally I think it’s overkill and delivering 120m as 5x24m walkthrough vehicles should be more than enough, but others may disagree. Also worth saying that the Whifflet electrification also involved lengthening at almost every station- they were built as 92m (4 car 156) and extended to 120 to accommodate 6x318/320. I guess what will ultimately govern the approach for EK is whether there are paths for 4 TPH to be fitted in between Busby/Muirhouse jcts and Central.
Fair enough. Just thinking about this, what Strathclyde lines support >120m at the moment? Off the top of my head, EK, Lanark, Shotts, Springburn - Cumbernauld, E&G and Ayrshire get longer just now, typically 138m. Are Canal/Barrhead/Maryhill 92m with the rest 120?Personally I think if 8-car trains to appropriate overall length can be obtained and made to work (in terms of appropriate infrastructure) then they should by all means go for it. Build it and they will come sort of thing, the EK line is always very busy in the peaks and I don't think 8-cars four times an hour would be overkill.
Fair enough. Just thinking about this, what Strathclyde lines support >120m at the moment? Off the top of my head, EK, Lanark, Shotts, Springburn - Cumbernauld, E&G and Ayrshire get longer just now, typically 138m. Are Canal/Barrhead/Maryhill 92m with the rest 120?
I was very much under the impression Central was pretty easily modified to go back to ~140m? Argyle Street is the really big problem, as the station box just isn't big enough.The Argyle line is a bit more of a pain because the core stations in the tunnel are only 120m long. SDO might be okay for some of the lesser-used ones but Central is too short too in its current arrangement.
I was very much under the impression Central was pretty easily modified to go back to ~140m? Argyle Street is the really big problem, as the station box just isn't big enough.
There’s a real opportunity to realign Clarkston Road to the Toll roundabout and eliminate the double bend as part of the height clearance work on the bridge. I don’t see any specific mention of it in the application however.I commuted on it for 17 years. Never been double beyond Busby, most bridges in East Kilbride itself appear to be “double-ready”. Clarkson Toll will need major road work.