Haymarket to Edinburgh - How would you increase capacity?

[Clansman]

As the title says.

There has been lots of discussion previously about the capacity needs of the western (southbound) approach, but how would one realistically solve the capacity constraints that the Haymarket to Edinburgh approach will face in the coming years?

I can't seem to find any documents on it from any government source in future route studies, unless I'm missing something that's staring me right in the face.

Firstly, is there enough room to fit a fifth row of tracks in between Haymarket and Waverley or even through from the point to which the Fife and E2G lines meet each other?

The only above ground option I can imagine is constructing a fifth line and turnturning Haymarket 0 into a through road by drilling a new tunnel and remodelling the Mound, as well hooking up Haymarket 1 and 2 to the WCML via a new chord, and new platforms squeeze in by reforming the structure of Waverley station's west side (be it with the new mezzanine plans or without).

Apart from that, the only other option I can think of would be below ground.

Anybody have any realistic ideas or knowledge on what is planned to happened? For the record I'm not the Crayonista type - I'm genuinley interested in the best solution!

 

[HST43257]

As the title says.

There has been lots of discussion previously about the capacity needs of the western (southbound) approach, but how would one realistically solve the capacity constraints that the Haymarket to Edinburgh approach will face in the coming years?

I can't seem to find any documents on it from any government source in future route studies, unless I'm missing something that's staring me right in the face.

Firstly, is there enough room to fit a fifth row of tracks in between Haymarket and Waverley or even through from the point to which the Fife and E2G lines meet each other?

The only above ground option I can imagine is constructing a fifth line and turnturning Haymarket 0 into a through road by drilling a new tunnel and remodelling the Mound, as well hooking up Haymarket 1 and 2 to the WCML via a new chord, and new platforms squeeze in by reforming the structure of Waverley station's west side (be it with the new mezzanine plans or without).

Apart from that, the only other option I can think of would be below ground.

Anybody have any realistic ideas or knowledge on what is planned to happened?

I would guess that the biggest problems are west of HYM. They need to electrify Haymarket North Tunnel (if possible, if not already done) and there needs to be 4 tracks out from Haymarket West Jn to Newbridge Jn, electrified also. This opens up 4 tracks all the way from EDB to Newbridge Jn.

I estimate a minimum of 14-15tph on the South tracks from EDB to HYM pre covid (3-4 Slateford, 4 Uphall, 4 FKH & 3 FKG) and 7-8tph on North tracks (4 Fife Circle, 1-2 Perth & 2-3 Dundee). With extra electric tracks to Newbridge there could easily be some balancing out, with some of the stuff going towards Falkirk going on the newly wired tracks.

Balance is key.

 

[Clansman]

I would guess that the biggest problems are west of HYM. They need to electrify Haymarket North Tunnel (if possible, if not already done) and there needs to be 4 tracks out from Haymarket West Jn to Newbridge Jn, electrified also. This opens up 4 tracks all the way from EDB to Newbridge Jn.

I estimate a minimum of 14-15tph on the South tracks from EDB to HYM pre covid (3-4 Slateford, 4 Uphall, 4 FKH & 3 FKG) and 7-8tph on North tracks (4 Fife Circle, 1-2 Perth & 2-3 Dundee). With extra electric tracks to Newbridge there could easily be some balancing out, with some of the stuff going towards Falkirk going on the newly wired tracks.

Balance is key.

Haymarket 1 & 2 and the north tunnel has been electrified since the station remodelling in around 2013.

Newbridge Junction grade seperation would help as well I'd imagine. Though with quading the approach to Haymarket from Newbridge you'd have to find a way to deal with Edinburgh Park, if not the line side area from Edinburgh Park onwards.

I can see there being room for a third track slotting in from Newbridge with a potential dive-under or flyover at Stenhouse to hook up to an extended Haymarket Depot siding which would inevitably be converted at some point to accomodate passenger services approaching Haymarket station.

In any case Haymarket Depot would need significant track reconfigeration to make way for any enhancements to the main Haymarket approach.

It'd be interesting to see how a grade seperated Almond Chord would improve capacity to allow access to Haymarket 1 & 2 without holding the approach to a stand still.

 

[Mag_seven]

Would there be scope to say divert the Cross Country services from Glasgow via the suburban lines (which would of course mean they would miss out Haymarket)? Appreciate this solution is more about reducing the number of services that use the Haymarket to Edinburgh stretch.

 

[Clansman]

Would there be scope to say divert the Cross Country services from Glasgow via the suburban lines (which would of course mean they would miss out Haymarket)?

That would require reversal at Waverley and remove Haymarket as a calling point which would be contentious I'd imagine.

It'd be interesting if a junction can be squeezed in to hook up Slatford to Haymarket 1 and 2, but perhaps grade seperated would be a stretch too far in do-ability.

Unless there was a real need for a chord to hook up Carstairs to Edinburgh Park through Hermiston to spread the load as much as possible.

 

[waverley47]

In the beyond EGIP thread there was some talk about how best to utilise capacity west of Edinburgh. Would recommend taking a look as a lot of the same stuff was discussed.

Simple answer: build the almond chord.

In depth answer: it's complicated. The Waverley western approaches study looked at a lot of this.

Linking slateford across the throat to 1&2 is impossible. Not enough space at the western end of Haymarket, and the height difference is to great between the slateford lines and the sub to build a chord. Grade separation is multiple realms of impossible, and indeed would be even more difficult than Polmont.

Grade separation of newbridge is possible but expensive, and would probably be too disruptive for any real benefit. Indeed, much of the benefit would be absorbed by the almond chord when it's built. Grade separation of Greenhill upper jn is in the same category: technically feasible, but expensive and further down the list.

Putting dalmeny station on the loops to allow overtaking and rebuilding Inverkeithing station to be on a faster alignment would help somewhat, speeding up trains from the Fife direction and better use of available paths.

Sending things round the sub solves almost nothing, indeed there are actually fewer available paths out of the east end of Waverley than the west, although rebuilding Portobello jn will help with this in the next few years.

A new line alongside the four track section is interesting, but would always be too expensive to do. The tram line is right up alongside the boundary. You'd need a new tunnel under Haymarket. You'd have to rework the western pointwork unless you wanted another new tunnel under the galleries. If you're going this far, it would always just be easier and cheaper to dig one long tunnel from somewhere past haymarket to new Waverley platforms.

The problem with the E&G is not that it's too busy, the problem is the crossing moves making the timetabling very difficult. If all crossing moves were eliminated (about two thirds would be solved by the almond chord) then the major capacity constraint would then be platform capacity at Waverley. But, 12 platforms serving 36tph is technically possible.

At the moment, if everything runs to plan, there should be something approaching 15tph in each direction on the south lines at Haymarket. That 15tph is a bit ridiculous when you think that there are three very busy flat junctions at Haymarket, Newbridge and Polmont. Each of these has at least 8 conflicting moves each hour, to the point that parallel moves for each train on each junction are impossible to timetable. Trains additionally can't be 'flighted' and so suffer from ever more conflict at the slightest cough in the timetable, and with Bathgate line services importing delays from Milngavie and Helensburgh single line sections.

In practice, this is solved by trains crossing over to the north lines to use the higher numbered west platforms at Waverley, and to spread services in the event of delays across both lines. This also saves something snaking across the formation in Princes Street gardens in the peaks. The almond chord does this perfectly, redistributing trains across all four lines without crossing moves, and easing up timetabling to make it easier.

The biggest problem west of Waverley is actually the slateford lines. With HS2, and a desire for more trains along this route, this will be line that misses out. Building the almond chord solves some of this by giving more capacity for trains going that way, but it won't solve anything definitively. We'll have to wait for a good few decades yet before they tackle that particular problem.