Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

[me123]

Isn't a High Speed Line from Edinburgh to Glasgow just a side effect of the need for the lines from each to Carlisle to meet somewhere, much like the only electrified route used to be.

But no one knows where this junction is going to be. It could well be much further South of Carstairs, which makes it a longer route. And remember that Carstairs Junction is painfully slow going between Glasgow and Edinburgh. I suspect that any such junction would be designed with Anglo-Scottish journeys in mind, and any intra-Scottish routes would be a secondary concern.

So, we could potentially have a junction that allows a useful high speed rail link. We could also have a junction that provides a secondary line which, whilst travelling at High Speed, will take longer than conventional rail links for various reasons.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the junction you are referring to is Greenhill Junction, Bonnybridge, where the connecting chord diverges on to the Caledonian Railway main line northbound towards Stirling.

That's the name I couldn't remember! Thanks!

So you could increase capacity by having 4-track between Glasgow and Greenhill Jn with the slow tracks going elsewhere (possibly onto our fictional Crossrail and through to Ayrshire?). I think 4-track could be justified on this stretch, although I'm not sure if it's possible. (A quick look at google earth makes Bishopbriggs look tight; Lenzie is possible but you'd need to rebuild the local road, Croy looks easy enough. Major problems getting around the Castlecary viaduct, mind...)

I suspect that, given the scope of the current work, this is a long way off if it ever happens. Castlecary alone is a barrier, and given that Welwyn viaduct proves a similar barrier on the ECML, I don't think we'll see this. But perhaps Lenzie-Croy 4-tracking could provide some additional capacity?

 

[Railsigns]

With journey times of 37 minutes supposedly achievable on the main route via Falkirk, do we really need High Speed Rail between Glasgow and Edinburgh? 37 minutes is a fantastic journey time. Would it not be more cost-effective to upgrade the existing route (e.g., 4 track from Glasgow to the junction just past Croy whose name I can't remember) rather than creating a 5th route between Glasgow and Edinburgh?

One of my favourite 'pie in the sky' projects is a tunnelled route running from a grade separated junction at Cadder (where there's plenty of space) to new platforms on the east side of Queen Street station (making use of the blocked-up tunnel portal) or, alternatively, continuing under the Clyde. It would segregate the city-to-city services from the local services and could be built on an easier gradient than the existing line at 1 in 45.

 

[NotATrainspott]

But no one knows where this junction is going to be. It could well be much further South of Carstairs, which makes it a longer route. And remember that Carstairs Junction is painfully slow going between Glasgow and Edinburgh. I suspect that any such junction would be designed with Anglo-Scottish journeys in mind, and any intra-Scottish routes would be a secondary concern.

So, we could potentially have a junction that allows a useful high speed rail link. We could also have a junction that provides a secondary line which, whilst travelling at High Speed, will take longer than conventional rail links for various reasons.

I wouldn't be surprised if the junction were designed to advantage E&G shuttle services. Where the junction is will make very, very little difference to Scotland-London services, which could easily be 2.5 hours even with stops, whereas it would make or break the case for E&G services.

That's the name I couldn't remember! Thanks!

So you could increase capacity by having 4-track between Glasgow and Greenhill Jn with the slow tracks going elsewhere (possibly onto our fictional Crossrail and through to Ayrshire?). I think 4-track could be justified on this stretch, although I'm not sure if it's possible. (A quick look at google earth makes Bishopbriggs look tight; Lenzie is possible but you'd need to rebuild the local road, Croy looks easy enough. Major problems getting around the Castlecary viaduct, mind...)

I suspect that, given the scope of the current work, this is a long way off if it ever happens. Castlecary alone is a barrier, and given that Welwyn viaduct proves a similar barrier on the ECML, I don't think we'll see this. But perhaps Lenzie-Croy 4-tracking could provide some additional capacity?

The existing route would be too challenging to properly four-track, because of the variety of tunnels and other major structures. Four-tracking is only useful in places where one train overtakes another, and only doing it in the places where it is easy to do isn't necessarily going to make much of a difference. The E&G via HSR services would mean there would be no need to focus on high speed between the two cities via the Falkirk High route, so you could have a significantly better stopping pattern for intermediate towns.

 

[Altnabreac]

With journey times of 37 minutes supposedly achievable on the main route via Falkirk, do we really need High Speed Rail between Glasgow and Edinburgh? 37 minutes is a fantastic journey time. Would it not be more cost-effective to upgrade the existing route (e.g., 4 track from Glasgow to the junction just past Croy whose name I can't remember) rather than creating a 5th route between Glasgow and Edinburgh?

And with the money we save, we could invest in improving local transport at either end.

As Class83 says it's much more about simultaneously providing good access to cross border high speed rail and also freeing up capacity for local services.

Look at my list of busy 2tph stations. Lenzie and Bishopbriggs could really benefit from 4tph. East Dunbartonshire Council also have plans for new stations at Woodilee and Westerhill.

Without High Speed none of those are likely to be able to go ahead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But no one knows where this junction is going to be. It could well be much further South of Carstairs, which makes it a longer route. And remember that Carstairs Junction is painfully slow going between Glasgow and Edinburgh. I suspect that any such junction would be designed with Anglo-Scottish journeys in mind, and any intra-Scottish routes would be a secondary concern.

So, we could potentially have a junction that allows a useful high speed rail link. We could also have a junction that provides a secondary line which, whilst travelling at High Speed, will take longer than conventional rail links for various reasons.

I'm sure a reasonable alignment could be designed that minimises disbenefits all 3 legs.

 

[oldman]

For Edinburgh-Glasgow it is the turn up and go frequency as well as the speed that matters. I would rather have 4 tph in say 45 mins than 2 tph in 37. In terms of a real journey from somewhere in the greater Edinburgh area to somewhere in the greater Glasgow area (which is what real journeys are), the time on the Edinburgh-Glasgow train is a fairly small proportion.

 

[route:oxford]

One of my favourite 'pie in the sky' projects is a tunnelled route running from a grade separated junction at Cadder (where there's plenty of space) to new platforms on the east side of Queen Street station (making use of the blocked-up tunnel portal) or, alternatively, continuing under the Clyde. It would segregate the city-to-city services from the local services and could be built on an easier gradient than the existing line at 1 in 45.

You do realise that the "blocked-up tunnel portal" doesn't cover a blocked-up tunnel?

It was just a decorative end to a head-shunt as can be seen from this image:-

(Image found via google search, I can't work out who should be credited)

 

[Railsigns]

You do realise that the "blocked-up tunnel portal" doesn't cover a blocked-up tunnel?

Yes; I did realise that.

 

[Rick1984]

Building your high speed station on outskirts is fine if you have a rapid transport link (the option I think should be used for Manchester and Birmingham with stations located at airports). I dont consider a half hour tram journey as rapid.

On the Queen Street development, if you moved the concourse to where the car park currently is; building retail above and a rooftop carpark; then demolished the existing retail and the modern facia you'd have more room to extend platforms?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Building your high speed station on outskirts is fine if you have a rapid transport link (the option I think should be used for Manchester and Birmingham with stations located at airports). I dont consider a half hour tram journey as rapid.

On the Queen Street development, if you moved the concourse to where the car park currently is; building retail above and a rooftop carpark; then demolished the existing retail and the modern facia you'd have more room to extend platforms?

The existing car park will become a combination of a multi-storey car park (some floors reserved for the station's staff, servicing and disabled access) and an extension of the Buchanan Galleries shopping centre. Effectively all of the station other than the Victorian train shed will be demolished and replaced in the plans which are going ahead, with the middle four platforms being extended southward to take 8x23m EGIP electrics. You can see a PDF of the concourse level here.

 

[deltic08]

The existing car park will become a combination of a multi-storey car park (some floors reserved for the station's staff, servicing and disabled access) and an extension of the Buchanan Galleries shopping centre. Effectively all of the station other than the Victorian train shed will be demolished and replaced in the plans which are going ahead, with the middle four platforms being extended southward to take 8x23m EGIP electrics. You can see a PDF of the concourse level here.

This is so shortsighted building on the car park. This could be needed for additional platforms in the future. This has a whiff of Manchester Vic about it where developing every bit of empty land has to have a building on it to generate money for greedy developers and councils. Man Vic will need more through platforms soon and where will they come from. Similarly at Queen Street, more platforms will be needed before long just from expanding population and out of town house building.

 

[edwin_m]

Building your high speed station on outskirts is fine if you have a rapid transport link (the option I think should be used for Manchester and Birmingham with stations located at airports). I dont consider a half hour tram journey as rapid.

Even with a rapid link into the city centre, it means someone travelling by public transport to/from one of the "other" suburbs needs to make two changes. This makes it all the more likely they will just drive to the out-of-town station or just drive the whole journey. Hence the push to get HS2 right into the major city centres where possible even though edge of town stations would be much cheaper - on its own high speed rail doesn't generate enough patronage to provide feeder services, so it needs to tap into the centre of the existing local transport network so it uses and strengthens what is there already.

 

[Altnabreac]

This is so shortsighted building on the car park. This could be needed for additional platforms in the future. This has a whiff of Manchester Vic about it where developing every bit of empty land has to have a building on it to generate money for greedy developers and councils. Man Vic will need more through platforms soon and where will they come from. Similarly at Queen Street, more platforms will be needed before long just from expanding population and out of town house building.

At Queen St the throat and 2 track tunnel limit capacity more than the number of platforms so it isn't really a problem as such.

More platforms would only be useful if you bored a new tunnel.

Once you're boring a new tunnel you may as well go for a new cross city line to really boost capacity.

 

[clc]

The redevelopment plans include a buffer zone where no structural work will take place to leave open possibility of introducing a Pltfm 8 in future. Network Rail confirmed this on twitter a while back.

 

[po8crg]

Even with a rapid link into the city centre, it means someone travelling by public transport to/from one of the "other" suburbs needs to make two changes. This makes it all the more likely they will just drive to the out-of-town station or just drive the whole journey. Hence the push to get HS2 right into the major city centres where possible even though edge of town stations would be much cheaper - on its own high speed rail doesn't generate enough patronage to provide feeder services, so it needs to tap into the centre of the existing local transport network so it uses and strengthens what is there already.

It only works well if you have a through-station in the city and you build the out-of-town station along the line that goes into the through-station. Then you can route all the trains into the city to also call at the out-of-town station.

The closest we have to that is Meadowhall, which is, or could be, called at by every passenger train that calls at Sheffield Midland except the line to Worksop. Most British cities have too many lines joining up at junctions within the urban area for this to be an option.

A station east of Edinburgh could be an exception, except, of course, that it's completely the wrong side of the city.

 

[edwin_m]

It only works well if you have a through-station in the city and you build the out-of-town station along the line that goes into the through-station. Then you can route all the trains into the city to also call at the out-of-town station.

The closest we have to that is Meadowhall, which is, or could be, called at by every passenger train that calls at Sheffield Midland except the line to Worksop. Most British cities have too many lines joining up at junctions within the urban area for this to be an option.

A station east of Edinburgh could be an exception, except, of course, that it's completely the wrong side of the city.

Yes. Worksop trains could run to Meadowhall by through-routeing with one of the services via Meadowhall and terminates at Sheffield.

To be pedantic, the Liverpool-Norwich couldn't call at Meadowhall without going a long way out of their way, but Meadowhall still represents a sensible option for public transport access. Especially as there is more to South Yorkshire than Sheffield.

 

[Haydn1971]

Yes. Worksop trains could run to Meadowhall by through-routeing with one of the services via Meadowhall and terminates at Sheffield.

With a couple of new chords at Swallownest and Holmes, there could be scope for a Sheffield-Meadowhall-Worksop-Beyond service.

To be pedantic, the Liverpool-Norwich couldn't call at Meadowhall without going a long way out of their way, but Meadowhall still represents a sensible option for public transport access. Especially as there is more to South Yorkshire than Sheffield.

Would you need the Liverpool-Norwich service with the suggested HS3 line between Liverpool and Barnsley ? Perhaps it could end up being a Liverpool-Manchester-Meadowhall-Toton HS service, connections to Norwich from Toton ?

 

[edwin_m]

Would you need the Liverpool-Norwich service with the suggested HS3 line between Liverpool and Barnsley ? Perhaps it could end up being a Liverpool-Manchester-Meadowhall-Toton HS service, connections to Norwich from Toton ?

Maybe not - I was only mentioning it in the context of trains that stop at Sheffield but not Meadowhall. Nothing to do with Scotland anyway!

 

[Class 170101]

Norwich wouldn't be an important factor is HS services.

However in terms of Nottingham to Sheffield axis the best service would be the Nottingham to Leeds service to add a call at Meadowhall.

 

[laseandre]

Then onto South Glasgow University Hospital and over (under?) the river to Partick.

There must be a reason I keep coming back to this idea. It just seems to make sense.

Well the point of Fastlink is to be pre-light rail so I guess it would make more sense to use that... I don't know how people would even feel after the whole Edinburgh Trams debacle however...

 

[clc]

Also suggests to me the next lines in need of a frequency increase would be: ....4tph for Neilston - 3 of the busiest 20 2tph stations.....

This PQ answer gives details of service level, station and infrastructure improvements on each franchised ScotRail routes since 2012: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/p...&ReferenceNumbers=S4W-22759&ResultsPerPage=10

One of the improvements was a new turnback at Whitecraigs. Could this indicate an intention to run additional services between Central and Whitecraigs?

 

[Railsigns]

One of the improvements was a new turnback at Whitecraigs. Could this indicate an intention to run additional services between Central and Whitecraigs?

The Whitecraigs turnback involves running wrong-road to the crossover at Muirend. As such, it's only suitable for use when the line is blocked somewhere between Whitecraigs and Neilston.

 

[clc]

The Whitecraigs turnback involves running wrong-road to the crossover at Muirend. As such, it's only suitable for use when the line is blocked somewhere between Whitecraigs and Neilston.

Thanks for the info.

 

[snowball]

Press release

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/new-gbp-45m-aqueduct-carries-canal-at-carmuirs

New £4.5m aqueduct carries canal at Carmuirs

Michael Matheson MSP today (Friday, March 27) joined Network Rail and Scottish Canals to re-open the Forth and Clyde canal at the Falkirk Wheel following a six-month closure.

The canal was closed and drained in October 2014 to allow for the demolition and replacement of the Carmuirs twin railway tunnels beneath the waterway.

The construction of the aqueduct and reinstatement of the canal – delivered as part of the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP) – was completed ahead of the busy Easter programme on the waterway.

A Scottish Government-funded, £742m investment in Scotland’s railway, EGIP is delivering a rolling programme of electrification across the central belt – reducing journey times and boosting capacity on routes including the Edinburgh-Glasgow Queen Street (via Falkirk High) line.

The new aqueduct is the 51st structure completed in a programme of 61 bridge works being delivered across the central belt to create extra space beneath bridges and tunnels to allow electric overhead power lines to be erected on key routes.

Mr Matheson, MSP for Falkirk West, said: “The completion of the aqueduct at Carmuirs and the re-opening of the Forth and Clyde canal marks yet another step in the transformation of central Scotland’s railway.

“It is important for the local economy that the work has been completed ahead of Scottish Canal’s busy Easter programme of activities and as we get ready to enter increased numbers of visitors to the Falkirk Wheel and with the minimum of disruption to the local community.”

Rodger Querns, Network Rail programme director for EGIP, added: “While we are used to working with councils to close roads for bridge works, closing and draining a canal is novel and unique and we are grateful to Scottish Canals for their cooperation throughout this project.

“Carmuirs Tunnel presented an unusual engineering challenge and when you see the aqueduct and the re-instated canal, it is clear that our project team and contractors, BAM, fully met this challenge.”

Steve Dunlop, Chief Executive of Scottish Canals, said: “This is a 21st century asset that will ensure the future of the Forth and Clyde canal and the railway – two important transport networks – for many years to come. It’s great to be here today and see what partnership working can deliver.”

Ahead of the six-month-long reconstruction programme, Network Rail diverted the canal tow path and installed a temporary footbridge across the railway to maintain access for the many runners, walkers and cyclists in the area and to ensure people could continue to visit the Falkirk Wheel during the work.

The canal was then drained with demolition of the twin tunnels and initial stages of reconstruction of the new single tunnel taking place over extended railway closures at both Christmas and New Year. There then followed an intensive period of work to complete the railway tunnel and construct the aqueduct to meet the end of March completion date agreed with Scottish Canals in advance of work beginning.

 

[clc]

The Scotrail franchise agreement lists projects which may be taken forward in CP6 and includes one entitled 'East Kilbride station capacity'. Does anyone know what this entails? I haven't seen it mentioned before.

 

[clc]

Three major rail projects in Scotland are benefiting passengers and local communities, according to new research published by Transport Scotland
Evaluations have been carried out into the impact of the Airdrie-Bathgate rail improvement scheme, the Larkhall-Milngavie rail link and Laurencekirk railway Station.
The projects have encouraged more people onto the rail network and cut journey times for passengers:-

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/news/passengers-reap-benefits-three-major-rail-projects

 

[PaulLothian]

The biggest disruption so far from EGIP work is about to start, with Winchburgh Tunnel closure starting on 13th June. ScotRail info here - http://www.scotrail.co.uk/winchburgh

The Scotsman, god bless 'em, have showed their usual level of support for any initiative in Scotland. http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/rail-disruption-as-edinburgh-glasgow-work-begins-1-3800179

Rail passengers face six weeks of misery from tomorrow as major works on the main line between Edinburgh and Glasgow get under way.

The closure of the Winchburgh Tunnel to allow a major electrification programme to go ahead will cut the line between Linlithgow and Edinburgh, adding at least 30 minutes to rail journeys across much of central and east Scotland.

From Monday, commuters heading in or out of Edinburgh by rail will have to board replacement bus services, or cram themselves on to slower services taking secondary rail lines.

Rail bosses warned travellers to plan ahead, as campaigners blamed lack of investment and a “can’t do attitude” for the disruption – and insisted all of the problems could have been avoided if a small length of track had been created.

Campaigners blasted the Scottish Government for abandoning plans to build a 3km stretch of track known as the Almond Chord, which could have served as a diversion around the Winchburgh Tunnel, and slammed suggestion it had been abandoned after Transport Scotland claimed the construction cost would have topped £100m.

Ken Sutherland, research officer at pressure group Railfuture Scotland, called those figures “science fiction” and said: “The Scottish Government has a can’t do attitude on rail infrastructure, which is why the Almond Chord was never built.”

A Transport Scotland spokesman said the cost of constructing the Almond Chord would not have been “value for money”.

Phil Verster, ScotRail’s managing director, said the end result would be worthwhile.

“Electrifying the line between our two biggest cities will allow us to run faster, longer, greener trains that will cut journey times and increase the number of seats available on this key route,” he said.

No trains will run on the main line between Waverley and Glasgow Queen Street. Instead, replacement buses will connect Waverley, Haymarket and Edinburgh Park to Linlithgow, where trains will terminate.

Alternative arrangements in summary:
- Availability of three alternative routes for end-to-end travel.
- Dunblane-Edinburgh services, which I have read somewhere will be lengthened, running via Dalmeny
- Bus links from Linlithgow to Edinburgh Park, and to Haymarket/Waverley (the latter should be able to do many off-peak journeys almost as fast as the via-Dalmeny train).
- Increased ticket acceptance (e.g. travellers from Croy, Lenzie and Bishopbriggs can travel via Queen Street Low Level, and one can travel from Edinburgh Park to Glasgow via Haymarket)

Yes it's going to be an inconvenience, perhaps a nuisance, but 'misery'? Journalistic hyperbole, just possibly!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The biggest disruption so far from EGIP work is about to start, with Winchburgh Tunnel closure starting on 13th June. ScotRail info here - http://www.scotrail.co.uk/winchburgh

The Scotsman, god bless 'em, have showed their usual level of support for any initiative in Scotland. http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/rail-disruption-as-edinburgh-glasgow-work-begins-1-3800179


Alternative arrangements in summary:
- Availability of three alternative routes for end-to-end travel.
- Dunblane-Edinburgh services, which I have read somewhere will be lengthened, running via Dalmeny
- Bus links from Linlithgow to Edinburgh Park, and to Haymarket/Waverley (the latter should be able to do many off-peak journeys almost as fast as the via-Dalmeny train).
- Increased ticket acceptance (e.g. travellers from Croy, Lenzie and Bishopbriggs can travel via Queen Street Low Level, and one can travel from Edinburgh Park to Glasgow via Haymarket)

Yes it's going to be an inconvenience, perhaps a nuisance, but 'misery'? Journalistic hyperbole, just possibly!

Not to mention the 3 unaffected alternative Edinburgh-Glasgow routes (Bathgate, Shotts and Carstairs) offering 6-7tph.
Spoilt for choice, really.

 

[PaulLothian]

Not to mention the 3 unaffected alternative Edinburgh-Glasgow routes (Bathgate, Shotts and Carstairs) offering 6-7tph.
Spoilt for choice, really.

Thanks, meant to give fuller details of the other routes, then forgot to go back to do it!

 

[najaB]

Yeah, you want misery and chaos? Wait until the Queen Street tunnel closure...

 

[ADRboy]

Yeah, you want misery and chaos? Wait until the Queen Street tunnel closure...

All 4 Edinburgh - Glasgow route running through that. Reckon it'll not be as bad.