Apologies if this has been done to death, but does anyone have a historical insight into why a rail link to the airport wasn't provided by the obvious (to me, but I'm clearly wrong) method of either making a very short rail spur from the existing rail route to the terminal, or even just having a station on that line and some kind of travelator to the airport.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
Airport links?
(33 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
I have none, but will comment anyway, having noticed no railway link what I would ask is when could the historical rail link of being constructed?
The growth of Edinburgh airport came in the post rail era when the railway was in decline, when building the terminal building in the late 1960s shortly after Beeching cuts cannot imagine there would have been a great deal of appetite for rail extension .
There would not have been a time window, where Edinburgh airport had enough traffic or expected future traffic in a rail building era I would guess, even when the first commercial passenger flights took place rail may have been considered the past, old fashioned.
When transport ideas shifted there was of course the planned rail extension in 2007.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Apart from 'cost' there was (in some plans) the whole issue of tunnelling under the runways - not least because of extra problems going under the Almond.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Thanks @Ed1 for the wiki link which goes a long way to explaining the background. In summary, it seems that the rail link proposal, was a very ambitious scheme connecting all rail lines in the area to the airport, with an underground tunnel beneath the runway and an underground station in the terminal. The new government in 2007 scrapped it on the grounds of cost. Can't help thinking that a much simpler solution could have been devised which would have been much cheaper and provided the connectivity to Edinburgh and to the two main Edinburgh stations for onward travel.
Posted 9 years ago # -
There's a number of reasons why it never happened, namely cost and also why it had to cost so much.
The branch idea is nice, but railway people don't like branches that much, particularly off of mainlines. It means building junctions which slows down routing paths on a line which is already fully at capacity. They also don't really like dead-ends because you have to either provide a way to turn the train, or stop it for long enough that the driver can walk to the other end and drive it back out. This causes linger time at the station, another thing that railway peoples don't like.
The branch would have run off the Fife line, fine if you're coming from Fife or Edinburgh, but no good for West Lothian, the rest of the central belt and West, particularly Glasgow. I think passenger projections was that it really had to serve the West to justify its existence, however they didn't like the idea of having to run passengers into Edinburgh (past the airport) and then back out again.
So the idea was to serve both the array of lines to/from the West and also Fife with a system of tunnels running into an underground station under the terminal. This is of course naturally expensive and technically challenging (particularly as the airport is built on a flood plain). It also meant constructing a variety of chords between existing lines to allow trains routed through the airport to get back on the correct tracks.
Then there was BAA the owners, who didn't want anyone tunnelling under their runway incase it caused subsidence.
So you had a railway infrastructure company who demanded the technically challenging and expensive project, a Scottish Government that baulked at the cost after the tram overspend fiasco and an airport operator who wasn't really on board. Technically it was all possible, but official heart (and wallet) wasn't there.
The service to Glasgow Airport from Central could have been much simpler on paper but I think required quite a bit of viaduct construction so again was fairly pricey so was similarly cancelled.
There's a good site here; http://www.eisl.org.uk/ which explains a lot of the background and other surface-based options avoiding tunnels.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Thanks for that effort @kaputnik, and for the link which was really interesting.
I asked the question originally because I couldn't see the logic of developing a tram link to the airport when more than one existing rail line ran so close. Still can't tbh, but I hadn't realised that the tram proposal predated plans for a rail link, so the rail option was met with a tram fait accompli. I see though that there were 2 feasible rail plans that didn't involve tunnels and underground stations. I can't comment on cost/benefit comparison with the tram but imo the rail connection would have been better infrastructure.
I'm not anti-tram; just anti-badly-implemented-tram.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I spent my teens in prestwick (for school, though we lived in Ayr the schools were full). Inconceivably a whole new train station was built 500 yards from prestwick train station at prestwick airport. Further 500 yards of walking from the railway to the airport. However, the line was straight and indeed full of stations such that the fast steam train from Ayr to Glasgow took the same time as the modern electric one. Sadly, no one uses prestwick airport.
Luton airport on the other hand is hoaching. You can get a. Train to Luton airport but then you have to take a shuttle bus from the train station to the airport.
Tram definitely over engineered way to get to the airport, as you can still take a bus ( see also Dublin airport, trams, DARTs etc, but still only way to get there is bus). But tram is nice. You can take London Underground to Heathrow but it is shit. Tram stop at Edinburgh is right next to the door which is very handy,
Posted 9 years ago # -
The optimistically named "Edinburgh International Gateway" station suffers from the same problem as the branch-line concept in that it's served only by the Fife line trains, so anyone coming from the west has to change at Haymarket. Why they would get on a train to have to change again on a tram, with luggage, is beyond me, when they could get on a tram at Haymarket and not have to change again. Or get there faster with the bus! I believe the plan in the future is that some trains to/from the west would run through it, but not before the Winchburgh chord is completed, but Network Rail / Transport Scotland have dragged their heels on what should be a simple piece of railway building for years.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The feasibility study for EARL looked into the possibility of simply building airport stations on the existing lines, because that would obviously have been a lot cheaper and easier. It commissioned a number of surveys of potential passengers, asking them, would you use such a station if it was linked to the airport by bus? By some kind of light rail? By travelator? And so on. And every option came up negative: faced with an airport station which wasn't at the airport, a large proportion of folk would just drive instead. Only the Schiphol-style solution of having the station actually at the airport terminal, with trains heading in all directions, found enough favour with potential passengers.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@cc I think that's right - studies said passengers weren't interested in that walk/roll to the terminal building so the station had to be under the airport. Given the position of the railways in the vicinity, this meant the line would have to go under the runway, which BAA were not fans of (understandably - throw in the potential threat to their parking cash cow, and issues it might have caused a theoretical future second runway to the north of the existing one and you can see why they were pretty much dead against it).
A Dalmeny chord to get trains onto the Glasgow-Edinburgh line would have solved the issue of accessibility from the west, but the station-must-be-at-the-terminal point was what drove the sheer expense (and risk) of the project.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I heard that one of the key drivers behind the cost escalation was the amount of engineering required for tunnelling under the runway - word was that BAA wanted any tunnel under the runway to be able to withstand 2 IC125s crashing head on at 125mph whilst an A380 crashed on top, making the engineering requirements absolutely obscene.
This may of course be hear-say or exaggeration but I wouldn't be surprised if these requirements were close to the truth.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The best summary for why EARL was cancelled by the SNP that I've come across is sumarised in three words.
"Not a Road".
They have no issue with spending the billions on Vanity projects as long as private motor cars will be able to use it. However when it comes to public transport the ministers loose interest.
Another theory which hasn't been covered here is that TIE
were trying to justify their existence and replacing EARL with a captive market of people paying over the odds to catch an otherwise empty tram between Gogar and the airport shored up the business case to plough ahead with the tram.Posted 9 years ago # -
The liability of the Almond Viaduct and tha massive expenditure recently completed on the Winchburgh Tunnel, which will STILL have a speed restriction (because of the reverse curve) and STILL have a spring leaking water to deal with, yet the line runs almost straight from Linlithgow through Winchburgh Junction to Kirliston from where the three-lane wayleave and empty tarmac of the old A8 runs tio a dead stop at the former Almond Bridge where the Airport's expansion severed the road on its route to go past the former Airport main buildings (which you see from the train on the Fife line (directly alongside)) and reach using the former A8 back towards Maybury.
The solution should not have been to go right to Dalmeny, but to use the straight line to Kirkliston, providing a station there as a key commuter collection point for Kirliston/Newhouse and the hinterland.
The line would take over the width of the old A8 (which now only leads to a single track lane) and descend to go under the Almond and the airport (a lot deeper then the tunnels in to Heathrow Central) (since the work to build one tunnel is no more disruptive than building 2 or more, his might as well build a tunnel for the tram, and *extend the tram route to Kirkliston with the option of reaching S Queensferry using the former track bed of the railway to Port Edgar, secured by the current cycle route.
Service frequency of 6 minutes could permit the retention of the cycle route alongside a single 2-way tram line.
Rejoining the main line at the former Gogar Station site would be one option but a further detail might be to look at the wayleave of the current line with width required for cuttings and embankments, and triple or quadruple the track in from Maybury to Saughton. The old line would remain to Bathgate, and for the fastest trains to Glasgow via the viaduct and tunnel which also remain as a contingency route.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Another theory which hasn't been covered here is that TIE were trying to justify their existence and replacing EARL with a captive market of people paying over the odds to catch an otherwise empty tram between Gogar and the airport shored up the business case to plough ahead with the tram.
TIE had no say in the canning of EARL.
Posted 9 years ago # -
They didn't have a say as such but my understanding is that they were heavily involved in both projects and confirmed the viability of the station at Gogar and tram to airport option.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Really interesting to hear about some options that were about and some of the influences that got it abandoned. Seems to me that what scuppered it was the unfeasibility of delivering passengers right to the departure gate (okay, slight exaggeration). That, I don't believe, was a reasonable requirement, and I'm sure that viable solutions were available that would get passengers from a nearby rail station to the terminal with very little passenger inconvenience. The fact that surveys indicated that potential users would not contemplate anything but a station in the terminal says a lot about those users; the type that won't go to George St unless you can park there.
Posted 9 years ago # -
It would be interesting to know what the questions which were asked were.
How it can be deemed less convenient to step off the train onto a travelator than to drive to an offsite carpark and wait for a bus before lugged all your bags from the bus stop to the terminal may have been in the wording.
Of course if they interviews were conducted at the exit form the multi story carpark or contained references to the trams being more expensive for a family of five than a weeks carparking that may also have influenced it.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Often pointless asking people what they want!
Would you like a computer hard drive in your pocket with some songs for 20 times the price of a Walkman clone?
Would you like a cycle route along George Street that changes sides round the statues?
Oh, I think they asked that one and ignored the responses.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Plans for an new road to the airport from Gogar Roundabout
https://www.edinburgh-airport-eastern-access-road.co.uk
It not all about encouraging more car journeys, oh no they will also
"provide the opportunity to improve active travel and public transport times to the Airport"
Don't you love the commitment #sarcasm
Posted 5 years ago # -
Isn't it more about increasing the number of flights? Both cargo and passenger.
I don't suppose the council will consider holyrood declaring a climate emergency as a valid reason to object to such increases.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Airport has stopped growing now for first time for years. Around 14 million passengers per annum. Glasgow at 10 million and is working on getting a rail connection.
A new road will follow that no doubt. So much concrete and wasted land at every airport for car parking.Posted 5 years ago # -
Lordy, a road to split the jam into two jams
Posted 5 years ago # -
Imagine if they'd added "Provide the opportunity to" to the start of all the other 'benefits'.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Surely a serious opportunity here to ensure the access road, or at least the 'last mile', is bus/taxi only. Would really improve competitiveness of public transport links at peak times.
Additionally, assuming the road is about 3km long this means the airport is a <40min cycle from a huge chunk of Edinburgh. A high quality segregated route (shared pavement might be OK here provided junctions were done well) is vital to make this a workable option for as many business travellers as possible.
Also very important to make sure the roundabout exit/entrance - which is currently vaguely acceptable for cycling purely because it's quiet - is fully signalised with toucan crossings.
Posted 5 years ago # -
As I mentioned on the other thread this was recently discussed on, IMO this road is just a Trojan horse to enable the planned commercial exploitation of all the land between Gogar roundabout and the airport. As such they should be told to GT...
eg http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19500
Posted 5 years ago # -
With a commitment to deliver the Almond Chord,leaving the Winchburgh Junction-Dalmeny Junction line at Kirkliston and cutting across the 2-3 Km along the Almond to join the Saughton West Junction-Dalmeny Junction (Fife) line as it passes along the Eastern Boundary of EDI, we already have the option to deliver an airport station, noting that you can already see, from the train, the original entrance to Edinburgh (Turnhouse) Airport on the other side of Turnhouse Road which runs beside the railway. This is around 2Km from Edinburgh Gateway Station.
Part of the (declared) plan for the new road is the closure and severance of the short (original) runway Oddly this is listed as 12-30 (which does not add up to 36?), and although not shown, it must surely be a sensible move to use the cleared and compacted sub-base of the taxiway for 12-30 for any access.
Aside from the clear folly of piling an extra feed of road traffic in to the Gogar junction. I can see the opportunity to press for the works to deliver any road link to also include the formation, and even the construction of a 2-track railway between Edinburgh Gateway and the old Turnhouse Airport, which retains buildings and access from Turnhouse Road, with provision to connect to a slightly re-aligned Almond Chord, running in a shallow cutting across the land at the end of the current runway. It could be possible to fit in extra track(s) within the existing wayleave between Saughton and Gateway, and thus enable stopping and fast services. A siding at Turnhouse could enable high speed rail'freight' services to operate from the Airport's current freight terminal. (this could make EDI an air freight hub for a whole swathe of the North East)
This would deliver a rail station around 2Km from Edinburgh Gateway, which can be served by direct trains between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and connect with the main airport terminal through extending the current shuttle bus services for the long stay car park (or as with Heathrow T5, using an intelligent autonomous pod service for on-demand journeys) this would also reduce the road vehicle traffic crossing the tram line at Eastfield Avenue - site of a rather spectacular collision between a car park shuttle bus, and a tram. NB the new access would send more road traffic across the tram route - presumably via this notorious crossing?
Looking at the use of the aprons and buildings linked to runway 12-30 you might notice that DHL TNT, and other major freight operators have air freight hubs on this site. Rail nerds might be aware of the work of Intercity Railfreight, and the Rail Operations Group, to develop a rail connected high speed parcels service, with a currently stalled project to offer urgent (eg pathology/legal/medicines &c) deliveries across Scotland by rail and cargo bike - essentially Central Edinburgh-Central Glasgow door to door in around 60 minutes.
A distribution/warehousing hub,located in the Central Belt, with immediate access to fast rail, air, and road networks, could offer same morning (rather than just same day) deliveries to most of Scotland, with much of this deliverable with 'low carbon' transport impact.
One to debate? Certainly one to press for the rail connection.
Posted 5 years ago # -
“Certainly one to press for the rail connection.”
I’m sure you’re on the case.
Good luck.
I no longer have the patience (not sure I ever did) to get involved in such intricate detailing and dealing with all the various ‘high level’ interests that deliver (or usual not) transport policies and practicalities.
Sense (common or otherwise) is largely lacking.
Maybe they should all play SimCity with new road options removed...
Posted 5 years ago # -
Slightly related -
(Perhaps from the days before “joined-up-thinking” became an aspiration?)
https://twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1198901967776604161
Posted 5 years ago # -
@Tulyar runway identifiers don't add up to 36. The numbers are however 18 (ie 180°) apart.
Posted 5 years ago # -
The second runway has been officially closed since early last year.
I think it's already being used for other purposes in places but can't remember how.
Posted 5 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
