http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/south-sub-not-a-current-priority-1-4246929
Meanwhile in Bizzaroworld, Tory MSP is agitating for re-opening of abandoned public transport route!
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
Are South Sub tram-trains any closer?
(100 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
How does Miles Brigg's push for better public transport fit with his local council colleagues' demand that parking charges be reduced?
Posted 7 years ago # -
"
But Mr Briggs said he was disappointed with the council’s response.
“They seem to be kicking it into the long grass,” he said. “I would have expected to see more vision and leadership from the council.
"
Well I agree with that.
"
“They have not ruled it out, but it’s this very slow dragging of heels that’s so frustrating.”
He said the indications he had received from the current Transport Minister Humza Yousaf about the Scottish Government’s interest in the line were positive.
"
It would interesting to see that letter...
The continuing problem is not really about money, or even 'value for money' - was the business case for the Borders Line that good?
It's partly the simplistic view that this is about getting people from south Edinburgh to Waverley station or (highlighted in previous 'studies') 'just paralleling the 38 bus'.
As I have said many times before, there should have been passenger trains on the south sub to coincide with the opening of the Borders Line. Of course it would help if that had had more passing places. Then maybe an extra train or two an hour going via the south sub to Fife, Stirling or Glasgow.
Of course improving signalling around Haymarket might help.
Maybe a tram-train avoiding Waverley and Haymarket stations, could produce extra opportunities.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Andrew Burns' response to Miles Briggs referred to a negative feasibility report done in 2009. Given how pessimistically wrong the feasibility reports for big rail projects in Scotland have been recent years (Airdrie-Bathgate, Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine, Borders. Even Edinburgh Trams) with respect to passenger numbers they might want to not put too much credence to it. Infact, it's exactly the sort of reason they should be commissioning a new report in light of previous underprojections.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"exactly the sort of reason they should be commissioning a new report"
Yes.
Unfortunately such reports begin with a brief and/or a set of assumptions.
One of which is likely to be "Network Rail says".
Posted 7 years ago # -
This is from a document from last year.
“
Edinburgh Suburban Enhancement Programme - Key Points
This route provides a strategic link between the East Coast Main Line (ECML) and West Coast Main Line (WCML) for freight, long distance passenger and engineering haulage services. This proposal aligns closely with the CP5 schemes to electrify the Shotts line and enhance ECML to WCML freight gauge. Modelling of power supply requirements indicates that a new feeder station will be required to support more electric services, likely to be located near Curriehill.
This option supports 2043 Conditional Outputs for Connectivity and Capacity.
The Edinburgh Suburban Line requires a number of infrastructure enhancements prior to electri cation to provide su cient capacity for diverted East Coast and West Coast services.Edinburgh Suburban Enhancement Programme
The proposal provides capacity for electric freight services from the ECML to Central Scotland (currently running through Edinburgh Waverley) to run via a less congested route, which releases Edinburgh Waverley capacity for use by long distance and local passenger services. It also creates a viable diversionary electri ed route for freight, local services (from the train depot at Millerhill), and diverted long distance ECML and WCML passenger services to/from Edinburgh Waverley.
This package of enhancements improves capacity at Portobello Junction, which is a low speed (15mph) single lead junction on a 90mph section of the ECML. It also reduces performance risks at this key location on the Scottish network where the two trains per hour Borders service integrates with ECML services. Enhancements of other junctions and signalling on the route contribute to a signi cant capacity upgrade prior to electri cation.
This option proposes the electri cation of the Edinburgh Suburban line to the electri ed fringes at Millerhill, Portobello Junction on the ECML, Slateford Junction on the Midcalder lines and Haymarket junctions on the Edinburgh to Glasgow lines.
It also proposes the redoubling of Portobello Junction and the remodelling of Niddrie West, Slateford and Craiglockhart junctions in conjunction with re-signalling the route and higher linespeeds.
In addition the capability and capacity at Millerhill through the provision of a new signalling system and optimised track layout between Monktonhall Junction and Niddrie South Junction are proposed.“
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Scotland-Route-Study.pdf
SO
NOT with much thought about a new passenger service.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Tram trains are technically quite a beast
1) The overhead line on conventional railway is 25kV AC, tram light rail 750V DC. If you electrify the sub to tram standard, you can never run AC mainline traction down there. The sub *will* need 25kV in the next 5-10 years.
1500V DC Tyne and Weir metro has this "problem" on the route to Sunderland which is shared with national rail trains. An AC/DC dual traction tram would be the best answer here, but this would require extensive conversion work to the existing fleet.
2) The wheel flange profile to run on standard rail is different from a typical light rail profile. Sheffield has just had to re-lay all of it's track in order to be compatible with the wheels on the new trams - so Edinburgh would need all new rail between the depot and the sub, and a percentage of the fleet to be fitted with new bogies.
None of these are insurmountable engineering problems - far from it - but it's far more complicated than re-instating conventional rail services to/from Waverley.
Posted 6 years ago # -
A slight aside - it looks rather a lot like Sheffield doesn't have the extensive sub-surface sleeper arrangement that Edinburgh's tram system has.
Ninja edit:
Each track in the highway sits on a concrete bed 2.20 metres wide, with two channels measuring 170 x 165mm for the rails.The rails have concrete blocks positioned against the webs to increase lateral strength and are secured in their channels by a special, solvent-free polyurethane adhesive which incorporates cork called an "elastomer".
That is to say in plain English: The rails are glued into the road, not clipped in. I'm not qualified to remark on the pros/cons of each system but it seems like a more straightforward/traditional approach than we took.
Posted 6 years ago # -
The wheel flange profile to run on standard rail is different from a typical light rail profile. Sheffield has just had to re-lay all of its track in order to be compatible
More than you really wanted to know about the difference in wheel profiles between trams and trains, and how to have a design that works on both systems.
"
This paper discusses the challenges and the design process followed during the evolution of the wheel profile and the rationale behind the design choices that were made. The paper also describes the required design assurance which has been carried out to ensure the new profile has sufficient resistance to derailment, is compatible with switches and crossings (S&C) and has acceptable performance in terms of wheel-rail rolling contact fatigue and wear.
"Abridged version from the same author.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Skimmed it to the extent that I am now curious what rail profile Edinburgh uses, as it seems Sheffield was needing the renewals done anyway however the opportunity was used to change the type.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@Klaxon: it's far more complicated than re-instating conventional rail services to/from Waverley.
Perhaps it would be fairer to say that it's a different kind of complication. Pretty much every critique of re-opening the South Sub for passenger traffic points out that there is currently no spare capacity at Waverley for the additional train movements proposed. (I suspect the reduction/change in scope of the EGIP won't have helped as much as some might have hoped, especially since the traffic growth forecasts indicate that the longer trains that were supposed to remove the need for a six-times-an-hour E-G service will become inadequate sooner lather than later.)
Whether it's harder to engineer extra capacity into Waverley, or to re-engineer the South Sub to accommodate tram-trains, I couldn't say. (I don't believe either would be trivial.)
Posted 6 years ago # -
“Pretty much every critique of re-opening the South Sub for passenger traffic points out that there is currently no spare capacity at Waverley for the additional train movements proposed.“
Yes, but Waverley is currently getting extra platforms.
Also all previous reports stuck with the Morningside to Waverley circle notion.
How about trains from Galashiels to Dunblane or Perth or Glasgow stopping at Edinburgh Park for rail and tram interchange?
Extra Borders line trains that go to Edinburgh destinations without changing at city centre stations.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Pretty sure the capacity problems are due to the tunnels either side of Waverley.
They should have got the developers of the Morrison St car park at Haymarket to drill another tunnel while they were at it...
Posted 6 years ago # -
Yeah - any more platforms beyond the ones currently being built seem to be for extra tracks in the East tunnels and capacity boosting there. There's a diagram in the linked report.
Posted 6 years ago # -
“
The five years from 2019 could feature more wiring in Scotland, with ScotRail Alliance Managing Director Alex Hynes telling RAIL: “I’d love to see more electrification - Stirling to Perth, East Kilbride and the Edinburgh South Suburban.”
Hynes acknowledged that the East Coast Main Line would need work to increase its capacity, as more operators plan trains to and from Scotland.
“
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/scotrail-targets-further-electrification-schemes
Posted 5 years ago # -
I suppose if you've just invested in a bunch of new electric trains, it's a good idea to use them a bit more than just ferrying GLA-EDI commuters about.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Posted 4 years ago #
-
From the tram route study in CMP:
There are fundamental feasibility issues that mean that the use of south-suburban alignment for a transit / metro type service is likely to be undeliverable and unviable; these include:
– Inter-running with strategic freight route would not allow for high frequency passenger headway;
– Inability to access city centre limits potential. A rail option would be unfeasible due to constraints at Waverley /Haymarket. Tram-train mooted as alterative to overcome this; however, the city centre tram network’s similar constraints represent a significant obstacle; and
– Tram-train cost and deliverability are very uncertain. There are myriad issues re overhead line, signalling, track compatibility, platforms, level access.
- Notwithstanding feasibility issues, previous
studies have suggested the business case is
weak for a south-suburban rail option given the
inability of options to adequately serve the city
core, which would be fundamental to the
demand and benefits case.- Relief of city centre constraints better utilised
supporting service enhancements in other corridors.Posted 4 years ago # -
Keeps coming round this one bit like the trains used to do.
Maybe as you can still see where the stations were and much of the line still visible.
Posted 4 years ago # -
“Inter-running with strategic freight route would not allow for high frequency passenger headway;”
Since Longannet closed, much less freight.
“studies have suggested the business case is weak for a south-suburban rail option given the inability of options to adequately serve the city core, which would be fundamental to the demand and benefits case.”
That’ll be studies from many years ago.
One concluded that no more passengers would be attracted than then used the 38 bus!
The main problem is the same as LB’s - ‘everything must go via Princes Street’
There is an assumption that the Sub would just be like the 60s where people ‘just’ went from Morningside (for instance) to Waverley.
There is also the assumption that trains couldn’t be fitted in at Haymarket - a self fulfilling prophecy as the rebuilding of the station and various phases of resignalling never took the possibility into account.
Posted 4 years ago # -
The Western Approach Rd could be converted to a tram and active travel corridor, with cars banned from the Western end.
That would allow south-sub trams to get as far as Lothian Rd at least.
From there, a new tunnel under Lothian Rd, then alongside the castle side of the existing railway to Waverley.
"A new tunnel", I hear you say. "That would be too expensive." But they managed to build loads of tunnels in the 19th C. We need to go back to that mentality of "railway is King".
And they still seem to be building tunnels for cars without anyone batting an eyelid e.g. Silvertown tunnel in London.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I can't see the south sub being reopened to timetabled passenger services as long as there remain only four tracks between Haymarket and Waverley (and there's not much chance of that changing). Haymarket is one of the most congested parts of the Scottish rail network, so there will be no appetite to bring additional services into the mix.
Besides, is the demand really there? The distances involved aren't vast, and I'd imagine you'd just be converting bus passengers into train passengers.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I've loved the idea for years. But recently I've come to thinking that a lot of support for re-opening the South Sub comes from an assumption that Morningside Road is destined to be forever car-clogged.
One bus gate in the vicinity of the Clock would probably kill any peak time business for a station that close to the centre, I think.
A really interesting proposition would be services from the West that completely avoid Waverley, or perhaps terminate at its less physically constrained east end. Bring back Leith Central and take some pressure off the core?!
Posted 4 years ago # -
Instead of south sub services running to Haymarket, add a wee spur just before the line crosses under the WAR, take it along Roseburn St to a nice new Roseburn Russell Terminal. Campaigns against it might distract the campaigners enough to allow the CCWEL Tobe completed.
Posted 4 years ago # -
“
Other major feeder and link lines suggested include the reopening of Edinburgh’s lost circle line.
That involves making use of the double-track Edinburgh Suburban & Southside Railway (ESSR) that loops around the city and is still used for diverted services and freight transport.
“
Posted 4 years ago # -
To summarise on the 86th posting - This line could reopen No it can’t?
Posted 4 years ago # -
“
He said: “Imagine a fast, direct service running from the Borders Railway stopping at Eskbank, Shawfair, Newcraighall, Kinnaird Park, Craigmillar, Newington, Morningside and then running down the Shotts line to Glasgow Central. This would be a real alternative to the City by-pass and trains could whisk travellers direct from Eskbank to Glasgow in a little over 90 minutes and Morningside to Glasgow Central in a little more than an hour, all without travelling into Haymarket or Waverley for the train to Queen Street.”
“
Eskbank to Glasgow currently 1 1/2 hours, with 20 mins for changing trains at Waverley.
Posted 2 years ago # -
That's certainly the most realistic proposal for the south sub going I think. A train from Morningside to Glasgow (or Galashiels) seems much more useful than one to Waverley, and it provides another way around the existing problem of junction capacity at Portobello. Trams on the line is surely a non-starter while it's still required for freight, whereas the Borders-Glasgow concept could be trialled almost immediately (without the intermediate south sub stations, of course). Potentially hard to justify using the (regrettably) limited capacity on the Borders lines for trains which don't go straight into Edinburgh though, and and I'm not sure how much space there is on the bit of the WCML it would have to use. But very encouraging.
Posted 2 years ago # -
It's more realistic than other proposals though there's still plenty of complications.
Most Shotts line trains stop everywhere, except a few in the peaks - however even the ones which only stop at Bellshill/Shots/West Calder/Livi still take just over an hour from Glasgow to Slateford.
If you're adding more fast trains, will there be the capacity at both the Glasgow suburban and WCML ends of the line?
Plus you'd have to use diesels until the south sub and line to Eskbank gets electrified. Eskbank being single track also complicates things.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
