“
What is needed is a new terminus independent of Waverley, as the old Princes Street station used to be, but where is the money, opportunity and vision? Without a modern equivalent of draining the Nor’ Loch the problems won’t go away.
“
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
“What is needed is a new terminus independent of Waverley” (McLellan)
(20 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
What a bizarre article. Where would a new station go? The new platforms at Waverley are about capacity yet he is complaining about disruption that causes. He mentions outlying stations like curriehill but points out edn PK and gateway have been flops. Maybe he was being paid per word?
Posted 7 years ago # -
“Where would a new station go?”
Quite.
Not even sure if means terminus (like Queen Street which has connections with other routes via Low Level).
Perhaps he is thinking ‘parkway’ with lots of parking?
Waverley has problems being in a cold basement but it’s two termini with added through capacity.
Hard to beat, impossible to replicate.
Access far from perfect but people manage if they have ‘normal’ mobility.
Some truth in this -
“
Haymarket points the way forward, but Edinburgh Gateway has so far proved to be a dead end and demand for fast links to Glasgow limited Edinburgh Park’s effectiveness.
“
More trains could/should stop at EP, but they don’t because of SR/SG (and maybe some passengers) obsession with Glas-Ed journey times.
3 minutes slower and 100% reliability would suit most passengers more.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Agreed more trains should stop at Edinburgh park
The curriehill kirknewton line has four trains between half seven and half eight but the rest of the time it is maybe one or two an hour? (That stop) a few more go through, inter city and also the Glasgow Central to Edinburgh some have last stop at carstairs before Haymarket and some have last stop at Livingston before Haymarket.
So would have same issue. The development in Currie Balermo is road linked (a70 capacity smashed) but the kirknewton new builds could access the station, though most will go a71
Posted 7 years ago # -
Curriehill yesterday -
(Buses today!)
Posted 7 years ago # -
Terminus stations are extremely space inefficient as trains sit in them for a long time for catering, cleaning, watering and crew changeovers. You need the associated "ground crew" facilities for these functions in the station, and a lot of platforms.
Even for metro services with a driver end change only a train will still occupy a platform for 10 minutes rather than 2.
Major relief can be afforded to pure terminus stations by bypassing them using cross-city tunnels. Examples of varying ages are the Munich Stammstrecke (1972), the Malmo Citytunneln (2010) and London Crossrail (December 2018)
These tunnels don't remove the need for terminus facilities, but allow them to be relocated to suburban areas where space is abundant and cheap, and pathing pressure is much less.
Waverley is not a pure terminus and has some through lines, nevertheless it was on this principal that for a long time two turn-back sidings were proposed for Abbeyhill. These would have been used to turn some Edinburgh-Glasgow trains when the service frequency was a proposed 8 trains per hour, too much for the east end bays to handle.
These sidings were de-scoped along with the Almond Chord when the EGIP service frequency was cut back and trains extended instead.
There is one working example of this in Edinburgh today, where some North Berwick trains run to Slateford and use the sidings there rather than tying up a valuable east end bay platform.
Posted 7 years ago # -
One curriehill train just before 8 a.m. Runs all the way to north berwick
Posted 7 years ago # -
One curriehill train just before 8 a.m. Runs all the way to north berwick
These trains are maintained in Shields Depot so there's a couple of runs a day to/from the west to rotate the stock in use
Posted 7 years ago # -
Yes, my old buddy in the EIS now retired used to get on at Carluke where he lives and the train would go through curriehill, once a day. This is the reason there are four trains in the 7.30 to 8.30 morning window.
Not many Carluke to Edinburgh trains daily (maybe only one)
Posted 7 years ago # -
“Not many Carluke to Edinburgh trains daily (maybe only one)”
No, but -
Posted 7 years ago # -
The main problem at Waverley is the lack of capacity due to the tunnels at either side. It would be great to add another tunnel either way, but then you'd need to add more tracks all the way out of the city, which would be pretty pricey.
A rail-knowledgeable friend used to think some of this could be sorted by terminating more services from the West at Haymarket, but I'm not convinced. Everything would have to work like clockwork - it's a tight station and trains couldn't occupy a platform there. One delay would have a huge knock-on effect.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@jonty, a Lorra Lorra doors.
The new pedestrian crossing as you come into Balerno for the newmills development is finished (not switched on but no temporary traffic lights)
Posted 7 years ago # -
They don't cite any, but I wonder if they've seen the types of station popular in mainland Europe where the pedestrian concourse is underneath the tracks, which are up in the air on shiny concrete.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"t's a tight station and trains couldn't occupy a platform there."
IIRC there's an "extra" terminus platform near Haymarket Yards which is used for the odd Fife circle service in peak time, terminating at Haymarket?
Posted 7 years ago # -
There’s room for Platform -1 at Haymarket, but no idea if that would make much difference.
Posted 7 years ago # -
“The main problem at Waverley is the lack of capacity due to the tunnels at either side. It would be great to add another tunnel either way, but then you'd need to add more tracks all the way out of the city, which would be pretty pricey.”
Don’t know how true this at east end. Tunnels were built double-tracked but even before electrification only one was still used with two tracks.
It ought to be possible to re-
profile (or re-bore) one tunnel so it could cope with two electrified tracks.BUT that would mean all trains using a single line into the east of Waverley until rebuilding was done, which would presumably be hard to deal with.
More running track capacity could be created by reinstating the Meadowbank Loop. This has been a plan for ages - and been on hold for most of that time!
“Copyright All rights reserved by pholiota The owner has disabled downloading of their photos”
Posted 7 years ago # -
Klaxon - Yes, it's a pity about Abbeyhill. However, Network Rail hope to electrify the south suburban line between 2019 and 2024. They also have plans to re-double the Portobello junction. The next logical step would be to reopen stations on the sub as far as Slateford and use the line as a terminal loop - trains could lay over at Slateford yard away from the running lines. This avoids trains crossing the flat junction at Haymarket - which is the only significant infrastructure barrier to the reopening of the line.
Posted 7 years ago # -
“which is the only significant infrastructure barrier to the reopening of the line“
If this was London there would already be a bridge from South Sub to Haym.
Posted 7 years ago # -
There's a triangle of largely unused land adjacent to Russell Road which could be the site of a Russell Road or "Haymarket West" terminus for the South Sub line. It could potentially take passenger services from Musselburgh, North Berwick, Borders Rail, etc.
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
