Portobello Train Station - back on track?

[Bob Jefferson]

Perhaps, but don't hold your breath.

[Maria]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Cleopas]

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

[wangi]

[Epykat]

[Bob Jefferson]

Although a station at Portobello doesn't appear to feature in the current plans for the reintroduction of the South Sub line, the project itself is still very much a live issue and if it does go ahead we need to make sure that we are not left out of the equation.

From today's EN:

[rapunzell]

[Bob Jefferson]

[rapunzell]

[Bob Jefferson]

Support for the South Sub in tonight's EN:

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

From the EN:



More info and link to petition at

[Bob Jefferson]

Lawrence has just reminded me about his e-petition to re-open the South Suburban Railway, which I have now signed. At a fraction of the cost of the trams, the South Sub represents great value for money.

[Lawrence Marshall]

[Maria]

[Porty]

I missed the CC meeting last night, thanks for the reminder on the petition. Met Lawrence on the bus tonight and he tells me petition numbers are up to 1200.

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

[wangi]

[Maria]

From today's EN :

[Bob Jefferson]

From the EN a couple of days back:


by our very own Lawrence Marshall.

[Bob Jefferson]

[mr magnolia]

[Maria]

From the EN 10/02/09 :




And another letter from today's EN:

[Grunk]

I actually had a brief look at the report, and the scottish census results after I read the article.

It seems that Halcrow only expect 1% of Edinburgh's population to use the south sub trains, even though 30% of folk in the city use cars to get to their work (commute less than 10k i.e. in another part of Edinburgh).

They didn't seem to factor in that the south sub, orbits the city (unlike the bus routes) and connects to the majority of the residential centres in Edinburgh. It would also provide the fastest way to get around the city.

I can't help but think that the council just didn't like the first report (Atkins) which advocated re-openeing the line, so they just commissioned another report.

[Maria]

From today's EN :

[Warcorro]

[Porty]

[Grunk]

Since Edinburgh now has <a href="http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Record-500-sets-of-roadworks.5412838.jp"> One Roadwork per 1000 people. </a>It seems like the ideal time to reopen the rail network that covers the city.

Even if they just decided to open it temporarily, maybe just during rush hour, to ease the roads while the trams are being built. I bet it would only take a couple of months to build temporary platforms that would allow diesel trains utilise the old lines.

[Lawrence Marshall]

Report to the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee of the City of Edinburgh Council, 28 July 2009 - "Rail Station at Portobello"

*EDINBVRGH*
THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL
Rail Station at Portobello
Item no 5.8
Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee
28 July 2009
Purpose of report
1. To respond to a motion to this Committee on 5 May 2009.
Main report
2. At its meeting on 5 May, Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee
approved the following motion by Councillor Child:
‘Committee:
Recalls the work already carried out on providing a station at Portobello as part
of the development of the award-winning Edinburgh Crossrail scheme, now
successfully embedded into the public transport provision within the city.
Calls for a report from the Director of City Development on the feasibility of reopening
a heavy rail station at Portobello, served by trains to both Newcraighall
and North Berwick.’
3. The requirement to report within one cycle means that this report is a prefeasibility
study, based on a review of previous work updated to take account of
subsequent developments.
4. The Scottish Government has primary responsibility for assessing, prioritising
and promoting rail improvements in Scotland.
5. The Scotland Route Utilisation Strategy contains no reference to a potential
station at Portobello. No recent Scottish Government documents refer to a
potential station at Portobello (e.g. Scotland’s Railways, Consultation on
Initiatives related to the ScotRail Franchise Extension). The Council did not
seek the inclusion of Portobello station when commenting on these documents.
Therefore writing to Ministers on the subject would comprise a new initiative.
6. The Strategic Transport Projects Review included an ‘east of Scotland’ rail
improvements project, described as providing more capacity and services. It
will consist of various works and new initiatives, including new, more frequent
or faster train services between Edinburgh and Newcraighall, Edinburgh and
Dunbar. Additional rolling stock and new facilities would be introduced and
parts of the network remodelled (cost estimated at £250-£500 million).
7. Whilst the STPR does not refer to a station at Portobello, there is an
opportunity to submit the concept to Ministers for consideration within the
context of the east of Scotland rail improvements project. It is therefore
proposed that the Director of City Development write to the Transport Minister
seeking such consideration, along with other schemes which are a high priority
for the Council.
8. Previous work on a station at Portobello comprises work during development of
the Crossrail project (1998), and by Atkins during a study of the Edinburgh
South Suburban Railway (2003).
9. The Crossrail work concluded that Portobello station could not realistically be
built as part of that project, as it incurs significant capital cost, has low
patronage and presents operational challenges on the East Coast Main Line.
The Council resolved to reconsider it if a case could be made for reintroducing
passenger trains on the ESSR.
10. While assessing the case for ESSR passenger services, Atkins reviewed
options for siting a station at Portobello, and concluded that the safeguarded
site (at Station Brae) was the best. Atkins did not review the financial case.
Nevertheless, Atkins noted that it would entail (manageable) disruption to
Craigentinny Depot (with sizeable remodelling costs), and that pedestrian
access to the platforms (particularly DDA compliance) would be expensive. The
site is around 250m from Portobello High Street, with Duddingston within
walking distance. It is not suitable for Park and Ride as it is too close to the City
Centre and Newcraighall P and R, and impacts on surrounding roads. Nearby
bus services largely compete with rail.
11. The subsequent work on the ESSR effectively ruled out Portobello station
because a) the best performing service patterns did not pass through
Portobello b) a realistic case could not be made for any new service on the
ESSR.
12. To comprehensively review the case for a station at Portobello, updated
feasibility studies and costings would be needed. Demand forecasting and road
capacity assessments would be required, as would consideration of planning
requirements and local consultation. This would require significant resources.
13. Councillor Child’s motion referred to services using North Berwick and
Newcraighall trains. Detailed analysis is required to indicate whether usable
paths exist, but using current services, this would theoretically provide 4
trainslpeak hour and 3 trainsloff-peak hour. Neither peak nor off-peak services
would offer a regular, even interval service. However, the overall service level
would be quite attractive.
14. However, some turn-around times at Newcraighall are tight; an additional stop
on outgoing and incoming trains between Newcraighall and Waverley may
require additional rolling stock, considerably increasing operating costs. The
introduction of Borders trains in 201 3 (which may be separate from Crossrail
trains) will also complicate timetable planning.

[Lawrence Marshall]

E-mail from Lawrence Marshall to CEC TIE Committee members, 24 July 2009

From: LAWRENCE MARSHALL <lawrence336>
To: Sent: Friday, 24 July, 2009 12:13:09 PM
Subject: "Rail Station at Portobello" report - CEC TIE Committee, 28 July 2009







Dear Councillor,
please find attached a copy of a report going to next Tuesday's meeting (28 July 2009) of the City of Edinburgh Council's Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee on a "Rail Station at Portobello" (Item 5..
I won't be able to come along next Tuesday as I'll be at work but I hope that the following comments might be of help to you in coming to a decision as to how to progress this matter.
As the councillor for Portobello for 13 years, I was well aware that the community in Portobello were being very patient in accepting my reassurances that the most practicable way of securing a re-opened Portobello station, following its being dropped from the Edinburgh Crossrail scheme, was to await the outcome of deliberations on the possibility of re-opening the Edinburgh South Suburban Railway. Now that the Transport Mininster has quite categorically stated that the Scottish Government wishes instead to allocate resources to enable commuters from out of town to get into and out of Edinburgh more quickly and with higher frequency services, the South Sub. does not appear to offer a route to the re-opening of a station at Portobello. It must, therefore, piggyback on the North Berwick and Newcraighall (Borders) lines - all perfectly possible.
With a journey time to/from Waverley station of 5 minutes, rail would indeed be an attractive option for many local people as a way to access the city centre (Waverley and Haymarket) and the developing western edges of the city (Edinburgh Park/Gyle) from Portobello. The statement in paragraph 9 that a station at Portobello would have "low patronage" has no logic - indeed it was historically one of the busiest stations in Edinburgh and one of the largest as well as a result (see photo above). It would also, as again in the past, be a useful way for visitors to access the attractions of Portobello.
As for the comment - also in paragraph 9 - that a station at Portobello "presents operational challenges on the East Coast Main Line", all I'll say is that if you can fit a station in at Gogar on the tracks to Fife, you can fit in a station at Portobello. And Edinburgh Park station was built on an even busier line. The real challenge is psychological - to overcome the downbeat "glass half empty" mindset which sees problems where others see opportunites. Indeed, inbound to Edinburgh, a loop off the main line already exists in the form of the Craigentinny east depot line. The best solution inbound would be a platform between the east depot line and the main line which could be used by trains inbound on either line. Outbound, I would argue that a platform initially on the main line would be the best solution - with a loop behind this a later possibility if required. The best station location is indeed, as paragraph 10 points out, at Station Brae. Re-instating the additional station access off Christian Path should also be considered.
Paragraph 10 also states that Portobello is "not suitable for Park and Ride". Whilst it's true that commuters from out of town should not be encouraged to park here, local park and ride already occurs informally at Brunstane station (and opening the currently mothballed Big W car park off the Milton Link would reveal that even more). The P+R at Newcraighall also attracts local traffic from the Portobello/Craigmillar area as well as from out of town. A station at Portobello could easily have a P+R facility - with its own already built dedicated access off the Sir Harry Lauder Road and via the old Freightliner site. Paragraph 10 is too negative in this regard.
With respect to paragraph 14 and the comment regarding tight turnaround times at Newcraighall, a good number of trains sit there for 15 minutes. A stop at Portobello would not compromise the ability to run the Newcraighall service - which in any case will be re-scheduled once the line is extended to the central Borders. If you can timetable a stop at a new station at Gogar for local and national rail services, you can do the same for a station at Portobello.
In all, then, I hope that you can see the potential of a re-opened Portobello rail station to improving sustainable mobility within the capital.
I would therefore hope that, rather than follow the course of action proposed in paragraph 7 of writing to the Transport Mininster to seek consideration of a rail station at Portobello "along with other schemes which are a high priority for the Council", you would instead agree that this muddying of the waters would be unhelpful and that the Director of City Development should instead be asked to write to the Transport Minister separately with respect to seeking the re-opening of a rail station at Portobello.

Yours sincerely

Lawrence Marshall
50 (3F1) King's Road
Portobello
Edinburgh EH15 1DX
Tel.: (0131) 669 1336