Portobello Train Station - back on track?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 24 Jun 2005, 22:10

Perhaps, but don't hold your breath.

Review of Options for a New Station at Portobello

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Jun 2005, 10:59

Station Brae has come out the preferred option I see. I wonder if that was why F E MacDonald's had their place up for sale a wee while ago. They're still there, so could it be that they were testing the market?

The report mentions that some tree cutting on the embankment would be necessary. Well, that has certainly started already - with some gusto I may add!!

There's also some warnings about the difficulties that may be faced in opening up the Christian Path access tunnel.

Who ordered the report Bob?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Jun 2005, 12:13

It's tied in with the South Sub. Here's more stuff for you to wade through, courtesy of Lawrence Marshalll:

We just have to keep up the pressure re. a station at Portobello. There's hundreds of millions of pounds for Waverley station and the airport rail link but no money available apparently for small scale things like a station at Portobello and the South Sub which have to await national Scottish Executive studies due for completion mostly early next year.

Lawrence Marshall

The Environmental Quality Scrutiny Panel of 15th June asked that CEC work up a second-stage business case for re-opening (STAG 1 has already been completed with a positive result following the Halcrow Fox study and the motion passed by Full Council on the 11th of November last year (see below) and do so in conjunction with E-Rail who are pretty confident of being able to raise in the order of Ã‚Â£6.5m towards re-opening costs. We should then be in a position to approach the Scottish Executive with even more work under our belt early next year as they've indicated we should.

Lawrence Marshall

The City of Edinburgh Council

Motion for Full Council

Meeting of 11th November 2004

Agenda Item 8.6

EDINBURGH SOUTH SUBURBAN RAILWAY; FUNDING AND INTEGRATION

The Council:

1.. Notes the report by the Director of City Development and, in particular, the indication that the Edinburgh South Suburban Railway, the Borders Railway and TramLine 3 would complement each other.

2.. Notes that the re-introduction of passenger services to the Edinburgh South Suburban Railway, by extending the current North Berwick services to Niddrie or Newcraighall via Morningside, would have a positive net present value and benefit cost ratio.

3.. Considers that whilst not without difficulty, the re-introduction of passenger services to the Edinburgh South Suburban Railway would help the Council achieve the objectives of the Local Transport Strategy.

4.. Resolves to work with the Scottish Executive and the rail industry to secure, in a similar timescale to the Borders Railway, the re-introduction of passenger services to the Edinburgh South Suburban Railway by extending the current North Berwick services to Niddrie or Newcraighall via Morningside.

5.. Instructs the Director of City Development to commence discussions with the Scottish Executive with a view to securing the re-introduction of passenger services to the Edinburgh South Suburban Railway.

Proposed ___________________________________

Seconded ___________________________________

And finally, if you still have the strength:

Letters from the Scottish Executive re. the South Sub.

Cleopas · Post by **Cleopas** » 19 May 2006, 23:57

My uncle's best freind says he remembers getting on a train and travelling from Niddrie/Craigmillar to Portobello for 6d (which is apparently an ancient monetary unit discontinued in the 1970s) around 1965 before (in his words) "That bastard sodding Beeching buggered the bloody railways!"

I find it strange that the country that delivered the Industrial Revolution to the World has probably the worst and yet most expensive Rail Network in the same world. Or have I (unbeknownst to myself) slipped into a parallel Universe?

Nonetheless, I think every community by the rail network in this city deserves to have its own station.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Jul 2006, 12:22

From today's EN:

Councillor calls for changes to get Capital's rail network on track

Post by **wangi** » 26 Jul 2006, 12:36

And he suggested Edinburgh-to-Glasgow services could be terminated at a new station at Abbeyhill, rather than Waverley, to prevent trains being held up.

<<scratches head>> How would running trains through a station which has limited and stretched through platform capacity and then through a set of tunnels which are at capacity (and a major bottleneck) before finally terminating at a station you'd have trouble persuding people they wanted to go to help matters at all?!

It would make things a lot worse. You just have to look at peak time performance of the trains through Waverley to Newcraighall...

Something which would work is terminating at Haymarket. But I'm sure people do want to go to the more central Waverley.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 28 Jul 2006, 22:43

wangi wrote:But I'm sure people do want to go to the more central Waverley.

Unless you want to get on a 26. I always get off at Haymarket (sure there's a joke in there somewhere

- maybe for older people!) because it's easier just to cross the road and get a bus rather than getting off at Waverley and having to walk miles along Princes Street.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Aug 2006, 12:33

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:

Plans to reopen South Sub are back on track

rapunzell · Post by **rapunzell** » 25 Aug 2006, 18:00

Bob Jefferson wrote: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:

Plans to reopen South Sub are back on track

I'm finding people have optimisms about Porty:

"Is there a good wheelchair ramp down from Portobello station?" they inqure.

"Um, I think that if you are planning to disembark at Porty station then your wheels are going to be the least of your worries : )"

They are now planning to come round by boat to Porty harbour instead

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Aug 2006, 20:43

Why can't they just use Portobello International Airport (or Portobello Park as some people still insist on calling it) like everyone else?

rapunzell · Post by **rapunzell** » 25 Aug 2006, 20:47

The helicopter landing pad on the roof of the library will do fine

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Jan 2007, 19:49

Support for the South Sub in tonight's EN:

South Sub can't be shunted aside

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Jan 2007, 19:51

From Lawrence Marshall:

Dear All

Here's a letter of support for Alan Roden's article which I've just sent off to the "Evening News". I'm sure the editor would welcome further comment, hopefully supportive as well!

Lawrence

----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Marshall
To: letters_en@edinburghnews.com
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 5:09 PM
Subject: Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir

I very much welcome your transport correspondent Alan Roden's informed, thoughtful and positive opinion piece (29 January) on the case for the re-opening of Edinburgh's South Suburban rail line to local passenger services.

The business case has recently been professionally assessed as encouraging by one of Europe's top transport consultancies, the infrastructure is mostly in place, Waverley already handles at peak periods the trains to and from Haymarket which could extend round the Sub., the private sector are willing to sign legally binding contributions to the project under deals being negotiated by the man who brought Harvey Nichols to Edinburgh, the cost involved is very little indeed, the line quickly connects not only the city centre with many thriving and regenerating parts of the capital but also these communities with each other - and almost everyone wants to see the line re-opened, including all the political parties, the city Council and its neighbouring councils in south-east Scotland.

So what are the Scottish Executive waiting for?

Councillor Lawrence Marshall
The City of Edinburgh Council
City Chambers
High Street
Edinburgh EH1 1JY

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Apr 2007, 07:49

From the EN:

New bid to re-open south city line launched

More info and link to petition at Reopen the South Sub

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Apr 2007, 19:28

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.

Here is the direct link to the petition

Link to further information

Lawrence Marshall · Post by **Lawrence Marshall** » 19 Jul 2007, 21:03

Just a reminder of the current campaign by the Capital Rail Action Group to re-open the Edinburgh South Suburban Railway to local passenger services.
We are currently petitioning the Scottish Parliament on this issue and our online petition has to date attracted over 950 signatures - more than any other current petition. The total should hopefully have reached 1000 by the end of this month.
We have set up a website - www.reopenthesouthsub.org.uk - to go with our petition and, although not the most sophisticated website in the world, I hope that it contains something of interest for folk wanting to know a little bit more about this issue. The background briefing document would be a good place to start. There's also a analysis of train path capacity between Waverley and Haymarket stations showing that it is possible to introduce a service on the South Sub. Finally, the map of the route might also be of interest.
The petition can be signed via a link from the website or via the e-petition section of the Scottish Parliament website or directly at http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.u ... tionID=163
The closing date for signing the petition is 8th September 2007 - the 45th anniversary of the line's closure to local passenger services.
Please try to let as many as possible of your friends and colleagues know of this petition. It takes less than a minute to sign.

Yours sincerely

Lawrence Marshall
Chair
Capital Rail Action Group
50 (3F1) King's Road
Portobello
Edinburgh EH15 1DX
Tel.: (0131) 669 1336
e-mail: lawrence336@btinternet.com

www.capitalrail.org.uk

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Aug 2007, 10:26

The CC unanimously agreed last night to give their backing as a community body to this campaign. Concern was also raised regarding safeguarding a site for Portobello station, especially in regard to Viridor's proposals.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Aug 2007, 13:51

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 · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Nov 2007, 20:41

From today's EN:

Parliament tracks South Sub potential

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Nov 2007, 18:08

For those interested, Lawrence's submission to the Scottish Parliament's Pubic Petitions Committee can be viewed online on Holyrood TV:

http://www.holyrood.tv/popup.asp?stream ... 061107.wmv

The action starts at 30 mins 20 secs and continues to 54 mins 50 secs.

Alternatively/additionally, you can view the concise written submission in support of the petition at:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/co ... E1080A.pdf

PE1080 Petition by Lawrence Marshall, on behalf of the Capital Rail Action Group (CRAG), calling for the re-introduction of local passenger services on the Edinburgh South Suburban Railway.

The Committee agreed to seek responses to the petition from the Scottish Government, E-rail, Network Rail, Transport Scotland, East Lothian Council, Lothian Buses, Passenger's View Scotland, First ScotRail and the City of Edinburgh Council.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 19 Feb 2008, 22:02

From today's EN:

South Sub rail bid books return to Holyrood

This link is an affordable way to ease congestion in areas such as Portobello that are not on the new tram route but desperately need better public transport.

Post by **wangi** » 19 Feb 2008, 22:28

Portobello ... desperately need better public transport

?

That's a strange quote considering the existing public transport Portobello has.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 27 Mar 2008, 15:44

From today's EN :

South Sub plan faces the axe

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Apr 2008, 18:06

From the EN a couple of days back:

Evidence shows it's worth keeping South Sub plans on track
by our very own Lawrence Marshall.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Oct 2008, 21:01

Of interest to users of our local train stations:

Consultation on Initiatives related to the ScotRail Franchise Extension

Publication Date:
10/10/2008
Publication Summary:

The consultation seeks views on how the Priced Options announced in the ScotRail franchise extension can be improved and how best they should be implemented.

Members of the public who wish to contribute to the consultation should do so through one of the stakeholders listed within the document.

The closing date for responses to the consultation paper is 30 November 2008.

Stakeholders include City of Edinburgh Council and MSPs. The matter will be dealt with under AOB at the next Community Council meeting. Lawrence Marshall suggests that we should use the opportunity to push for a Sunday service on the Edinburgh-Brunstane-Newcraighall line.

As you may know, a Sunday service was to have been provided from day one as part of a deal with the owners of the B&Q site at Newcraighall but this fell through just days before the service began and required the shredding of the already printed timetables at that time.

A Sunday service is guaranteed when the line extends into the Borders - but how long will we have to wait for that? (work is not due to commence until early 2011).

So, this consultation seems to me to offer the opportunity to ask Transport Scotland to fund a Sunday service through the franchise extension.

Lawrence Marshall
Chair
Capital Rail Action Group

www.capitalrail.org.uk
www.reopenthesouthsub.org.uk

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 14 Oct 2008, 14:20

Good shout re Sunday services - Sunday is perhaps one of the worst days for driving through Edinburgh now and a train option would be great.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 16 Feb 2009, 14:22

From the EN 10/02/09 :

Support means South Sub hasn't hit the buffers

And another letter from today's EN:

West is getting the best .. why can't Edinburgh?

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 16 Feb 2009, 15:38

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 · Post by **Maria** » 23 Jun 2009, 15:37

From today's EN :
Portobello station campaign builds up a head of steam

Warcorro · Post by **Warcorro** » 30 Jun 2009, 11:39

This was in the Scotsman. Gradual build up of momentum?

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Porto ... 5391096.jp

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Jun 2009, 11:51

let's hope so- it would be great for portobello.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 30 Jun 2009, 14:38

Since Edinburgh now has <a href="http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topst ... 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 · Post by **Lawrence Marshall** » 26 Jul 2009, 22:31

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 · Post by **Lawrence Marshall** » 26 Jul 2009, 22:37

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

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Portobello Train Station - back on track?

Portobello Train Station - back on track?

Sign the e-petition to re-open the South Suburban Railway

CEC report re. "Rail Station at Portobello", 28 Ju