Talk:Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Transport in Scotland WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of transportation in Scotland. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

So, in the end, which line will this one be part of? Or will it be Edinburgh to Glasgow via Bathgate (and swallow up the other two lines) Simply south 18:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that through services will replace the current Edinburgh-Bathgate and Drumgelloch/Coatbridge-Glasgow services. Trains would continue from Glasgow Queen Street (lower) to one of the North Clyde termini and possibly also continue beyond Waverley to Newcraighall or North Berwick. Henning Makholm 21:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what the line will be called (other than beig the 3rd Glasgow-Edinbugh Line)? Simply south 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think in this case we will have to wait and see - I think North Clyde/Bathgate/North Berwick is a bit of a mouthful. Stewart 22:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stations

I have created the stations of Caldercruix and Armadale. I have put the railbox under the provisional name of the rail link as i am not sure what the new name will be. I have done the same at Drumgelloch and Bathgate. Simply south 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rolling stock upgrades

The paragraph that attempts to infer rolling stock upgrades from a 5 mi/h difference between the projected line speed and the maximum speed of the current stock seems to be rather speculative. I am not specifically familiar with British practices, but I'd find it more probable that Network Rail prefers (for consistency and ease of planning) to use a discrete range of line speed ratings for all new constructions, and that 80 mi/h is simply the lowest common design speed that allows for the envisaged use of the line. Unless it can be argued that building the new line with a 75 mi/h rating would have been an actually considered option, the paragraph does not sound convincing. –Henning Makholm 09:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)