Highland Chieftain schedule

[route:oxford]

I don't think it does as it would leave the service as the stopper pretty much.

This is a trend creeping into Scotrail also such as services from Inverness stopping at Bridge of Allan.

I travelled from Geneva to Chambery two weeks ago and the service stopped at only a few places...bliss....

Isn't that to make up for changes post-Alloa?

In the olden days, Dunblane enjoyed an hourly stopping Glasgow service at xx:15 ish (xx:48 return) as well as an irregular direct Aberdeen/Inverness service stopping pattern and change opportunities at Stirling.

These days it's far more messy, with NRE often recommending changes at Camelon or Falkirk Grahamston and journey times up to 1h20m.

The Dunblane and BofA stops on the Invernesses are pretty much essential to maintain a service. I suppose it doesn't help that the Inverness services are routed via Cumbernauld adding 15 minutes to the journey time.

 

[me123]

In the olden days, Dunblane enjoyed an hourly stopping Glasgow service at xx:15 ish (xx:48 return) as well as an irregular direct Aberdeen/Inverness service stopping pattern and change opportunities at Stirling.

These days it's far more messy, with NRE often recommending changes at Camelon or Falkirk Grahamston and journey times up to 1h20m.

Dunblane still has at least 1tph direct, at least 2tph with changes (often more), and every change in both directions is at Stirling. There is not one instance where you are advised to change at Falkirk on the weekday timetable (I haven't looked at the weekend). In the hours when the stopper doesn't run, there's a fast service in its place. Admittedly it's not great for the longer distance runs, but Dunblane actually has a pretty good timetable to Glasgow. I'd argue that people from Dunblane probably prefer the faster trains!

 

[route:oxford]

There is not one instance where you are advised to change at Falkirk on the weekday timetable (I haven't looked at the weekend).

This is not true. Take a look at National Rail Enquiries for weekday afternoon services from Glasgow to Dunblane in the New Year.

Eg Monday 11th January,

15:22 Glasgow Queen Street to Dunblane, change at Camelon

16:22 Glasgow Queen Street to Dunblane, change at Falkirk Grahamson

(Goodness knows what happens to the 08:49 service in the morning when it stops in Stirling for 16 minutes taking 1h09m on the direct stopper service.)

It's a real pest if the 15:01 arrival into Central is running right on time - 6 minutes is a bit tight for the 15:07, then it's 1:04 minutes until the next direct train.

 

[me123]

I used Virgin Trains to do my search, which has given me the following options around the two options mentioned above:

Dep 15:07, Arr 15:45 (direct train)
Dep 15:18, Arr 16:37 (change at Stirling)
Dep 16:11, Arr 16:50 (direct train)
Dep 16:19, Arr 17:40 (change at Stirling)
Dep 16:49, Arr 17:45 (direct train)

It's looking on Scotrail's site that gives me two slightly different options for the no-direct trains.

Dep 15:22, Arr 16:37 (change at Camelon)
Dep 16:22, Arr 17:40 (change at Falkirk Grahamston, although you could change at Camelon instead).

So, apologies, there's does seem to be instances where changing at Camelon is marginally quicker.

First of all, Virgin won't sell me fares for the Camelon route. I wonder if this is an error on their part, as it seems a perfectly acceptable route? Using the routeing guide, Map SG suggests you can travel via Falkirk (and there's no negative easement to say otherwise), but it doesn't specify if the route via Cumbernauld is acceptable? I'd be tempted to say it is, and that you wouldn't get any problems. As you've said, National Rail allows this route, as does Scotrail.

However, looking at the routes via Camelon, all of these connect onto the same trains as the more direct services leaving Queen Street just a few minutes earlier. In your case, you can still catch the 15:18 for a simple change at Stirling, with the 15:22 as a back up if needed. It's four minutes longer, but to be honest it's probably the option most people would use, and it has to be easier to change at Stirling than at the Falkirk stations.

Interestingly, it's also the fastest option for a trip to Stirling at those times, but I can't imagine it being used as such very much.

 

[Noddy]

Will there be a significant reduction in the journey times when the 800s are introduced on the chieftain ?

 

[najaB]

Will there be a significant reduction in the journey times when the 800s are introduced on the chieftain ?

You would expect that the combination of distributed traction and power doors would mean less time would be lost due to station stops. That has to be balanced against the fact that north of Perth it's mostly single-track so there may not be any point to faster running if it just results in longer waits at the passing loops.

 

[Noddy]

You would expect that the combination of distributed traction and power doors would mean less time would be lost due to station stops. That has to be balanced against the fact that north of Perth it's mostly single-track so there may not be any point to faster running if it just results in longer waits at the passing loops.

North of Perth the timings aren't too bad considering the terrain. I was more thinking between Perth and Edinburgh, some of which is/will be electric powered, and just feels so slow.

 

[najaB]

North of Perth the timings aren't too bad considering the terrain. I was more thinking between Perth and Edinburgh, some of which is/will be electric powered, and just feels so slow.

I reckon a lot of that will be running at line speed so there's not much scope for improvement. Looking at the sectional appendix from Haymarket to Polmont Junction it looks like there's a fair amount of 100mph, after that its mainly 60-90mph.

 

[sng7]

North of Perth the timings aren't too bad considering the terrain. I was more thinking between Perth and Edinburgh, some of which is/will be electric powered, and just feels so slow.

Perth to Edinburgh (No matter if you go via stirling like the Chieftain or via fife like scotrail always feels slow because it is the long way round as the direct line unfortunately no longer exists.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Perth to Edinburgh (No matter if you go via stirling like the Chieftain or via fife like scotrail always feels slow because it is the long way round as the direct line unfortunately no longer exists.

For this poor, benighted Sassenach, what was the direct route, please (via Kinross?) and why did it close versus the routes that remain? Difficult route regarding line speed or .... ?

If it could be reopened (which I assume it can't be) - what kind of journey times versus the current routes would we be talking about?

 

[backontrack]

It was closed by the English transport office in order to build a motorway built by the Scottish transport office!

 

[najaB]

If it could be reopened (which I assume it can't be) - what kind of journey times versus the current routes would we be talking about?

It could be reopened as little of the trackbed was actually built on and the tunnel(s) are in surprisingly good condition. I believe that the time saving would be something like 15-20 minutes on the Stirling route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This link lets you compare the route of the line and motorway.

 

[Class 170101]

Will there be a significant reduction in the journey times when the 800s are introduced on the chieftain ?

You would expect that the combination of distributed traction and power doors would mean less time would be lost due to station stops. That has to be balanced against the fact that north of Perth it's mostly single-track so there may not be any point to faster running if it just results in longer waits at the passing loops.

North of Perth the timings aren't too bad considering the terrain. I was more thinking between Perth and Edinburgh, some of which is/will be electric powered, and just feels so slow.

I reckon a lot of that will be running at line speed so there's not much scope for improvement. Looking at the sectional appendix from Haymarket to Polmont Junction it looks like there's a fair amount of 100mph, after that its mainly 60-90mph.

I wouldn't be certain on timings north Haymarket. I believe the HSTs are permitted to use the Sprinter Differentials on the Highland Main Line will the new IEP be allowed to use them? If not potentially a new path may have to be found for the Highland Chieftain in Scotland.

 

[edwin_m]

I believe there is still a question mark over the installed power of the IEP bi-modes when running on diesel, and whether this will be enought to keep to time. IIRC from Roger Ford's latest piece, the distributed power can't be fully used in diesel mode at speeds above about 13mph.

 

[Noddy]

Will it not be under electric power as far as Stirling? And surely if a HST counts as a DMU a DEMU will!

 

[najaB]

Will it not be under electric power as far as Stirling?

Yes, I would expect so. It's north of Perth that any lack of power would really cause issues though.

 

[edwin_m]

And surely if a HST counts as a DMU a DEMU will!

To be pedantic, a HST doesn't count as a DMU for the purposes of differential speed restrictions. Unless they've changed, the differential speeds north of Edinburgh are signed as being for HSTs but DMUs such as 170s can also take advantage of them. And yes, I would also expect that the IEP will be able to take advantage of HST differentials as its maximum axle-load will be less and its braking at least as good.

 

[cambsy]

Read while ago that the IEP on bi mode would be about 2000 horsepower which not same as HST, Which as 4500 horsepower, or Voyager etc which have 750 horsepower cummins QSK 19 litre engines per coach, which means unless the power has been upped to over 3000 horsepower then even with distributed power they won't even keep HST timings unless coaches are ridiculously light weight. It is all down to horsepower per tonne and distributed power, which why Voyagers are quick off the mark, originally 0-60 mph in a minute, before engines downrated to 700 horsepower to increase economy.

So IEP got no chance of keeping even present timings if only 2000 horsepower on diesel mode, so they will have to put quite a chunk more power in diesel mode if to keep even current timings.

 

[Altnabreac]

For this poor, benighted Sassenach, what was the direct route, please (via Kinross?) and why did it close versus the routes that remain? Difficult route regarding line speed or .... ?

If it could be reopened (which I assume it can't be) - what kind of journey times versus the current routes would we be talking about?

See this campaign backed by Transform Scotland and SAPT:
http://intercityexpress.transformscotland.org.uk/what-we-want/edinburgh-perth-direct/

They assume the need for a new 4 mile tunneled section to avoid the M90 and reckon a 35 minute journey time saving is possible.

This option was assessed on the Strategic Transport Projects Review longlist back in 2008 but rejected because of high cost for limited benefits:

A direct line between Perth and Inverkeithing would reduce the distance between Edinburgh, Perth and Inverness by approximately 25 per cent resulting in a journey time saving of 35 minutes. However, forecasts show a limited transfer of trips from road to rail in this corridor.

The cost of this intervention is relatively high compared to the benefits. This intervention would therefore not provide value for money. In addition, there are significant technical and environmental constraints which would impact on the delivery of this intervention. Intervention D31 (Inverkeithing to Halbeath Rail Line) represents greater value for money through improved access to Rosyth and journey time reductions between Inverkeithing and Halbeath, north Fife and beyond.

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk...rts/uploaded_reports/j10194a/j10194a-a3E8.pdf

Personally I think a business case could be improved if you also added a new bridge over the Tay to St Madoes so that Dundee and Aberdeen services also benefited from the faster journey times.

 

[najaB]

Personally I think a business case could be improved if you also added a new bridge over the Tay to St Madoes so that Dundee and Aberdeen services also benefited from the faster journey times.

But, naturally, that also increases the cost by many, many millions of pounds.

 

[jopsuk]

Even a Class 185 don't count as a DMU for speed differentials- though they're so heavy they don't even count in the HST category. There are definitive lists of what may use DMU, EMU, MU, HST differentials.

 

[sng7]

But, naturally, that also increases the cost by many, many millions of pounds.

Interestingly the Draft Scottish route proposals mention upgrading (and even implies doubling) The Tay Viaduct in perth which is the only substantial bottleneck on the Perth to Dundee route. If This happened you could get Journey time enchantments for Dundee to Edinburgh Service Routing them via Perth (Dundee to Edinburgh Scotrail reckons is 1hr 20, The Jounrey Perth to Dundee is about 20 mins and the Tay Viaduct improvement could save a couple of mins, and Perth to Edinburgh is currently about 1 hr 20 But if you saved 35 mins on that Journey with the new route Overall Dundee to Edinburgh would save at least 15 mins), This would also remove traffic from the tay bridge with the exception of a slow all stopping service through fife to Dundee only and since Most services no longer use the tay bridge you could remove it from the electrification priorities as it will presumably be difficult to electrify particularly at the high spans. So the new route through fife could have many benefits As it would speed up journey times Between Edinburgh and Perth/Inverness by 35 mins and Edinburgh and Dundee/Aberdeen by 15 mins

 

[70014IronDuke]

It could be reopened as little of the trackbed was actually built on and the tunnel(s) are in surprisingly good condition. I believe that the time saving would be something like 15-20 minutes on the Stirling route.
...

thanks. I find this intriguing. What I mean is, how could BR justify closing this line, the shortest route to Perth from Edinburgh? Was it the main line previously? If so, I'd have thought there would have been howls of protest. It looks as if it were a tough route to work - was the line speed low, or did it suffer from subsidence, or what?

Looking at it today, I'd guess the distance for any new line would be about 29 miles? Would the old trackbed be suitable for a high-speed line, one wonders - i mean, up to at least 100 mph?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

See this campaign backed by Transform Scotland and SAPT:

Personally I think a business case could be improved if you also added a new bridge over the Tay to St Madoes so that Dundee and Aberdeen services also benefited from the faster journey times.

Have I got this right - it would be a new line from Bridge of Earn, heading north east and avoiding Perth?

It would add a lot of millions, but presumably could be added at a later date?

Another point in favour of re-opening the direct line to Perth: folks in here have been insisting that the Ladybank route needs redoubling, or at least additional loops. Restoring the direct line would alleviate this need, surely?

 

[NSEFAN]

thanks. I find this intriguing. What I mean is, how could BR justify closing this line, the shortest route to Perth from Edinburgh? Was it the main line previously? If so, I'd have thought there would have been howls of protest. It looks as if it were a tough route to work - was the line speed low, or did it suffer from subsidence, or what?

Did it serve anywhere of significance? If I'm reading the maps correctly then it seems that Kinross would be the only place to have really lost out on its rail service to Edinburgh upon closure of that line. If there was a strong political will to use part of the route to build the M90 then I can see why it was closed, and traffic between Perth and Edinburgh going via either Ladybank or Stirling.

Of course in hindsight it'd be a very useful route, but then it's easy for us to say that safe in 2016, in a time where the railways are being taken seriously again.

 

[Noddy]

Read while ago that the IEP on bi mode would be about 2000 horsepower which not same as HST, Which as 4500 horsepower, or Voyager etc which have 750 horsepower cummins QSK 19 litre engines per coach, which means unless the power has been upped to over 3000 horsepower then even with distributed power they won't even keep HST timings unless coaches are ridiculously light weight. It is all down to horsepower per tonne and distributed power, which why Voyagers are quick off the mark, originally 0-60 mph in a minute, before engines downrated to 700 horsepower to increase economy.

So IEP got no chance of keeping even present timings if only 2000 horsepower on diesel mode, so they will have to put quite a chunk more power in diesel mode if to keep even current timings.

I imagine 2000hp is for the five car version: three ?900hp engines. The nine car version or 2 five cars will have higher hp closer to the HST.

 

[clc]

thanks. I find this intriguing. What I mean is, how could BR justify closing this line, the shortest route to Perth from Edinburgh? Was it the main line previously? If so, I'd have thought there would have been howls of protest. It looks as if it were a tough route to work - was the line speed low, or did it suffer from subsidence, or what?

Looking at it today, I'd guess the distance for any new line would be about 29 miles? Would the old trackbed be suitable for a high-speed line, one wonders - i mean, up to at least 100 mph?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Have I got this right - it would be a new line from Bridge of Earn, heading north east and avoiding Perth?

Lets be ambitious and make it a 150mph line with Javelin type trains. I'm not sure how much extra saving 150mph would give you on a 29 mile line compared with 100mph running but assume it will be around 10 minutes.

Further benefits would ensue if you linked the planned Glasgow-Edinburgh HSR line to the Fife line/Edinburgh Gateway as you could then also run high speed services from Glasgow to Dundee and Aberdeen via the new Edinburgh-Perth route.

And yes I believe Altnabreac's suggested bridge over the Tay would mean high speed services to Dundee and Aberdeen would bypass Perth Station.

 

[najaB]

Lets be ambitious and make it a 150mph line with Javelin type trains. I'm not sure how much extra saving 150mph would give you on a 29 mile line compared with 100mph running but assume it will be around 10 minutes.

Just over 5 minutes.

 

[route:oxford]

Better to upgrade Cowlairs to Perth to HS Standards if you are going to do anything.

 

[clc]

Better to upgrade Cowlairs to Perth to HS Standards if you are going to do anything.

Why do you say that?

 

[tbtc]

Talk of a route through Kinross is going off at a bit of a tangent from discussion about the Chieftain as I think it'd need to continue running via Falkirk and Stirling (regardless of any alignments through Fife).

Maintaining a service from the Highlands to London is a political necessity, but I don't think we can ignore Stirlingshire (east or west...).

Did it serve anywhere of significance? If I'm reading the maps correctly then it seems that Kinross would be the only place to have really lost out on its rail service to Edinburgh upon closure of that line. If there was a strong political will to use part of the route to build the M90 then I can see why it was closed, and traffic between Perth and Edinburgh going via either Ladybank or Stirling.

Of course in hindsight it'd be a very useful route, but then it's easy for us to say that safe in 2016, in a time where the railways are being taken seriously again.

That's it - there were three routes and they kept the two that served Kirkcaldy and Falkirk/Stirling, so the route via Kinross was deemed surplus to requirements.

Interestingly the Draft Scottish route proposals mention upgrading (and even implies doubling) The Tay Viaduct in perth which is the only substantial bottleneck on the Perth to Dundee route

It's not a long bit of single track, and it only sees one service each hour in each direction for most of the day, so I'd suggest that there are bigger bottlenecks to worry about.

If This happened you could get Journey time enchantments for Dundee to Edinburgh Service Routing them via Perth (Dundee to Edinburgh Scotrail reckons is 1hr 20, The Jounrey Perth to Dundee is about 20 mins and the Tay Viaduct improvement could save a couple of mins, and Perth to Edinburgh is currently about 1 hr 20 But if you saved 35 mins on that Journey with the new route Overall Dundee to Edinburgh would save at least 15 mins), This would also remove traffic from the tay bridge with the exception of a slow all stopping service through fife to Dundee only and since Most services no longer use the tay bridge you could remove it from the electrification priorities as it will presumably be difficult to electrify particularly at the high spans. So the new route through fife could have many benefits As it would speed up journey times Between Edinburgh and Perth/Inverness by 35 mins and Edinburgh and Dundee/Aberdeen by 15 mins

So, as well as removing half of the services from Leuchars (which has gone up from 350,000 passengers per year to over half a million in a decade), you'd leave north east Fife unelectrified once the Fife Circle line and the line from the central belt to Aberdeen was wired?

Presumably this "fast" service from Edinburgh to Dundee (which wouldn't even stop at Perth) wouldn't have time to stop at a small place like Kinross either? Is the plan to build a "new" line through Kinross without anything stopping? Or, if you'd have a separate "local" service, where are the paths over the Forth Bridge for all of these new journeys?