Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[clc]

Is there really a need for a HSR network in Scotland though? Edinburgh and Glasgow are only 50 miles apart so you could achieve the same journey time by running selected services non stop using the loops already on the E&G line. Dundee and Aberdeen are far enough from Glasgow but is there really the demand to justify the costs?

The proposed Dunfermline bypass line along with a reopened Glenfarg route would no doubt improve the Edinburgh to Perth/Inverness journey time by 30 minutes or so but at several hundred million can a business case really be made for at best an hourly service?

You could transform Scotland's intercity routes:-

Phase 1 - Glasgow-Edinburgh HSR.

Phase 2 - Inverkeithing-Perth/Tay Estuary Spur - speeds up Edinburgh-Perth/Dundee/Aberdeen/Inverness journeys.

Phase 3 - Link the G2E HSR line to the Fife Line - speeds up Glasgow- Dundee/Aberdeen journeys.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Is there really a need for a HSR network in Scotland though? Edinburgh and Glasgow are only 50 miles apart so you could achieve the same journey time by running selected services non stop using the loops already on the E&G line. Dundee and Aberdeen are far enough from Glasgow but is there really the demand to justify the costs?

The proposed Dunfermline bypass line along with a reopened Glenfarg route would no doubt improve the Edinburgh to Perth/Inverness journey time by 30 minutes or so but at several hundred million can a business case really be made for at best an hourly service?

The E&G is pretty close to being as fast as it can possibly be. It's inherently a two-track railway with only a few freight loops. The Cumbernauld, Falkirk Grahamston and future Edinburgh Gateway 'loops' do help, but they can't help when there do need to be stopping trains running on the same tracks as the expresses.

Edinburgh and Glasgow alone almost certainly do not justify a brand new HSR line being built between them. That's why any talk of one is always piggy-backing on HS2 requirements, as it's not that difficult to come up with one line which can serve dual duty and have an even better business case (as in, the additional cost of making HS2 infrastructure usable for E-G services is more than outweighed by the additional benefit that is gained). Given the limitations of the WCML approaches to both cities, some sort of major improvement is pretty much inevitable.

While it would be nice to have HSR heading up north, I don't think it's justified. For one, even with the most optimistic passenger projections any new lines would be severely under-used. Secondly, the base case is a somewhat irregular regional railway, not the fairly consistent quasi-HSR WCML/ECML that HS2 needs to be better than. There's still plenty that can be done without requiring high speed technologies or costs, while still delivering a lot of benefit. There's a lot more benefit to be had in getting the existing network up to a consistent ~100mph non-stop speed than there is upgrading fairly short stretches to 125mph or more. That sort of speed is eminently achievable with upgrades all the way from Forth to Tay. The good thing then is that you speed up semi-fast services too, rather than just the express ones.

 

[Clansman]

You could transform Scotland's intercity routes:-

Phase 1 - Glasgow-Edinburgh HSR.

Phase 2 - Inverkeithing-Perth/Tay Estuary Spur - speeds up Edinburgh-Perth/Dundee/Aberdeen/Inverness journeys.

Phase 3 - Link the G2E HSR line to the Fife Line - speeds up Glasgow- Dundee/Aberdeen journeys.

A good chunk of the Intercity network already has decent enough alignments for speed increases with a bit of enhancement, without the need for a dedicated HSR.

 

[najaB]

That sort of speed is eminently achievable with upgrades all the way from Forth to Tay. The good thing then is that you speed up semi-fast services too, rather than just the express ones.

Indeed. Inverkeithing to Kirkaldy is a *lot* slower than it needs to be, sorting out the curves near Burntisland and the tunnel at Kinghorn would be a good start.

 

[Clansman]

Indeed. Inverkeithing to Kirkaldy is a *lot* slower than it needs to be, sorting out the curves near Burntisland and the tunnel at Kinghorn would be a good start.

Has this ever been looked into properly to establish the cost in doing so?

At first thought, you'd be better off enhancing areas with easier track alignments.

 

[47271]

Maybe one day for a new Glenfarg route.

Relatively inexpensively sort out Ladybank-Hilton Jn ahead of any of this would be my suggestion.

At least Kinghorn and Burntisland both have double track.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You're talking at least 2tph at the quietest of times, and no doubt many more freight services - more than the Borders Railway in both cases.

Well strictly speaking, the quietest of times would be the middle of the night, and I doubt you'd get 2tph then. But in principle I agree with you. Indeed, I would imagine that if it was built with a chord (or whatever is required) to allow trains to get to Dundee, then you'd be looking at 4tph daytime (2 to Perth, 2 to Dundee/Aberdeen) plus any freight. You'd also then be able to run a much better commuter service on the existing Edinburgh-Dundee line, because of the fast trains having been removed to the new line.

Certainly looks potentially very useful to me.

 

[Altnabreac]

You could transform Scotland's intercity routes:-

Phase 1 - Glasgow-Edinburgh HSR.

Phase 2 - Inverkeithing-Perth/Tay Estuary Spur - speeds up Edinburgh-Perth/Dundee/Aberdeen/Inverness journeys.

Phase 3 - Link the G2E HSR line to the Fife Line - speeds up Glasgow- Dundee/Aberdeen journeys.

Exactly this. Not cheap but would really provide a high capacity, fast Intercity network across Scotland.

Transport wise it probably wouldn't be fully justified but once you look at the wider economic benefits and Economic Development opportunities I think a political case could be made for a network that looked like that.

 

[Clansman]

Well strictly speaking, the quietest of times would be the middle of the night, and I doubt you'd get 2tph then. But in principle I agree with you. Indeed, I would imagine that if it was built with a chord (or whatever is required) to allow trains to get to Dundee

Trains would go to Dundee via Perth, so no more than the original proposal of a line from Halbeath to Bridge of Earn, would be needed in addition.

Then you'd be looking at 4tph daytime (2 to Perth, 2 to Dundee/Aberdeen) plus any freight. You'd also then be able to run a much better commuter service on the existing Edinburgh-Dundee line, because of the fast trains having been removed to the new line.

Certainly looks potentially very useful to me.

Worth noting that you've got the barrier of Leuchars to overcome, as its a very popular hub with the Intercity services especially.

But then again, even if all services to Dundee/Perth were diverted via the new line, you still free up paths for additional Fife services which could further extend to Dundee and Perth (...or Leven ) and allow for current Fife Circle services to call at fewer stations by evening out the calls on all services - and rotating the stops throughout the day to ensure that each station along the line still has a direct link with each other.

 

[mcmad]

There's currently an hourly direct service Edinburgh to Perth half of which run to Inverness, even with the new bypass line the existing service via Kirkcaldy would need some level of service remaining.

Not sure where you think all this freight is going to materialize from, running via the new bypass line would mean having to find more paths in the congested Haymarket - Inverkeithing section and the weight limits on the Bridge.

Dunfermline is roughly comparable in size with Perth population-wise, but as the line misses it any Station is going to be a drive away in which case you're as well just turning right and taking the motorway.

 

[NotATrainspott]

NR had a 230km/h new-build line along the A92 as one of the options in the Scotland Route Study, with a projected price tag above a billion pounds. The Inverkeithing-Halbeath line plus 'linespeed improvements around Cowdenbeath' were suggested instead. I think you could rebuild the eastern section of the Cardenden line for reasonably high linespeed without requiring a mega-project.

RailMiles says there's 46 miles between Inverkeithing and Dundee. At a totally unrealistic constant 140mph that's about 20 minutes. At a similarly unrealistic constant 100mph that's about 27 minutes. If a fairly consistent 100mph speed can be maintained through Fife, there's not much benefit a new build line can really bring.

 

[deltic08]

Is there really a need for a HSR network in Scotland though? Edinburgh and Glasgow are only 50 miles apart so you could achieve the same journey time by running selected services non stop using the loops already on the E&G line. Dundee and Aberdeen are far enough from Glasgow but is there really the demand to justify the costs?

The proposed Dunfermline bypass line along with a reopened Glenfarg route would no doubt improve the Edinburgh to Perth/Inverness journey time by 30 minutes or so but at several hundred million can a business case really be made for at best an hourly service?

Was £800 million justified spending on 4 miles extension of the M74? I think not, but it was built because it was a road and easier to make a business case for. Glenfarg should be built/rebuilt as well as Perth-Forfar and new build from Forfar via Brechin to a point south of Stonehaven. This would create a 100mph+ route and sub 2 hour Glasgow-Aberdeen services extended to Inverurie, 90 minute service from Edinburgh to Aberdeen and freight route avoiding the tortuous coastal route via Dundee and Montrose. Ideal route for cascaded 800 bimodes in 15-20 years time after the HSTs are knackered by climbing out of Queen Street and Inverness from a standing start and GWML becomes all electric!!!!!!

 

[Altnabreac]

Was £800 million justified spending on 4 miles extension of the M74? I think not, but it was built because it was a road and easier to make a business case for. Glenfarg should be built/rebuilt as well as Perth-Forfar and new build from Forfar via Brechin to a point south of Stonehaven. This would create a 100mph+ route and sub 2 hour Glasgow-Aberdeen services extended to Inverurie, 90 minute service from Edinburgh to Aberdeen and freight route avoiding the tortuous coastal route via Dundee and Montrose. Ideal route for cascaded 800 bimodes in 15-20 years time after the HSTs are knackered by climbing out of Queen Street and Inverness from a standing start and GWML becomes all electric!!!!!!

There is absolutely no demand for services that do not stop at Dundee. Reopening old, slow 19th century lines is not the way to improve Intercity journey times.

Glenfarg route is built on, Forfar route only helps Glasgow - Aberdeen passengers and then only at the expense of bypassing Dundee.

A new Inverkeithing - Bridge of Earn / St Madoes route on the other hand speeds up 8 different city pairs (Edinburgh and Glasgow - Perth / Dundee / Aberdeen / Inverness).

 

[jadmor]

I was looking through a timetable for 1967, as you do, and found a mid day service covering 48 miles in 1 hour 17 minutes. A comparable service from Perth covers 57 minutes in 1hour 22 minutes. Both services stop at principal towns en route. Granted, it would be possible to run a much faster service through Glenfarg if the line still existed, but given the huge cost, that line is very unlikely to be rebuilt. On the other hand, some relatively cheap improvements to the Newburgh line could give a useful reductions in journey time, particularly if linked to enhancements on the Dunfermline line. Perhaps this would be a better cause to campaign for.

 

[deltic08]

In 1967, trains through Glenfarg were single or double headed Type 2 diesel hauled with occasional class 5 steam hauled on jointed track. Can't remember but Glenfarg may only have been 60mph throughout. Reinstating this line would see line speed raised to 90/100mph for most of its length each side of Glenfarg summit with trains capable of these speeds except possibly from Bridge of Earn southbound to the summit.
The limit over the Forth Bridge in 1967 was 40mph. This has been raised to 50 for most passenger trains since.
With electrification, it is perfectly possible to reduce this time to 45 minutes non stop and 2 minutes extra for each additional stop at Haymarket, Inverkeithing and Dunfirmline. No other route between Edinburgh and Perth could get anywhere near this time.

 

[Class83]

Firstly, the towns/cities north of the Forth which will generate demand; Aberdeen (196,670), Dundee (147,710), Dunfermline (50,380), Kirkcaldy (49,460), Perth (47,180), Inverness (46,870), Glenrothes (39,100), Arbroath (23,640), Elgin (22,980), Peterhead (18,450) St Andrews (16,800).

The impact of the Proposed (Inverkeithing-Perth) line would be
Positive; Perth, Inverness, Elgin
Neutral; Aberdeen, Dundee, Dunfermline*, Arbroath, Peterhead,
Negative; Kirkcaldy, Glenrothes, St. Andrews

*Dunfermline would be positive if the line was routed via the Town rather than Halbeath, however this would increase journey times for Perth and Beyond.

They propose a 45 minute journey time from Edinburgh to Perth, that's ~ 60mph average, so seems reasonable with stops at Haymarket and Inverkeithing. The fastest Edinburgh to Dundee train is currently 1:06 and the fastest Perth to Dundee train is 21 minutes so there would be no change to times for Dundee and beyond.


So the question then becomes, what is the best use of £1Billion. Is it building a line from Inverkeithing to Perth, with significant engineering challenges that benefits only a small part of the population north of Edinburgh. Or is it improvements around Burntisland and Kinghorn, doubling Ladybank to Perth, doubling the Esk Bridge and investing in electrification and new faster accelerating trains.

Also, the additional costs relating to increasing capacity around Haymarket seem to be ignored, Scotrail needs to be focusing on longer trains into Edinburgh to meet capacity, not more trains which are difficult to timetable. The frequency is generally adequate at the moment. But many trains are too short.

 

[Class83]

In 1967, trains through Glenfarg were single or double headed Type 2 diesel hauled with occasional class 5 steam hauled on jointed track with an overall line limit of 75mph. Can't remember if Glenfarg was only 60mph apart from through the tunnels. Reinstating this line would see line speed raised to 90/100mph for most of its length each side of Glenfarg summit with trains capable of these speeds except possibly from Bridge of Earn southbound to the summit.
The limit over the Forth Bridge in 1967 was 40mph. This has been raised to 50 for most passenger trains since.
With electrification, it is perfectly possible to reduce this time to 48 minutes non stop and 3 minutes for each additional stop at Haymarket, Inverkeithing and Dunfirmline.

Stops at Haymarket aren't optional, everything stops there. At least 1 of Inverkeithing or Halbeath is needed. It's possible to build a track that allows those timings, just expensive.

 

[deltic08]

There is absolutely no demand for services that do not stop at Dundee. Reopening old, slow 19th century lines is not the way to improve Intercity journey times.

Glenfarg route is built on, Forfar route only helps Glasgow - Aberdeen passengers and then only at the expense of bypassing Dundee.

A new Inverkeithing - Bridge of Earn / St Madoes route on the other hand speeds up 8 different city pairs (Edinburgh and Glasgow - Perth / Dundee / Aberdeen / Inverness).[/QUOTE

Where is your evidence to support your first sentence? There is a lot of Scotland north and south of Dundee that is disinterested in whether they travel via Dundee or not as long as journey time is reduced. At the risk of upsetting Dundonians, I have never wanted to go to Dundee. I have only been to Dundee as it was on the route to places I wanted to go to.
If I could travel to Aberdeen and north thereof 30 minutes faster by by-passing Dundee then I would use that route and trains as I used to do prior to 1967.

 

[Ginaro]

So the question then becomes, what is the best use of £1Billion. Is it building a line from Inverkeithing to Perth, with significant engineering challenges that benefits only a small part of the population north of Edinburgh. Or is it improvements around Burntisland and Kinghorn, doubling Ladybank to Perth, doubling the Esk Bridge and investing in electrification and new faster accelerating trains.

I'm not sure what improvements you have in mind for Burntisland and Kinghorn (apart from sorting the tunnel) - have you looked at that area on the map recently to see the obstacles for changes to the railway?

The other options talked about - Halbeath bypass and doubling Ladybank to Perth - are more sensible, though using the bypass+inland Fife Circle would mean no stop at Kirkcaldy. Is there an estimate for the time savings on both of those sections if they were upgraded?

And does anyone know the non-stop time from Markinch to Inverkeithing via Dunfermline, versus the time going via and stopping at Kirkcaldy?

 

[Class83]

I'm not sure what improvements you have in mind for Burntisland and Kinghorn (apart from sorting the tunnel) - have you looked at that area on the map recently to see the obstacles for changes to the railway?

The other options talked about - Halbeath bypass and doubling Ladybank to Perth - are more sensible, though using the bypass+inland Fife Circle would mean no stop at Kirkcaldy. Is there an estimate for the time savings on both of those sections if they were upgraded?

And does anyone know the non-stop time from Markinch to Inverkeithing via Dunfermline, versus the time going via and stopping at Kirkcaldy?

The tunnel at Kinghorn is the obvious improvement, perhaps moving Burntisland station slightly east and putting some more superelevation on the corner might be possible (I'm not a track engineer that's just a guess). It's a question of how many million pounds does it cost to save a minute. An inland tunnel at Burntisland would be expensive so I'm not suggesting that.

There is a Virgin Trains service which does Inverkeithing to Markinch via Dunfermline non-stop in 29 minutes. Inverkeithing to Markinch is 24 minutes with a stop at Kirkcaldy, so the Halbeath bypass would be unlikely to significantly improve times unless money was spent on the Cowdenbeath to Thornton line. Realistically I think fixing the tunnel at Kinghorn and tweaking track alignments will save a minute or 2 via Kirkcaldy. Along with faster accelerating trains. The 4/5 car HSTs can probably take a few minutes Edinburgh-Perth accelerating from stations and the speed restriction in Burntisland, electric another few minutes.

The real time savings could come from redoubling Ladybank-Perth, there are no obvious major corners on the line so redoubling and higher track maintenance standards (there is a 3 min engineering allowance in times at Newburgh) should allow the (current 28 minute) journey time to be reduced close to 20.

So a target journey time would be 18 mins Edinburgh-Inverkeithing, 20 mins Inverkeithing-Markinch, 25 mins Markinch to Perth. It's slightly longer than the 100 year ago express, but I've not seen what the stopping pattern or frequency on that service was. If you took the time from Haymarket it should sneak under the hour.

 

[tbtc]

Firstly, the towns/cities north of the Forth which will generate demand; Aberdeen (196,670), Dundee (147,710), Dunfermline (50,380), Kirkcaldy (49,460), Perth (47,180), Inverness (46,870), Glenrothes (39,100), Arbroath (23,640), Elgin (22,980), Peterhead (18,450) St Andrews (16,800).

Worth requoting those figures, given how hyped up the cities of Perth/ Inverness are compared to the mere towns of Dunfermline/ Kirkcaldy/ Glenrothes (the latter of which act as railheads for Levenmouth - whereas there's not much of a population around Perth).

the question then becomes, what is the best use of £1Billion. Is it building a line from Inverkeithing to Perth, with significant engineering challenges that benefits only a small part of the population north of Edinburgh. Or is it improvements around Burntisland and Kinghorn, doubling Ladybank to Perth, doubling the Esk Bridge and investing in electrification and new faster accelerating trains.

Great point - but improving bottlenecks/ slow sections/ speeds on existing lines never gets the attention that bringing back some long abandoned route does - which is a shame.

Instead of starting with a hundred year old rail atlas (and worrying about how fast one train a day was back then) we should focus on where improvements can be made today. Boring, I know, not as attractive to the nostalgists (who already know which ancient line they want to re-open - they just need to find an excuse to justify it).

Capacity from Edinburgh to Inverkeithing and line speeds north of Inverkeithing. Anything else is vanity.

Also, the additional costs relating to increasing capacity around Haymarket seem to be ignored, Scotrail needs to be focusing on longer trains into Edinburgh to meet capacity, not more trains which are difficult to timetable. The frequency is generally adequate at the moment. But many trains are too short.

Yes. Any new lines through Glenfarg and/or Forfar aren't going to make any difference to the biggest problem - capacity from Waverley to Inverkeithing.

We've built new stations at South Gyle (1985) and Edinburgh Gateway (2016) without any scope for loops that would have allowed longer distance trains to overtake stoppers. We've put some of the Falkirk/ Glasgow services on the two "Fife" tracks (due to the increase in services on the southern pair of tracks at Haymarket. Throw all the crayons you want at reinstated lines around Perth but that won't change the change the biggest problems.

So, if we don't have a billion pounds to spare for infrastructure improvements, we need to be running six coach trains as standard - no more two/three coach trains over the bridge - I don't know if eight coaches are feasible (other than for stations that the current VTEC/ XC services stop at - i.e. may be feasible for the xx:30 Scotrail services - the ones that don't run north of Aberdeen at least).

 

[route:oxford]

With electrification, it is perfectly possible to reduce this time to 45 minutes non stop and 2 minutes extra for each additional stop at Haymarket, Inverkeithing and Dunfirmline. No other route between Edinburgh and Perth could get anywhere near this time.

If Perth is going to get a fast route to Edinburgh, then for goodness sake stop the train at Edinburgh Gateway. There's little point in hammering past the Airport, only to get spend 30 minutes on the tram or bus back again. Be just as well driving it!

Of course, Edinburgh Gateway doesn't just serve the tram link to the airport, it provides access to The Gyle, Edinburgh Park and RBS Gogarburn.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The tunnel at Kinghorn is the obvious improvement, perhaps moving Burntisland station slightly east and putting some more superelevation on the corner might be possible (I'm not a track engineer that's just a guess). It's a question of how many million pounds does it cost to save a minute. An inland tunnel at Burntisland would be expensive so I'm not suggesting that.

There is a Virgin Trains service which does Inverkeithing to Markinch via Dunfermline non-stop in 29 minutes. Inverkeithing to Markinch is 24 minutes with a stop at Kirkcaldy, so the Halbeath bypass would be unlikely to significantly improve times unless money was spent on the Cowdenbeath to Thornton line. Realistically I think fixing the tunnel at Kinghorn and tweaking track alignments will save a minute or 2 via Kirkcaldy. Along with faster accelerating trains. The 4/5 car HSTs can probably take a few minutes Edinburgh-Perth accelerating from stations and the speed restriction in Burntisland, electric another few minutes.

The real time savings could come from redoubling Ladybank-Perth, there are no obvious major corners on the line so redoubling and higher track maintenance standards (there is a 3 min engineering allowance in times at Newburgh) should allow the (current 28 minute) journey time to be reduced close to 20.

So a target journey time would be 18 mins Edinburgh-Inverkeithing, 20 mins Inverkeithing-Markinch, 25 mins Markinch to Perth. It's slightly longer than the 100 year ago express, but I've not seen what the stopping pattern or frequency on that service was. If you took the time from Haymarket it should sneak under the hour.

A major justification for working being focussed on the inland Fife Circle is that you don't need to go to the expense and disruption of changing the coastal route. If the coastal route is going to become a more local line, it doesn't really matter if the linespeeds around stations are low because trains would be stopping anyway. The only real work that would be required would be to clear Kinghorn tunnel for electrification, and if the other route is open it would be much more practical to do a proper blockade and Farnworth-style rebore.

As I understand it, the option of building the Inverkeithing-Halbeath line does include 'track work' near Cowdenbeath. I doubt the bypass would have a good business case if that work wasn't done, and it does seem like reopening the original pre-Glenfarg line through the town would be practical. Most of the work could be done totally offline and then swapped in, like the grade-separation at Norton Bridge. That makes it cheap and easy, which is nice. An option might be to essentially extend the new Inverkeithing line all the way through to Lochgelly so that the express loop is as long as possible. That might make financial sense if the cost of moving Cowdenbeath station over to the new line exceeded the benefit of closing down the old route.

Could we move Ladybank station a bit further south? Right now linespeeds to Dundee are limited by the lack of cant on the curve, as the station and the S&C are too close. If the station were moved south a bit it would be possible to sort out the junction for higher speeds and more capacity on both routes. It would also presumably allow for a larger park and ride facility.

 

[Photohunter71]

Well, they've missed a golden opportunity for expanding rail stations in Edinburgh. If and only if there could have been some tumnnelling from Princes street to the current development at the St James centre, a few under the complex platforms would have been a boon with the development and you would have had an Edinburgh St James station. But hey, it's only a suggestion. I think there may well have to be another large station in Edinburgh at some point.

 

[Altnabreac]

Where is your evidence to support your first sentence? There is a lot of Scotland north and south of Dundee that is disinterested in whether they travel via Dundee or not as long as journey time is reduced. At the risk of upsetting Dundonians, I have never wanted to go to Dundee. I have only been to Dundee as it was on the route to places I wanted to go to.
If I could travel to Aberdeen and north thereof 30 minutes faster by by-passing Dundee then I would use that route and trains as I used to do prior to 1967.

Well bypassing Dundee isn't going to help anyone from Yorkshire get to Aberdeen faster so it would make no difference to you.

Any intervention in Scottish Intercity journey times needs to benefit Dundee and Aberdeen. The number of passengers are not large enough to justify bypassing Dundee to improve journey times to Aberdeen. There just isn't enough demand for Glasgow - Aberdeen passengers.

Also the major cross border trip generators for Aberdeen are to Newcastle and Leeds so any improvements should be focused on improving journey times to Edinburgh and the east coast of England. A Perth - Forfar - Aberdeen line does nothing to help these journeys.

People really need to stop trying to reopen lines from 100 years ago and start thinking about what routes are useful in the 21st century.

 

[Clansman]

Well bypassing Dundee isn't going to help anyone from Yorkshire get to Aberdeen faster so it would make no difference to you.

Any intervention in Scottish Intercity journey times needs to benefit Dundee and Aberdeen. The number of passengers are not large enough to justify bypassing Dundee to improve journey times to Aberdeen. There just isn't enough demand for Glasgow - Aberdeen passengers.

Also the major cross border trip generators for Aberdeen are to Newcastle and Leeds so any improvements should be focused on improving journey times to Edinburgh and the east coast of England. A Perth - Forfar - Aberdeen line does nothing to help these journeys.

People really need to stop trying to reopen lines from 100 years ago and start thinking about what routes are useful in the 21st century.

Bang on the money.

Worth noting also that there still communities in and around Perthshire and Angus where a rail link would be beneficial, but economically are way down the pecking order.

As much as I'd love to take £100m and reopen links from Perth to Blairgowrie or Dundee to Forfar, it benefits the majority by duelling Perth to Ladybank for example, and sorting out the atrocious road links Perthshire and Angus has in the process.

It's basic economics at the end of the day.

 

[deltic08]

Well bypassing Dundee isn't going to help anyone from Yorkshire get to Aberdeen faster so it would make no difference to you.

Any intervention in Scottish Intercity journey times needs to benefit Dundee and Aberdeen. The number of passengers are not large enough to justify bypassing Dundee to improve journey times to Aberdeen. There just isn't enough demand for Glasgow - Aberdeen passengers.

Also the major cross border trip generators for Aberdeen are to Newcastle and Leeds so any improvements should be focused on improving journey times to Edinburgh and the east coast of England. A Perth - Forfar - Aberdeen line does nothing to help these journeys.

People really need to stop trying to reopen lines from 100 years ago and start thinking about what routes are useful in the 21st century.

Where is the relevancy of where I love now. Until 1967, I could travel from Carlisle to Aberdeen much quicker via Forfar than via Dundee and the same would happen now if this route were still open. In fact until 1967 this was BRs preferred express route and would still be if not closed.
The demand now may be large enough to bypass Dundee but the service does not exist and there is no choice. You have to travel via Dundee, but if there was a choice 30 minutes faster to Aberdeen from say Birmingham, Northwest England, Southwest and West central Scotland...................... Only a demand forecast would confirm.
The daily container train to/from Aberdeen and any other freight need not travel via the tortuous and speed restricted coastal route, but could romp along at a steady, time, fuel and brake disc saving 75mph once away from Perth all the way to Aberdeen. Even at Perth station, the Scottish Midland route is double tracked and faster (40mph northbound) than the single line 20mph route to Dundee.
Why should we stop pressing for a better aligned route built, and then abandoned on a whim, when it is right for the 21st Century when opened.

 

[InOban]

Please. When there were through trains via Forfar, how many were there each day? Useful public transport is about frequency. You could never justify an hourly service via Forfar and an hourly fast train to Dundee. The Perth problems could be sorted for a fraction of the cost of reopening the Forfar route. I won't even waste my time looking on Google maps to see how much of the formation still exists.

Train enthusiasts are really their own worst enemies. Buried amid hundreds of crackpot ideas are a few nuggets of sensible, deliverable proposals which get ignored by the funders who are fed up having to draft polite responses to these unaffordable, undeliverable proposals.

 

[JohnR]

If there is a case for reopening via Forfar, it would be on the grounds of capacity, not speed.

 

[Clansman]

If you bypass Dundee, train loadings would go down by half if not more, and you'll need double the services along that corridor for the sake of compensating for unnecessarily removing Dundee from Intercity services.

Unless it's discovered Aberdeen has enough oil to turn the River Don into a jacuzzi, there will never be a case for reopening Forfar on the basis of speeding up journeys for the Aberdeen to Central Belt corridor.