100+ in Scotland - Suggestions for where?

[najaB]

There's very little (or no) track in Scotland that has greater than 100mph running (well, North of Edinburgh anyway).

Leaving structures and current line condition out of the equation, where do people think that the geometry and service patterns support raising top-end line speeds to >100mph?

As a starter, it certainly feels like you could safely increase Carnoustie to Arboath.

 

[Mag_seven]

I was once told by someone knowledgeable in Scottish railways that stretches of the West Highland Line have 100mph capability or at the very least were built on an alignment to support it?

 

[Highlandspring]

I was once told by someone knowledgeable in Scottish railways that stretches of the West Highland Line have 100mph capability or at the very least were built on an alignment to support it?

They must have been sniffing creosote.

 

[Western Lord]

I was once told by someone knowledgeable in Scottish railways that stretches of the West Highland Line have 100mph capability or at the very least were built on an alignment to support it?

When the West Highland was built, nothing was doing 100mph!

 

[Mag_seven]

When the West Highland was built, nothing was doing 100mph!

Have you never heard of the term "passive provision"?

 

[sqrtc]

Gleneagles station aside, the stretch between Dunblane and Perth could benefit Glasgow - Inverness/Aberdeen services

 

[alangla]

I wonder what effect adding tilt would have. The WCML south of Motherwell seems to gain an additional 10-15mph across the board thanks to it.

 

[JonasB]

When the West Highland was built, nothing was doing 100mph!

When the western main line in Sweden was built in the 1850s, the engineers in charge knew that speeds would increase and insisted on wide curves. And in many places the track is still in the same location as it was 160 years ago, but with trains now doing 200 km/h.

 

[47271]

Gleneagles station aside, the stretch between Dunblane and Perth could benefit Glasgow - Inverness/Aberdeen services

This has got to be the top candidate for improvement alongside electrification - it’s built to the same standards as the Scottish section of the West Coast Main Line and it’s of major strategic significance to both Aberdeen and Inverness services from the Central Belt.

Perth to Dundee west of St Madoes and east of Invergowrie.

There’s a lot of straight around Laurencekirk that I’m sure could run a lot faster than it does at the moment.

 

[edwin_m]

I wonder what effect adding tilt would have. The WCML south of Motherwell seems to gain an additional 10-15mph across the board thanks to it.

Speeds above 110mph for non-tilting trains may well be possible on sections between Carlisle and Carstairs. Nobody has ever implemented these because there has never been a plan to use non-tilting stock capable of more than 110mph. However there may be scope to do this for the non-tilting HS2 classic compatibles. For example the section round Lockerbie where Virgin wanted 135mph for tilting trains may well be good for non-tilting at >110mph.

I think there was a short section of >110mph near Motherwell, presumaby done when the 225 started using that section but now reduced. The absence of any other >110mph sections between Carstairs and Glasgow may suggest that somebody has looked into increasing non-tilt speeds here and not found anywhere else it was worthwhile.

 

[HaggisBotherer]

<WIBN> Coupar Angus to Forfar, Forfar to Dubton </WIBN>

 

[najaB]

<WIBN> Coupar Angus to Forfar, Forfar to Dubton </WIBN>

Fair enough, I did say to leave track condition out of it.

So let me add the constraint that there has to at least be track (otherwise there's no linespeed to increase).

 

[hexagon789]

There's very little (or no) track in Scotland that has greater than 100mph running (well, North of Edinburgh anyway).

Leaving structures and current line condition out of the equation, where do people think that the geometry and service patterns support raising top-end line speeds to >100mph?

As a starter, it certainly feels like you could safely increase Carnoustie to Arboath.

Ignoring the WCML and ECML, the maximum on Scotland's railways is 100mph.

I'd argue that Edinburgh-Glasgow via Falkirk High could be upgraded having some of the longest 100mph sections, though I think you'd need resignalling. IIRC the signals are 0.7mi apart so with 4-aspect you get 1.4 miles to stop from 100 which I'm not sure is sufficient for even 110mph.

Ignoring braking distances with existing signalling, you could perhaps upgrade Gleneagles-Perth (90-100), Perth-Dundee (has two long straights and mostly 90mph), Dundee-Arbroath (mostly HST100) and maybe the bit through Laurencekirk. I'm not sure any could be easily upgraded to more than say 110 though.

 

[najaB]

I'd argue that Edinburgh-Glasgow via Falkirk High could be upgraded having some of the longest 100mph sections, though I think you'd need resignalling.

In the not too distant future (hopefully less than 10 years) most signalling should be moving in-cab so that should be less of a constraint than it currently is.

 

[hexagon789]

In the not too distant future (hopefully less than 10 years) most signalling should be moving in-cab so that should be less of a constraint than it currently is.

True, I'd forgotten about that.

In that case, I propose 125 for the E&G, 110 Larbert-Stirling, 125 Gleneagles-Perth/Perth-Dundee/Carnoustie-Arbroath, 110 through Laurencekirk and maybe up to 110 on Inverness-Aberdeen (probably Elgin-Inverness).

Plus 140 on the ECML Scottish sections (assuming they upgrade the line south of the border).

 

[DanTrain]

Speeds above 110mph for non-tilting trains may well be possible on sections between Carlisle and Carstairs. Nobody has ever implemented these because there has never been a plan to use non-tilting stock capable of more than 110mph. However there may be scope to do this for the non-tilting HS2 classic compatibles. For example the section round Lockerbie where Virgin wanted 135mph for tilting trains may well be good for non-tilting at >110mph.

I think there was a short section of >110mph near Motherwell, presumaby done when the 225 started using that section but now reduced. The absence of any other >110mph sections between Carstairs and Glasgow may suggest that somebody has looked into increasing non-tilt speeds here and not found anywhere else it was worthwhile.

At risk of going slightly off topic, aren’t TPE introducing 125 capable EMUs up there soon. I’d have thought with the potential for HS2 as well it’d be worth seeing what could be eeked out on that line for not too much cost.

 

[hexagon789]

At risk of going slightly off topic, aren’t TPE introducing 125 capable EMUs up there soon. I’d have thought with the potential for HS2 as well it’d be worth seeing what could be eeked out on that line for not too much cost.

125mph capable - as it stands they won't be able to exceed 110 like the 350s. There was talk of seeking the ability to run at 115mph on EPS 125 sections I believe.

 

[DanTrain]

125mph capable - as it stands they won't be able to exceed 110 like the 350s. There was talk of seeking the ability to run at 115mph on EPS 125 sections I believe.

I guess that’s something. Seems odd of TPE to have ordered 125 trains for a 110 route too but that really is off topic!

 

[hexagon789]

I guess that’s something. Seems odd of TPE to have ordered 125 trains for a 110 route too but that really is off topic!

Future proofing perhaps or maybe CAF could only offer 100mph or 125mph trains designs (110 is a slightly more unusual speed), so they went for the higher speed?

 

[DanTrain]

Future proofing perhaps or maybe CAF could only offer 100mph or 125mph trains designs (110 is a slightly more unusual speed), so they went for the higher speed?

True. Would be nice for there to be some proper 125 track for them but I somehow doubt that’ll happen anytime soon what with almost everything else being cancelled or delayed.

 

[hexagon789]

True. Would be nice for there to be some proper 125 track for them but I somehow doubt that’ll happen anytime soon what with almost everything else being cancelled or delayed.

It does seem a shame, considering it's only really passenger comfort that means non-tilting trains are limited to 110 I think that reviewing the exact spots where 125 would cause discomfort would be worthwhile.

Indeed I think a similar review could permit higher speeds on the rest of the Scottish network.

 

[GusB]

In that case, I propose 125 for the E&G, 110 Larbert-Stirling, 125 Gleneagles-Perth/Perth-Dundee/Carnoustie-Arbroath, 110 through Laurencekirk and maybe up to 110 on Inverness-Aberdeen (probably Elgin-Inverness).

I'm interested to find out how 110mph on the Elgin - Inverness section would work. I agree that we should be doing as much as possible to increase line speeds overall, but you'd surely need to electrify in order to have stock that can get up to speed quickly enough.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Central Belt to Aberdeen would be a good bet, with electrification perhaps. Inverness to Aberdeen would work at 100 whilst the HML does need a good upgrade so that it can actually compete with a dual carriageway or high-quality single carriageway A9.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Google tells me that a train takes 3hrs 18 mins while a car takes 3hrs 12 mins. As these journeys were calculated from Queen Street station to Inverness railway station, it is obviously going to need additional time to get to the stations.

 

[najaB]

Google tells me that a train takes 3hrs 18 mins while a car takes 3hrs 12 mins. As these journeys were calculated from Queen Street station to Inverness railway station, it is obviously going to need additional time to get to the stations.

Increasing Larbert-Stirling and Glenagles-Perth to 125 will save you something like 3 minutes by itself.

 

[Western Lord]

Bear in mind that increasing line speeds reduces line capacity on a mixed traffic line. I can't see any possibility of 125mph on Edinburgh -Glasgow without having serious implications for "stopping" trains and freight.

 

[d9009alycidon]

I am almost certain that there were sections of the WCML around Lockerby that were cleared for 125 MPH use when Intercity Cross Country ran HSTs on that route - there were special yellow signs "HST 125" to indicate the differential between them and loco hauled services (I had one in my possession at one time). There were also "HST T" signs to indicate the end of the higher speed section

 

[hexagon789]

I am almost certain that there were sections of the WCML around Lockerby that were cleared for 125 MPH use when Intercity Cross Country ran HSTs on that route - there were special yellow signs "HST 125" to indicate the differential between them and loco hauled services (I had one in my possession at one time). There were also "HST T" signs to indicate the end of the higher speed section

Not on the WCML AFAIK. To my knowledge it was 110mph until the introduction of TASS and that was for all types of train.

 

[hexagon789]

I'm interested to find out how 110mph on the Elgin - Inverness section would work. I agree that we should be doing as much as possible to increase line speeds overall, but you'd surely need to electrify in order to have stock that can get up to speed quickly enough.

I suggested it as the signalling on thus section can theoretically support 100mph at the moment, so the next logical increase would be to 110.

 

[Bald Rick]

When the western main line in Sweden was built in the 1850s, the engineers in charge knew that speeds would increase and insisted on wide curves. And in many places the track is still in the same location as it was 160 years ago, but with trains now doing 200 km/h.

Something a certain G Stephenson Esq. also did with a certain railway between London and Birmingham.