Georgemas Junction: how does it work and could service provision be improved?

[Richard Ingram]

Why bother with a triangle instead build a new west to north curve and dispense with the west to south route the current line. Wick then is served by a new junction just north of Georgemas. Trains first go to Thurso then the junction points are set for Wick ( Rather like Battersby Yorkshire ). Wick would be now on a branch ( Rather then Thurso ) . Trains first stop at Georgemas ( Should they decide to retain it ) then straight to Wick. The return journey is done in reverse. This would both be the cheapest and easiest option.

I think that would be the passenger route, but the south-to-east side should probably stay to serve the freight terminal at Georgemas.

 

[Deepgreen]

Or run two/three 153s (refurbished to a good standard), or a 158 + 153 and send one portion to each? I assume (possibly wrongly) that they are compatible.

 

[Richard Ingram]

Or run two/three 153s (refurbished to a good standard), or a 158 + 153 and send one portion to each? I assume (possibly wrongly) that they are compatible.

Not sure about compatibility, but it would remove the Thurso-Wick route. Not sure how well used that is though.

 

[Richard Ingram]

Not that, the "rail shuttle sounds enormously inefficient" part.

(As an aside, I have written quite a bit on the Far North Line here, including timetables and bits on a new Halkirk station:
https://felixunstructured.weebly.co...e-far-north-line-problems-and-ways-to-improve )

That's an interesting read, I have only really thought about this line as a possible tourist.

 

[JLUK144]

Not sure about compatibility, but it would remove the Thurso-Wick route. Not sure how well used that is though.

Or you could have a 153 run a shuttle service between the two towns whilst having the 158s going to Thurso. Timetable the two trains to meet at Georgemas including the connection time and you’d reduce the time for Wick passengers.

 

[Richard Ingram]

Or you could have a 153 run a shuttle service between the two towns whilst having the 158s going to Thurso. Timetable the two trains to meet at Georgemas including the connection time and you’d reduce the time for Wick passengers.

And we are back to where this thread started.

If the hourly bus service is well used as stated somewhere above, this might be the best solution. I'm finding it fun to work through the alternatives.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or get a couple more 158s up there and reinstate the portion working as it was. I'm not sure 3 trains a day are particularly attractive against an hourly bus.

 

[InOban]

This entire crayonista discussion is a repeat of one a few months ago. I think posters should be required to read the ORR station usage stats!

 

[adrock1976]

In the thread that I had recently started in the Speculative Ideas section in relation to a clock face timetable, I have designed it on the following basis below.

1) Reinstatement of the double track section between Clachnaharry and Clunes
2) Reopening Evanton station
3) Loop at Kinbrace
4) Reopening Halkirk station (I believe at Bridge Street) and closing Scotscalder
5) Curve from Halkirk to Thurso omitting Georgemas Junction.

I had designed the timetable for the trains to couple and uncouple at Halkirk, with portions to each of Thurso and Wick. I had also timetabled a Wick - Thurso shuttle to run broadly every 90 minutes when the Inverness trains are not running so as to fill in some gaps.

Furthermore, I have revised the timetable to see how it would look like with a Tain - Dornoch connection, and onwards to The Mound using the former alignment of the Dornoch Light Railway.

 

[Rob F]

This entire crayonista discussion is a repeat of one a few months ago. I think posters should be required to read the ORR station usage stats!

Every time someone uses the words 'crayonista' or 'crayons' on this forum I get an indelible image in my mind of someone sitting back from the keyboard with a smug look on their face and thinking 'look how clever I am'.

 

[Richard Ingram]

Every time someone uses the words 'crayonista' or 'crayons' on this forum I get an indelible image in my mind of someone sitting back from the keyboard with a smug look on their face and thinking 'look how clever I am'.

I know what you mean. To me, these are fun diversions, which teach me a lot. I am under no illusion that what I say is new or useful to the people who plan these things, but by trying to work it out for myself, and then opening my workings to others to critique, i can come to understand the challenges faced, and why things might be the way they are.

 

[class26]

Not sure about compatibility, but it would remove the Thurso-Wick route. Not sure how well used that is though.

They are compatible as EMT add a 153 to a 158 regularly in the summer to Skegness

 

[Boysteve]

Or run two/three 153s (refurbished to a good standard), or a 158 + 153 and send one portion to each? I assume (possibly wrongly) that they are compatible.

They are compatible as EMT add a 153 to a 158 regularly in the summer to Skegness

Exactly, recently I have seen EMT use 158+153+153 on the Nottingham - Liverpool portions of their Norwich service.

Anyway, I thought the Scotrail 153 plan was to use it for cycle and luggage only, do numbers justify a sub-fleet? My personal wish is that the Dornoch diversion would be built reducing journey times by 40 minutes, demand would grow as a result, which would justify the reintroduction of 4-car trains splitting at either Georgemas Jcn or Halkirk. I note the comments about the loss of a Thurso-Wick service as a result but this is a modern introduction to save a unit (or two). It was not done to tap into latent demand, but highlighted as a selling point in order to justify a poorer service for Wick customers!