Highland Main Line - Budget Deal Bribe

[Altnabreac]

There is speculation that the Scottish Greens won’t support the Scottish Budget this year because of the A9 and A96 dualling:
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/f...and-a96-dualling-work-could-derail-snp-plans/

So if the SNP want to get a deal done one option could be rephase the A9 dualling completion from 2025 to 2030 and the A96 dualling from 2030 to 2035.

This in turn could release a significant amount of money for Highland Main Line improvements over the next ten years.

If the money were somewhere in the region of £500m it could be used for significant scale rail projects albeit not sufficient for full doubling or electrification.

So what would be your investment priorities for improving the HML between Perth and Inverness given £500m to spend?

 

[johnnychips]

The SNP are only five short of an overall majority. Would the Conservatives or Lib Dems not support it? I suppose Labour wouldn’t as they really don’t like each other.

 

[Indigo Soup]

So what would be your investment priorities for improving the HML between Perth and Inverness given £500m to spend?

The answer is fairly well hashed out, I think - redoubling from Culloden to Daviot, and reinstatement of loops elsewhere on the line. Line speed improvements to allow the HSTs to use more of their performance once that's done, and look to improvements south of Perth to speed up getting to Edinburgh and Glasgow. The latter would also benefit Perth, Dundee and Aberdeen.

Most of the Highlands would rather have the A9 dualled, though.

 

[Bald Rick]

2025 for the A9 is not possible now anyway, TS are way too far back in the planning process. This discussion may just be a political move to help justify the delay.

 

[Altnabreac]

2025 for the A9 is not possible now anyway, TS are way too far back in the planning process. This discussion may just be a political move to help justify the delay.

A definite side benefit of such a deal for the Scottish Government would be blaming A9 delays on the Greens. Win win.

 

[gavin1985]

The answer is fairly well hashed out, I think - redoubling from Culloden to Daviot, and reinstatement of loops elsewhere on the line. Line speed improvements to allow the HSTs to use more of their performance once that's done, and look to improvements south of Perth to speed up getting to Edinburgh and Glasgow. The latter would also benefit Perth, Dundee and Aberdeen.

Most of the Highlands would rather have the A9 dualled, though.

To me it would seem that the idea is to get the A9 and A96 dualled, then put focus on track doubling and electrification across both lines along the A road routes. That being said something needs done re electrification from South Gyle to Aberdeen. Driving is still just as fast if I am not mistaken making rail not a viable alternative? Whereas I am happy to jump on the train from Edinburgh to Glasgow, it certainly beats dealing with the M8 during peak hours!

 

[Indigo Soup]

Actually, doing some very crude costings, considerable doubling of the route - probably two-thirds of it, perhaps even as much as the whole thing - might be achievable on £500 million.
The work I suggested above for the HML would likely come in around the £132 million mark, leaving something like £370 million in the notional budget. Other options floated by Network Rail during the Scotland Route Study were apparently:

• Extending the loop at Kingussie and resignalling for simultaneous arrivals
• Enhancement of Carrbridge station and doubling towards Slochd
• Double line from Culloden to Moy (i.e. adding Daviot to Moy to the scope)
• 100mph double track from Kincraig to the Spey viaduct south of Newtonmore; obviously this would replace works on the Kingussie loop
• A dynamic loop from Dunkeld to Pitlochry, which would either make the Ballinliug loop redundant or make it really long depending on your point of view.

If deferring the A96 works is on the cards, further improvement on the Inverness-Aberdeen line seems sensible, though I don't know exactly what. Some combination of line speed enhancements and loops would make sense.

 

[Altnabreac]

Actually, doing some very crude costings, considerable doubling of the route - probably two-thirds of it, perhaps even as much as the whole thing - might be achievable on £500 million.
The work I suggested above for the HML would likely come in around the £132 million mark, leaving something like £370 million in the notional budget. Other options floated by Network Rail during the Scotland Route Study were apparently:

• Extending the loop at Kingussie and resignalling for simultaneous arrivals
• Enhancement of Carrbridge station and doubling towards Slochd
• Double line from Culloden to Moy (i.e. adding Daviot to Moy to the scope)
• 100mph double track from Kincraig to the Spey viaduct south of Newtonmore; obviously this would replace works on the Kingussie loop
• A dynamic loop from Dunkeld to Pitlochry, which would either make the Ballinliug loop redundant or make it really long depending on your point of view.

If deferring the A96 works is on the cards, further improvement on the Inverness-Aberdeen line seems sensible, though I don't know exactly what. Some combination of line speed enhancements and loops would make sense.

So our proposal for the SNP and Greens is as follows:

• Enhancement of Carrbridge station and doubling to Slochd loop with resignalling and line speed improvements;
• Double line from Culloden to Moy with resignalling and line speed improvements
• 100mph double track from Kincraig to the Spey viaduct south of Newtonmore, including second platform for Newtonmore station and resignalling;
• A dynamic loop from Dunkeld to Pitlochry with resignalling and line speed improvements;
• Blair Atholl - Dalwhinnie resignalling and line speed improvements;
• Tomatin loop resignalling;
• Perth - Ladybank line speed improvements;
• Forres - Inverness doubling and line speed improvements;
  
• Dynamic loop resignalling and line speed improvements around Keith;
• Commitment to rolling programme of electrification covering Aberdeen / Inverness / Perth triangle by early 2030s.
• Study into benefits of a new line from Inverkeithing - Halbeath - Perth.

Rephasing on the road side of things helps pay for this package of works by:

• A9 dualling completion date pushed out to 2030 but confirmed going ahead
• A96 Inverness - Nairn progressed in next 5-10 years as well.
• A96 Hardmuir - Fochabers postponed until late 2020s
• A96 Huntly - Aberdeen and Huntly - Fochabers postponed until early 2030s

That looks a decent package of works. Someone get it emailed to Kate Forbes and Patrick Harvie. Job done.

 

[Bald Rick]

Actually, doing some very crude costings, considerable doubling of the route - probably two-thirds of it, perhaps even as much as the whole thing - might be achievable on £500 million.
The work I suggested above for the HML would likely come in around the £132 million mark, leaving something like £370 million in the notional budget. Other options floated by Network Rail during the Scotland Route Study were apparently:

• Extending the loop at Kingussie and resignalling for simultaneous arrivals
• Enhancement of Carrbridge station and doubling towards Slochd
• Double line from Culloden to Moy (i.e. adding Daviot to Moy to the scope)
• 100mph double track from Kincraig to the Spey viaduct south of Newtonmore; obviously this would replace works on the Kingussie loop
• A dynamic loop from Dunkeld to Pitlochry, which would either make the Ballinliug loop redundant or make it really long depending on your point of view.

If deferring the A96 works is on the cards, further improvement on the Inverness-Aberdeen line seems sensible, though I don't know exactly what. Some combination of line speed enhancements and loops would make sense.

There is no chance that 2/3rds of the route could be doubled for £500m, no chance at all.

 

[Altnabreac]

There is no chance that 2/3rds of the route could be doubled for £500m, no chance at all.

A96 dualling is £3bn before 2030 take off £1Bn for the Inverness - Fochabers sections to be delivered before 2030 and you'd have £2Bn spare so that might be closer to covering it.

 

[Bald Rick]

A96 dualling is £3bn before 2030 take off £1Bn for the Inverness - Fochabers sections to be delivered before 2030 and you'd have £2Bn spare so that might be closer to covering it.

That’s more like it. But it’s fair to say that there will be a lot more socio-economic benefit form dialling the road than the railway.

 

[snookertam]

That’s more like it. But it’s fair to say that there will be a lot more socio-economic benefit form dialling the road than the railway.

How depressing. In a climate emergency I'm really not sure what socio-economic benefit there is from dualling any road and encouraging more road transport through induced demand. Actively discouraging road transport should be the priority, and whilst in the Highlands some road transport is a necessity, we shouldn't be increasing it.

As for the HML, my thinking was that doubling Stanley to Dunkeld, and Kingussie to Culloden would be acheivable? That might need more than £500m though.

 

[Bald Rick]

How depressing. In a climate emergency I'm really not sure what socio-economic benefit there is from dualling any road and encouraging more road transport through induced demand. Actively discouraging road transport should be the priority, and whilst in the Highlands some road transport is a necessity, we shouldn't be increasing it.

By the time the A9 dualling is completed, we will be well down the road of converting road transport to electric (cars and vans, at least); unless electric trains are also on the HML, it is reasonably likely that road transport on the corridor would be better for the environment than rail.

Secondly, given the relative use of the rail and road corridors, and the nature of the corridor itself, I doubt that there are many people who have a decision to make regarding mode. If you have access to a car, and the journey involves an origin or destination more than a couple of miles from a station, you will go by car. I genuinely don’t believe that dualling the A9 will generate much more traffic or take any from the railway; the possible exception is that coaches will be a little quicker and more reliable, so may gain a little.

More frequent or faster services on the railway will, of course, increase passenger numbers, but it would barely touch the traffic on the A9.

 

[Indigo Soup]

encouraging more road transport through induced demand

Induced demand only exists where there's suppressed demand. The A9 as it is operates under capacity, so no demand is being suppressed by lack of capacity. In fact, that also means there's no real need to dual it - especially because (contrary to popular belief) it's statistically one of the safer roads in the country. The motivation to do it is entirely political.

 

[Peter Kelford]

The A96 is not bypassed and thus needs dualling urgently in my opinion. As for the A9, it's in a good enough condition as it is. By more or less cancelling or safeguarding as much of the A9 dualling as possible, it would release money for electrification and consequent acceleration boosts. Given the sinuous nature of the line, speed increases seem to be of negligible use. Perhaps around Drumochter and Sclochd, a second track may be added in order for slower freights to be overtaken. At Drumochter this would be perhaps a 3rd track and/or resignalling.

I do believe that with some gains Pitlochry could be put at 1hr 30 mins from Edinburgh or even 1hr 20, building a sort of outer commuter belt.

 

[railjock]

The A96 is not bypassed and thus needs dualling urgently in my opinion. As for the A9, it's in a good enough condition as it is. By more or less cancelling or safeguarding as much of the A9 dualling as possible, it would release money for electrification and consequent acceleration boosts. Given the sinuous nature of the line, speed increases seem to be of negligible use. Perhaps around Drumochter and Sclochd, a second track may be added in order for slower freights to be overtaken. At Drumochter this would be perhaps a 3rd track and/or resignalling.

I do believe that with some gains Pitlochry could be put at 1hr 30 mins from Edinburgh or even 1hr 20, building a sort of outer commuter belt.

Pitlochry as outer commuter belt of Edinburgh...Interesting thought.

 

[gingertom]

Pitlochry as outer commuter belt of Edinburgh...Interesting thought.

OT for this thread and mentioned elsewhere but end to end journey times Edinburgh Inverness would see significant gains if the Glenfarg route was restored. That and electrification would bring Pitlochry within an hour of Edinburgh.

 

[computerSaysNo]

OT for this thread and mentioned elsewhere but end to end journey times Edinburgh Inverness would see significant gains if the Glenfarg route was restored. That and electrification would bring Pitlochry within an hour of Edinburgh.

I was going to mention the Glenfarg route earlier on but didn't get round to posting.
Would it be possible to rebuild that route today without having to move the motorway (I understand when the motorway was built it was done over the old trackbed in some locations)?
It currently takes an hour and a half to go from Perth to Edinburgh; what could this be reduced to if the direct route was restored (assuming stopping only at Perth, Kinross, Dunfermline and Haymarket)? An hour? 45 minutes? Less than 45 minutes?

 

[Altnabreac]

I was going to mention the Glenfarg route earlier on but didn't get round to posting.
Would it be possible to rebuild that route today without having to move the motorway (I understand when the motorway was built it was done over the old trackbed in some locations)?
It currently takes an hour and a half to go from Perth to Edinburgh; what could this be reduced to if the direct route was restored (assuming stopping only at Perth, Kinross, Dunfermline and Haymarket)? An hour? 45 minutes? Less than 45 minutes?

That’s where people on this forum sometimes go completely wrong.

As a transport improvement why would you want to “reopen the Glenfarg route”?

If the aim is to improve journey times from Inverkeithing to Perth / Dundee then the improvement is “build a new line connecting Inverkeithing and Perth”. Some small sections of that may reuse elements of the former Glenfarg trackbed but the majority would be new alignment.

It’s like people who want to reopen the GC Main Line instead of building HS2.

 

[Peter Kelford]

OT for this thread and mentioned elsewhere but end to end journey times Edinburgh Inverness would see significant gains if the Glenfarg route was restored. That and electrification would bring Pitlochry within an hour of Edinburgh.

That would be quite a good idea. Am I correct in saying that the trackbed now houses the M90 motorway?

It currently takes an hour and a half to go from Perth to Edinburgh; what could this be reduced to if the direct route was restored (assuming stopping only at Perth, Kinross, Dunfermline and Haymarket)? An hour? 45 minutes? Less than 45 minutes?

1 hour to 45 mins depending on pathing.

That’s where people on this forum sometimes go completely wrong.

As a transport improvement why would you want to “reopen the Glenfarg route”?

If the aim is to improve journey times from Inverkeithing to Perth / Dundee then the improvement is “build a new line connecting Inverkeithing and Perth”. Some small sections of that may reuse elements of the former Glenfarg trackbed but the majority would be new alignment.

It’s like people who want to reopen the GC Main Line instead of building HS2.

That might be a better solution, but if it wanders too far from the M90 there is likely to be more planning issues as a rail line/work site along a motorway is less disruptive than one build next to a farmhouse. Overall, building a new rail route seems like a good idea.

 

[Altnabreac]

That would be quite a good idea. Am I correct in saying that the trackbed now houses the M90 motorway?


1 hour to 45 mins depending on pathing.


That might be a better solution, but if it wanders too far from the M90 there is likely to be more planning issues as a rail line/work site along a motorway is less disruptive than one build next to a farmhouse. Overall, building a new rail route seems like a good idea.

Yes broadly following the M90 corridor to Kinross with a tunnel between there and Perth seems the most likely route corridor.

My preference would also be to have a Tay crossing there so Dundee and Aberdeen services can use the new line but bypass Perth. This would be additional cost but greatly enhance the proposed benefits.

 

[Peter Kelford]

My preference would also be to have a Tay crossing there so Dundee and Aberdeen services can use the new line but bypass Perth. This would be additional cost but greatly enhance the proposed benefits

Maybe provision could be set out for this (e.g. grade-separated junction) but not put into place for the time being and a phase to involving such a line?

 

[gingertom]

That’s where people on this forum sometimes go completely wrong.

As a transport improvement why would you want to “reopen the Glenfarg route”?

If the aim is to improve journey times from Inverkeithing to Perth / Dundee then the improvement is “build a new line connecting Inverkeithing and Perth”. Some small sections of that may reuse elements of the former Glenfarg trackbed but the majority would be new alignment.

It’s like people who want to reopen the GC Main Line instead of building HS2.

I'm only too well aware that the trackbed of the old Glenfarg route has been built over in places so would require significant intervention- why does this make it completely wrong? And what has it got to do with HS2 vs GC?

 

[Altnabreac]

I'm only too well aware that the trackbed of the old Glenfarg route has been built over in places so would require significant intervention- why does this make it completely wrong? And what has it got to do with HS2 vs GC?

There is a tendency here to get really excited about re-opening some old route whereas investment in a new line in a similar location does not generate the same level of enthusiasm.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I'm only too well aware that the trackbed of the old Glenfarg route has been built over in places so would require significant intervention- why does this make it completely wrong?

Rather less of the old route has been significantly built on than one might think - two sections around Dunblane totalling about two-thirds of a mile, and about two miles at Glenfarg itself.

But realistically, the old route is not necessarily the best alignment anyway. If a direct line from Inverkeithing to Perth is warranted, a suitable one should be identified based on modern conditions, where demolition is expensive and motive power cheap, rather than those of the past where demolition was cheap and motive power expensive!

 

[railjock]

That’s where people on this forum sometimes go completely wrong.

As a transport improvement why would you want to “reopen the Glenfarg route”?

If the aim is to improve journey times from Inverkeithing to Perth / Dundee then the improvement is “build a new line connecting Inverkeithing and Perth”. Some small sections of that may reuse elements of the former Glenfarg trackbed but the majority would be new alignment.

It’s like people who want to reopen the GC Main Line instead of building HS2.

Why was the Glenfarg route closed anyway - vague memories of it as I was 13 at the time? It seems utter madness now to close the direct route between Edinburgh and Perth/Inverness. Was it wholly political ( helps build M 90 ) or were there fundamental flaws with the route?

 

[Altnabreac]

Why was the Glenfarg route closed anyway - vague memories of it as I was 13 at the time? It seems utter madness now to close the direct route between Edinburgh and Perth/Inverness. Was it wholly political ( helps build M 90 ) or were there fundamental flaws with the route?

Slow, limited local services, alternatives for long distance services available via Ladybank and Stirling. Probably the main reason was to reduce the costs of building the M90.

So any new route has to try and find a faster alignment, avoid the M90 and minimise demolition.

Given those requirements I'd expect it would probably run east of the M90 from Inverkeithing to Halbeath crossing the M90 around Hill of Beath then west of the M90 past Kelty and Kinross before tunnelling under Balmanno Hill. That routing wouldn't reuse any of the Glenfarg route at all. An alternative option via Cowdenbeath might use some of the trackbed from Cowdenbeath to Kelty but even then it would need to abandon the trackbed not far north of Kelty.

 

[gingertom]

There is a tendency here to get really excited about re-opening some old route whereas investment in a new line in a similar location does not generate the same level of enthusiasm.

I'm not excited about reopening the old route, I'm very excited about cutting half an hour off the journey time.

 

[gingertom]

Why was the Glenfarg route closed anyway - vague memories of it as I was 13 at the time? It seems utter madness now to close the direct route between Edinburgh and Perth/Inverness. Was it wholly political ( helps build M 90 ) or were there fundamental flaws with the route?

Politics. It wasn't a Beeching closure.

 

[railjock]

Slow, limited local services, alternatives for long distance services available via Ladybank and Stirling. Probably the main reason was to reduce the costs of building the M90.

So any new route has to try and find a faster alignment, avoid the M90 and minimise demolition.

Given those requirements I'd expect it would probably run east of the M90 from Inverkeithing to Halbeath crossing the M90 around Hill of Beath then west of the M90 past Kelty and Kinross before tunnelling under Balmanno Hill. That routing wouldn't reuse any of the Glenfarg route at all. An alternative option via Cowdenbeath might use some of the trackbed from Cowdenbeath to Kelty but even then it would need to abandon the trackbed not far north of Kelty.

Thanks. I’m a salt and sauce man by the way.