Johnstone - Kilwinning 100mph

[craigybagel]

Back in 2014, there was a thread that mentioned Network Rail were looking at upgrading the speed on this section of the Glasgow - Ayr route from 90 to 100mph. Did anything ever come of this?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/johnstone-killwinning-linespeed.95373/

 

[XC90]

This definitely needs to happen. I dont see any major obstacles to increasing the speed.

 

[hexagon789]

Back in 2014, there was a thread that mentioned Network Rail were looking at upgrading the speed on this section of the Glasgow - Ayr route from 90 to 100mph. Did anything ever come of this?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/johnstone-killwinning-linespeed.95373/

No, it's still 90mph.

 

[hexagon789]

This definitely needs to happen. I dont see any major obstacles to increasing the speed.

Cost for little benefit?

 

[craigybagel]

No, it's still 90mph.

Thanks, was wondering. Now there's so many non stop or nearly non stop services along that section, with class 380s that are well capable of that speed I thought there might have been some incentive to get it done, especially as it's in Scotland which never seems to struggle to fund rail improvement work.

 

[Scotrail88]

It’s generally a straight section the whole way so don’t see how they couldn’t be the increase without any changes.

Never been on an Ayr fast that hasn’t arrived early at Kilwinning so could shave a few mins off it if increased.

Probably more benefit of increasing the speed through Gilmour Street would also take speed services Up more

 

[hexagon789]

Thanks, was wondering. Now there's so many non stop or nearly non stop services along that section, with class 380s that are well capable of that speed I thought there might have been some incentive to get it done, especially as it's in Scotland which never seems to struggle to fund rail improvement work.

Even if you extended 100mph running to the whole 90 section (Johnstone-Irvine) you aren't saving huge amounts of time.

Electrification and resignalling pushed linespeed from 75 to 90 in 1986, with the new timetable in 1987 journey time fell on average 9 mins. Given the Ayr semi-fasts are now non-stop to Kilwinning and 380s are faster accelerating than 318s and that hasn't reduced average journey times I don't see 100mph running making a jot of difference to be honest.

 

[hexagon789]

It’s generally a straight section the whole way so don’t see how they couldn’t be the increase without any changes.

Never been on an Ayr fast that hasn’t arrived early at Kilwinning so could shave a few mins off it if increased.

Probably more benefit of increasing the speed through Gilmour Street would also take speed services Up more

I think the present timetable has scope for tighter Glasgow-Ayr timings since the change to non-stop running to Kilwinning and faster accelerating 380s. The fact that timings are broadly unchanged overall since the 318s were introduced tells me that there is no desire or impetus to quicken timings and therefore it seems pointless to increase linespeed to 100mph for a time saving that would be less than could be made at present were the timings tightened to reflect what 380s and a clear run to Kilwinning can accomplish.

 

[Scotrail314209]

I definitely think they should increase the linespeed up to 100mph. However the track can be a bit too rough in places, Lochwinnoch was a particular bad spot for it at one point. Along with the 100mph upgrade they should certainly carry out work to allow a second train per hour to access Largs, as pre covid these services were able to fill up a single 380 quite early on.

As others have said, the track is relatively straight so you may actually be able to get a few minutes off the timetable. Paisley is also a hurdle because of the junction, but you can quite comfortably do 60mph through Platforms 3 and 4 imo.

 

[ComUtoR]

Is the signal spacing designed for 90mph or is there sufficient spacing and sighting for 100mph ?

 

[hexagon789]

I definitely think they should increase the linespeed up to 100mph. However the track can be a bit too rough in places, Lochwinnoch was a particular bad spot for it at one point. Along with the 100mph upgrade they should certainly carry out work to allow a second train per hour to access Largs, as pre covid these services were able to fill up a single 380 quite early on.

As others have said, the track is relatively straight so you may actually be able to get a few minutes off the timetable. Paisley is also a hurdle because of the junction, but you can quite comfortably do 60mph through Platforms 3 and 4 imo.

I reiterate my point that increasing linespeed simply to have a higher speed is only worth it if you gain significant benefit. It's going to save a couple minutes at most, hardly seems value for money imho

 

[hexagon789]

Is the signal spacing designed for 90mph or is there sufficient spacing and sighting for 100mph ?

The stuff I've seen from BR themselves made no mention of the spacing being suitable for 100mph, it being stated that the resignalling from semaphores to colour lights allowed trains to run at 90 second headways at 90mph against 5 minute headways at 75.

 

[Photohunter71]

I remember travelling that route when I was a wee boy,, getting home to Kilwinning when I used to live there seemed to take forever!! How times have changed!

 

[paul1609]

I reiterate my point that increasing linespeed simply to have a higher speed is only worth it if you gain significant benefit. It's going to save a couple minutes at most, hardly seems value for money imho

I've only used the route a couple of times but Johnstone to Kilwinning is just under 16 miles measured station to station. Assuming the train is doing 90 mph passing Johnstone and deaccelerates to stop at Kilwinning. Increasing the line speed from 90 to 100 with no intermediate reductions theoretically would reduce the journey time by around 45 secs.

 

[craigybagel]

I think the present timetable has scope for tighter Glasgow-Ayr timings since the change to non-stop running to Kilwinning and faster accelerating 380s. The fact that timings are broadly unchanged overall since the 318s were introduced tells me that there is no desire or impetus to quicken timings and therefore it seems pointless to increase linespeed to 100mph for a time saving that would be less than could be made at present were the timings tightened to reflect what 380s and a clear run to Kilwinning can accomplish.

I've only used the route a couple of times but Johnstone to Kilwinning is just under 16 miles measured station to station. Assuming the train is doing 90 mph passing Johnstone and deaccelerates to stop at Kilwinning. Increasing the line speed from 90 to 100 with no intermediate reductions theoretically would reduce the journey time by around 45 secs.

I guess I can see now it wouldn't be worthwhile. I wonder if that's what Network Rail found out back in 2014?

 

[DarloRich]

This definitely needs to happen. I dont see any major obstacles to increasing the speed.

On what basis do you say this?

 

[Mag_seven]

I wonder if that's what Network Rail found out back in 2014?

This thread appears to be based on some notion that NR looked at this in 2014:

johnstone-killwinning linespeed

Network Rail has undertaken development work looking at raising the linespeed between Johnstone and Kilwinning to 100 mph anyone know anything about this ? current line speed ect ?

www.railforums.co.uk

Yet no one has provided any evidence to support this claim.

 

[Carntyne]

Solution looking for a problem I think!

Are you just delivering trains to Central's approaches earlier for them to sit and wait for a path into the station?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Solution looking for a problem I think!

Are you just delivering trains to Central's approaches earlier for them to sit and wait for a path into the station?

Also, with the ScotRail services here being largely independent of the rest of the rail network, it's not clear there's any major timetabling benefit either. It's not like the Argyle line services on the suburban WCML, which need to tie in with the ICWC expresses and thus everything down to Euston. Getting the yaw dampers fitted to the 320s to enable the 75->90mph speed increase was a necessity for the recent attempted project to get the Glasgow-London timing down.

 

[craigybagel]

This thread appears to be based on some notion that NR looked at this in 2014:

johnstone-killwinning linespeed

Network Rail has undertaken development work looking at raising the linespeed between Johnstone and Kilwinning to 100 mph anyone know anything about this ? current line speed ect ?

www.railforums.co.uk

Yet no one has provided any evidence to support this claim.

Before I posted this thread I did some googling, and found a pdf from SPT that mentions it happening as part of Network Rails GRIP 3 plans. Nothing newer then this though which is why I was wondering what happened since, if anything.

https://*******.com/y7orjpz8

 

[Scotrail314209]

Personally I think rather than upgrading the line speed, they should update Kilwinning - Largs a bit. You now have a practically redundant goods line sitting between Hunterston and just after Ardrossan South Beach. Would it be worthwhile electrifying the goods lines and constructing platforms at West Kilbride and Ardrossan South Beach? Would allow 2tph down to Largs which would be a welcome increase

 

[hexagon789]

I guess I can see now it wouldn't be worthwhile. I wonder if that's what Network Rail found out back in 2014?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for increasing speeds but you have to spend the money you've got sensibly and I think any money for a relatively small linespeed increase and small benefit would be better put towards say further electrification or other infrastructure improvements.

 

[hexagon789]

Personally I think rather than upgrading the line speed, they should update Kilwinning - Largs a bit. You now have a practically redundant goods line sitting between Hunterston and just after Ardrossan South Beach. Would it be worthwhile electrifying the goods lines and constructing platforms at West Kilbride and Ardrossan South Beach? Would allow 2tph down to Largs which would be a welcome increase

The goods line is the former up line, the line was singled on electrification to enable the OLE to fit the bridge clearances on the northern section of the branch without rebuilding the bridges. I think you could manage 2tph with just a passing loop which might be easier to do than re-doubling the entire Largs branch and sorting out the bridge clearances.

 

[hexagon789]

This thread appears to be based on some notion that NR looked at this in 2014:

johnstone-killwinning linespeed

Network Rail has undertaken development work looking at raising the linespeed between Johnstone and Kilwinning to 100 mph anyone know anything about this ? current line speed ect ?

www.railforums.co.uk

Yet no one has provided any evidence to support this claim.

I think it was mentioned when the 380s were being introduced that linespeed to Ayr would be increased to 100. Whether that was am aspiration or merely an assumption based on the higher top speed of the 380s compared to the rest of the Strathclyde electric fleet is difficult to be sure of

 

[hexagon789]

I've only used the route a couple of times but Johnstone to Kilwinning is just under 16 miles measured station to station. Assuming the train is doing 90 mph passing Johnstone and deaccelerates to stop at Kilwinning. Increasing the line speed from 90 to 100 with no intermediate reductions theoretically would reduce the journey time by around 45 secs.

It is about 16 miles give or take a few chains, 90mph is continous from about 0.5mi past Johnstone through Kilwinning to Barassie (22mi 45ch in all) with one further 3mi 65ch 90 section from North of Prestwick Airport to before Newton-on-Ayr.

The second section is sufficiently short that there would be no benefit at all in increasing the speed limit to 100 especially given that it's followed by a 50 limit going through Newton-on-Ayr so you have next to no time to accelerate from 75 to 90 before braking for the 50 presently. Plus Prestwick Airport and Prestwick Town are both within that 90 section and all trains call so again I doubt you can make use of the present 90 limit let alone an increase.

 

[paul1609]

It is about 16 miles give or take a few chains, 90mph is continous from about 0.5mi past Johnstone through Kilwinning to Barassie (22mi 45ch in all) with one further 3mi 65ch 90 section from North of Prestwick Airport to before Newton-on-Ayr.

The second section is sufficiently short that there would be no benefit at all in increasing the speed limit to 100 especially given that it's followed by a 50 limit going through Newton-on-Ayr so you have next to no time to accelerate from 75 to 90 before braking for the 50 presently. Plus Prestwick Airport and Prestwick Town are both within that 90 section and all trains call so again I doubt you can make use of the present 90 limit let alone an increase.

Was there much traffic at Prestwick pre covid? I was on a Easyjet flight diverted there from Glasgow about 2 years ago and I got the impression that they were opening the terminal building up specially for us to get on our coaches. Cutting out the airport station stop would save more time than a linespeed increase. The 2 stations appear to only be 38 chains apart less than 1/2mile.

 

[Mordac]

Was there much traffic at Prestwick pre covid? I was on a Easyjet flight diverted there from Glasgow about 2 years ago and I got the impression that they were opening the terminal building up specially for us to get on our coaches. Cutting out the airport station stop would save more time than a linespeed increase. The 2 stations appear to only be 38 chains apart less than 1/2mile.

PIK has been on life support for ages. If the Scottish government hadn't bailed it out, it would have closed long ago, at least to passenger operations (it likely would have remained opened for other purposes, IMO).

 

[hexagon789]

Was there much traffic at Prestwick pre covid? I was on a Easyjet flight diverted there from Glasgow about 2 years ago and I got the impression that they were opening the terminal building up specially for us to get on our coaches. Cutting out the airport station stop would save more time than a linespeed increase. The 2 stations appear to only be 38 chains apart less than 1/2mile.

It's down to about 650k passengers a year for the airport and the station 104k.

Perhaps making it like Barassie and Newton-on-Ayr and only the stoppers and alternate semi-fast would call? Still make a 3tph service.

 

[Carntyne]

The goods line is the former up line, the line was singled on electrification to enable the OLE to fit the bridge clearances on the northern section of the branch without rebuilding the bridges. I think you could manage 2tph with just a passing loop which might be easier to do than re-doubling the entire Largs branch and sorting out the bridge clearances.

Where are you finding the path to/from Glasgow Central for another 1tph?

 

[hexagon789]

Where are you finding the path to/from Glasgow Central for another 1tph?

I was ignoring that for the time being and focusing purely on the Largs branch and what it alone needs given the previous post was about the goods line alongside the passenger line.