Johnstone - Kilwinning 100mph

[InOban]

Speaking of paths, it had occurred to me that speeding up the outbound trains, and delaying the inbounds so that they picked up their current path at Paisley, might create a junction conflict with the Largs services.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

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.

A GRIP number is just a stage in the investigative process to judge whether or not it's worth doing; from memory GRIP 3 is where they look at a project to see if there's a business case for it or not.

 

[Scotrail314209]

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.

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

Something they could do is maybe make the service to Ardrossan Town and Ardrossan Harbour a little bit more limited, as the usage isn't very high outwith ferry hours. They could run that along to Largs and maybe have a passing loop at West Kilbride as the two trains would meet there.

 

[Bald Rick]

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

(Puts broken record on turntable, presses play)... Straightness of track is but one of around 80 factors that have to be assessed when increasing linespeed. Signal spacing, signal sighting, structural strength, track maintenance standards (they change above 90mph), track componentry, embankment strength, gauge clearance, OLE capability, power supply, aerodynamic effects at bridges and stations, etc etc etc.

And in this case, it gets you less than a minute. I’m surprised it got as far as a study.

 

[adrock1976]

Something they could do is maybe make the service to Ardrossan Town and Ardrossan Harbour a little bit more limited, as the usage isn't very high outwith ferry hours. They could run that along to Largs and maybe have a passing loop at West Kilbride as the two trains would meet there.

There could be a 30 minute frequency to Largs by means of one train each hour running as two units coupled together between Glasgow Central and Ardrossan South Beach, with the portions uncoupling for the Harbour and Largs. They could couple again at South Beach for the return.

That way, the 60 minute frequency is maintained for Town and Harbour stations at Ardrossan.

 

[Scotrail314209]

There could be a 30 minute frequency to Largs by means of one train each hour running as two units coupled together between Glasgow Central and Ardrossan South Beach, with the portions uncoupling for the Harbour and Largs. They could couple again at South Beach for the return.

That way, the 60 minute frequency is maintained for Town and Harbour stations at Ardrossan.

That’s also a good idea. But it may not be worth the extra unit as the use at those stations is extremely minimal. However, doubling up would provide more seats as trains from Largs are extremely busy

 

[XC90]

On what basis do you say this?

Straight enough track, only a 10mph increase. 2tph run fast from Glasgow - Ayr and 2 in opposite direction. Faster services for Ayrshire customers.

 

[DarloRich]

Straight enough track, only a 10mph increase. 2tph run fast from Glasgow - Ayr and 2 in opposite direction. Faster services for Ayrshire customers.

if only it were that simple. What benefit does the investment deliver? Would the slightly decreased journey time for Ayrshire passengers be lost trying to get into the high number platforms at Glasgow Central? is the extra mph for the non stop trains wasted by the trains that stop at Milliken Park, Howwood, Lochy, Glengarnock & Dalry? Can those stopping trains accelerate quickly enough to take advantage of the higher speed? Is the signalling suitable?

I just don't see any benefit versus the cost.

I am sure @Bald Rick would know more

PS not sure the bit around Lochwinnoch is straight. Know that bit quite well

 

[hexagon789]

Something they could do is maybe make the service to Ardrossan Town and Ardrossan Harbour a little bit more limited, as the usage isn't very high outwith ferry hours. They could run that along to Largs and maybe have a passing loop at West Kilbride as the two trains would meet there.

Either a return to a more limited Harbour service, back when trains only met the ferry OR portion working?

 

[hexagon789]

And in this case, it gets you less than a minute. I’m surprised it got as far as a study.

Indeed, seeing as that study will have cost £££ and I think a conclusion could have been surmised without even going for a full blown study.

 

[hexagon789]

Faster services for Ayrshire customers.

It's lucky if it's a minute faster, what's the point in that?

 

[d9009alycidon]

The approaches to Glasgow Central really need some simplification, the five loops between Central and Bridge Street are hardly ever used, so could be taken out and the eight running lines aligned together with higher speed crossovers to improve the current 15mph crawl from Bridge Street. I am always impressed by the approach to Paddington, as big and as complicated as Central, yet the approach speed seems much faster

 

[Scotrail314209]

The approaches to Glasgow Central really need some simplification, the five loops between Central and Bridge Street are hardly ever used, so could be taken out and the eight running lines aligned together with higher speed crossovers to improve the current 15mph crawl from Bridge Street. I am always impressed by the approach to Paddington, as big and as complicated as Central, yet the approach speed seems much faster

I think the speed on the Ayrshire lines would need to stay the same, because of the tight curve that leads them away. Going out towards the WCML you could probably do about 30mph

 

[alangla]

Either a return to a more limited Harbour service, back when trains only met the ferry OR portion working?

Given the number of sets that run as 6/7/8 cars all day and the glacially slow coupling of the 380s I can’t see portion working being an option. Is there really no additional path per hour from Kilwinning to Bridge Street given Hunterston is basically gone for good.

 

[hexagon789]

Given the number of sets that run as 6/7/8 cars all day and the glacially slow coupling of the 380s I can’t see portion working being an option. Is there really no additional path per hour from Kilwinning to Bridge Street given Hunterston is basically gone for good.

Hmm I agree it was only a quick suggestion anyway. It's trying to work a solution round a problem that really needs lots of individual solutions to several small issues rather than one whole issue.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Given the number of sets that run as 6/7/8 cars all day and the glacially slow coupling of the 380s I can’t see portion working being an option. Is there really no additional path per hour from Kilwinning to Bridge Street given Hunterston is basically gone for good.

Isn’t the coupling on the 380s only extremely slow because of the gangway and the way it has to physically move to connect with the other