A9 dualling - how will Scotrail compete?

[Railwaycat]

Had a week in Grantown recently and saw first hand the amount of work going into dualling the A9 in the Tomatin area (for one) plus the number of express buses (Flixbus, Scotbus or whatever it's called plus another company I didn't catch the name of) currently operating with the road in its present state. How will Scotrail compete time and frequency wise once the work's complete (some years away for the whole road)?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I suppose we are looking for an answer more complex than they won't?

I am not aware of nay prospects for upgrading the line in the works?

 

[RiverDon]

Ember doesn't just beat Scotrail, it wipes the floor with them. From what I have seen there doesn't seem to be any appetite in Scotrail to actually attempt to compete with the road coaches. Unless the replacement intercity 222 trains are a really really massive step up then the coach companies will win in the long term.

 

[Rab Smith]

In short, the current situation regarding the railway will gradually get worse as the A9 dualling gets better.
It's a railway that relies on every train being on time to cross at the double line crossing points.
Full A9 dual carriageway will bring the average journey time from Inverness to Perth down to around 1 hour 40 minutes. A good 20 to 30 minutes faster than the quickest train. Add to that current fares for coach v train and it can only get worse for rail.

 

[A S Leib]

Full A9 dual carriageway will bring the average journey time from Inverness to Perth down to around 1 hour 40 minutes. A good 20 to 30 minutes faster than the quickest train. Add to that current fares for coach v train and it can only get worse for rail.

I'd guess that the train wins for time to Newcastle, York (Leeds, Manchester), especially given a direct service for the former and maybe shorter connection times than from coach to train for the latter, but that's a small proportion of that route's passengers, and I'd guess that flying to London can be competitive with the train on price, let alone just on time.

 

[Class83]

Ember doesn't just beat Scotrail, it wipes the floor with them. From what I have seen there doesn't seem to be any appetite in Scotrail to actually attempt to compete with the road coaches. Unless the replacement intercity 222 trains are a really really massive step up then the coach companies will win in the long term.

This isn't that dissimilar on commuter services, the coach services from Kinross, Halbeath and Ferrytoll to Edinburgh are offering a very competitive price/service alternative to ScotRail services.

The passenger comfort and cost basis of buying a new coach every 5 years v the railway offering a train which even with the 222s will be 20+ years old, hopefully refurbished, seems difficult to justify for the railway. ScotRail (and this applies to other ToCs across the UK) need to get someone who really understands running a business with a lean cost base to come in and focus spending in delivering what passengers want as efficiently as possible.

 

[Horizon22]

This isn't that dissimilar on commuter services, the coach services from Kinross, Halbeath and Ferrytoll to Edinburgh are offering a very competitive price/service alternative to ScotRail services.

The passenger comfort and cost basis of buying a new coach every 5 years v the railway offering a train which even with the 222s will be 20+ years old, hopefully refurbished, seems difficult to justify for the railway. ScotRail (and this applies to other ToCs across the UK) need to get someone who really understands running a business with a lean cost base to come in and focus spending in delivering what passengers want as efficiently as possible.

This is not really related to TOCs having people who “understand running a business”. Such decisions on more regular newer stock would be dictated by the Treasury and DfT

 

[JonathanH]

The passenger comfort and cost basis of buying a new coach every 5 years v the railway offering a train which even with the 222s will be 20+ years old, hopefully refurbished, seems difficult to justify for the railway. ScotRail (and this applies to other ToCs across the UK) need to get someone who really understands running a business with a lean cost base to come in and focus spending in delivering what passengers want as efficiently as possible.

Railways carry loads more people than are prepared to travel by coach. There is quite a lot of evidence that no matter how good the coach is, the majority of people who don't want to drive will use a train, even one which is 20 years old, than a coach.

What are you actually saying here? Trains are built for a life much longer than five years, indeed much longer than twenty years.

 

[N1]

Railways carry loads more people than are prepared to travel by coach. There is quite a lot of evidence that no matter how good the coach is, the majority of people who don't want to drive will use a train, even one which is 20 years old, than a coach.

This is true in England and Wales, but not the case in Scotland (or NI). Coach passenger volumes, frequency and timings are competitive with internal Scottish rail services. Partly driven now by the now high proportion of people in Scotland getting free coach travel.

For me, you can invest in Highland main lines or A9 dualling, but not both. The road investment and Ember have pretty much killed any decarbonisation advantage rail had in its case for investment.

If we were emulating a certain Alpine European country, lorry movements on the A9 would be restricted, with full doubling and rail electrification, but alas we are not.

 

[hexagon789]

This happened before in the early/mid-1980s and the railway's approach was the low-cost "Jacobite" (£5 fares) and the Highland Chieftain.

Ending the decade with accelerated services and the ScotRail provision having increased from 3 off-peak/5 peak season workings over the Highland Main Line (HML) in 1982 to having 5 all year round plus 1 seasonal extra, as well as the Chieftain and the Clansman.

Suffice to say, it is not completely beyond ScotRail to sort out some form of improvements and fares incentives.

Certainly before COVID, we were to get an hourly HML service and services accelerated down to near the 3 hour mark between Inverness and Glasgow or Edinburgh.

 

[Rab Smith]

You will always have the customers who are willing to pay the extra for the train. These people would never set foot on a coach.
The issue here though is that the A9 fully duelled becomes a far more attractive option of taking the car rather than the train. Inverness to the Central Belt would be a journey of slightly over 2 hours give or take the congestion around Perth/Edinburgh/Glasgow while the train won't be getting faster.

 

[dk1]

You will always have the customers who are willing to pay the extra for the train. These people would never set foot on a coach.
The issue here though is that the A9 fully duelled becomes a far more attractive option of taking the car rather than the train. Inverness to the Central Belt would be a journey of slightly over 2 hours give or take the congestion around Perth/Edinburgh/Glasgow while the train won't be getting faster.

I find that from family and friends most of the time. They wouldn’t even consider going by bus/coach but will take the train.

 

[Gwr12345]

I find that from family and friends most of the time. They wouldn’t even consider going by bus/coach but will take the train.

When we lived up in Wick, which is an even longer journey than the HML, and the buses are much faster, we still took the train as it had the comfort bonus and made us less travel sick. Coach travel is still unsavoury for much of the population.

 

[route101]

Train wins on comfort, both HSTs and 170s. The train fares are high unless you book in advance. Ember has the fare advantage for the coach being the flat rate. Journey times are similar.

 

[Snex]

Not sure the dualling will make that much difference. The road is dead most the year anyway, so anyone wanting to drive will likely be driving anyway.

It's one of the most pointless dualling schemes going but that's for another thread.

 

[styles]

Well the Perth to Inverness dialling is set to finish in 2035, so given Transport Scotland's past performance is say we have about 20 years to answer this question.

But seriously, some will always take the train. I prefer to pay a little extra for the train to get a bit table seat, somewhere to get up and walk about, and comfier seats.

 

[snookertam]

You will always have the customers who are willing to pay the extra for the train. These people would never set foot on a coach.
The issue here though is that the A9 fully duelled becomes a far more attractive option of taking the car rather than the train. Inverness to the Central Belt would be a journey of slightly over 2 hours give or take the congestion around Perth/Edinburgh/Glasgow while the train won't be getting faster.

Unless the bus is paying absolutely no regard to speed limits, the journey time from Inverness to the Central Belt by road will never be two hours give or take.

Inverness will just be like other locations in that there is a range of transport options for people to choose from. Express buses operate across the length and breadth of Britain and beyond and they don’t necessarily spell the end for rail travel. They tend to be quite different markets.

I’d also query the long term viability of some of these bus operations up here, particularly after subsidies are no longer available.

 

[The Planner]

Not sure the dualling will make that much difference. The road is dead most the year anyway, so anyone wanting to drive will likely be driving anyway.

It's one of the most pointless dualling schemes going but that's for another thread.

Is it about capacity and speed or more about safety? If you arent overtaking slow vehicles into oncoming traffic thats a benefit. Isn't the average about 8 deaths a year?

Lives torn apart by fatal crashes on the A9, Scotland's longest road

The family of an American woman who died in a crash on the A9 with her brother and mother talk about the impact.

www.bbc.co.uk

A total of 48 people have lost their lives on the 113-mile stretch between Inverness and Perth in the last 10 years.

The road regularly changes from single to dual carriageway. Drivers can often be seen driving at excessive speeds to overtake lines of slower-moving vehicles, and at certain junctions cars have to turn right across traffic coming the other way.

 

[Snex]

Is it about capacity and speed or more about safety? If you arent overtaking slow vehicles into oncoming traffic thats a benefit. Isn't the average about 8 deaths a year?

Lives torn apart by fatal crashes on the A9, Scotland's longest road

The family of an American woman who died in a crash on the A9 with her brother and mother talk about the impact.

www.bbc.co.uk

Possibly but it's a bloody expensive scheme for only 5 deaths a year, which seems quite low considering the length anyway?

The road counts along it are really low and absolutely no-where near dualling numbers but obviously target improvements etc no arguments.

Obviously if you had an unlimited pot of money, then fair play, but there's stuff like Laurencekirk on the A90 and the A82 being ignored which imo are much worse. Ironically seems like there was incident at the former yesterday aswell.

 

[Stathern Jc]

Possibly but it's a bloody expensive scheme for only 5 deaths a year, which seems quite low considering the length anyway?

I'm not sure that the families of those, or those of us similarly affected elsewhere, would consider that to be as insignificant as this suggests..

The A9 is undeniably a poor road. Remember that the dualling was due to be completed last year, but that's a long and different story.
The 2 new sections which have been dualled have been a significant help, especially that at Kincraig which had split the long stretch between Slochd and Crubbenmore where serious backlogs built up behind slow lorries etc in which there were always likely to be idiots trying to jump up the queue.
Overall traffic levels may at times be lower than other roads, but in most places there is no diversion available when there is an accident. On the dualled stretches traffic can still continue in one direction when something happens.

It would be interesting to know what proportion of the people travelling on the A9 between Inverness and Perth are actually travelling to Perth / Edinburgh / Glasgow and do have the alternative option of using the train which many wouldn't.
In recent years the diversion of the Scotrail Edinburgh trains via Stirling has made using the train to destinations in Fife less convenient, and probably lengthened the journey into Edinburgh.

I would definitely choose to take the train rather than a bus everytime, but increasing entitlement free bus travel throughout Scotland will draw custom away from rail.
Reference was made upthread to 222s, that subject seems to have been very quiet over the last year or so.

 

[Oxfordblues]

I would support the A9 dualling if it included tollbooths to gather revenue to repay the enormous cost. But of course the coach and haulage companies will get a free ride. No wonder they can undercut the trains!

 

[Class83]

Railways carry loads more people than are prepared to travel by coach. There is quite a lot of evidence that no matter how good the coach is, the majority of people who don't want to drive will use a train, even one which is 20 years old, than a coach.

What are you actually saying here? Trains are built for a life much longer than five years, indeed much longer than twenty years.

I'm in the group who would always look to prefer a train to a coach, but also have to accept that the level of comfort provided, particularly for journeys around 1 hour where getting up to walk to a buffet car is less relevant, is fairly evenly balanced. Trains don't need to be replaced every 10 years, but they do need internal soft furnishings replaced, the Scotrail 158s are 35 years old and not in the best state, even the 170s are 25 years old, the HSTs are older units, but with a slightly newer internal fit.

The market from Fife to Edinburgh has a not dissimilar number per hour of rail carriages and road coaches, so customers are relatively evenly split, with the coaches offering better parking and a more frequent service (most rail stations have 30 min frequency), rail has more reliable timings at rush hour as not affected by traffic. Scotrail has also removed most of the express services so Inverkeithing (Dunfermline), Kirkcaldy and Markinch (Glenrothes) no longer have fast services to Edinburgh. Pricing is similar at £7 bus and £7.30 train using Ferrytoll and Inverkeithing, so rail despite having the potential to offer a premium service is failing to convert that to a revenue premium.

For the Inverness services a reliable catering option is really the point of differentiation which needs to be offered, and not just in 1st Class. While hourly clockface service to allow flexibility would also be welcome.

 

[HSTEd]

The passenger comfort and cost basis of buying a new coach every 5 years v the railway offering a train which even with the 222s will be 20+ years old, hopefully refurbished, seems difficult to justify for the railway. ScotRail (and this applies to other ToCs across the UK) need to get someone who really understands running a business with a lean cost base to come in and focus spending in delivering what passengers want as efficiently as possible.

The railway has a serious problem in that it is caught in a bind of vary powerful interest groups, and a fragmented structure with relationships highly codified and controlled by webs of contracts.

This sort of "contractual paralysis" means that it can't really do much rapidly to bear down on its cost base, even if consensus could be formed on what to do.
Of course the same fragmentation and contractual accounting will make it very expensive to do anything at all, and the capital required to push through that problem doesn't really exist.

Making the Highland line truly attractive compared to Ember on a dual carriageway A9 would require a total reconstruction after all.

 

[The Planner]

I would support the A9 dualling if it included tollbooths to gather revenue to repay the enormous cost. But of course the coach and haulage companies will get a free ride. No wonder they can undercut the trains!

Why would they get a free ride? They have to pay on any other toll route.

 

[The Pelican]

The railway has a serious problem in that it is caught in a bind of vary powerful interest groups, and a fragmented structure with relationships highly codified and controlled by webs of contracts.

This sort of "contractual paralysis" means that it can't really do much rapidly to bear down on its cost base, even if consensus could be formed on what to do.
Of course the same fragmentation and contractual accounting will make it very expensive to do anything at all, and the capital required to push through that problem doesn't really exist.

Making the Highland line truly attractive compared to Ember on a dual carriageway A9 would require a total reconstruction after all.

Of course, like in other parts of the country, we could simply have very few new dual carrigeways or motorways!

 

[Rab Smith]

Unless the bus is paying absolutely no regard to speed limits, the journey time from Inverness to the Central Belt by road will never be two hours give or take.

Sorry, I wasnt clear. I meant taking the car.

 

[HSTEd]

Of course, like in other parts of the country, we could simply have very few new dual carrigeways or motorways!

Well, the other parts of the country have a lot more miles of dual carriageway and motorway per square mile!

I don't think avoiding road upgrades to force people to use the railway is a tenable approach.

 

[The Pelican]

More accurately, the Government should commit to matching rail journey time upgrades for any speed upgrades on major roads. In practise, most of the British rail network, being 60-125 mph, is at least as fast as the roads already, at least between pairs of city center stations.

(On the other hand, slightly ropey track layouts in parts of the highlands mean that there are probably plenty of Telford road stretches which are faster than the railways, even though Telford had no trains to try and beat!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Had a week in Grantown recently and saw first hand the amount of work going into dualling the A9 in the Tomatin area (for one) plus the number of express buses (Flixbus, Scotbus or whatever it's called plus another company I didn't catch the name of) currently operating with the road in its present state. How will Scotrail compete time and frequency wise once the work's complete (some years away for the whole road)?

Because coaches are grim. Far more people will use trains, even if they're less frequent and more expensive. It's just a nicer experience.

I've done Megabus from Perth to Inverness. Once, I won't be doing it again.

 

[HSTEd]

More accurately, the Government should commit to matching rail journey time upgrades for any speed upgrades on major roads. In practise, most of the British rail network, being 60-125 mph, is at least as fast as the roads already, at least between pairs of city center stations.

Well that just means no road upgrades in the Scottish Highlands that go anywhere near the population centres served by the railway though.

Matching the A9 dualling with the cost of current rail infrastructure under the current framework would cost many billions and require a total reconstruction of the Highland Main line.

That position isn't going to be tenable either.