• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Far North Line "facing closure" (slight hyperbole alert).

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

C

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,199
Neil Williams said:
What's "truly awful" about the 158s? They have a very nice interior, which all ScotRail 158s are to receive. To me one of the nicest refurbs.
Click to expand...

I agree.
I travelled on this line a month ago and the 158`s are very pleasant trains. Perhaps if the locals do not like them they could swop for some knackered 150`s or Pacers from England who often appear on long distance routes for which they were never intended?
 
G

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,335
Location
Greater Manchester
If passenger services to Wick/Thurso were withdrawn, would the line have to remain open as far as Georgemas for freight? Or could the Dounreay nuclear flasks be safely transported down the A9 instead?
 
cf111

cf111

Established Member
Joined
13 Nov 2012
Messages
1,393
They're even flying some nuclear material to the US from Wick Airport now.
 
najaB

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,659
Location
Scotland
cf111 said:
They're even flying some nuclear material to the US from Wick Airport now.
Click to expand...
I presume there's an intermediate stop? I wouldn't think that an aircraft capable of crossing the Atlantic with a usable payload could take off from Wick with a full fuel load.
 
Last edited:
H

Highland37

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
1,259
Neil Williams said:
What's "truly awful" about the 158s? They have a very nice interior, which all ScotRail 158s are to receive. To me one of the nicest refurbs.
Click to expand...

I really don't like them. There is a loud hum from a fan or something at one end and the engine makes quite a racket when it's working hard. The seats are not as good as those on the 170s and the Scotrail ones are often dirty.
 
najaB

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,659
Location
Scotland
cf111 said:
They spent £8 million upgrading the runway so possibly not, a small picture of the plane used is here.
Click to expand...
That's a C-17 which has excellent STOL (short takeoff and landing) characteristics so it might well be able to manage it if they've lengthened the runway/clearway a bit.
 
Last edited:
A

adrock1976

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2013
Messages
4,450
Location
What's it called? It's called Cumbernauld
Highland37 said:
I really don't like them. There is a loud hum from a fan or something at one end and the engine makes quite a racket when it's working hard. The seats are not as good as those on the 170s and the Scotrail ones are often dirty.
Click to expand...

You should have tried travelling on a Class 47+Mk III and an IC125 with the original Valenta engines going up the Lickey Incline.

That was what you called a proper racket of the engines thrashing away!
 
backontrack

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,399
Location
The UK
Highland37 said:
I have not even mentioned whether I support the SNP or not. You have presumed that. But it does irk me that you ignore the facts and try to present a vision which isn't based on reality.

I'd quite happily commend Labour or the Lib Dems for supporting the line but they did pretty much nothing.

You seem to be agreeing with me now. As you said that the investment was in the Central Belt, and I and others pointed out that this is not the case, you now recognise what you said to be untrue and appears to be now arguing about the reasons for the investment.

Again you are just plain wrong. You said that "The only thing that people mention that they've done for the Highlands is the A9 dualling. That's it." when on this very thread people have been mentioning other things. You could add the various new health centres in Forres and Drumnadrochit for example.

If RET was introduced on the Northlink routes ticket prices would go up.

But I agree with you, the service west of Dingwall or north of Ardgay is rubbish. The line speeds are very slow in the west and the 158s truly awful.

Like I said earlier, my colleagues, who live and work here like I do myself, want to avoid the train if they can. The bus is much better in their view.
Click to expand...
Then we need an alternative to RET! Why not just cut the fares?

When I say 'the only thing that they've done for the Highlands', I'm referring to transport. Perhaps I should have said that but not much comes to mind at all.

You accuse me of 'ignoring the facts', then you say that I agree with you. Surely this is contradiction? I am not ignoring the facts at all.

And I don't agree with you. I still think that the bulk of investment is in the Central Belt, with some in Aberdeen.

You accuse me of presuming that you support the SNP, but earlier you also presumed that I am anti-SNP and that I just want to find something to criticise them with.

You also stubbornly suggest that I would not be saying this if Labour or the Lib Dems were in charge. That's fairly hypocritical and is untrue, too. I would still be saying what I am now, just as, in the wider UK, I still feel that either a Tory or Labour government would focus on the southeast.

Glad to see you agree with me about the poor service - which really does need the LLL to go ahead alongside a Kinbrace Loop for it to work.
 
Last edited:
QueensCurve

QueensCurve

Established Member
Joined
22 Dec 2014
Messages
2,200
Greybeard33 said:
If passenger services to Wick/Thurso were withdrawn, would the line have to remain open as far as Georgemas for freight? Or could the Dounreay nuclear flasks be safely transported down the A9 instead?
Click to expand...

At the moment it is the Breeder fuel from DFR that is going to Sellafield by rail Once that fuel has been removed I don't think there would be any further need for flask trains.

Yes, the flasks could be safely transported by road, but rail is usually the preferred mode.

Dounreay is developing it's own repository for Low Level Radioactive waste so little need for the rail link for that.
 
A

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,425
Location
Salt & Vinegar
backontrack said:
Then we need an alternative to RET! Why not just cut the fares?

When I say 'the only thing that they've done for the Highlands', I'm referring to transport. Perhaps I should have said that but not much comes to mind at all.

You accuse me of 'ignoring the facts', then you say that I agree with you. Surely this is contradiction? I am not ignoring the facts at all.

And I don't agree with you. I still think that the bulk of investment is in the Central Belt, with some in Aberdeen.

You accuse me of presuming that you support the SNP, but earlier you also presumed that I am anti-SNP and that I just want to find something to criticise them with.

You also stubbornly suggest that I would not be saying this if Labour or the Lib Dems were in charge. That's fairly hypocritical and is untrue, too. I would still be saying what I am now, just as, in the wider UK, I still feel that either a Tory or Labour government would focus on the southeast.

Glad to see you agree with me about the poor service - which really does need the LLL to go ahead alongside a Kinbrace Loop for it to work.
Click to expand...

RET is meant to reflect the cost of driving the same distance.

Wick is a long way from Edinburgh so driving will cost a fair amount.

Mull is a short distance from Oban so driving would not cost much.

RET has therefore reduced the cost of Oban - Mull travel.

Lerwick is a very very long way from Aberdeen so the RET fare would be more than current tickets cost.

Effectively if you built a very long tunnel to Shetland and made it free to drive through it then it would be more expensive for Shetlanders than using the current ferry just in fuel and other costs of driving.

It's not the fault of the Scottish Government that Shetland is a long way away.
 
cf111

cf111

Established Member
Joined
13 Nov 2012
Messages
1,393
Re. the ferries - Serco need to make money, they are a private company. The ferries between the Northern Isles and the mainland have almost always been run by private companies in some guise - first the "North Co." then P&O, then NorthLink (RBS/CalMac then CalMac on their own), now Serco.

CalMac don't have to make a profit to survive, the company is owned by the Scottish Ministers, they run a monopoly ("The Earth belongs unto the Lord/and all that it contains/except the Kyles and the Western Isles/for they are all MacBrayne's") that can't reasonably survive without government ownership or subsidy.
 
Last edited:
H

Highland37

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
1,259
backontrack said:
Then we need an alternative to RET! Why not just cut the fares?

When I say 'the only thing that they've done for the Highlands', I'm referring to transport. Perhaps I should have said that but not much comes to mind at all.

You accuse me of 'ignoring the facts', then you say that I agree with you. Surely this is contradiction? I am not ignoring the facts at all.

And I don't agree with you. I still think that the bulk of investment is in the Central Belt, with some in Aberdeen.

You accuse me of presuming that you support the SNP, but earlier you also presumed that I am anti-SNP and that I just want to find something to criticise them with.

You also stubbornly suggest that I would not be saying this if Labour or the Lib Dems were in charge. That's fairly hypocritical and is untrue, too. I would still be saying what I am now, just as, in the wider UK, I still feel that either a Tory or Labour government would focus on the southeast.

Glad to see you agree with me about the poor service - which really does need the LLL to go ahead alongside a Kinbrace Loop for it to work.
Click to expand...

You are in a circle here where only your own information is valid to you. I and others have provided real examples of where there is significant invest in transport all over the Highlands.

At the risk of repeating myself, the A9 dualling (£3 billion?) is well on track and I drove the first new part on Saturday. Calmac have had several brand new vessels in the last few years as well as upgrades to infrastructure. There are also two new large vessels on order from a Scottish yard, one of the few left. The West link in Inverness is being built about a mile from me. And so on.

The bulk of the investment will always be in the Central Belt as the most people live there. Expecting it otherwise is silly. However, the Highlands has done pretty well from the SNP.


So when you say "not much comes to mind at all." I hope the examples I provided along with others will change that and you will recognise them.
 
P

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
4,181
cf111

cf111

Established Member
Joined
13 Nov 2012
Messages
1,393
philthetube said:
Reading the comments about the 158's I guess the 185's would have clearance issues as an first look they seem ideal for the job.

Page 7, paragraph 7
Click to expand...

I don't know if their weight would be an insurmountable problem but on first glance I'd agree that they're probably the "heir apparent" if the 158s were to be replaced.
 
B

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
10,544
Tha A9 dueling will I think when done have an effect on rail, to Inverness anyway as the coach will be quicker than the train so iether thw government are blind to this or dont care IMO
 
A

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,425
Location
Salt & Vinegar
cf111 said:
A wee bump with a report published today produced for Friends of the Far North Line:

http://www.fofnl.org.uk/archives/Aliona-FoFNL-study-16.10.16.pdf

Interesting reading, perhaps most interesting is that they're considering closing Kildonan station.
Click to expand...

Some interesting stuff in there, more realistic and practical than some of the stuff FoFNL sometimes get involved in.

Highlights that really what is needed is lots of small things which all add up to big improvements. Level Crossing strategy, signalling, TPWS, track replacement, TSRs, new loops, eliminating some little used stops can all bring benefits.
 
Xenophon PCDGS

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,424
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
Altnabreac said:
RET is meant to reflect the cost of driving the same distance.

Wick is a long way from Edinburgh so driving will cost a fair amount.

Mull is a short distance from Oban so driving would not cost much.

RET has therefore reduced the cost of Oban - Mull travel.

Lerwick is a very very long way from Aberdeen so the RET fare would be more than current tickets cost.

Effectively if you built a very long tunnel to Shetland and made it free to drive through it then it would be more expensive for Shetlanders than using the current ferry just in fuel and other costs of driving.

It's not the fault of the Scottish Government that Shetland is a long way away.
Click to expand...

Whilst the Shetland Isles seem worthy of a mention, can I ask how matters concerning the much-nearer Orkney Isles are viewed on this thread?
 
A

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,425
Location
Salt & Vinegar
Paul Sidorczuk said:
Whilst the Shetland Isles seem worthy of a mention, can I ask how matters concerning the much-nearer Orkney Isles are viewed on this thread?
Click to expand...

With regards to RET, Orkney is more complicated. The current publically subsidised route from Scrabster to Stromness might be slightly cheaper with RET depending on how it is calculated.

The effect on the privately run St Margaret's Hope - Gills Bay service complicates any intervention and raises State Aid questions. Moving the subsidy to a shorter route such as this while implementing RET would lead to even cheaper fares but the reliability of shorter routes in poor weather and ability to cope with all the traffic then come into question.

Specifically as regards the Far North Line a move away from Scrabster could have a marginal negative effect on the railway but given the time difference between coach and rail already I doubt much business would be lost.
 
7

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
4,070
To help speed things up a bit/make the FNL a bit more attractive

a) not close any stations, but just have the really little used ones on one train e/w per day - preferably in daylight time.

That way, no expensive closure procedures, minimal delay to just two trains a day and you can always reinstate stops if local population increases (unlikely, I know, but just in case)

b) cut out the Beauly and Conon Bridge stops on the non-Invernet services. It must be annoying for pax from Wick and Thurso to be stopping at these places after a four-hour journey.

EDIT: Does anyone think this report is a tad too negative about the ability to maintain the timetable?

I've just checked back on RTT for yesterday and Wednesday, at Dingwall and Thurso, and almost all trains are within 5 minutes of RT - just one 13 min late at Thurso, and another 7 mins late at Dingwall.

Hardly the calamity the report implies is almost a daily occurrence.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top