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

[Altnabreac]

It's a bit much to describe Altnabreac as a 'community'.

That and Kildonan you could cut the service to fairly easily. A new Halkirk station would also probably halve Scotscalder's demand. That leaves you with Kinbrace, which in any case should definitely retain its current service pattern; a new siding and passing loop need to happen their quite soon and people do actually live there.

Invershin serves Inveran and together could probably retain its current service pattern. Culrain is tricky as that's all linked in with Carbisdale.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


And this is why passing loops are important; none of this can happen without a basic, functional service. The population between Inverness and the Dornoch Firth is quite high. The Invernet trains show that the demand is there. Let's put in the Lentran Loop, and perhaps another loop and cheapy Beauly-style platform at Evanton. Then we can focus on the rest.

Given Carbisdale has now been sold as a private residence I think it would be reasonable enough to close Culrain. Invershin has more prospect of tourist traffic with the Hotel and Bunkhouse and Culrain residents can still access the station via the footbridge connection over the Oykel viaduct.

Kildonan is the most obvious one to shut but as the FoFNL report points out there is only a journey time benefit if it is accompanied by an upgrade of the level crossing to improve line speeds.

Scotscalder, Georgemas Junction, Georgemas Curve and a new Halkirk station really all need to be approached as a joint project to improve journey times, probably with some rationalisation of private crossings in the area as well.

Altnabreac obviously I wouldn't want to see closed but given the new CWR in the area and improved line speeds at 90mph it may be that closure could be justified if a significant journey time improvement can be found.

Not sure if there is the political will to take any of that forward but taken overall it could all help with journey times.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is it on the cards? It's been claimed to be in this thread, but on a quick Google, I can't find any authoritative reference indicating that.

It was proposed as an option for funders to consider in the Scotland Route Study published earlier this year.
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/Scotland-Route-Study/

Enhancement of the line between Inverness and Wick/Thurso
The following interventions are proposed:
• Inverness to Dingwall - additional loop to provide greater flexibility to pass trains
• Dingwall to Invergordon - additional track to provide greater flexibility to pass trains
• Re-signalling from Inverness to Dingwall - to replace the existing radio based system with a conventional signalling system arrangement
• Georgemas Chord - to create new connection to facilitate a direct service to Thurso without the need to reverse at Georgemas Station.

So "On the cards" is a reasonable description. However by no means fully funded yet or guaranteed to happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There was a report in the P&J yesterday about the lack of action at a level crossing where two people were killed ten years ago.

I find myself agreeing with the sentiment of the article as it appears that very little has been done about the level crossing.

Things really do seem to move very slowly on the railway at times.

I am really keen to see more people use the train but it's further and further behind road transport each day with new coaches, better roads and higher expectations. Apart from the price, there is little reason to take the train sometimes.

Situation at Delny is complicated. Network Rail wants to close the crossing but residents are opposed and prefer for it to be upgraded to AOCL+B. However there is currently a speed reduction in place to mitigate the risk until a solution is agreed..

The other complication is proposed housing development in the area and a proposed upgrade to the road junction with the A9 both of which could increase road traffic and mean an AOCL+B wasn't suitable anymore. The best solution is almost certainly closure but when communities fight it every step of the way they can hardly complain about the subsequent delays.

I think the only other AOCL left in Scotland is Dingwall No 1 where a similar development issue means the best long term solution is unclear.

 

[70014IronDuke]

You display a general lack of understanding of the communities you are talking about.

I would never, ever pretend to say I know anything much in detail of the six 'communities' I fingered. I don't think I've ever been much north of Invergordon. And that not by train (sadly) ... except

In some of the instances these are very small remote communities. Rail is the only form of public transport available. It is one of the few things the line does do, provide a link to the outside world for these communities.

... if that is true, where are the figures to back it up? I took six of the eight unstaffed halts mentioned in the report and highlighted their passenger figures, which amount to an average of fewer than one person on and off trains per day.

This when most of these stations have 8 or 10 trains slowing down, ready to stop - almost totally without need.

Since some of these passenger counts must include walkers and tourists, rather than locals, and sometimes these people surely join and alight in small groups, it seems reasonable to assume that some of these stations actually go for a week or more with not a single passenger taking advantage of he services on offer.

I think the one firm conclusion we can come to is that these 'communities' do not, in fact, rely on rail as a "link to the outside world" in any significant meaning of the phrase.

If you think otherwise, please show your argumentation, and data and let us be persuaded.

But, remember, I did not suggest total closure of these stations (unlike some) - i suggested a more limited service - so I think you are jumping on the wrong poster.

The journey time to Wick is a massive 1hr 45 longer than the road trip from Inverness. Cutting a few small stations out is not going to solve the issue.

I never said it would. And of course, shaving even 10 minutes of the schedule would not do that.

But again - looking at the report - remove some of the 'random' usage with regard to the request stops that the report (not me) says is a significant problem with time keeping, plus save fuel etc. As one poster noted up thread - the report (not me) points to a package of time savings, each quite small, but which, if added together, would make a significant difference.

Perhaps improving the journey experience might be more useful. Reliable internet access, a reliable service, rolling stock that is more comfortable, catering that is edible all might help as much if not more. Due to geography the line simply will never compete on time. It has to offer something different.

Well, some sharp-tongued critics might retort on the lines of "You display a general lack of understanding of the economics of investment for rail services that you are [supposedly] talking about ..." but I don't think that would be very helpful.

Obviously, infrastructure developments such as new/restored loops between Inverness and Alness (not to mention such at the Forsinard end of the line) would make a huge improvement to timekeeping for both the Kyle and Far North lines, and I suspect most on this board, not to mention those working the services, desire to see such developments.

But they cost money, which in terms of the economics of the line, is very big money indeed. Against this, removing some of the request stops on some of the services would cost virtually nothing, but have immediate savings (limited, of course) on costs and timekeeping problems.

Here is a suggestion: in this digital age - which even these remote Scottish communities must tap into - why not have 'advance notice request stops' - some form of request, say 30 minutes before the train leaves its initial starting point - for those boarding to announce by internet or phone that they wish to board.

furthermore - in order to cope with the tour parties that are mentioned in the report - the new system could mandate that any 'significant' number of passengers boarding at an advance request stop (say, more than 20) must be announced even earlier - whatever the TOC deems is necessary to cope with these random loads. Would that help planning?

Otherwise, assuming nobody informs the guard they want to alight, the train can just sail through at line speeds - the general benefit of the (relatively) far larger numbers of people travelling from Wick and Thurso.

 

[najaB]

Since some of these passenger counts must include walkers and tourists, rather than locals, and sometimes these people surely join and alight in small groups, it seems reasonable to assume that some of these stations actually go for a week or more with not a single passenger taking advantage of he services on offer.

I think the one firm conclusion we can come to is that these 'communities' do not, in fact, rely on rail as a "link to the outside world" in any significant meaning of the phrase.

I suspect (though do not know) that there is a significant seasonality to the passenger numbers - people will drive/catch the bus in the summer but not consider it during winter. So the stations do serve as a link to the outside world, just not year round.

 

[Millisle]

My experience of forty years' life in parts of rural Scotland is that most drivers will exchange their cars for public transport when their wheels are stolen, but not when the weather is bad. There are many country communities in Scotland and elsewhere in Britain that either no longer or never were rail connected and I have lived in some, one during its first winters after rail closure, and it got by fine. Anyone really stuck is helped by 4x4 not by a train coming up their farm track. There are plenty of other good arguments for rail, but with modern road machinery most closures are short and rail services are no longer noticeably more robust in bad weather, often the reverse.

 

[QueensCurve]

I suspect it will be South-Thurso-Wick-Thurso-South, otherwise you've added 40 minutes onto the Thurso-Inverness journey.

Historically these services were portion worked with sets splitting/combining at Georgemas.

I can understand why portion working would have been abandoned but, given that the trains are all DMUs, it would perhaps be possible to reinstate it with the split happening at Halkirk?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There was a report in the P&J yesterday about the lack of action at a level crossing where two people were killed ten years ago.

I find myself agreeing with the sentiment of the article as it appears that very little has been done about the level crossing.

Network Rail has confirmed that Delny level crossing will have barriers installed by late summer 2017, with designs also commissioned with the aim of closing the crossing permanently.

 

[snowball]

Slightly off topic as it's not about a closure threat, but this is the nearest thread for this press release:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds/plain-sailing-for-far-north-track-renewals/

Plain sailing for Far North track renewals

Network Rail has had over 1,000 new rails delivered by sea to Scrabster Harbour in an innovative first for Scotland’s railway.

The 1,100 60-ft rails were unloaded over Monday, February 27, and Tuesday, February 28, after arriving in the harbour aboard the RMS Laar.

The materials will be used to renew 6.5 miles of the Far North line’s Thurso branch, stretching from Thurso Station to Georgemas Junction.

The delivery is a first for Scotland with new rail normally arriving by road or rail transport.

Network Rail estimate that delivering by sea has saved 110 road freight journeys and reduced carbon emissions by approximately 200 tonnes.

The renewal works will begin this month and will help to improve reliability on the route.

Alex Sharkey, Network Rail area director for Scotland East, said: “We are committed to investing in the Far North line and between 2014 and 2019 we will spend over £30million in the area.

“We have already delivered a renewal of the signalling systems on the route and have plans in place to renew track, raise linespeeds over level crossings and improve earthworks and structures.

“As an industry we are also determined to reduce the environmental impact of our activities. This is a wonderful example of how we can do that – takng traffic off the roads and substantially reducing the carbon foot-print of the project.”

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Slightly off topic as it's not about a closure threat, but this is the nearest thread for this press release:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds/plain-sailing-for-far-north-track-renewals/

It is good that they are planning this work, I wonder if they will also be putting in the chord to allow trains to go directly to Thurso and then back to Wick which means they won't be calling at Georgemas Twice ?. Thus speeding up the journey, although Wick / Inverness & VV passengers will have a change of journey direction.

 

[deltic]

Slightly off topic as it's not about a closure threat, but this is the nearest thread for this press release:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds/plain-sailing-for-far-north-track-renewals/

Doesn't this highlight a key problem when even the infrastructure owner doesnt use its own network to deliver materials. Its like Tesco putting out a press release saying its improving its fruit and veg offer by buying in product form Lidl.

 

[najaB]

Doesn't this highlight a key problem when even the infrastructure owner doesnt use its own network to deliver materials.

I thought about that, but it's probably due to not having suitable unloading facilities.

 

[Clip]

Doesn't this highlight a key problem when even the infrastructure owner doesnt use its own network to deliver materials. Its like Tesco putting out a press release saying its improving its fruit and veg offer by buying in product form Lidl.

Not really. Depending on where the steel came from it was probably cheaper than trying to find paths on an already congested rail network and the environmental impact of having to use diesel under the wires too shows that they saved 200 tonnes of carbon emissions which is a very good thing.

Im pretty sure if it was just about anywhere else they wouldve used rail.

 

[berneyarms]

Doesn't this highlight a key problem when even the infrastructure owner doesnt use its own network to deliver materials. Its like Tesco putting out a press release saying its improving its fruit and veg offer by buying in product form Lidl.

Doesn't it rather depend upon from where the materials come from?

Looking at the vessels voyage history it came from Rotterdam - it probably was easier to deliver direct to Scrabster than offload and then ship onwards by rail.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I tweeted NR to ask if it could have been delivered by rail; this was their answer:

In theory yes, but rail was coming from Austria & we seek most efficient method. In this case it was by boat

Umm... funny... I thought there was a tunnel under the Channel to avoid trans-shipment delays for freight between Europe and the UK... Maybe I dreamed it...

 

[Railsigns]

I wonder if they will also be putting in the chord to allow trains to go directly to Thurso and then back to Wick which means they won't be calling at Georgemas Twice ?

No. This is just a replacement of old bullhead rails with new bullhead rails.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No. This is just a replacement of old bullhead rails with new bullhead rails.

Surprised they are still laying new bullhead! Is it for ease of maintenance?

 

[Railsigns]

Surprised they are still laying new bullhead! Is it for ease of maintenance?

Presumably it's because only the rails need replacing.

 

[najaB]

Umm... funny... I thought there was a tunnel under the Channel to avoid trans-shipment delays for freight between Europe and the UK... Maybe I dreamed it...

There is, but then the rail train would have to travel pretty much the length of the country.

 

[furnessvale]

Umm... funny... I thought there was a tunnel under the Channel to avoid trans-shipment delays for freight between Europe and the UK... Maybe I dreamed it...

The cost of passing through the tunnel probably killed a through rail option as it does with most traffic.

It would be cheaper to transfer a container from rail to road at Calais, send it through the tunnel by road and then put it back on rail at Dover (if that were possible) than to keep it on rail throughout, such are the tunnel charges for rail.

Sadly, much traffic transfers to road at Calais and stays on road through the UK. It will stay that way until the tunnel is forced to bring its rail charges at least in line with road prices. That shouldn't be too difficult seeing how, for a lorry, they have to provide loading ramps, wagons, locos and a driver. For railfreight all they have to provide is........a path!

 

[DarloRich]

I wondered how long it would take the experts on here to notice this unusual supply route - all I will say is have a think about the best way to move a one off load to the most isolated part of the network from Europe and then think why ship might be best........

 

[deltic]

I wondered how long it would take the experts on here to notice this unusual supply route - all I will say is have a think about the best way to move a one off load to the most isolated part of the network from Europe and then think why ship might be best........

There are a number of issues here - havent got a clue what the answers are but I am just raising them.

1) Austrian rail is being used rather than rail from the UK - dont know if they were brought before Brexit but given transport costs and 10-15 % depreciation in Sterling surprised it is cheaper to import - does the UK produce the type of rail being used in this instance

2) It is cheaper to move steel from Austria to Rotterdam - presumably by rail - tranship to a ship - ship it to Scotland - tranship it to a truck than send by rail direct all the way

3) it seems to be easier to arrange a one off load by ship than a one of load by rail

4) A rail company seems to be making a great song and dance about using a competing mode of transport to move its equipment - if you are going to do so not sure why you would broadcast it so much

5) There is a reputational/marketing element in all this - no-idea what the difference in cost would be between the method used and using rail all the way - if its £000s rather than £100,000s then the additional cost could be offset by the promotional/PR advantages of showing how rail is flexible enough to cope with such challenges.

There are probably good answers to all the above just interested in knowing what they are.

 

[fegguk]

Could it simply be a case of not having suitable waggons to fit the UK loading gauge all the way and back again empty.

 

[najaB]

There are a number of issues here - havent got a clue what the answers are but I am just raising them.

1) Austrian rail is being used rather than rail from the UK - dont know if they were brought before Brexit but given transport costs and 10-15 % depreciation in Sterling surprised it is cheaper to import - does the UK produce the type of rail being used in this instance

AFAIK, we don't make bullhead rail in the UK any more. There isn't much demand for it. The rail we make is exported to Europe so there's reciprocity.

2) It is cheaper to move steel from Austria to Rotterdam - presumably by rail - tranship to a ship - ship it to Scotland - tranship it to a truck than send by rail direct all the way

As noted above, it's the Channel Tunnel costs that probably swayed it in favor of sea transport.

3) it seems to be easier to arrange a one off load by ship than a one of load by rail

Shipping companies don't have to find paths through the most congested part of their network, a shipment by rail would need to negotiate its way around London and up the WCML - both areas where paths aren't the easiest to find. Rail is best for regular freight flows.

 

[najaB]

Could it simply be a case of not having suitable waggons to fit the UK loading gauge all the way and back again empty.

I doubt that's the problem, we could have sent empty wagons to collect the rail.

 

[route:oxford]

3) it seems to be easier to arrange a one off load by ship than a one of load by rail.

It's very, very easy to arrange a shipment. You have to accept some flexibility in the timings due to weather and tides.

It was something I used to organise on a weekly basis - it was quite simply the easiest and cheapest way to get bulk goods to the Far North.

 

[3973EXL]

Could it simply be a case of not having suitable waggons to fit the UK loading gauge all the way and back again empty.

This was very much the problem in the past, and I doubt it has changed very much in the last couple of years.

You have 1100 rails at 18.288m and 946t, to move from Leoben Donawitz Austria to the North of Scotland.
The wagon type needs to be suitable to load and secure the traffic and be registered for use in Europe, UK and CT (Channel Tunnel).

This basically leaves the Cargowaggon IGA. They were not usually sat around doing nothing but out on hire and were not cheap. You need 15 to move 946t in one go, more if you have to down load because of any RA restrictions.
If they are available, there is also the cost of the trains. Move the empties to the loading point, load to Scotland and return the empties.

Probably cheaper for a one off move by sea.
The load may have moved by rail to Rotherdam, or to the Rhine then by barge.