Highland Mainline: Capacity Increase?

[najaB]

Hi all,

What do you think are the main barriers to increasing capacity and/or reducing journey times on the HML? Is it the long single line sections, the signaling, speed restrictions, underpowered stock given the gradients? If you had a sizable but not unrestricted budget, what one (or two at most) things would you change?

Also, is there a case to be made for doubling up the Edinburgh and Glasgow services as far as Perth so that the number of services to each city was doubled with the same number of paths?

Answers on a postcard.

 

[ER158715]

In answer to your first four questions, yes to them all! Give us voyagers, re-signal the lot, double as much as possible but places like Killicranckie Tunnel are a major hinderence. If money was no object then a major realignment of the line would bring line speed increases but you would need decent stock. Never mind 1970's refurbished HSTs but 5 or 6 car voyagers with 750hp engines would be much better. Sadly though, we will be stuck with 158s and 170s for the long term

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Every time this question comes up I've provided this link to the Scott Wilson report into the potential to increase capacity on the Highland Main Line : View attachment Rail Highland-rail-room-for-growth.pdf
Most of its recommendations are as valid today as they were when written - I strongly endorse the proposals to concentrate on improving journey times between Edinburgh and Perth, and doubling between Daviot and Culloden (costed at the time as £17m).

The relevant sections of this Steer Davies Gleave report to HITRANS in 2011 is almost as useful too : View attachment Highland SDG Report Invercity_Rail_Study.pdf

But please don't touch Killiecrankie - the viaduct or the tunnel. They are among my favourite structures in the entire network!

 

[najaB]

In answer to your first four questions, yes to them all!

That's not the rules - you can have one, or at most two, and the pot isn't bottomless. So what's your opinion on the biggest bang for the limited bucks?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Every time this question comes up I've provided this link to the Scott Wilson report into the potential to increase capacity on the Highland Main Line : View attachment 19583

Thanks Dave, I shall read this when I get home.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

... concentrate on ... and doubling between Daviot and Culloden (costed at the time as £17m).

...

But please don't touch Killiecrankie - the viaduct or the tunnel. They are among my favourite structures in the entire network!

I'll give the report a read when I'm less tired, so apologies for having to ask: what is the specific advantage of redoubling that stretch? It appeared somewhat short when I was up there as a place to focus capacity enhancement on; especially when there is the longer section between Dalwhinnie and Kingussie with no passing opportunities at all. Or does it offer timetabling improvement possibilities or engineering benefit?

I will agree on your last point - I was very pleasantly surprised with how scenic the HML was when I was there last month: Druimuachdar in particular. I feel the same way about the reopening to Tavistock as you do on Killiecrankie: any reopening of the line beyond Okehampton would lead to some form of work to be carried out on the beautiful Meldon Viaduct. It looks so perfect as it is!

 

[ER158715]

That's not the rules - you can have one, or at most two, and the pot isn't bottomless. So what's your opinion on the biggest bang for the limited bucks?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Thanks Dave, I shall read this when I get home.

Give us Voyagers then. At least we'll be able to go up the hills a bit quicker than we currently can. 170s are not too bad on the flat but show them a hill and it's 50/55 max depending on how good the set is- 401-424 are slightly better than the later build ones but it's all relative!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But please don't touch Killiecrankie - the viaduct or the tunnel. They are among my favourite structures in the entire network!

Very picturesque but a 35mph PSR on a mainline? It's 2014 not 1914. There are other locations where a straightening out would also help for example Dalguise, BlackTank corner just to name two.

As for the loops at the North end of the line, the signalling is designed so that the loop signals are approach release! Which means that if you have to go into the Slochd in the Down direction, you are almost stopped on on of the steepest parts of the line. Not exactly ideal!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'll give the report a read when I'm less tired, so apologies for having to ask: what is the specific advantage of redoubling that stretch? It appeared somewhat short when I was up there as a place to focus capacity enhancement on; especially when there is the longer section between Dalwhinnie and Kingussie with no passing opportunities at all. Or does it offer timetabling improvement possibilities or engineering benefit?

Yes, the benefit arises from the fact that it would provide a doubled line all the way back to Inverness. Consequently, any delay to a northbound service (which regularly occurs) need not hold a southbound service back for quite so long - in fact the line could even be re-timetabled to reduce the delay between a northbound existing the last single section and the next southbound departing.

It wouldn't go as far as removing the daily morning conflict between the southbound Highland Chieftan departing just before 8am and the northbound Highland sleeper which is looped at Tomatin for 7 minutes while the Chieftan passes, but it will radically reduce the impact of delays on the day's subsequent services.

The single between Kingussie and Dalwhinnie provides some potential for re-timetabling, but the corresponding crossings must be accomodated elsewhere (eg Pitlochry) and don't make for consistent improvements to capacity or resilience. There is a bigger challenge if freight capacity is to be improved, and much of what I've written here is aimed at passenger capacity - it would only assist marginally in any initiative to enhance freight capacity.

 

[deltic08]

My choice would be straighten between Stanley Junction and BlairAtholl to raise linespeed to 100mph minimum then double track the remainder where required. Once Dunblane-Perth is electrified extend to Inverness. By all means use cascaded Voyagers now on Glasgow/Edinburgh-Aberdeen/Inverness but convert them to bi-mode.

I would also want to reopen Stanley Junction-Forfar with new build from there via Brechin to a point south of Stonehaven. This would allow a sub two hour Glasgow-Aberdeen journey time impossible via Dundee.

 

[herschell]

My choice would be straighten between Stanley Junction and BlairAtholl to raise linespeed to 100mph minimum then double track the remainder where required. Once Dunblane-Perth is electrified extend to Inverness. By all means use cascaded Voyagers now on Glasgow/Edinburgh-Aberdeen/Inverness but convert them to bi-mode.

I would also want to reopen Stanley Junction-Forfar with new build from there via Brechin to a point south of Stonehaven. This would allow a sub two hour Glasgow-Aberdeen journey time impossible via Dundee.

I would speed up the doubling and electrifying of the Aberdeen-Glasgow/Edinburgh line especially around the Montrose/Usan section of the line as currently 2030 is the rough estimate for these works to be completed by, far too long in my opinion as it's a main line

 

[The Planner]

Speed up the single line sections to keep the occupation down and loop entrances to get rid of the approach control. Saves cash on double tracking which may be slower than slewed single line. Depends on what you are trying to deliver though, capacity or journey time, one is easier than trying to do both.

 

[najaB]

Depends on what you are trying to deliver though, capacity or journey time, one is easier than trying to do both.

Personally, the journey time isn't the issue it's the irregular service and long gaps that I find annoying.

 

[HSTEd]

This is where I suggest a Highland Shinkansen - new alignment all the way to Inverness complete with a new Forth Crossing.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

It's not ideal with so many intermediate stations that don't warrant a regular service, but a clockface timetable would be a step in the right direction, even if that just meant a regular departure time from either terminus.

This is where I suggest a Highland Shinkansen - new alignment all the way to Inverness complete with a new Forth Crossing.

I saw you had the last post on here and thought 'I bet he says Shinkansen'

 

[HSTEd]

Well in this case such a route might be able to assist the area around Aviemore in developing a proper winter tourist industry....

 

[najaB]

This is where I suggest a Highland Shinkansen - new alignment all the way to Inverness complete with a new Forth Crossing.

Yeah, but that would take an almost bottomless pot of money, unfortunately. What would you do if you had tens of millions, rather than tens of billions?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's not ideal with so many intermediate stations that don't warrant a regular service, but a clockface timetable would be a step in the right direction, even if that just meant a regular departure time from either terminus.

What about the idea of joining some Edinburgh and Glasgow services between Inverness and Perth - it would increase the frequency to each city to almost hourly without requiring much infrastructure works (other than a few platforms which may need to be extended).

 

[HSTEd]

Yeah, but that would take an almost bottomless pot of money, unfortunately. What would you do if you had tens of millions, rather than tens of billions?

Collect public subscriptions
Built it kilometre by kilometre.

 

[route:oxford]

What about the idea of joining some Edinburgh and Glasgow services between Inverness and Perth - it would increase the frequency to each city to almost hourly without requiring much infrastructure works (other than a few platforms which may need to be extended).

Perhaps join them at Stirling then?

A four-car leaving Edinburgh at xx:10
A four-car leaving Glasgow at xx:30

Combing at Stirling and leaving at xx:00

New-build 26M stock based on IEP designs with gangway connection and dual-powered.

Just need to analyse which station platforms will need improvement to accommodate a 208M unit. Fractionally longer than the 9 carriages of the 'Chieftan at 207M - Longer with the power cars of course.

 

[najaB]

Perhaps join them at Stirling then?

I hadn't considered that, though some Edinburgh services currently run via Ladybank and the Fife coast.

 

[route:oxford]

I hadn't considered that, though some Edinburgh services currently run via Ladybank and the Fife coast.

That is true. Could even run one an hour that way, and on the other hour via Stirling.

There isn't much in it timewise really.

 

[Emblematic]

Would there be any benefit in leasing some of the class 185s currently used by TPE, which should become available as NW electrification progresses? TPE will also be looking for something to replace their 'lost' 170s on Manchester-Hull, so I would have thought that there's an opportunity for some stock exchanges.
No idea how suited the 185s would be, but they do have hill climbing ability.

 

[route:oxford]

Would there be any benefit in leasing some of the class 185s currently used by TPE, which should become available as NW electrification progresses? TPE will also be looking for something to replace their 'lost' 170s on Manchester-Hull, so I would have thought that there's an opportunity for some stock exchanges.
No idea how suited the 185s would be, but they do have hill climbing ability.

Let's have some bespoke stock based on the IEP platform - rather than second stock...

There's plenty of places in England who are keen to have modern diesels.

 

[najaB]

No idea how suited the 185s would be, but they do have hill climbing ability.

They're also fairly hard on the track, from what I've read, possibly not the best suited to the HML.

 

[ainsworth74]

They're also fairly hard on the track, from what I've read, possibly not the best suited to the HML.

I was under the impression that there's still some freight that uses it so possibly not that much extra maintenance required for 185s to be able to use the route?

 

[Emblematic]

They're also fairly hard on the track, from what I've read, possibly not the best suited to the HML.

I did wonder about that - however the line currently has HST services, Cally sleepers and significant freight flows, so it isn't exactly fragile. I also wondered if there were 'sprinter' speed differentials or the like, which might cause any time gained on the climbs to be lost by slower running elsewhere. I really don't know.

 

[najaB]

I did wonder about that - however the line currently has HST services, Cally sleepers and significant freight flows, so it isn't exactly fragile. I also wondered if there were 'sprinter' speed differentials or the like, which might cause any time gained on the climbs to be lost by slower running elsewhere. I really don't know.

AFAIK, 185's and HST's are both RA5 so they possibly would be subject to the same limitations. I just had a look at the sectional appendix and yes, there are SP differential speed limits at quite a few places.

 

[LDECRexile]

Perhaps join them at Stirling then?

A four-car leaving Edinburgh at xx:10
A four-car leaving Glasgow at xx:30

Combing at Stirling and leaving at xx:00

New-build 26M stock based on IEP designs with gangway connection and dual-powered.

Just need to analyse which station platforms will need improvement to accommodate a 208M unit. Fractionally longer than the 9 carriages of the 'Chieftan at 207M - Longer with the power cars of course.

If such new build stock has selective door opening (SDO) you could open the rear x coaches of the front portion and the front y coaches of the rear portion at short platforms and avoid platform lengthening.

If signal positions made this hard then increase x and decrease y to suit. It only fails if the front unit is as long as or longer than the platform, which seems unlikely if units are 4-car.

In the late Noughties I worked for 18 months in Folkestone and travelled there and back from Chesterfield each Sunday and Friday. Joining and separating at Ashford and using SDO at shorter stations was ordinary, normal, routine, easy-peasy.

 

[Emblematic]

AFAIK, 185's and HST's are both RA5 so they possibly would be subject to the same limitations. I just had a look at the sectional appendix and yes, there are SP differential speed limits at quite a few places.

Assuming leasing & operating costs would be broadly similar to the units displaced, this would be a minimal cost option - so you can also go ahead with the line improvements

 

[Maxfly]

Speed up the single line sections to keep the occupation down and loop entrances to get rid of the approach control. Saves cash on double tracking which may be slower than slewed single line. Depends on what you are trying to deliver though, capacity or journey time, one is easier than trying to do both.

How much speed is there left to be gained after phase 1 of improvements, we had been told it was mainly changing boards for the PSR's? Certainly IMO redoubling culloden to daviot could make a fairly big difference but I am aware this is a wee bit of a fair length of line. A dynamic loop encompassing Newtonmore would also suit. Seeing how dynamic loops have worked before I am more in favour of those (providing costs compare well) to proper redoubling.

 

[Altnabreac]

The most important thing is to get the service up to hourly as this enables intermediate stops to be removed and end to end journey times improved.

The GRIP 3 report on what infrastructure is needed to deliver this has not been published yet (but is probably with Transport Scotland already). It is likely to be similar to the previous reports so you'd imagine it would include the Daviot redoubling along with reinstated loop(s) at Ballinluig/Newtonmore and some more linespeed improvements.

An hourly service is key as it allows the services to be sped up by removing stops at the smaller stations without degrading their service. You'd end up with something like that proposed in the Highland Growth study with all trains stopping at Pitlochry and Aviemore, a 2 hourly service for Kingussie and Dunkeld and a 4 hourly service for Blair Atholl, Dalwhinnie, Newtonmore and Carrbridge.

With each service only making 4 intermediate stops you can reduce journey times significantly and get Perth - Inverness journeys beneath 2 hours.

 

[Class 170101]

If we were to disregard the current access rights of operators and recast the timetable from scratch I have seen a timetable constructed that makes it possible to run 15 services per day departing (and also arriving at) Inverness departing around 05:30 and finishing around 20:30 and conversely arriving 08:30 and 23:30 on the current infrastructure. Trains are at roughly hourly intervals BUT not to a standard hour.

Direct Services to Edinburgh have connections into Aberdeen to Glasgow services and vice versa from the Central Belt (at Perth) and conversely direct services to / from Glasgow have a connecting shuttle service between Peth and Edinburgh via Ladybank.

The Highland Chieftain was retimed to depart 60 minutes later from Inverness and departed London at 11:00 vice Midday (also arrived around 60 minutes earlier in Inverness).