Highland Mainline upgrade ideas

[Highland37]

I am on the 1111 170 to Inverness right now. I reckon 140 on board.

You are living in a fantasy world. I often go to Stornoway on the plane but prefer ferry.

Things are bad when we are suggesting planes for 20 people. Citylink would be better.
Electrify, new stock and line upgrades.

 

[Robertj21a]

It isn't absurd. A 20-seater Loganair flight a few times a day is an irrelevance in carbon terms compared to the rest of the transport sector. And, small domestic routes like that would be the first candidates for electric aircraft. Soon enough the carbon and climate change monster won't be a justification to avoid certain types of air travel. That means very expensive decade-long projects like speeding up the HML with expensive tilt may never pan out from an environmental perspective. The only speed upgrades which are worthwhile are the ones that result from general improvements like electrification, or other simple tweaks which increase efficiency (like increasing speeds over junctions).

It's not surprising a Pendolino accelerates better than a 170, since one is a 25kV AC-powered InterCity electric train capable of 140mph and the other is a slightly lethargic 100mph diesel-hydraulic multiple unit. The poor performance of the 170s is why ScotRail are getting the shortened HSTs. The introduction of a 40 year old train will cut journey times simply because of its massively improved acceleration.

What happens to the Loganair flight when there's poor weather ?. Can it take large quantities of suitcases and general baggage ?. Do you believe that everybody is happy to fly ?

 

[Meerkat]

Killiecrankie tunnel - how big an issue is it?
Ie how much time could you save, and is it the main issue for freight gauge?
Asking because looking at a map/google the viaduct/environment/historic views means the only solution I can see would be a 500-750m new tunnel under the visitor centre and round the back of Killiecrankie itself - so the gains would need to be pretty impressive.....
Though the tourism angle would help sell it to Holyrood - a walk from the village through the tunnel and over the viaduct would certainly add to the experience!

 

[Highland37]

When an already slow train has to slow for an even slower tunnel, it is an issue.

We have been trained to expect poor services and consequently receive such.

I travelled 1103 miles by train yesterday. I am right now on the 170 to Inverness. It is packed, cramped, dirty and slow.

We can and should do much better. Increment electrification, Dunblane to Perth next (how much?), then to Inverness with either a new or enlarged tunnel at Killiekrankie.

 

[47271]

Killiecrankie tunnel - how big an issue is it?
Ie how much time could you save, and is it the main issue for freight gauge?
Asking because looking at a map/google the viaduct/environment/historic views means the only solution I can see would be a 500-750m new tunnel under the visitor centre and round the back of Killiecrankie itself - so the gains would need to be pretty impressive.....
Though the tourism angle would help sell it to Holyrood - a walk from the village through the tunnel and over the viaduct would certainly add to the experience!

Killiecrankie viaduct and tunnel in itself would only save 2-3 minutes I reckon. Given some of the costs recently discussed for tunneling the A9 around Dunkeld, and the £200m Montrose-Usan debacle, then there would be far wiser spends to speed up services on the HML.

If we want to focus money on Killiecrankie then reinstatement of the passing loop would be a start. If even that happens in the next ten years I'll be amazed.

 

[Highland37]

None of this will probably ever happen. It's the UK.. Short term, piecemeal and inadequate solutions are the speciality.

 

[Highland37]

Perhaps but changing perceptions and thought patterns is bigger than which structure controls what.

Train now late leaving Dunkeld due to late South bound service also being late. Various south bound services cancelled today due to crew shortages.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I am on the 1111 170 to Inverness right now. I reckon 140 on board.

You are living in a fantasy world. I often go to Stornoway on the plane but prefer ferry.

Things are bad when we are suggesting planes for 20 people. Citylink would be better.
Electrify, new stock and line upgrades.

What happens to the Loganair flight when there's poor weather ?. Can it take large quantities of suitcases and general baggage ?. Do you believe that everybody is happy to fly ?

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't upgrade the HML with reasonable upgrades like electrification, better rolling stock and so on. But, massively expensive upgrades like tilt which can't help the rest of the rail network are unlikely to ever pass economic muster. You'd go for tilt if there were a very good case for the journey time to be cut by 30 minutes or so AND you had already exhausted all other available options like speeding up Edinburgh to Perth journeys or electrification. But, the economic case for this would hinge on people doing high-value trips which are time-sensitive - your business travellers, essentially. Tourists and normal folk really just need trains to be more reliable, more frequent and have more capacity. Between Scotland and London there are plenty of business travellers who currently take the plane, and the promise of HS2 and future extensions is that train can win these people over and cause major modal shift for many thousands of important passengers a day. The numbers of people going from the Central Belt to Inverness is at least an order of magnitude lower.

If the number of passengers is that low, it can and will be more economically worthwhile to run a flight for them instead - this flight could then run even faster than any practical rail upgrade could allow. If it's a small plane, you don't need to find that many people willing to pay a premium for the flight to be financially viable. The point about electric aircraft is that they will be able to take on flights like these far sooner than they can take on longer routes, and they'll remove most of the environmental impact.

If the flight is disrupted due to poor weather, then that's just an act of god. At that point, business travellers aren't going to be that massively upset. They can still take the train - it'll just take longer. The loss from the occasional business trip being cancelled or delayed can be easily outweighed by the reduction in economic costs the rest of the time.

 

[Highland37]

Good luck with the new venture.

Heading up Druim Uachdar right now at 51 mph. Cars overtaking the train.

 

[Highland37]

Update. The train has just overtaken a Kia Picanto.

The 2-3 minutes here and there add up.

With electrification I guess:

2 minutes faster to Slochd from Inverness
2 minutes faster to Druim Uachdar from Blair Atholl.
5 to 7 minutes faster Glasgow to Perth
1 minute faster Aviemore to Slochd
Killiekrankie tunnel would save another 2 minutes
Etc

 

[furnessvale]

If the flight is disrupted due to poor weather, then that's just an act of god. At that point, business travellers aren't going to be that massively upset. They can still take the train - it'll just take longer. The loss from the occasional business trip being cancelled or delayed can be easily outweighed by the reduction in economic costs the rest of the time.

So you've creamed off the top slice of the rail passengers to air, but you expect the train to still exist for when the weather is bad.

 

[Bald Rick]

Update. The train has just overtaken a Kia Picanto.

The 2-3 minutes here and there add up.

With electrification I guess:

2 minutes faster to Slochd from Inverness
2 minutes faster to Druim Uachdar from Blair Atholl.
5 to 7 minutes faster Glasgow to Perth
1 minute faster Aviemore to Slochd
Killiekrankie tunnel would save another 2 minutes
Etc

It’s not electrification per se that deliver better climbing ability and acceleration, but improved power to weight ratio on the train.

The 2+4 HSTs will have 4,500hp for approx 280 tonnes. That gives them a power / weight ratio about 10% better than a Pendolino (and 70% better than a Class 170).

 

[Ken H]

spend money on Larbert to Perth. That will benefit highland services and Glasgow-Aberdeens. More bang for your buck.

 

[Ken H]

It’s not electrification per se that deliver better climbing ability and acceleration, but improved power to weight ratio on the train.

The 2+4 HSTs will have 4,500hp for approx 280 tonnes. That gives them a power / weight ratio about 10% better than a Pendolino.

so the current highland line trains are deficient in horsepower then?

 

[NotATrainspott]

So you've creamed off the top slice of the rail passengers to air, but you expect the train to still exist for when the weather is bad.

These passengers wouldn't be 'creamed off'. Today, they will account for a very small proportion of rail travellers since the number of journeys they can make today is limited. Make it possible for folk in Inverness to be in a 9am meeting in Glasgow or Edinburgh without waking up at an ungodly hour and you'll make it possible for these businesses and offices to exist in the first place. That's a major justification for HS2 - having Zone 1 only 49 minutes away means building an important office in Birmingham can make sense for the first time.

The train will be there for the many, many passengers who are happy to take a little longer in return for increased convenience, comfort and a lower ticket fare. A flight would cost several times what the train would.

 

[matchmaker]

so the current highland line trains are deficient in horsepower then?

Very much so...

 

[Ken H]

These passengers wouldn't be 'creamed off'. Today, they will account for a very small proportion of rail travellers since the number of journeys they can make today is limited. Make it possible for folk in Inverness to be in a 9am meeting in Glasgow or Edinburgh without waking up at an ungodly hour and you'll make it possible for these businesses and offices to exist in the first place. That's a major justification for HS2 - having Zone 1 only 49 minutes away means building an important office in Birmingham can make sense for the first time.

The train will be there for the many, many passengers who are happy to take a little longer in return for increased convenience, comfort and a lower ticket fare. A flight would cost several times what the train would.

Are not businessmen using stuff like Skype for meetings rather than travelling? I do.

 

[furnessvale]

The train will be there for the many, many passengers who are happy to take a little longer in return for increased convenience, comfort and a lower ticket fare. A flight would cost several times what the train would.

Perhaps that is why the said flight does not already exist?

 

[hexagon789]

But perhaps if Scotland were no longer shackled to the rotting corpse of the UK.....

I fail to see how that would make one iota of a difference to the state of Scotland's railways.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Perhaps that is why the said flight does not already exist?

The funding for an massive speed-boost upgrade of the HML would come from the government. They would have to decide whether the cost of doing that upgrade would be justified compared to other ways to spend the same money. Transport Scotland use their STAG process to determine how to allocate transport investment. Instead of starting at a solution, they start at a problem, and find the most effective solution across all transport modes. The starting point could be, for instance, to improve business connections between Inverness and the Central Belt. Then, they'd evaluate different ways of addressing that. The rail option of tilting trains would have a cost, and an expected benefit, as would other options. It is my contention that spending huge sums of money adding tilt to the HML to cut the journey time to still several hours would come out much worse in this comparison versus the relatively small amount of money required to subsidise an air service. It's not about subsidy of a plane versus an amorphous funding mechanism for rail - it'd be about comparing the subsidy/benefit ratio for air vs proposed rail investments. If rail would require more subsidy and deliver less of a benefit, then it's a no-brainer to reject it. Today, that appraisal will take into account environmental factors. Rail will naturally get a leg-up on aviation since it is the government's intention to de-carbonise transportation for a wide range of environmental reasons. But, once it's possible for an electric aircraft to run the service, that bonus will disappear in this case.

 

[Esker-pades]

The funding for an massive speed-boost upgrade of the HML would come from the government. They would have to decide whether the cost of doing that upgrade would be justified compared to other ways to spend the same money. Transport Scotland use their STAG process to determine how to allocate transport investment. Instead of starting at a solution, they start at a problem, and find the most effective solution across all transport modes. The starting point could be, for instance, to improve business connections between Inverness and the Central Belt. Then, they'd evaluate different ways of addressing that. The rail option of tilting trains would have a cost, and an expected benefit, as would other options. It is my contention that spending huge sums of money adding tilt to the HML to cut the journey time to still several hours would come out much worse in this comparison versus the relatively small amount of money required to subsidise an air service. It's not about subsidy of a plane versus an amorphous funding mechanism for rail - it'd be about comparing the subsidy/benefit ratio for air vs proposed rail investments. If rail would require more subsidy and deliver less of a benefit, then it's a no-brainer to reject it. Today, that appraisal will take into account environmental factors. Rail will naturally get a leg-up on aviation since it is the government's intention to de-carbonise transportation for a wide range of environmental reasons. But, once it's possible for an electric aircraft to run the service, that bonus will disappear in this case.

A very interesting answer, but I have some questions:
Is there capacity at Edinburgh and Glasgow Airports for additional flights from Inverness? I hear more about Edinburgh Airport (because that's closer to where I'm based), but the noises made from various sources suggest it is filling up pretty fast so very short-haul Scotland-Scotland flights may simply not have the space.
Then, what transport or additional transportation connections from airports to business areas/city centres need to be provided? Glasgow and Edinburgh already have fairly established bus (and tram) connections, but Inverness has much poorer connections to/from the airport. A new railway station/more frequent bus services are a solution, but that would cost money.
I would argue that better value for money would be to re-double (and possibly slightly re-align) the Highland Main Line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s not electrification per se that deliver better climbing ability and acceleration, but improved power to weight ratio on the train.

The 2+4 HSTs will have 4,500hp for approx 280 tonnes. That gives them a power / weight ratio about 10% better than a Pendolino (and 70% better than a Class 170).

But also more efficient transmissions. The Voith hydraulic transmission is highly robust and reliable, but it throws horses up the wall by using them to gently warm hydraulic fluid and make a whining noise rather than putting them through the wheels. Electric transmission as found on the HSTs is vastly superior and can deliver far better low-speed acceleration, as indeed can a mechanical transmission as used on the Class 172, which were once unreliable but now are much better.

 

[adrock1976]

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't upgrade the HML with reasonable upgrades like electrification, better rolling stock and so on. But, massively expensive upgrades like tilt which can't help the rest of the rail network are unlikely to ever pass economic muster. You'd go for tilt if there were a very good case for the journey time to be cut by 30 minutes or so AND you had already exhausted all other available options like speeding up Edinburgh to Perth journeys or electrification. But, the economic case for this would hinge on people doing high-value trips which are time-sensitive - your business travellers, essentially. Tourists and normal folk really just need trains to be more reliable, more frequent and have more capacity. Between Scotland and London there are plenty of business travellers who currently take the plane, and the promise of HS2 and future extensions is that train can win these people over and cause major modal shift for many thousands of important passengers a day. The numbers of people going from the Central Belt to Inverness is at least an order of magnitude lower.

If the number of passengers is that low, it can and will be more economically worthwhile to run a flight for them instead - this flight could then run even faster than any practical rail upgrade could allow. If it's a small plane, you don't need to find that many people willing to pay a premium for the flight to be financially viable. The point about electric aircraft is that they will be able to take on flights like these far sooner than they can take on longer routes, and they'll remove most of the environmental impact.

If the flight is disrupted due to poor weather, then that's just an act of god. At that point, business travellers aren't going to be that massively upset. They can still take the train - it'll just take longer. The loss from the occasional business trip being cancelled or delayed can be easily outweighed by the reduction in economic costs the rest of the time.

Is there any scientific evidence that poor weather is an act of god? Also, bearing in mind that for individuals who do not subscribe to any religion or belief system, there is a possibility that there is no such thing as an act of god.

I will start a new thread in the General Discussion section.

 

[najaB]

I would argue that better value for money would be to re-double (and possibly slightly re-align) the Highland Main Line.

It doesn't need to be (re)doubled in full. It needs some targeted dynamic loops. For example, a nice 2-3km loop between Tomatin and Moy would come in useful quite regularly.

 

[route101]

Used to be flights from Inverness to Edinburgh and Glasgow .

 

[najaB]

Used to be flights from Inverness to Edinburgh and Glasgow .

Barring some major barrier (for example open water) there is no way that flights of under an hour can be justified, if only from an energy efficiency perspective. The terrain between the Central Belt and Inverness is challenging, but there's no reason why rail can't deliver competitive journey times to road with suitable investment.

In "money is no object" land, city centre to city centre could be competitive with air travel.