Hourly service from Aberdeen to Leeds

[Waverley125]

...and the freight paths?

...and the inevitable delays now that there are so many trains from south of Edinburgh heading over the Forth Bridge?

Even a "semi-fast" service is going to catch up a stopper fairly quickly, given the need to stop at

• South Gyle
• Dalmeny
• North Queensferry
• Dalgety Bay
• Aberdour
• Burntisland
• Kinghorn

...do you still fancy your semi-fast service not to catch it up (despite a seven minute head start)?

And Dunfermline gets stuck with two (short) services an hour, compared to Aberdeen's twenty coaches per hour, despite the much bigger numbers of daily commuters from Fife?

(plus there's the two new stations that you appear to have opened between Ladybank and Perth in this "fantasy" world)

Ok, several things here

The semi-fast also calls at Haymarket & Inverkeithing, and is also limited over the Bridge itself. Given the speed limitations between Inverkeithing & Kirkcaldy, I think it certainly could be done. That's also the only clash in the timetable, as all others are diverging at Inverkeithing & elsewhere.

Dunfermline's services don't have to be short, I certainly wouldn't support that, I think the required option there is wiring of the Forth Bridge & the fife circle for operation by 4, if not 8, car EMUs. That, however, is a different debate entirely. Also Dunfermline is a lot smaller and less important than Aberdeen-30,000 people compared to 200,000. It's also at a point where bus competition is much more succesful, and where Inverkeithing station is easily accessible for the many people living in the south & east of the town.

Yes, I've proposed two new stations-because re-opening stations isn't a good idea? Because between Ladybank and perth there is, under my proposal, a half-hourly service, and only one train an hour calling at them (the Perth stopper). Hardly a problem.

As for freight (this being the biggest problem you, rightly, raise)-yes, it's a problem. It's a problem in lots of places. The simple fact is that the line between Edinburgh & Ladybank is simply too passenger intensive to also serve as a major freight line.

From my perspective the best option would be using the Midland, S&C and WCML to get to Scotland, then via Coatbridge, Cumbernauld, Stirling & Perth for freight to Aberdeen.

 

[fhs man 2]

Ok, several things here

The semi-fast also calls at Haymarket & Inverkeithing, and is also limited over the Bridge itself. Given the speed limitations between Inverkeithing & Kirkcaldy, I think it certainly could be done. That's also the only clash in the timetable, as all others are diverging at Inverkeithing & elsewhere.

Dunfermline's services don't have to be short, I certainly wouldn't support that, I think the required option there is wiring of the Forth Bridge & the fife circle for operation by 4, if not 8, car EMUs. That, however, is a different debate entirely. Also Dunfermline is a lot smaller and less important than Aberdeen-30,000 people compared to 200,000. It's also at a point where bus competition is much more succesful, and where Inverkeithing station is easily accessible for the many people living in the south & east of the town.

Yes, I've proposed two new stations-because re-opening stations isn't a good idea? Because between Ladybank and perth there is, under my proposal, a half-hourly service, and only one train an hour calling at them (the Perth stopper). Hardly a problem.

As for freight (this being the biggest problem you, rightly, raise)-yes, it's a problem. It's a problem in lots of places. The simple fact is that the line between Edinburgh & Ladybank is simply too passenger intensive to also serve as a major freight line.

From my perspective the best option would be using the Midland, S&C and WCML to get to Scotland, then via Coatbridge, Cumbernauld, Stirling & Perth for freight to Aberdeen.

Newburgh used to have a station.

 

[tbtc]

The semi-fast also calls at Haymarket & Inverkeithing, and is also limited over the Bridge itself. Given the speed limitations between Inverkeithing & Kirkcaldy, I think it certainly could be done. That's also the only clash in the timetable, as all others are diverging at Inverkeithing & elsewhere

Your XX.03 anticlockwise Fife Circle service would stop nine times between Edinburgh and Kirkcaldy

1. Haymarket
2. South Gyle
3. Dalmeny
4. North Queensferry
5. Inverkeithing
6. Dalgety Bay
7. Aberdour
8. Burntisland
9. Kinghorn
10. Kirkcaldy

Your XX.10 slowed down FSR service to Aberdeen would stop twice between Edinburgh and Kirkcaldy

1. Haymarket
2. Inverkeithing
3. Kirkcaldy

...so the stopper would have to slow down (from line speed), stop at a station, dwell, accelerate, reach line speed... all in under a minute (at every single station) so that it isn't caught?

I thought that it was normal to allow a little longer for every additional station stopped at.

Dunfermline's services don't have to be short

...but with only two trains an hour, they'd be significantly shorter than the twenty coaches an hour you want for Edinburgh - Aberdeen...

Dunfermline is a lot smaller and less important than Aberdeen-30,000 people compared to 200,000

Yes, it's smaller, but in terms of demand for Edinburgh services its a lot more significant. How many people commute daily from Aberdeen to Edinburgh? Significantly fewer than commute daily from Dunfermline.

Yes, I've proposed two new stations-because re-opening stations isn't a good idea? Because between Ladybank and perth there is, under my proposal, a half-hourly service, and only one train an hour calling at them (the Perth stopper). Hardly a problem

It's a twenty mile single track section - you want to put stations on it and have a half hourly frequency?

Reopening stations sounds lovely, but this is completely unrealistic - the whole thing is fantasy, sorry. I'm all for suggested improvements, but this is pure "wishlist".

 

[LE Greys]

I hate to say they were right but surely the proposal to take Harrogate trains to a separate station in York on the avoiders would be a better option if it allowed for an increase in services. It could sit on the triangle site.

That would still leave coal trains rumbling through the station or crossing over the fasts. I don't really expect this to happen, but I'm trying to build up a rough plan to clear freight off the ECML fast lines altogether.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Regarding the discussion above, I'm beginning to think that the Inverkeithing-Leuchars fast line proposal might not be such a bad idea after all. I'm not sure the people of Kirkaldy would agree though, since they would be bypassed. Very expensive, but provides 125 mph running north of the Forth, which could be supplimented by upgrading the Dundee-Arbroath section as well, provided something was done about the level crossing at Broughty Ferry.

And no, this was not my idea, I just remember it from somewhere.

 

[ainsworth74]

From my perspective the best option would be using the Midland, S&C and WCML to get to Scotland, then via Coatbridge, Cumbernauld, Stirling & Perth for freight to Aberdeen.

You mean a route that's already heavily used by freight taking on even more freight (and it's not as if the MML and S&C are exactly quiet either)? That's a great idea.

I'm with tbtc this whole thing is 'wishlist' or 'prefect world' materiel. There are a few ideas that have some merit in generally but the whole thing that you've suggested here is pure wishlist.

 

[tbtc]

Regarding the discussion above, I'm beginning to think that the Inverkeithing-Leuchars fast line proposal might not be such a bad idea after all. I'm not sure the people of Kirkaldy would agree though, since they would be bypassed

I've seen it suggested that a line goes north of Inverkeithing towards the Cowdenbeath line in the direction of Thornton Yard.

There'd be no "loss" to Kirkcaldy, in as much as the current FSR service runs non-stop from Haymarket to Leuchars.

Then again, a faster Edinburgh - Aberdeen service may be better running up the M90 direction towards Perth (avoiding the twists and turns of the Fife coast), but there's no chance of that happening.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As for freight (this being the biggest problem you, rightly, raise)-yes, it's a problem. It's a problem in lots of places. The simple fact is that the line between Edinburgh & Ladybank is simply too passenger intensive to also serve as a major freight line.

From my perspective the best option would be using the Midland, S&C and WCML to get to Scotland, then via Coatbridge, Cumbernauld, Stirling & Perth for freight to Aberdeen

You mean a route that's already heavily used by freight taking on even more freight (and it's not as if the MML and S&C are exactly quiet either)? That's a great idea

The plan to divert all freight up the WCML sounds lovely until you remember that Waverley125 wants five services an hour on the WCML north of Carlisle (hourly London - Glasgow, hourly Birmingham - Edinburgh, hourly Birmingham - Glasgow, hourly Manchester - Edinburgh, hourly Manchester - Glasgow) - where's the room on that two track railway for all the diverted freight?

 

[LE Greys]

From my perspective the best option would be using the Midland, S&C and WCML to get to Scotland, then via Coatbridge, Cumbernauld, Stirling & Perth for freight to Aberdeen.

You mean a route that's already heavily used by freight taking on even more freight (and it's not as if the MML and S&C are exactly quiet either)? That's a great idea.

I'm with tbtc this whole thing is 'wishlist' or 'prefect world' materiel. There are a few ideas that have some merit in generally but the whole thing that you've suggested here is pure wishlist.

A way around that (literally) would be to reinstate the Carlisle avoiding line and upgrade the Glasgow & South Western route to absorb extra freight without putting pressure on Carlisle station. Trouble is that a combination of shops and road improvements have blocked the route.

 

[Aictos]

Once the EGIP programme is complete, it would be beneficial if Transport Scotland ensured the Fife Circle as well as the Dalmeny curve to Linlithgow together with the line to Ladybank was wired up with OHLE.

This would mean like for like EMU order being placed along the lines of the Class 380s in 3 or 4 car formations freeing up DMUs to be used elsewhere in the UK or running longer DMU formations for Scotrail services which is a much better use of resources.

No new extra services would be introduced with the existing services being maintained, this would be pure common sense with the Class 380s being used in a common pool working the North Berwick, Newcraighall and Fife Circle services being stabled at Slateford yard.

What do you guys think? I know tbtc likes these kind of proposals,

 

[LE Greys]

Once the EGIP programme is complete, it would be beneficial if Transport Scotland ensured the Fife Circle as well as the Dalmeny curve to Linlithgow together with the line to Ladybank was wired up with OHLE.

This would mean like for like EMU order being placed along the lines of the Class 380s in 3 or 4 car formations freeing up DMUs to be used elsewhere in the UK or running longer DMU formations for Scotrail services which is a much better use of resources.

No new extra services would be introduced with the existing services being maintained, this would be pure common sense with the Class 380s being used in a common pool working the North Berwick, Newcraighall and Fife Circle services being stabled at Slateford yard.

What do you guys think? I know tbtc likes these kind of proposals,

So does L.E. Greys!

Fast-accelerating electrics would be really useful on lines such as this. Also, shift the DMU depot up to Perth and allow electrics to take over at Haymarket, perhaps with only a small pool at Corkerhill. Since this should free most of the 156s (doing Paisley Canal, East Kilbride and the Shotts Line would free most of the rest) the only 156 diagrams left would be on the West Highland. Transfer the remaining ones to Inverness to take over Far North and Kyle diagrams, plus some of the 170s for Aberdeen-Inverness duty, and you can send every Scottish 158 south, plus about half the 170s. The wires would probably stop at Dyce, since I think it's a bit superfluous to go beyond there.

 

[ainsworth74]

A way around that (literally) would be to reinstate the Carlisle avoiding line and upgrade the Glasgow & South Western route to absorb extra freight without putting pressure on Carlisle station. Trouble is that a combination of shops and road improvements have blocked the route.

But why on earth should we spend money on this!? Seriously? I mean it's not as if the ECML is failing to meet the current expectations and demand in any dramatic fashion. I'd rather spend the money that something like this would cost on wiring up MML or the Valley Lines or fully wire Transpennine. Why on earth should we spend millions on doing what you've suggested just so we can take freight of the ECML to enable the introduction a bucket full of new services (that there is no proven demand for)? Why? All this money wasted just to oversupply services across the entire ECML...

This whole idea (from the original 1tph Leeds - Aberdeen to Waverley125s ECML recast) remains pure fantasy wishlist material.

Once the EGIP programme is complete, it would be beneficial if Transport Scotland ensured the Fife Circle as well as the Dalmeny curve to Linlithgow together with the line to Ladybank was wired up with OHLE.

This would mean like for like EMU order being placed along the lines of the Class 380s in 3 or 4 car formations freeing up DMUs to be used elsewhere in the UK or running longer DMU formations for Scotrail services which is a much better use of resources.

Now this is what a good idea looks like.

 

[LE Greys]

But why on earth should we spend money on this!? Seriously? I mean it's not as if the ECML is failing to meet the current expectations and demand in any dramatic fashion. I'd rather spend the money that something like this would cost on wiring up MML or the Valley Lines or fully wire Transpennine. Why on earth should we spend millions on doing what you've suggested just so we can take freight of the ECML to enable the introduction a bucket full of new services (that there is no proven demand for)? Why? All this money wasted just to oversupply services across the entire ECML...

This whole idea (from the original 1tph Leeds - Aberdeen to Waverley125s ECML recast) remains pure fantasy wishlist material.

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm merely saying it's possible. For example, it would have been possible to do a lunar landing mission with a Space Shuttle, provided there was some way to refuel in space. Whether it was likely or affordable is an entirely different matter.

 

[fhs man 2]

So does L.E. Greys!

Fast-accelerating electrics would be really useful on lines such as this. Also, shift the DMU depot up to Perth and allow electrics to take over at Haymarket, perhaps with only a small pool at Corkerhill. Since this should free most of the 156s (doing Paisley Canal, East Kilbride and the Shotts Line would free most of the rest) the only 156 diagrams left would be on the West Highland. Transfer the remaining ones to Inverness to take over Far North and Kyle diagrams, plus some of the 170s for Aberdeen-Inverness duty, and you can send every Scottish 158 south, plus about half the 170s. The wires would probably stop at Dyce, since I think it's a bit superfluous to go beyond there.

What would happen to the current Edinburgh to Inverurie services ?

It would be possible to scrap the extension once the Aberdeen Crossrail is delivered due 2012 (they still have not started). Providing Inverurie with a 15 minute service to Aberdeen. But it does not look like that will ever be finished.

 

[Waverley125]

I've seen it suggested that a line goes north of Inverkeithing towards the Cowdenbeath line in the direction of Thornton Yard.

There'd be no "loss" to Kirkcaldy, in as much as the current FSR service runs non-stop from Haymarket to Leuchars.

Then again, a faster Edinburgh - Aberdeen service may be better running up the M90 direction towards Perth (avoiding the twists and turns of the Fife coast), but there's no chance of that happening.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




The plan to divert all freight up the WCML sounds lovely until you remember that Waverley125 wants five services an hour on the WCML north of Carlisle (hourly London - Glasgow, hourly Birmingham - Edinburgh, hourly Birmingham - Glasgow, hourly Manchester - Edinburgh, hourly Manchester - Glasgow) - where's the room on that two track railway for all the diverted freight?

Yeah, because 5tph along a double track line is totally unworkable, right?

As is 4tph along a single track line, never mind that multiple heritage railways manage it with single line tokens and semaphores. Maybe, just maybe, you could build a passing loop at the re-opened Newburgh, and extend the dual line an extra 1km from where it currently ends just outside of Perth to the re-opened Bridge of Earn station.

And as for problems with freight, my proposed recast does only lead to 2.5tph up the East Coast, admittedly there might be more e.g. stoppers to Chathill, Newcastle-Edinburgh semi fast, but there should be plenty for freight, then round the south sub and to Stirling then Dunfermline and up to Markinch.

EDIT:

Oh, and as for the 'dunfermline doesn't get many trains' I'd also support re-opening Alloa-Dunfermline to passengers, with stations at Clackmannan, Kincardine, Culross, Torryburn, Cairneyhill & Crossford, allowing Dunfermline through services to both Stirling & Glasgow, both as an extension for the present Alloa stopper, and potentially as part of a 'fast' between Glasgow & Kirkcaldy via the top of the Fife Circle (i.e. Stirling, Alloa, Dunfermline, Cowdenbeath, Glenrothes with Thornton, Kirkcaldy.

 

[tbtc]

Once the EGIP programme is complete, it would be beneficial if Transport Scotland ensured the Fife Circle as well as the Dalmeny curve to Linlithgow together with the line to Ladybank was wired up with OHLE.

This would mean like for like EMU order being placed along the lines of the Class 380s in 3 or 4 car formations freeing up DMUs to be used elsewhere in the UK or running longer DMU formations for Scotrail services which is a much better use of resources.

No new extra services would be introduced with the existing services being maintained, this would be pure common sense with the Class 380s being used in a common pool working the North Berwick, Newcraighall and Fife Circle services being stabled at Slateford yard.

What do you guys think? I know tbtc likes these kind of proposals,

Now this is what a good idea looks like.

This would be an excellent follow on - you know me well HLE 13

IIRC there are ten offpeak diagrams on the Fife circle (which obviously involves running under the wires from Newcraighall to Haymarket). To wire up the full circle would be around forty miles of double track railway, but would free up a large number of DMUs (since many of the peak Fife services are six coach 170s, plus there's the peak extra service) - you're probably talking around twenty DMUs freed up for those forty miles (if the rush hour duties are still generally doubled up) - that's a pretty good ratio.

Plus, a 380 equivalent (as you suggest) would be better suited to the frequent stops of these services, so should be more reliable than a 170 (which isn't great at stoppers).

Wiring the Fife Circle (even if only as far as Thornton in each direction) would then give a decent business case for extending the wires to Dundee and Perth via Ladybank (the hourly Dundee service requires three diagrams, which were doubled up 158s when I last used them, plus a similar number of diagrams on the Perth services - are these single 158s?), so that'd be roughly another ten DMUs freed (allowing for maintenance etc). It becomes a virtuous circle
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yeah, because 5tph along a double track line is totally unworkable, right?

You can run a two track railway very efficiently - just look at what they do on the Southern Region. However, there they have a pretty uniform bunch of EMUs (with 100mph maximum).

What you were talking about was increasing the WCML service through Carlisle to five trains an hour (not a problem if they are all at the same speed) and also diverting all Fife freight up the WCML north of Carlisle.

The speed difference between the 390s on the WCML and the freight is never going to work when there are that many services on the line, sorry.

As is 4tph along a single track line, never mind that multiple heritage railways manage it with single line tokens and semaphores. Maybe, just maybe, you could build a passing loop at the re-opened Newburgh, and extend the dual line an extra 1km from where it currently ends just outside of Perth to the re-opened Bridge of Earn station

Two trains an hour in each direction on a single track railway can be done okay at places like Montrose (where its only a short section over the river), but on a twenty mile section of line? And every hour? It'd never work.

 

[Aictos]

So does L.E. Greys!

Fast-accelerating electrics would be really useful on lines such as this. Also, shift the DMU depot up to Perth and allow electrics to take over at Haymarket, perhaps with only a small pool at Corkerhill. Since this should free most of the 156s (doing Paisley Canal, East Kilbride and the Shotts Line would free most of the rest) the only 156 diagrams left would be on the West Highland. Transfer the remaining ones to Inverness to take over Far North and Kyle diagrams, plus some of the 170s for Aberdeen-Inverness duty, and you can send every Scottish 158 south, plus about half the 170s. The wires would probably stop at Dyce, since I think it's a bit superfluous to go beyond there.

The only thing there is the Glasgow to Aberdeen services would have to stay 170 operated until Aberdeen gets wired up with OHLE.

Now this is what a good idea looks like.

Thanks,

What would happen to the current Edinburgh to Inverurie services ?

It would be possible to scrap the extension once the Aberdeen Crossrail is delivered due 2012 (they still have not started). Providing Inverurie with a 15 minute service to Aberdeen. But it does not look like that will ever be finished.

Providing Aberdeen's Crossrail does get completed then the extension of selected Edinburgh to Aberdeen services to Inverurie can be scrapped however if the proposals don't get completed then is it actually possible to run a extra Aberdeen to Inverness service using the displaced DMUs or run a shuttle between Aberdeen and Inverurie only.

This would be an excellent follow on - you know me well HLE 13

IIRC there are ten offpeak diagrams on the Fife circle (which obviously involves running under the wires from Newcraighall to Haymarket). To wire up the full circle would be around forty miles of double track railway, but would free up a large number of DMUs (since many of the peak Fife services are six coach 170s, plus there's the peak extra service) - you're probably talking around twenty DMUs freed up for those forty miles (if the rush hour duties are still generally doubled up) - that's a pretty good ratio.

Plus, a 380 equivalent (as you suggest) would be better suited to the frequent stops of these services, so should be more reliable than a 170 (which isn't great at stoppers).

Wiring the Fife Circle (even if only as far as Thornton in each direction) would then give a decent business case for extending the wires to Dundee and Perth via Ladybank (the hourly Dundee service requires three diagrams, which were doubled up 158s when I last used them, plus a similar number of diagrams on the Perth services - are these single 158s?), so that'd be roughly another ten DMUs freed (allowing for maintenance etc). It becomes a virtuous circle

Thanks,

The only question I have regarding my proposals, is would 3 or 4 car Class 380s be ordered?

Or would we see a mix of 3 and 4 car Class 380s like First Scotrail are currently using in real life with 6, 7 and 8 car Class 380 formations.

 

[Waverley125]

This would be an excellent follow on - you know me well HLE 13

IIRC there are ten offpeak diagrams on the Fife circle (which obviously involves running under the wires from Newcraighall to Haymarket). To wire up the full circle would be around forty miles of double track railway, but would free up a large number of DMUs (since many of the peak Fife services are six coach 170s, plus there's the peak extra service) - you're probably talking around twenty DMUs freed up for those forty miles (if the rush hour duties are still generally doubled up) - that's a pretty good ratio.

Plus, a 380 equivalent (as you suggest) would be better suited to the frequent stops of these services, so should be more reliable than a 170 (which isn't great at stoppers).

Wiring the Fife Circle (even if only as far as Thornton in each direction) would then give a decent business case for extending the wires to Dundee and Perth via Ladybank (the hourly Dundee service requires three diagrams, which were doubled up 158s when I last used them, plus a similar number of diagrams on the Perth services - are these single 158s?), so that'd be roughly another ten DMUs freed (allowing for maintenance etc). It becomes a virtuous circle
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You can run a two track railway very efficiently - just look at what they do on the Southern Region. However, there they have a pretty uniform bunch of EMUs (with 100mph maximum).

What you were talking about was increasing the WCML service through Carlisle to five trains an hour (not a problem if they are all at the same speed) and also diverting all Fife freight up the WCML north of Carlisle.

The speed difference between the 390s on the WCML and the freight is never going to work when there are that many services on the line, sorry.



Two trains an hour in each direction on a single track railway can be done okay at places like Montrose (where its only a short section over the river), but on a twenty mile section of line? And every hour? It'd never work.

Ok, I'm prepared to admit that might have been a tad ambitious-but would an alternative, if using 350s, not be to run 2 units to Carlisle and split, front portion to Glasgow rear to Edinburgh?

This would use up only 2 paths south of Carlisle, rather than 4, and, as LE Greys notes, you could divert via the GSWR rather than through Lockerbie to reach Glasgow.

As for the 4 trains on single line-yeah, that would be difficult, but you can work it with the two new stations as a key part of that. Newburgh becomes a passing loop station, immediately upping your capacity, and Bridge of Earn would be only about a kilometre from the end of the current dual alignment, so you could relay dual to there, and then you're dealing with two single line sections either side of Newburgh.

 

[Stephen55a1960]

Excuse me Mr Mancunian, but we are as cultured as you are if not more so. For 30 years, Leeds has been the base of Opera North and the Northern Ballet Theatre, and you can't get much more cultured than either of them.

And yes, I have often heard Leeds being described as the second city.

Oh dear! At the risk of courting controversy (as a non Yorkshireman living in Leeds for 25 years) I would agree about Opera North and the Northern Ballet Theatre. Any similarities end there. We don't have a decent concert venue to speak of (yet!). What about The Halle Orchestra (as far as Manchester is concerned). One of the oldest orchestras in Britain. Manchester has the Bridgwater Hall & MEN Arena to name but two venues. Leeds? Do you count the Grand Theatre?

As far as the second city tag is concerned, I thought that belongs to the city near where I was born (Birmingham)?