Perth Station

[SkinnyDave]

Is anyone aware if any plans to resignal Perth Station? I had a look around the station the other day and the signalling seems quite complicated esp in platforms 3&4.
I spoke with station staff that mentioned there are plans to build an HST stabling facility at the South as the sets will not be able to be fuelled in the current fuel road. I have only saw a Network Rail reference that they may build one.'

 

[najaB]

I don't recall seeing Perth resignalling mentioned in any of the planning docs I've read. Doesn't mean it isn't happening though.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I don't recall seeing Perth resignalling mentioned in any of the planning docs I've read. Doesn't mean it isn't happening though.

It'll need work done for electrification, new signal gantries and other signal sighting issues to deal with, if there's anything more, it'll depend on layout changes, some which will be as a result of electric rolling stock requirements - such as stabling and servicing.

Perth will be done before the HML to Inverness, so it may be used as a changeover from electric to diesel traction for the Sleeper and perhaps freight on the HML too, which may need the existing layout kept, or most likely, modified and rationalised slightly but retaining the ability to swap locomotives.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It'll need work done for electrification, new signal gantries and other signal sighting issues to deal with, if there's anything more, it'll depend on layout changes, some which will be as a result of electric rolling stock requirements - such as stabling and servicing.

Perth will be done before the HML to Inverness, so it may be used as a changeover from electric to diesel traction for the Sleeper and perhaps freight on the HML too, which may need the existing layout kept, or most likely, modified and rationalised slightly but retaining the ability to swap locomotives.

Which portion of the highland sleeper is behind the 87/90/92 when it arrives in Edinburgh? I can't see the point in getting an extra electric locomotive to take a portion away from Waverley and then have to swap it again when the wires run out. Until wires reach Aberdeen or Inverness I don't see it being at all useful to swap locomotives again, remembering that there would be no difference from the perspective of the carriages themselves (unlike the move to electric for passenger trains, which means being able to run longer EMUs more frequently with less noise and vibration - none of these apply to the sleeper). It's only one train a night in each direction and there's no need or ability to interwork with any other services.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Which portion of the highland sleeper is behind the 87/90/92 when it arrives in Edinburgh? I can't see the point in getting an extra electric locomotive to take a portion away from Waverley and then have to swap it again when the wires run out. Until wires reach Aberdeen or Inverness I don't see it being at all useful to swap locomotives again, remembering that there would be no difference from the perspective of the carriages themselves (unlike the move to electric for passenger trains, which means being able to run longer EMUs more frequently with less noise and vibration - none of these apply to the sleeper). It's only one train a night in each direction and there's no need or ability to interwork with any other services.

It's more about flexibility - you wouldn't want to remove the ability to do a locomotive change at Perth, whether or not you would want to do the locomotive change at Perth or elsewhere, it'll probably come down to economics and it might not make sense to run an electric locomotive to Perth prior to Inverness being wired by the time shunters and things are taken into account.

 

[najaB]

Which portion of the highland sleeper is behind the 87/90/92 when it arrives in Edinburgh?

The loco would have to run around at Edinburgh regardless so it doesn't matter that much which portion is where.

 

[deltic08]

The loco would have to run around at Edinburgh regardless so it doesn't matter that much which portion is where.

Doesn't the electric loco off the Highland Sleeper lay over in Edinburgh all day? Surely electric traction is cheaper than diesel and for a journey of 80 minutes with four stops, electric to Perth would be attractive with reduced journey time and better use of electric loco. It has to come off at Edinburgh anyway so tying it on to the Inverness portion is no more complicated than adding a diesel loco. Are there shunters already in Perth at that time of the morning and evening to exchange locos there?

If the route is electrified to Perth wouldn't it be better to avoid Edinburgh and join/divide at Stirling with the Inverness portion continuing to Perth with the electric from London as the front portion.

If the business from Fife is not substantial, would it not be better to drop off the Fort William portion at Stirling and divide Inverness and Aberdeen portions at Perth.

I would like to see the sleeper traffic to Scotland build so that Inverness/Fort William with even a portion for Oban dividing at Crianlarich can continue from Euston but Aberdeen from Kings Cross via ECML with stops at Peterborough, York, Newcastle dropping a portion at York for Leeds, Huddersfield, Manchester and Liverpool and picking up a portion at York from Liverpool for Scotland. Similarly in the reverse direction a portion from Liverpool added to the southbound service at York with a portion dropped off for Liverpool. Both portions to/from Liverpool run as one train to York before dividing for respective north/south services.

Those travelling beyond Edinburgh transfer from day coaches to sleepers at York or day coaches to day coaches at Edinburgh as only the Aberdeen portion travels beyond Edinburgh.

The Lowland sleeper runs as currently from Euston but to Glasgow only with a portion to Paisley, Ayr, Girvan and Stranraer for a passenger only hydrofoil connection to Belfast.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which portion of the highland sleeper is behind the 87/90/92 when it arrives in Edinburgh? I can't see the point in getting an extra electric locomotive to take a portion away from Waverley and then have to swap it again when the wires run out. Until wires reach Aberdeen or Inverness I don't see it being at all useful to swap locomotives again, remembering that there would be no difference from the perspective of the carriages themselves (unlike the move to electric for passenger trains, which means being able to run longer EMUs more frequently with less noise and vibration - none of these apply to the sleeper). It's only one train a night in each direction and there's no need or ability to interwork with any other services.

You would not require an extra electric loco. As I have said above, the electric has to come off at Waverley now so just tie it on to the other end of the Inverness portion as far as Perth. The diesel loco that currently operates Inverness-Edinburgh-Inverness would just work Inverness-Perth-Inverness. Simples. I agree an additional traction change would be necessary at Perth if this train continues to divide at Edinburgh.

 

[D6975]

Having all the diesels and electrics off the highland sleeper plus the Edinburgh portion of the lowland converging on Edinburgh makes it very easy to swap loco diagrams over. This operational convenience alone may well be seen as sufficient reason to do all the loco swaps there. Last year the Inverness portion was 67 hauled all the way from Carlisle during electrification works, so they're not too worried about running diesels under the wires.

 

[najaB]

If the business from Fife is not substantial, would it not be better to drop off the Fort William portion at Stirling and divide Inverness and Aberdeen portions at Perth.

There's almost always passengers for/from Leuchars and Kirkcaldy/Inverkeithing are probably worth the call as well. I doubt then cost saving of 60 miles of diesel haulage would balance out the loss of revenue plus any additional costs of the loco swap at Perth.

 

[Altnabreac]

There's almost always passengers for/from Leuchars and Kirkcaldy/Inverkeithing are probably worth the call as well. I doubt then cost saving of 60 miles of diesel haulage would balance out the loss of revenue plus any additional costs of the loco swap at Perth.

Especially as the tourism market is a strong part of what the Sleeper is going after over the next few years. Losing the Leuchars / St Andrews connection would be a concern to Visit Scotland.

Equally I can't see any enthusiasm for running the Highland via Fife as you would be losing Stirling and Gleneagles which are both strong tourist markets.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Especially as the tourism market is a strong part of what the Sleeper is going after over the next few years. Losing the Leuchars / St Andrews connection would be a concern to Visit Scotland.

Equally I can't see any enthusiasm for running the Highland via Fife as you would be losing Stirling and Gleneagles which are both strong tourist markets.

The Leuchars issue could be mitigated against with a better quality Sleeper reception experience at Dundee - 1st Class lounge, showers etc. It's not as if the Sleeper drops passengers in the town centre at St Andrews, some level of onward travel is needed, so making the connection part of the experience (as that's what it's moving towards - a travel experience) higher quality if a little longer might not be a significant issue.

 

[jopsuk]

do many passengers for Stirling/Leuchars actually use the Highland Sleeper? Certainly on the down I've never used it for Stirling as it gets in at an anti-social hour!

 

[najaB]

do many passengers for Stirling/Leuchars actually use the Highland Sleeper? Certainly on the down I've never used it for Stirling as it gets in at an anti-social hour!

Every time I've used the Sleeper there have been people boarding or alighting at Leuchars. I can't speak for Stirling as I was well asleep the one time I've travelled down from Inverness. Leuchars passengers use the Highland rather than going to Edinburgh for the lowland to avoid having to wait around.

 

[deltic08]

Thank you for info. The last time I used the Highland sleeper was in Mark 1 sleepers from Blair Atholl. There were two trains from Inverness with the first one mainly day coaches picking up a portion of sleeping cars at Perth for stations to Coatbridge Central. The later one was the proper Royal Highlander with only a couple of day coaches.

Both ran to Mossend for change of traction to electric and vice versa. It could be anything from Class 81-87 even with 16 bogies on.

 

[najaB]

Sitting in Perth station at the moment and it's a lovely place when the sun is out. It's way too big for the service level it receives now (as a consequence of the inland route to Aberdeen being lost) but there's not really any way to rationalise it, .

 

[Clansman]

Sitting in Perth station at the moment and it's a lovely place when the sun is out. It's way too big for the service level it receives now (as a consequence of the inland route to Aberdeen being lost) but there's not really any way to rationalise it, .

The same could be said for many stations now a days. It's a sad reminder of the Beaching days. I would say Perth is fit for size, and it will only adapt better for the service increase in the future. Perth's size benefits Scotrail as a stabling point for trains. It could do with an overhaul in my opinion to bring it up to date as it could do with a good tidy up. If I remember correctly, Network Rail released a document regarding plans to upgrade the station if anyone has them (ill hunt them out too). It involves using the main shed as the station building and extended car park whilst widening platform 2, eradicating 3 and 4 completley and making 5, 6 through, which doesn't sound appealing. Regarding an earlier post about a stabling depot, I'm surprised there is enough space south of Perth (Friarton) although with a major tracks refurb, could also increase the speed limit between Perth and the Moncriefe Tunnel. Why not have the stabling depot North of Perth where the old freight yard used to be? Acres of space there with about 10 old lines sitting there.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The same could be said for many stations now a days. It's a sad reminder of the Beaching days. I would say Perth is fit for size, and it will only adapt better for the service increase in the future. Perth's size benefits Scotrail as a stabling point for trains. It could do with an overhaul in my opinion to bring it up to date as it could do with a good tidy up. If I remember correctly, Network Rail released a document regarding plans to upgrade the station if anyone has them (ill hunt them out too). It involves using the main shed as the station building and extended car park whilst widening platform 2, eradicating 3 and 4 completley and making 5, 6 through, which doesn't sound appealing. Regarding an earlier post about a stabling depot, I'm surprised there is enough space south of Perth (Friarton) although with a major tracks refurb, could also increase the speed limit between Perth and the Moncriefe Tunnel. Why not have the stabling depot North of Perth where the old freight yard used to be? Acres of space there with about 10 old lines sitting there.

A stabling depot south of the station can be accessed from all directions without a shunt move. A station to the north wouldn't be easily accessible from the Dundee direction despite the fact that more services will head that way, especially with the new stopping services being introduced.

 

[Clansman]

A stabling depot south of the station can be accessed from all directions without a shunt move. A station to the north wouldn't be easily accessible from the Dundee direction despite the fact that more services will head that way, especially with the new stopping services being introduced.

Suppose, didn't factor that into it. It would be a tight(ish) squeeze to get a decent sized stabling depot at the Friarton without a major track refurb though as the running lines are sandwiched between a few sets of disused ones. The running lines would need to be replaced onto the right hand side of the mile stretch from the station to the Moncriefe Tunnel which would allow 5/6/7 lines plus depot platforms in between to even fit in the space on the left.

 

[route:oxford]

Regarding an earlier post about a stabling depot, I'm surprised there is enough space south of Perth (Friarton) although with a major tracks refurb, could also increase the speed limit between Perth and the Moncriefe Tunnel. Why not have the stabling depot North of Perth where the old freight yard used to be? Acres of space there with about 10 old lines sitting there.

Linking into the Moncrief Tunnel...

If Google Maps is correct, is this the only place in the network where 4 tracks merge into one, before returning to double track?

https://goo.gl/maps/THjgdKz7iFv

 

[Railsigns]

If Google Maps is correct, is this the only place in the network where 4 tracks merge into one, before returning to double track?

Google Maps is wrong. It's a traditional double junction.

 

[Clansman]

Linking into the Moncrief Tunnel...

If Google Maps is correct, is this the only place in the network where 4 tracks merge into one, before returning to double track?

https://goo.gl/maps/THjgdKz7iFv

It's just a double junction. Google maps don't provide the best images.

http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7789/17660679034_cd138ebc4c.jpg

(Not my photo)