Radical changes to speed up Far North Line

[EllieAquitrain]

All of the below with the massive caveat that I've not actually ever been to the area, so I'm very happy to be corrected by people with local knowledge! My only qualifications are knowledge picked up from being a massive rail nerd, and conversations about Far North public transport with people who do know about it.

The Far North Line is currently pretty slow compared to driving. One reason for this is that it takes a very circuitous route. For example, Golspie to Tain is about 11 miles as the crow files, but the railway takes a massive, roughly 40-mile dogleg via Lairg, which is timetabled at about 1 hour. In contrast, the A9 runs pretty directly between the two, with a bridge over the Dornoch Firth. As I understand it, an similar route for the railway via Dornoch was considered before construction.

Until 1960, the Dornoch Light Railway ran to The Mound (near Golspie, at the northwest corner of Loch Fleet) from the town of Dornoch, linking it to the national network. I certainly wouldn't propose reusing the exact alignment as I doubt it would be very fast, or even suitable. However, could the rough alignment be used as part of a cut-off? I would propose coming off the existing railway from Tain with a bridge to Cuthill alongside the A9, then running in a roughly straight line until Dornoch. From here, the Light Railway followed the coast until crossing the River Fleet where the A9 does today, with the The Mound station on the other side. The historical junction faced westwards, towards (ultimately) Inverness, but given the Light Railway track was lifted, a new east-facing junction would be no extra cost than a west-facing one. Alternatively, as running via The Mound to Golspie is itself quite a dog-leg and there is no longer any The Mound station, perhaps a brand new alignment would be better? This could cross Loch Fleet at its narrow mouth near Littleferry, and connect to the existing railway near Golspie station.

I would propose a single intermediate station, at Dornoch. The line crossing at Littleferry would be roughly 14 miles long, so at the same average speed it would save about 40 minutes between Tain and points north of Golspie. As for the existing line via Lairg, perhaps this could be curtailed at Lairg? This would continue to provide a rail service to almost everywhere currently served, except the tiny population served by Rogart station, which would close. Settlements between Lairg and Tain would lose their service to points further north, although I can't imagine this is particularly in demand, and would still be possible with a change at Tain. Settlements between Tain and Inverness would then presumably see a service increase from the trains running to Lairg, unless this was retained simply as a Lairg-Tain shuttle.

While I understand this is politically pretty impossible, I'm wondering how much this would cost in the fantasy land where it went ahead? I'd be surprised if there existed a cheaper way to shave 40 minutes off the Far North Line in one go.

 

[Dr Hoo]

You can, of course, already save well over 40 minutes getting from Inverness to Wick simply by driving along the much shorter road. No further investment necessary. No need for additional ongoing subsidy for the rump Lairg branch in your idea either.

More seriously (as a former manager with ScotRail); there are a lot of sensitive environmental issues with the wetland and coastal areas that the new line would go through. Not an easy route to build.

 

[snowball]

The Far North Line is currently pretty slow compared to driving. One reason for this is that it takes a very circuitous route. For example, Golspie to Tain is about 11 miles as the crow files, but the railway takes a massive, roughly 40-mile dogleg via Lairg, which is timetabled at about 1 hour. In contrast, the A9 runs pretty directly between the two, with a bridge over the Dornoch Firth. As I understand it, an similar route for the railway via Dornoch was considered before construction.

When the road bridge was being planned there was an unsuccessful campaign to have it made wide enough to carry a rail line alongside the road. I don't know how seriously, if at all, the idea was considered by the then Scottish Office, or what British Rail thought about it. Not all pro-rail people were enthusiastic about the idea, because of fears that it might lead to closure of the line through Lairg.

 

[Bald Rick]

When the road bridge was being planned there was an unsuccessful campaign to have it made wide enough to carry a rail line alongside the road. I don't know how seriously, if at all, the idea was considered by the then Scottish Office, or what British Rail thought about it. Not all pro-rail people were enthusiastic about the idea, because of fears that it might lead to closure of the line through Lairg.

I’m fairly sure it was a BR proposal. Lairg would have been a branch from the south only. I seem to remember it would have cost £9m (back then, usual caveats about BR accounting rules). I’d have to dig out some old Modern Railways to get more details.

 

[30907]

I’m fairly sure it was a BR proposal. Lairg would have been a branch from the south only. I seem to remember it would have cost £9m (back then, usual caveats about BR accounting rules). I’d have to dig out some old Modern Railways to get more details.

That's my recollection too (and Wikipedia's ).

These days, serving Lairg separately would be easier, with the increased service at the Inverness end, though given how far Lairg station is from the town one might think a bus shuttle would be as sensible.

 

[RSimons]

My recollection (which may not be correct) is that a benefit/cost analysis determined that the best option for crossing the Dornoch Firth was rail only, followed by road and rail with road only being the least beneficial. However, the rules at the time were that, while costing for road improvements could take into account the wider benefits, costing for rail improvements could only look at the changes in income and costs for the railway, excluding wider benefits. The benefits of the rail crossing, on the narrow definition, were less than the benefits of the road only crossing on the broader definition, and therefore a road crossing was chosen.

 

[Bald Rick]

My recollection (which may not be correct) is that a benefit/cost analysis determined that the best option for crossing the Dornoch Firth was rail only, followed by road and rail with road only being the least beneficial. However, the rules at the time were that, while costing for road improvements could take into account the wider benefits, costing for rail improvements could only look at the changes in income and costs for the railway, excluding wider benefits. The benefits of the rail crossing, on the narrow definition, were less than the benefits of the road only crossing on the broader definition, and therefore a road crossing was chosen.

My recollection is that the road bridge alone had a stellar case, the railway had a good socio-economic case if the bridge was built as a joint structure (but that made the joint bridge a slightly worse case than the road alone, albeit still good), but that the rail element did not have a good financial case.

Had today’s socio-economic assessment criteria applied then, it would have been built. But then we’d also have a lot more electrification now.

 

[181]

Not all pro-rail people were enthusiastic about the idea, because of fears that it might lead to closure of the line through Lairg.

My vague recollection is that the source where I read about it (likely the Railway Magazine) assumed that the Lairg route would close, and that it was argued by some that the large youth hostel at Carbisdale Castle, close to Culrain station, was a major source of traffic which it would be unfortunate to lose, so the new route wouldn't have been an unmixed blessing. The hostel has since closed, so as things turned out it wouldn't have been an issue in the longer term.

 

[snowball]

I think the official proposal was that Lairg would remain rail-linked southwards and the line through Rogart would close, but that was not enough to reassure some who feared that Lairg would close at some later stage when fiances next became pinched.

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately we have a line that noone is willing to close, but that will also neveer be able to produce a business case for improvements that might make it considerably more useful to the population.

So it is stuck in this sort of halfway house which achieves none of the benefits of either approach

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Ultimately we have a line that noone is willing to close, but that will also neveer be able to produce a business case for improvements that might make it considerably more useful to the population.

So it is stuck in this sort of halfway house which achieves none of the benefits of either approach

Add in the remoteness from sizeable population centres and you have the very definition of the Social Railway. Even with growing environmental awareness such lines will continue to need considerable subsidies. The key is effective management which will always benefit from a higher than usual level of local involvement/initiative. Which is of course the thinking which led to the idea of Community Railway Partnerships...

 

[kermit]

Is there any scope or significant benefit in improving line speeds by upgrading track and signalling?

 

[HSTEd]

Is there any scope or significant benefit in improving line speeds by upgrading track and signalling?

The speed regime is below that normally considered for tilting trains in the UK, although tilting trains operating at and below 100mph have been employed in Germany and Japan (much below 100mph in the latter).

You might be able to do something with magnetic track brakes, but it would require significant R&D and infrastructure investment.

The close stop spacings really hurt this to be honest.

 

[XAM2175]

The speed regime is below that normally considered for tilting trains in the UK, although tilting trains operating at and below 100mph have been employed in Germany and Japan (much below 100mph in the latter).

And in Australia, on the North Coast goat track line in Queensland. Tilting trains have a 37 mi/h advantage over conventional stock (99 against 62 mi/h) for about 60% of the route, and a 12 to 24 mi/h advantage for the rest - but as you say, this is only useful if the distance between stops allows time to actually run at those speeds.

 

[HSTEd]

And in Australia, on the North Coast goat track line in Queensland. Tilting trains have a 37 mi/h advantage over conventional stock (99 against 62 mi/h) for about 60% of the route, and a 12 to 24 mi/h advantage for the rest - but as you say, this is only useful if the distance between stops allows time to actually run at those speeds.

If you made a diesel tilting unit and really packed in the horsepower you might be able to do something.

Pity Stadler don't make a tilting product.

 

[hexagon789]

Is there any scope or significant benefit in improving line speeds by upgrading track and signalling?

High acceleration trains would probably be better than trying for any further linespeed increases. I'm not sure there's much scope for the latter - speed limits already go as high as 90.

 

[RailWonderer]

Would it be viable if Scotrail ordered 100mph 3 car tilting trains for the FNL, and while they're at it, the WHL and a couple of other routes? They would be able to retire the 156s and line journey times would shorten, which would bring more leisure travellers currently put off by overly long journeys.

 

[HSTEd]

Would it be viable if Scotrail ordered 100mph 3 car tilting trains for the FNL, and while they're at it, the WHL and a couple of other routes? They would be able to retire the 156s and line journey times would shorten, which would bring more leisure travellers currently put off by overly long journeys.

That would depend on the infrastructural situation.

One advantage the Far North Line has is there are relatively few structures in the vicinity of the track.
Tilting high performance units with track brakes is where I would go, but I have no idea if that is at all plausible.

EDIT:

Plausible that, for example, track brakes would allow higher speeds on approach to all the open crossings since they would slash the stopping distance of the train for a given speed.

 

[XAM2175]

If you made a diesel tilting unit and really packed in the horsepower you might be able to do something.

Theoretically, sure, if you were able to get properly-quick acceleration out of it. Getting better speeds out of sub-optimal alignments is of course the original purpose behind tiling technology.

I'm reminded that Adtranz did a fairly large order of two-car tilting DMUs for DB back in 1998 (the series 612 RegioSwingers ), which can be thought of as being very similar to a Class 158 but with the significantly-more-powerful engines from a Voyager.

 

[numtot12345]

Is there any scope or significant benefit in improving line speeds by upgrading track and signalling?

Worth noting the Transport Scotland Rail Service Decarb Plan proposed electrification up to Tain(?) by 2035(?), so that (alongside extra loops...Lentran?) between there and Inverness would help a bit I guess. So yes, there scope for that section to be improved but north of that not sure.