Scotland Route Study

[clc]

The intention in future is to have hourly calls at the new Dundee West station to serve Ninewells.

There are also irregular calls at Gleneagles, Dunblane and Bridge of Allan..

I see. It would make sense for express trains to not stop at these 'diddy' stations as Clansman put it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Many a mickle maks a muckle.

The jockification process is complete!

 

[Altnabreac]

I see. It would make sense for express trains to not stop at these 'diddy' stations as Clansman put it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The jockification process is complete!

Actually I heard muckle in every day speech a lot more growing up in north east England than I ever have in Scotland!

I agree regarding the Tayside "diddy" stations.

However at least initially Clansman will find all the calls at Portlethen are likely to be HSTs as they will be the only stock operating between Arbroath and Aberdeen as per the Franchise Agreement for Intercity Stock on the route.

 

[edwin_m]

Particularly after you leave Dundee heading towards Arbroath, Scotrail trains have an 80mph speed limit but the HSTs can do 100mph on that stretch, so 20mph faster between Dundee-Montrose (80/100) plus 10mph on faster from Perth-Stirling (90/100) should Scotrail make use of this.

If these are HST differential speeds then 170s can use the higher speeds too - although 170s can only really get to 100 downhill with a following wind...

 

[najaB]

...although 170s can only really get to 100 downhill with a following wind...

Assuming the driver had beans for breakfast, that is. Seriously speaking, they do get to 100 on the level (as measured by phone GPS, so take with a pinch of salt) but it takes *forever*.

 

[clc]

Electrification would mean faster acceleration and more eco friendly, energy efficient. On the acceleration side of things a Class 43 with 5 coaches would be like a rocket, evenon the steepest if gradients.
Wouldn't journey times be slightly faster as Scotrail HSTs would be able to make use of the faster HST speedboard allowances already in place on the Aberdeen line. Particularly after you leave Dundee heading towards Arbroath, Scotrail trains have an 80mph speed limit but the HSTs can do 100mph on that stretch, so 20mph faster between Dundee-Montrose (80/100) plus 10mph on faster from Perth-Stirling (90/100) should Scotrail make use of this.
.

So the fastest electric intercity trains wouldn't be significantly faster than HSTs on express services?

It's notable that the Scottish Govt's press release talks of "An initial £200 million additional funding to help improve journey times and increase capacity on key rail links between Aberdeen and the Central Belt."

If the £200 million is just initial funding I wonder what further improvements are being considered for the subsequent phase(s)?

 

[najaB]

So the fastest electric intercity trains wouldn't be significantly faster than HSTs on express services?

In terms of top speed, not unless there are line speed improvements. But in terms of acceleration they should be faster still than the pocket-rocket HSTs.

 

[backontrack]

Most of the time savings will be north of Dundee although Greenhill Junction and resignalling will both make small contributions.

I guess that that'll mean a further reduction in services to Stonehaven, which gets fewer trains per day than Montrose does despite having higher annual usage. In fact, Stonehaven is the most-used stop between Aberdeen and Dundee, even including Arbroath.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The calls would most likely be served by the Dundee-Glasgow services to allow the HSTs to live up to their name. Apart from the Highland Mainline, I can't imagine a HST stop-starting every 10 mins at "diddy" stations like Portlethen, Stonehaven, Montrose, Carnoustie, Broughty Ferry, Invergowrie, Dunblane, Bridge of Allan on a regular basis like the 170s on the Aberdeen line already to, which increases journey times.

Then there's also Laurencekirk.

 

[deltic08]

They are looking for a 20 minute journey time reduction on Aberdeen - Edinburgh / Glasgow times.

A route via Forfar would be something like 45 miles of reinstated track so you won't get many change out of £600m, you wouldn't improve times to Edinburgh or England without a new line south of Perth and you wouldn't serve Scotland's 4th city of Dundee.

A new line alongside the A90 would be even more expensive.

Also politically any route avoiding Dundee is a non starter. An Inverkeithing - Perth (or even St Madoes as I have suggested previously) route could happen but it would have to include continued calls at Dundee as improving the fast connections between the 7 cities of Scotland is the whole point of this proposal. Anything missing out Dundee will not deliver that connectivity.

I presume the route proposed this time is again the new alignment to the west of the cutting, combined with replacement of the Montrose viaduct as a double track crossing.

Last time the BCR was analysed on this the numbers were very poor at around 0.1. Given the fact costs have not reduced, either they have identified new additional benefits or it is to be progressed despite the nominally poor business case because there is simply no viable alternative option.

You haven't addressed my comment on the coastal route from Edinburgh/Perth to Montrose ever being a fast route. It will never be 100mph throughout due to excessive curvature and 20mph over Tay bridge

Can't believe a reduction in 20 minutes journey time for such a short section of double track even if there are four trains an hour each way. Better start doubling the Highland line then asap.

If two miles of new track is costing £200m, then 45 miles of reinstated line for £600m is a bargain where 125mph is possible. Dundee would have the same service as now which is good, but Aberdeen would have a better service to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

 

[najaB]

It will never be 100mph throughout due to excessive curvature and 20mph over Tay bridge.

20mph for loco hauled, 30mph (I think) for HSTs and MUs. I'm pretty sure that an improved limit is one of the outputs of the current renovation project.

 

[NotATrainspott]

You haven't addressed my comment on the coastal route from Edinburgh/Perth to Montrose ever being a fast route. It will never be 100mph throughout due to excessive curvature and 20mph over Tay bridge

Can't believe a reduction in 20 minutes journey time for such a short section of double track even if there are four trains an hour each way. Better start doubling the Highland line then asap.

If two miles of new track is costing £200m, then 45 miles of reinstated line for £600m is a bargain where 125mph is possible. Dundee would have the same service as now which is good, but Aberdeen would have a better service to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

I don't think there's ever going to be a case to build a new fast route that doesn't allow trains to call at Dundee. If the funding ever does become available for major speed improvements, then I can't see the added benefit to Aberdeen-Central Belt passengers ever exceeding the disbenefit to Aberdeen-Dundee and Dundee-Central Belt passengers.

If the focus is to speed up journeys beyond the Central Belt, then probably the best first investment would be to re-imagine the Edinburgh-Perth direct line as a new-build 140mph route. Instead of just running to Perth, it could split and one branch could head across the Tay estuary to Dundee. If linked somehow to the HS2 Scottish Y, then services to Glasgow would use the new line to Central. Even without changing the service pattern beyond Dundee it would result in major time savings to both Edinburgh and Glasgow, as well as releasing lots of capacity for suburban services in the wider Central Belt.

 

[deltic08]

There's also interest in using the old viaduct and single track section as one enormous freight loop, 1m 60ch available, for 440SLUs by my rudimentary calculations (I did run out of fingers and toes).

But how much freight travels along the coastal route from Edinburgh or Dundee to require a loop? How many times does it have to brake below 75mph and accelerate back up to 75mph. All the freight I can find comes through Perth destination Aberdeen so reinstating the Strathmore route would allow freight to travel this way at 75mph all the way to Aberdeen. Stations at Coupar Angus, Forfar and Brechin would just be a bonus.

 

[clc]

You haven't addressed my comment on the coastal route from Edinburgh/Perth to Montrose ever being a fast route. It will never be 100mph throughout due to excessive curvature and 20mph over Tay bridge

Can't believe a reduction in 20 minutes journey time for such a short section of double track even if there are four trains an hour each way. Better start doubling the Highland line then asap.

If two miles of new track is costing £200m, then 45 miles of reinstated line for £600m is a bargain where 125mph is possible. Dundee would have the same service as now which is good, but Aberdeen would have a better service to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

I suppose the question would then be what could you alternatively spend that £600m on north of Dundee in a way which benefitted all of the cities?

 

[deltic08]

It's only 145 miles from Aberdeen to Glasgow so let's aim for a 2 hour journey time and make travel by road less competitive.

What realistic additional improvements could be made to get journey times down to 2 hours with stops at Dundee, Perth and Stirling? What impact would electrification have for example?

Only by reinstating Stanley Junction-Forfar and new build Forfar-Laurencekirk.
Depending on stops, this would allow Aberdeen-Perth in about an hour and Perth-Glasgow in 55 minutes with short formed HSTs and eventual electrification with cascaded class 800 bimodes from the GWML and ECML.

 

[Altnabreac]

I don't think there's ever going to be a case to build a new fast route that doesn't allow trains to call at Dundee. If the funding ever does become available for major speed improvements, then I can't see the added benefit to Aberdeen-Central Belt passengers ever exceeding the disbenefit to Aberdeen-Dundee and Dundee-Central Belt passengers.

If the focus is to speed up journeys beyond the Central Belt, then probably the best first investment would be to re-imagine the Edinburgh-Perth direct line as a new-build 140mph route. Instead of just running to Perth, it could split and one branch could head across the Tay estuary to Dundee. If linked somehow to the HS2 Scottish Y, then services to Glasgow would use the new line to Central. Even without changing the service pattern beyond Dundee it would result in major time savings to both Edinburgh and Glasgow, as well as releasing lots of capacity for suburban services in the wider Central Belt.

This is exactly correct.

Reopening routes from the past is not a strategic priority. Reducing Intercity journey times is.

Any new routes will ensure the fast services call at Dundee.

Perth - Edinburgh is where the real journey time savings could come but it won't follow much, if any of the old Glenfarg route.

 

[clc]

If the focus is to speed up journeys beyond the Central Belt, then probably the best first investment would be to re-imagine the Edinburgh-Perth direct line as a new-build 140mph route. Instead of just running to Perth, it could split and one branch could head across the Tay estuary to Dundee. If linked somehow to the HS2 Scottish Y, then services to Glasgow would use the new line to Central.
.

I do like this plan (Altnabreac has also suggested it in the past). Do you reckon Transport Scotland's strategists are thinking as far ahead as people on this forum and planning accordingly? I really hope so.

 

[deltic08]

20mph for loco hauled, 30mph (I think) for HSTs and MUs. I'm pretty sure that an improved limit is one of the outputs of the current renovation project.

Sorry, the last time I was this far north on the east side was behind a 47/7 push/pull unit about 1986?

 

[najaB]

Sorry, the last time I was this far north on the east side was behind a 47/7 push/pull unit about 1986?

No problem. The only reason I realised that there are HST differentials is because it takes the Sleeper so much longer to cross the bridge.

 

[route:oxford]

Apart from the Highland Mainline, I can't imagine a HST stop-starting every 10 mins at "diddy" stations like Portlethen, Stonehaven, Montrose, Carnoustie, Broughty Ferry, Invergowrie, Dunblane, Bridge of Allan on a regular basis like the 170s on the Aberdeen line already to, which increases journey times.

Oh I can. Certainly the Dunblane and Bridge of Allan calls.

See, sometimes you can do all the projections and calculations and forget the most important part.

How well connected are the people who live there...

 

[najaB]

Oh I can. Certainly the Dunblane and Bridge of Allan calls.

Well the fast Glasgow-Aberdeen trains don't stop there now so they'd have to be very well connected to get the HSTs to.

 

[clc]

So what would be the logical sequence of improvements to Scotland's intercity routes?

Phase 1 - Glasgow-Edinburgh HSR.

Phase 2 - Inverkeithing-Perth/Tay Estuary Spur - speeds up Edinburgh-Perth/Dundee/Aberdeen/Inverness journeys.

Phase 3 - Link the G2E HSR line to the Fife Line - speeds up Glasgow- Dundee/Aberdeen journeys.

Phase 4 - ?? To be defined but involving new track north of Dundee - speeds up Glasgow/Edinburgh/Perth/Dundee-Aberdeen journeys.

I haven't quite figured out how/if Stirling could be served by High Speed services.

 

[Altnabreac]

So what would be the logical sequence of improvements to Scotland's intercity routes?

Phase 1 - Glasgow-Edinburgh HSR.

Phase 2 - Inverkeithing-Perth/Tay Estuary Spur - speeds up Edinburgh-Perth/Dundee/Aberdeen/Inverness journeys.

Phase 3 - Link the G2E HSR line to the Fife Line - speeds up Glasgow- Dundee/Aberdeen journeys.

Phase 4 - ?? To be defined but involving new track north of Dundee - speeds up Glasgow/Edinburgh/Perth/Dundee-Aberdeen journeys.

I haven't quite figured out how/if Stirling could be served by High Speed services.

Phase 1-3 sound about right to me. Doubt Phase 4 would ever have a business case though.

As part of Phase 3 you'd probably want a connection to Edinburgh Airport via the tram. Possibly around Gogarburn sort of area?

 

[clc]

Phase 1-3 sound about right to me. Doubt Phase 4 would ever have a business case though.

As part of Phase 3 you'd probably want a connection to Edinburgh Airport via the tram. Possibly around Gogarburn sort of area?

I was thinking that initially but decided it wasn't really necessary as Glaswegians could reach Edinburgh Gateway via the E&G/Dalmeny Chord in a reasonable journey time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Shouldn't the GRIP 3 report for the Highland Main Line Phase 2 improvements have been published by now if the works are to be completed in CP5?

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/project/highland-main-line

 

[Altnabreac]

Shouldn't the GRIP 3 report for the Highland Main Line Phase 2 improvements have been published by now if the works are to be completed in CP5?

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/project/highland-main-line

See this March 2015 letter from ORR to Network Rail:

SC010 Highland Main Line Journey Time Improvements (Phase 2)

You are requesting to change the GRIP 3 completion from September 2015 to “On hold”.

No change has been requested to the GRIP 6 Completion Milestone.

This delay is due to a substantial pause in development work required to allow Abellio to be more involved in project development, which was approved in advance by Transport Scotland.

You have received support for this change from Transport Scotland, First Scotrail, DB Schenker and GB Railfreight. Abellio, the new franchised train operator, did not comment.

We note you originally proposed the GRIP 3 regulated milestone was moved to July 2016, but Transport Scotland preferred you to include “TBC” instead of a date, due to concerns regarding the extent of the change.

We accept the change to the regulated milestone but expect you to include a new date of July 2016, as you originally proposed. We expect you to include a note stating you are reviewing this milestone with Transport Scotland and other stakeholders and will confirm the outcome in the June update to the delivery plan. We expect you to change the status of the existing milestone to “revised”, with the new GRIP 3 milestone added below.

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/17609/cp5-enhancements-delivery-plan-march-2015.pdf

So definitely nothing until July 2016 at the earliest.

If you want a clue as to what isn't going to be in it though you can look at the Scotland Route Study draft:

Central Belt to Inverness Enhancement

Building on the outputs delivered in CP5 as part of Highland Main Line Phase 2 (hourly service to Glasgow/Edinburgh, around 10 minute journey time reduction and more efficient freight operations). This option supports 2043 Conditional Outputs for capacity, connectivity, and freight.

Purpose - To provide packages of timetable and infrastructure enhancement options to deliver incremental outputs, including
journey time reduction and improved connectivity, at a corridor level, working towards the 2043 Conditional Outputs.

Technical Description - The following interventions should be considered:

• Greenhill Upper Junction Grade Separation to increase the flexibility of the timetable by reducing the conflicts between Edinburgh/Glasgow and Stirling services at this location (£££)
• Fife Enhancements including a Dunfermline Bypass, Cowdenbeath to Thornton Line Improvements and pre-works for electrification (£££)
• Hilton Junction to Ladybank partial double tracking to increase capacity (£££)
• Ladybank Station remodel to four platforms beyond Ladybank junction (£)
• Dunblane to Perth Capacity Enhancement to increase signalling capacity and relocate signalling control to Edinburgh (£££)
• Dunblane turnback to install a crossover to the south of the station to reduce the time required to turn services (£)
• Stanley Junction remodel for a higher linespeed (£)
• Operational Acceptance Improvements to allow simultaneous acceptance of trains into both platforms at Highland Main Line stations (£)
• Inverness layout flexibility revisions to the existing track and platform layout to improve operational efficiency and flexibility, including introduction of new rolling stock (££).

Strategic Link - Central Belt to Aberdeen Enhancement, Perth Station Remodel, Rolling Programme of Electrification, Winchburgh Junction and Almond Chord.

Prioritisation assessment - Key junctions, such as Greenhill Upper and Haymarket, currently constrain the interurban and commuter timetables
and are crucial to creating a more flexible network that delivers shorter interurban journeys without reducing local connectivity.

Notes - Further timetable development will be undertaken prior to final publication.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m

So we can assume Highland Main Line improvements will be going ahead, will deliver the capacity for hourly services and a 10 minute improvement but is not anticipated to include any of those interventions listed above that are options for CP6/7.

 

[edwin_m]

Greenhill Upper Junction Grade Separation to increase the flexibility of the timetable by reducing the conflicts between Edinburgh/Glasgow and Stirling services at this location (£££)
Fife Enhancements including a Dunfermline Bypass, Cowdenbeath to Thornton Line Improvements and pre-works for electrification (£££)
Hilton Junction to Ladybank partial double tracking to increase capacity (£££)
Ladybank Station remodel to four platforms beyond Ladybank junction (£)
Dunblane to Perth Capacity Enhancement to increase signalling capacity and relocate signalling control to Edinburgh (£££)
Dunblane turnback to install a crossover to the south of the station to reduce the time required to turn services (£)
Stanley Junction remodel for a higher linespeed (£)
Operational Acceptance Improvements to allow simultaneous acceptance of trains into both platforms at Highland Main Line stations (£)
Inverness layout flexibility revisions to the existing track and platform layout to improve operational efficiency and flexibility, including introduction of new rolling stock (££).

I think they need a few more £ signs on most of those.

 

[caliwag]

Anyone any thoughts what is involved in the Perth station remodel?

 

[najaB]

I think they need a few more £ signs on most of those.

Which of those projects do you think is in the wrong band?

 

[Altnabreac]

Anyone any thoughts what is involved in the Perth station remodel?

See p71 of the Route Study that this whole thread is about:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/scotland-route-study/

Broadly speaking the intention is to remove and fill in the current platforms 3 and 4 and instead run through Highland Mainline services via extended Platforms 5 and 6.

 

[najaB]

Broadly speaking the intention is to remove and fill in the current platforms 3 and 4 and instead run through Highland Mainline services via extended Platforms 5 and 6.

Is this returning things back to how they used to be - looking at the canopy roof, 5 and 6 look like they used to be through platforms?

 

[caliwag]

Thank you...quite drastic then!

 

[Altnabreac]

Is this returning things back to how they used to be - looking at the canopy roof, 5 and 6 look like they used to be through platforms?

Maybe, but if so it's a long while ago. The photo of Platform 9 at the bottom of this page shows that they were bay platforms circa 1935:
http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/r169.html

This 1860 town plan of Perth indicates something more like a through platform but it's tricky to interpret and mid nineteenth century operating practice is not easy to translate to current day!
http://maps.nls.uk/view/74416608