Scotland Route Study

[Altnabreac]

BBC News reporting Montrose to Usan doubling project to go ahead, at a cost of £200m.

This is forming part of the investment in Aberdeen, as part of their City Deal scheme.

On the BBC Radio Scotland interview this morning he also seemed to indicate that the timescale for it taking place would be during CP6 so not a long term announcement but something that might actually happen fairly soon.

 

[deltic08]

On the BBC Radio Scotland interview this morning he also seemed to indicate that the timescale for it taking place would be during CP6 so not a long term announcement but something that might actually happen fairly soon.

What!! £100m per mile? Not the best value for money. I thought the Scottish credit card had maxed out with Network Rail. Do you know the BCR for this construction? That is enough to reinstate 24 miles of Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton.

How many minutes in journey time reduction will this achieve? Not exactly a busy line to spend that amount on eliminating a mile or two of single line. The coastal route from Perth to Montrose will never be a high speed route due to curvature. Better to have spent the money reinstating the Perth-Forfar-Kinnaber route or new build from Forfar to just south of Laurencekirk following the A90 with a station at Brechin coupled with now proposed reinstatement/newbuild route from Inverkeithing to Bridge of Earn through Glenfarg. This would allow sub two-hour Aberdeen-Glasgow and Aberdeen-Edinburgh trains.

 

[Altnabreac]

What!! £100m per mile? Not the best value for money. I thought the Scottish credit card had maxed out with Network Rail. Do you know the BCR for this construction? That is enough to reinstate 24 miles of Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton.

How many minutes in journey time reduction will this achieve? Not exactly a busy line to spend that amount on eliminating a mile or two of single line. The coastal route from Perth to Montrose will never be a high speed route due to curvature. Better to have spent the money reinstating the Perth-Forfar-Kinnaber route or new build from Forfar to just south of Laurencekirk following the A90 with a station at Brechin coupled with now proposed reinstatement/newbuild route from Inverkeithing to Bridge of Earn through Glenfarg. This would allow sub two-hour Aberdeen-Glasgow and Aberdeen-Edinburgh trains.

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.

The RUS in 2011 analysed 3 options:

Three variants were considered: double tracking of the viaduct at Montrose and the cutting to Usan on the existing alignment, double tracking of the viaduct at Montrose then a new alignment to the west of the existing (thus avoiding doubling the track in the deep rock cutting to the south of the viaduct) and a wholly new alignment skirting Montrose bay to the west. The most cost effective option was deemed to be the new alignment to the west of the existing, however the capital cost involved suggested that even this would provide poor value for money.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...rus generation 2/scotland/scottishrusbook.pdf

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.

I believe the intention is to run a 3tph service between Aberdeen and Dundee.

1tph Aberdeen - Dundee - Perth - Stirling - Glasgow
1tph Aberdeen - Dundee - Leuchars - Haymarket - Edinburgh
1tph Aberdeen - Stonehaven - Montrose - Laurencekirk - Arbroath - Carnoustie - Dundee - Leuchars - Cupar - Ladybank - Markinch - Kirkcaldy - Inverkeithing - Edinburgh Gateway - Haymarket - Edinburgh

There might also be implementation of a full hourly Dundee (or Arbroath) to Glasgow service to allow more calls at Carnoustie, Monifieth, Broughty Ferry, Dundee West, Gleneagles, Dunblane and Bridge of Allan and also enable allow faster Aberdeen - Glasgow services.

With that fast / fast / slow /slow service frequency and freight trains as well, it is simply impossible to timetable without the improvements at Usan, so if it is a political imperative to deliver the faster journey times then the scheme will happen, even with a traditionally poor business case.

The current Government have shown a willingness to invest in big ticket infrastructure schemes that provide step changes in connectivity even where traditional business cases do not strongly support such investment. Dualling the A9 and A96 are 2 such schemes that do not necessarily stand up to a BCR analysis but are seen as important strategic investments that are outwith the normal scheme assessment process. I suspect this scheme is going to be progressed in the same way.

 

[najaB]

With that fast / fast / slow /slow service frequency and freight trains as well, it is simply impossible to timetable without the improvements at Usan, so if it is a political imperative to deliver the faster journey times then the scheme will happen, even with a traditionally poor business case.

Given that it is a relatively short section of track, I've wondered if it might not be possible to get a worthwhile improvement in journey time without actually having to rebuild the viaduct? Is there any way it's possible to increase linespeed? Fancy high-speed point work at either end? Straighten the curves?

 

[Altnabreac]

Given that it is a relatively short section of track, I've wondered if it might not be possible to get a worthwhile improvement in journey time without actually having to rebuild the viaduct? Is there any way it's possible to increase linespeed? Fancy high-speed point work at either end? Straighten the curves?

As I understand it the doubling makes a relatively small contribution to the overall time reductions.

However without the doubling it is impossible to make the new faster, more frequent timetable work.

At the moment there are 2tph that run skip stop at fairly similar speeds so it is easy to ensure they avoid crossing at Usan.

Once you have 3tph in each direction, plus freight paths, running at 3 different speeds, you need to introduce flighting, while ensuring 7tph cross the viaduct at Usan without delaying other services.

The 2011 RUS analysis was quite clear that it was not possible to achieve a robust timetable at all without doubling.

So really it's not a question of drop the doubling and gain 2 mins elsewhere. It's simply the case that without Usan doubling you cannot run a Fast / Slow split of services between Aberdeen and Dundee.

So once you decide as a politician that those fast services are a priority you want to deliver then the only way to do that is to spend the £200m no matter how poor the conventional BCR is.

 

[jopsuk]

Presumably under that timetable the "fast" Aberdeen-Edinburgh would ideally be the Anglo-scottish services with Scotrail fill-in?

 

[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.

The RUS in 2011 analysed 3 options:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...rus generation 2/scotland/scottishrusbook.pdf

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.

I believe the intention is to run a 3tph service between Aberdeen and Dundee.

1tph Aberdeen - Dundee - Perth - Stirling - Glasgow
1tph Aberdeen - Dundee - Leuchars - Haymarket - Edinburgh
1tph Aberdeen - Stonehaven - Montrose - Laurencekirk - Arbroath - Carnoustie - Dundee - Leuchars - Cupar - Ladybank - Markinch - Kirkcaldy - Inverkeithing - Edinburgh Gateway - Haymarket - Edinburgh

There might also be implementation of a full hourly Dundee (or Arbroath) to Glasgow service to allow more calls at Carnoustie, Monifieth, Broughty Ferry, Dundee West, Gleneagles, Dunblane and Bridge of Allan and also enable allow faster Aberdeen - Glasgow services.

With that fast / fast / slow /slow service frequency and freight trains as well, it is simply impossible to timetable without the improvements at Usan, so if it is a political imperative to deliver the faster journey times then the scheme will happen, even with a traditionally poor business case.

The current Government have shown a willingness to invest in big ticket infrastructure schemes that provide step changes in connectivity even where traditional business cases do not strongly support such investment. Dualling the A9 and A96 are 2 such schemes that do not necessarily stand up to a BCR analysis but are seen as important strategic investments that are outwith the normal scheme assessment process. I suspect this scheme is going to be progressed in the same way.

Thank you for the detailed reply. It explains a lot.

I still think reinstating through Strathmore will eventually come as the coastal route cannot be upgraded to 125mph, even with tilt, as Perth-Forfar and beyond could be.

 

[Altnabreac]

Thank you for the detailed reply. It explains a lot.

I still think reinstating through Strathmore will eventually come as the coastal route cannot be upgraded to 125mph, even with tilt, as Perth-Forfar and beyond could be.

It won't ever be rebuilt as it links the wrong places.

If even faster journey times were desired then a partially new route could be proposed but it would be north from Dundee, not from Perth.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Presumably under that timetable the "fast" Aberdeen-Edinburgh would ideally be the Anglo-scottish services with Scotrail fill-in?

My guess would be not, at least initially. The cross border operators have been reluctant to drop stops (and Orcats revenue) in Fife so I suspect this would be similar in Angus.

Perhaps if you eventually had an HS2 service heading north from Edinburgh it might run fast but I suspect mainly cross border services will be as additional paths, not in place of an hourly fast Scotrail service.

 

[jopsuk]

My guess would be not, at least initially. The cross border operators have been reluctant to drop stops (and Orcats revenue) in Fife so I suspect this would be similar in Angus.

Perhaps if you eventually had an HS2 service heading north from Edinburgh it might run fast but I suspect mainly cross border services will be as additional paths, not in place of an hourly fast Scotrail service.

the "fast" service pattern you posted appears not to have any Angus stops- indeed, has less Fife stops!

 

[clc]

There might also be implementation of a full hourly Dundee (or Arbroath) to Glasgow service to allow more calls at Carnoustie, Monifieth, Broughty Ferry, Dundee West, Gleneagles, Dunblane and Bridge of Allan and also enable allow faster Aberdeen - Glasgow services.
.

Presumably in that scenario the Aberdeen-Glasgow service would only stop at Dundee?

On the BBC Radio Scotland interview this morning he also seemed to indicate that the timescale for it taking place would be during CP6 so not a long term announcement but something that might actually happen fairly soon.

Yes, the news release confirms the timescale for the work is 5-10 years:

http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/-254-million-boost-to-Aberdeen-21f0.aspx

 

[D869]

I still think reinstating through Strathmore will eventually come as the coastal route cannot be upgraded to 125mph, even with tilt, as Perth-Forfar and beyond could be.

It won't ever be rebuilt as it links the wrong places.

If even faster journey times were desired then a partially new route could be proposed but it would be north from Dundee, not from Perth.

Or a completely old route: the original line from Arbroath to Aberdeen via Friockheim and Bridge of Dun. Probably longer than via Montrose but potentially quicker as far less twisty and better graded?

P.S. Friockheim sounds like it would be more at home in Germany!

 

[Altnabreac]

the "fast" service pattern you posted appears not to have any Angus stops- indeed, has less Fife stops!

That's the point.

When Scotrail dropped most of the Fife stops from Aberdeen services (by creating a Dundee - Edinburgh semi fast) East Coast and Cross Country kept stopping in Fife.

If a non stop Dundee - Aberdeen service is implemented I expect it may be similar with EC and CC continuing to call at Angus and Mearns destinations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or a completely old route: the original line from Arbroath to Aberdeen via Friockheim and Bridge of Dun. Probably longer than via Montrose but potentially quicker as far less twisty and better graded?

P.S. Friockheim sounds like it would be more at home in Germany!

Something along these lines was considered in the 2011 RUS and rejected as worse value than the new cutting option.

Sure it will be reappraised in the GRIP process now though.

 

[JohnR]

I dont think theres much point in running non-stop Aberdeen-Dundee, with the 20mph speed restriction at Arbroath. You might as well stop there. Reinstate Platform 3 at Arbroath, and the fast can overtake a stopper providing connections for pax from the stops it has missed.

 

[Altnabreac]

I dont think theres much point in running non-stop Aberdeen-Dundee, with the 20mph speed restriction at Arbroath. You might as well stop there. Reinstate Platform 3 at Arbroath, and the fast can overtake a stopper providing connections for pax from the stops it has missed.

Presumably any non stop services would be accompanies by increasing the linespeeds here.

The 2011 RUS analysed this option and identified a capaital cost of approximately £25m.

The review identified the following options:
a) there is potential to increase linespeed through Dock Street tunnel north of Dundee
b) Perth station could benefit from a revised layout or differential speeds
c) Perth to Barnhill linespeed could be improved by moving the double to single connection
at Barnhill on to the straight section
d) remodelling of Arbroath station could increase the linespeed.

At the time A and B were recommended for approval with D rejected due to a lack of non stop trains at Arbroath.

If the non stop trains proposal is being resurrected I assume that the Arbroath linespeed improvement plans would be as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Presumably in that scenario the Aberdeen-Glasgow service would only stop at Dundee?

I'm sure it would still stop at Perth as well, especially given the relatively low linespeed through Perth station.

Stirling stops might be dropped too but there is a reasonable Stirling - Aberdeen demand so possibly not.

 

[JohnR]

Not sure what they could do, as I understood the restriction was more to do with the curvature through the station, rather than anything else. And would it be worth spending £25million to get the speed limit up to, say 40mph?

 

[Altnabreac]

Not sure what they could do, as I understood the restriction was more to do with the curvature through the station, rather than anything else. And would it be worth spending £25million to get the speed limit up to, say 40mph?

Many a mickle maks a muckle.

 

[PaulLothian]

Or a completely old route: the original line from Arbroath to Aberdeen via Friockheim and Bridge of Dun. Probably longer than via Montrose but potentially quicker as far less twisty and better graded?

P.S. Friockheim sounds like it would be more at home in Germany!

OT post:I looked it up last time we were up that way. There is a reason why it sounds German...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friockheim

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Not sure what they could do, as I understood the restriction was more to do with the curvature through the station, rather than anything else. And would it be worth spending £25million to get the speed limit up to, say 40mph?

The station will need rebuilding prior to CP8 anyway if the proposed Dundee to Aberdeen electrification is to proceed during CP8, as per the current draft RUS.

The road bridge and station building don't have sufficient clearance to allow even ROC, trackbed lowering means platform rebuilding, and the signalbox doesn't have sufficient electrical clearance either as a result of the balcony/veranda arrangement, so there's a good chance to do something in the area within the constraints at both ends of the station.

 

[najaB]

Or a completely old route: the original line from Arbroath to Aberdeen via Friockheim and Bridge of Dun. Probably longer than via Montrose but potentially quicker as far less twisty and better graded?

A quick Google Maps survey shows that the trackbed is largely unobstructed so it's a possbility. I wonder if the numbers make any more sense in 2016 than they did in 2011?

 

[Altnabreac]

A quick Google Maps survey shows that the trackbed is largely unobstructed so it's a possbility. I wonder if the numbers make any more sense in 2016 than they did in 2011?

Maybe. But probably not.

It's around 16-17 miles and the price NR like to use seems to be in the region of £15m per mile (It's what they used to calculate £700m for 45 miles of Perth - Kinnaber). That equates to around £250m which is well over budget for the £200m NR have been given and that £200m may be intended to cover other linespeed improvements like that discussed at Arbroath.

On the other hand it does look like there aren't too many structures issues for the full diversion route so costs could be a bit lower than £15m pm and if it was a significant additional time saving you never know.

Problem is I reckon that a straightened route from Boddam - Montrose comes in at around 14 miles for the same section so with the Friockheim route 2-3 miles longer it would have to be a significantly quicker route to make it worthwhile.

Then you need to take into account you are introducing two new flat junctions that didn't exist before as the stopping services will still need to go via Montrose. Two flying junctions at each end would solve that but send the cost sky high.

My guess is the journey times wouldn't be that much quicker (if at all) and timetabling would be easier for the new cutting option (option B) and that is what will be done.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

My guess is the journey times wouldn't be that much quicker (if at all) and timetabling would be easier for the new cutting option (option B) and that is what will be done.

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).

You wouldn't be able to do that so easily by diverting round via Bridge of Dun.

 

[Altnabreac]

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).

You wouldn't be able to do that so easily by diverting round via Bridge of Dun.

Makes sense. RUS notes that freight paths would need looping at some point between Dundee and Aberdeen as non stop services would catch up with them even if flighted.

Freight would have to be looped at Montrose/Laurencekirk as the infrastructure changes would not allow a clear path.

 

[najaB]

Then you need to take into account you are introducing two new flat junctions that didn't exist before as the stopping services will still need to go via Montrose. Two flying junctions at each end would solve that but send the cost sky high.

My guess is the journey times wouldn't be that much quicker (if at all) and timetabling would be easier for the new cutting option (option B) and that is what will be done.

Don't think that 7tph needs flying junctions. I agree that it's unlikely that they would use the Friockheim alignment but all options should be on the table.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Don't think that 7tph needs flying junctions. I agree that it's unlikely that they would use the Friockheim alignment but all options should be on the table.

It's unclear as to whether you'll be getting 7 trains per hour though.

The planned electrification strategy (which is weird, but don't blame me) is for Dunblane to Perth and Perth to Dundee to be completed by 2024, which is likely to result in little difference to the current service frequency to Aberdeen from Glasgow, but the provision of more frequent EMU service from Glasgow terminating at Dundee.

The only real options available to increase service frequency north of Dundee is to not use an EMU on the newly electrified route, or provide a Dundee to Aberdeen/Dyce/Inverurie all stations diesel stopping service, with passengers changing to an electric unit at Dundee for onwards service to Glasgow, until the electrification to Aberdeen is completed by 2034.

 

[Clansman]

I'm sure it would still stop at Perth as well, especially given the relatively low linespeed through Perth station.

Stirling stops might be dropped too but there is a reasonable Stirling - Aberdeen demand so possibly not.

No way Perth and Stirling would get skipped. Maybe Stirling on certain journeys as done already though. Perth is a key hub for both Edinburgh and Inverness (plus stops inbetween, especially on the HML) so that's out of the equation, while Stirling provides the link to Falkirk, Alloa, Linlithgow, Polmont aswell as intermediate stops from Glasgow to Dunblane. Plus Perth-Dundee is one of the busiest commuters journeys on that line so I can imagine they will be staying for the foreseeable future.

 

[clc]

I'm sure it would still stop at Perth as well, especially given the relatively low linespeed through Perth station.

Stirling stops might be dropped too but there is a reasonable Stirling - Aberdeen demand so possibly not.

In which case I'm not sure what you meant about faster Aberdeen-Glasgow services.

 

[Altnabreac]

In which case I'm not sure what you meant about faster Aberdeen-Glasgow services.

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.

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

 

[D869]

OT post:I looked it up last time we were up that way. There is a reason why it sounds German...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friockheim

Thank you for this information.

Maybe. But probably not.

It's around 16-17 miles and the price NR like to use seems to be in the region of £15m per mile (It's what they used to calculate £700m for 45 miles of Perth - Kinnaber). That equates to around £250m which is well over budget for the £200m NR have been given and that £200m may be intended to cover other linespeed improvements like that discussed at Arbroath.

On the other hand it does look like there aren't too many structures issues for the full diversion route so costs could be a bit lower than £15m pm and if it was a significant additional time saving you never know.

Problem is I reckon that a straightened route from Boddam - Montrose comes in at around 14 miles for the same section so with the Friockheim route 2-3 miles longer it would have to be a significantly quicker route to make it worthwhile.

Then you need to take into account you are introducing two new flat junctions that didn't exist before as the stopping services will still need to go via Montrose. Two flying junctions at each end would solve that but send the cost sky high.

My guess is the journey times wouldn't be that much quicker (if at all) and timetabling would be easier for the new cutting option (option B) and that is what will be done.

If nothing else, restoring tracks on a viaduct that has not seen a train for over 100 years is a very appealing thought. I also don't see any need for flying junctions as low frequency of stoppers and favourable location of junctions would mean conflict with expresses should be minimal.

According to my 'Gradient Profiles' book, single-track Montrose to Usan section is mostly 1 in 88½ uphill and the climb continues less steeply to Boddin. The main reason for the S-bend south of Montrose was surely to keep the gradients manageable for the trains of the time and a more direct route between Montrose and Boddin would be steeper. Is the intention for the new westerly line to be single-track northbound and hence downhill only?

Not having to stop expresses at Montrose would save several minutes straight away. On the face of it, the cost of making Dundee-Aberdeen all double-track by restoring the Bridge of Dun route does not seem to be massively more than the Montrose doubling. If it were possible for future electric trains to save five minutes, say, by avoiding Montrose how much would that be worth in cost-benefit terms to express passengers over 60 years?

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).

You wouldn't be able to do that so easily by diverting round via Bridge of Dun.

More easily surely? If main line restored via Bridge of Dun, railway via Montrose would still exist as one extremely enormous freight loop and for all-station stoppers. If latter don't cross between Arbroath and Montrose, though, instead of making this section all double-track perhaps it would all be singled.

 

[clc]

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?

 

[Clansman]

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?

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.

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.

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

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, Laurencekirk, 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. Tying in with the service intentions from Aberdeen (1tph Glasgow, 2tph to Edinburgh (1 fast, 1 stopping)) I think these stations would be better off being served from a split service. I.e Aberdeen Crossrail for example, from Montrose to Insch/Inverurie. Plus the availability of trains when the HSTs arrive would allow for more Arbroath/Dundee-Glasgow services, stopping at the stations listed from Carnoustie, filling the stations gap the HSTs would make when they run the limited stoppers.