RobertMacRae
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 7
Thanks fellas for taking the time to reply. I'll be looking into it. Cheers
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Scottish Electrification updates & discussion
- Thread starter Altnabreac
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
RobertMacRae
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 7
Thanks fellas.
matchmaker
Established Member
The Kerse Road bridge in Stirling is also closed between 3rd and 7th February. Not sure of the reason.
The year long closure is going to be hellish. It's one of the busiest routes into Stirling :cry::cry:
The year long closure is going to be hellish. It's one of the busiest routes into Stirling :cry::cry:
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Thinking ahead, when they have sparked up Stirling, is the route to Perth and Dundee easier or are there scary structures on that route that will require long disruptive closures?
Moncrieff Tunnel comes to mind.
PaxVobiscum
Established Member
A relative who stays there told me it's so that the utility services crossing the bridge can be accurately located in advance of the works starting.
http://www.braehead.org/kerse-road-bridge-update
I see Railscot have posted a picture of the bridge today.
Last edited:
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Interesting. If Stirling- Dundee does indeed get juiced up it will probably need its own thread and if Moncrieff Tunnel needs major work (highly likely as you point out) I wonder what would happen. Track lowering seems most probable. Anyway, just googled and did Wikipedia and I notice Moncrieff does not even have a Wikipedia entry. I am sure this will get corrected if the project goes ahead.
Railsigns
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 2,754
There is a Wikipedia article for Moncreiffe Hill, Moncreiffe being the correct spelling.
Is it not Moncrieffe? (Apologies for the original mistake).
Railsigns
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 2,754
No, it is not.
Hmm... I think this is one of those disputed spellings, there are more results produced by a search for Moncrieffe Tunnel than for Moncreiffe Tunnel - e.g. http://www.scottish-places.info/features/featurefirst18720.html.
Perhaps it would be easier to call it the Friarton Tunnel.
Railsigns
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 2,754
"Moncreiffe Hill" on Wikipedia
"Moncreiffe" on Ordnance Survey maps
"Moncreiffe Primary School" on the school's nameboard (visible on Google Streetview)
"Moncreiffe Tunnel" on Perth Signal Box control panel
It's mis-spelt as "Moncrieffe Tunnel" in the Sectional Appendix though.
I don't dispute the correct spelling as derived from the clan Creiffe, however the incorrect spelling appears in a lot of places.
Has a figure been quoted anywhere?
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Anyway that link shows 1115 meters long -so it would either be a Farnworth Tunnel on steroids approach or track lowering - my money would be on track lowering if geologically and civil engineering wise feasible.
I would also think the single track section over the Tay between Perth station and Barnhill would have to be doubled too.
That would be ideal, but it's unlikely - you'd be looking at a completely new viaduct and a multi-week (month?) closure of the line.
It doesn't form as big an operational constraint as does Usan-Montrose since it's a low speed section of line and pretty much all trains stop at Perth anyway.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Unless you went the very expensive totally plan for the future approach by building a new viaduct and keeping old one in place so no line closure - perhaps a blockade of short duration to open etc.
The issue is that you are very much limited in what you can do by the layout of the station and the track.
Edit: Hmm... Just had a look at the abutments on Tay Street and it does look like there's room for a second deck. So you could possibly construct a second viaduct paralleling the first.
Edit #2: Had a look at the old OS 25 Inch map and it looks the viaduct was built with potential doubling in mind. Maybe not such a crazy idea after all.
Last edited:
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,304
The Route Study indicates that doubling of the Tay viaduct will happen alongside the other remodelling and electrification work in Perth. It's supposedly going to be necessary for Fife electrification for diversionary purposes too.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Great news - with major grid feed at Ladybank Jct IIRC?
I hadn't seen a definite commitment to doubling it, only a statement saying that it would be desirable (or words to that effect), though expensive. Good to hear that it will be a reality.
Hagbard Celine
Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2016
- Messages
- 97
The issue is that you are very much limited in what you can do by the layout of the station and the track.
Edit: Hmm... Just had a look at the abutments on Tay Street and it does look like there's room for a second deck. So you could possibly construct a second viaduct paralleling the first.
Edit #2: Had a look at the old OS 25 Inch map and it looks the viaduct was built with potential doubling in mind. Maybe not such a crazy idea after all.
The wide abutments could either be from the original timber viaduct, which was double track, or because the first span was originally a swing bridge.
Scotland never seems to learn. Kerse Road bridge looks a recent replacement and spans four tracks, one lifted, but the plan is to reduce the span to three tracks with a new deck and abutment.
Why not just jack up the current deck on the current abutments in reduced time and leave the width for possible future capacity increase?
The bridge is a 1960 or 70 replacement which is in poor condition. The pedestrian walkways are currently cantilevered out from the main deck with parapets that would be extremely difficult to make OLE compliant - currently little more than standard open roadside fencing with mesh over the gaps.
There is little room adjacent to the bridge to allow a replacement to be built and wheeled or lifted in so a rebuild in situ is likely to be the only option.
Suspect the actual bridge works could be completed in less than a year but with extensive utility diversions required before and a lack of disruptive possession mean it'll probably end up taking that long.
The new loop was only added recently taking it up to 3 lines, can't see there ever being a need for 4 tracking through the bridge
There is little room adjacent to the bridge to allow a replacement to be built and wheeled or lifted in so a rebuild in situ is likely to be the only option.
Suspect the actual bridge works could be completed in less than a year but with extensive utility diversions required before and a lack of disruptive possession mean it'll probably end up taking that long.
The new loop was only added recently taking it up to 3 lines, can't see there ever being a need for 4 tracking through the bridge
iain-j
Member
Is it just me or would the abutments across the river need to be extended or replaced to take a double track deck? When you look at the Google street view, the first abutment out in the river looks wide enough and the rest are more narrow.
When you look at the OS map it seems as if the double track section leading out of the old Princes Street Station was for trains to reverse in and out of the goods yard and allowed them to travel to or from the Perth General Station direction.
When you look at the OS map it seems as if the double track section leading out of the old Princes Street Station was for trains to reverse in and out of the goods yard and allowed them to travel to or from the Perth General Station direction.
Yes, they would need to build new viaduct parallel to the existing one.
I think that is what it was used for, but it was built with potential doubling in mind. The headshunt didn't need to be quite as long as it was.
Clansman
Established Member
Either way, no matter what happens, it will only cause long term chaos and will need heaps of funding.
The entire approach to Perth, from Ladybank and Barnhill to the station itself, needs ripped up and starting again. The approach from Hilton Junction to the station via Moncreiffe tunnel is really slow and torturous for whatever reason - probably due to that stretch of track being plagued by numerous junctions leading to disused sidings and vegetated track. The station layout is highly inconvenient on a number of levels both on a rail and passenger aspect. I've used it for most of my life and it's in some tatty state - the only good use for the station is the high capacity for overnight train stabling.
I've only read the station aspect of the route study, but I can imagine the following aspects which will be undertaken prior to electrification will include;
Services from the South will most likely be terminated at Gleneagles (with the possibility of Edinburgh services being diverted via Stirling) and frequent shuttle buses taking passengers to Perth.
The bottleneck nature of Perth will see huge knock on effects on all services - all in all worth going through if it means a more faster, reliable and overall better service for traveling passengers both onboard the train and in and around the station.
The entire approach to Perth, from Ladybank and Barnhill to the station itself, needs ripped up and starting again. The approach from Hilton Junction to the station via Moncreiffe tunnel is really slow and torturous for whatever reason - probably due to that stretch of track being plagued by numerous junctions leading to disused sidings and vegetated track. The station layout is highly inconvenient on a number of levels both on a rail and passenger aspect. I've used it for most of my life and it's in some tatty state - the only good use for the station is the high capacity for overnight train stabling.
I've only read the station aspect of the route study, but I can imagine the following aspects which will be undertaken prior to electrification will include;
- Moncrieffe tunnel track lowering
- Friarton approach completely ripped up and rebuilt as a quad tracked approach, with higher speeds.
- Remodelling of the concourse - turning platforms 3 and 4 into termini with the scope of building 3rd termini platform or utilising the existing track layout for a stabling track down the centre
- Extension of platforms 5 and 6, thus forcing the relocation of the carpark
- Dismantling of the train washer and fuel depot
- Remodelling of station building including footbridge, stairs and ramps at platforms 1 and 2
- Lowering of the track at platform 7
- New station entrance built into the remodeled concourse currently home to platforms 3 and 4
- Duelling of Barnhill to Perth with the redesign of the Tay Viaduct
- Resignalling of the entire line through Perth, between Hilton Junction and Barnhill
- Relocation of the washer, stabling points and fuel depot to a newly built facility either at the Friarton approach or Dunkeld Road approach
- Remodelling of the old halls, restaurants which now make up the staff bothy
Services from the South will most likely be terminated at Gleneagles (with the possibility of Edinburgh services being diverted via Stirling) and frequent shuttle buses taking passengers to Perth.
The bottleneck nature of Perth will see huge knock on effects on all services - all in all worth going through if it means a more faster, reliable and overall better service for traveling passengers both onboard the train and in and around the station.
Last edited:
- Status