• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Proposal to covert Kyle line to tramway

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grinner

Member
Joined
21 Feb 2013
Messages
89
Location
Paisley
I was looking on the Hitrans website for some information about the Invernes Airport Rail scheme, but whilst doing so I came across this document, which is a June update on rail issue/projects in the Hitrans area (Highlands and Islands):

https://hitrans.org.uk/Documents/Item_10_Rail_Update.pdf

Item 2 ("Skyefall") notes that "Hitrans has appointed consultants Mott Macdonald to investigate the feasibility of road and rail sharing the railway solum in the rockfall area of the Stromeferry bypass beside the Kyle railway. Options 5, 6 and 7 in the paper previously circulated are to be considered. "

Whilst this has of course been done as a short term solution in the past, option 7 considers turning the whole route over to tram-train operation, in the expectation that a future purchase of "scenic stock" could be acceptable for such workings. Sounds madness to me, but Hitrans are supposed to be the body for shaping decisions about transport in the Highlands, so this is being seriously considered.

7. Convert whole route to a tramway

Convert whole route to tramway operation and either operate as a dedicated service from Dingwall with trams, or operate from Inverness with tram train vehicles. This allows the RETB section to be replaced and operated as per 5 and 6 above, however only special traffic vehicles designated to operate over tramways, or operated with special road closure arrangements would be allowed. The shared options were originally not progressed by URS as it was believed that the safety risk would be unacceptable to Network Rail, in spite of all being significantly cheaper than the by-pass options. Recent developments in introducing tram trains to the network, and the now operational example on the Welsh Highland Railway (WHR) in Porthmadog, make revisiting these options realistic. Historically shared operations for bridges have been used in the past, see http://movingimage.nls.uk/film/5122 Rotherham will see the UK’s first tram train pilot in 2017. Also, a number of examples of heavy rail trains sharing roads still operate in the Americas and mainland Europe.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
...option 7 considers turning the whole route over to tram-train operation, in the expectation that a future purchase of "scenic stock" could be acceptable for such workings. Sounds madness to me, but Hitrans are supposed to be the body for shaping decisions about transport in the Highlands, so this is being seriously considered.
I suspect this option has been included for completeness with no serious intention to carry it forward for further consideration.
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
Ever since the road was built it has been plagued with rockfalls, and has been closed for months at a time while attempts have been made to stabilise it. If you look at a road map you will see that the diversion is I think well over 100 miles. This is one of a number of options, including building a bridge at Stromeferry. The problem is that, West of dingwall the railway is almost irrelevant to the residents, except when the road is closed. (OK there are a few landed gentry who use it to join the Sleeper at Inverness.) It is entirely a tourist route.

And the route isn't a government-funded trunk road. The solution has to be funded by a cash-strapped local authority. No option can be eliminated at the start of the appraisal process.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
When I travelled on the route last year, our fellow passengers didn't strike me as being all tourist types.

Lets hope they see sense and dismiss this option as soon as possible.
 

Clansman

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2016
Messages
2,571
Location
Hong Kong
I don't know what the folk at Hitrans are on, but whatever it is, I want some.

Laughable proposal.
 

Liam

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2010
Messages
1,246
It is entirely a tourist route.

Not in my experience. There are certainly many tourists on the line, but whenever I've been onboard there are always some locals, usually on a day or overnight trip to Inverness.
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
I was being reported provocative. There's no early bus to match the early train, so for an all day visit the train wins if you don't have access to a car. But the ratio between summer and winter traffic is rather dramatic.

I don't believe for one moment that this option has legs or wheels. But it is an option which must be considered. Otherwise someone will ask ' why don't you...'
 

ER158715

Member
Joined
4 May 2014
Messages
76
It most certainly is not just a tourist route. There are a number of locals who use this as a lifeline service. We have regular commuters from the likes of Stromeferry to Kyle and back so they can do their shopping in the Co-op. Duirnish and Duncraig also have regulars to Kyle and back.

As for the proposal, its an absolute joke. Not sure what HiTrans are thinking of that. They should be pushing for higher line speeds and upgrades to the railway which would make rail even more popular.
 
Last edited:

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I suspect this option has been included for completeness with no serious intention to carry it forward for further consideration.

No option can be eliminated at the start of the appraisal process.

I don't believe for one moment that this option has legs or wheels. But it is an option which must be considered. Otherwise someone will ask ' why don't you...'

Agreed.

Any sensible decision making process starts with a position of several options on the table, so that they can be seen to consider and dismiss the unrealistic ones before settling on the two or three more obvious options.

That's how any public body would have to behave - be seen to consider things - otherwise you run the risk of someone challenging you for why you never gave their pet project any consideration.

Maybe some people on here haven't worked in that kind of environment and feel that HiTrans should automatically plump for a heavy rail option but in the real world they have to do things properly.

I'm sure that there's a heavy rail future for the Kyle line, but Kyle itself only sees an average of ninety departing passengers per day, with precious little passengers at most of the intermediate stations, so it's not a busy route.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
Agreed.

Any sensible decision making process starts with a position of several options on the table, so that they can be seen to consider and dismiss the unrealistic ones before settling on the two or three more obvious options.
That's what I meant by saying it was included for completeness - they know it's not feasible but they need to demonstrate that it's been considered and explain why it's not being taken forwards.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,107
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
A bidirectional single track tramway on a long distance road? Sounds very scary. How long is the "rockfall section" where road and rail would share and how fast would the tram-trains be running? There's also the problem of a single track railway not being wide enough for a decent highway.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,107
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
A decent highway is, however, wide enough for a single track railway.

Well yes, but I assume the idea is to convert the railway formation to a road, with the trains continuing to run. The OP uses the word "solum" which I had to look up - in Scottish law it means the space inside the foundations in a building, which makes the intention plain.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
Well yes, but I assume the idea is to convert the railway formation to a road, with the trains continuing to run. The OP uses the word "solum" which I had to look up - in Scottish law it means the space inside the foundations in a building, which makes the intention plain.
Yes, but the solum is the entire width of the railway, not just the track.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,672
Location
Leeds
The OP uses the word "solum" which I had to look up - in Scottish law it means the space inside the foundations in a building, which makes the intention plain.
In the case of a road or railway the term "solum" or "formation" usually means the surface of the finished earthworks before you put a road or railway on top of it.
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
Could it be operated as a long level crossing rather than (diesel, presumably) tram train?
I believe that is the desired solution but they need to explore all options. A tram-train is running for 82 miles for the sake of a few hundred meters of shared roadway is insanity of the highest order.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I believe that is the desired solution but they need to explore all options. A tram-train is running for 82 miles for the sake of a few hundred meters of shared roadway is insanity of the highest order.

Quite. It sounds like a solution similar to Porthmadog is more what is called for.
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
It will require a considerable upgrade to the signalling. At present it's one block section from Strathcarron to Kyle.
 

mushroomchow

Member
Joined
14 Feb 2017
Messages
455
Location
Where HSTs Still Scream. Kind of.
Street running can certainly be accommodated in small sections. As others mentioned, it worked in Porthmadog and does so safely in many other parts of the world.

Declassifying the whole route to become a light rail "tram train" system, on the other hand, would be absolutely insane given the tourist potential from the charter market, whose usage of the route would be threatened as presumably track would be re-laid at a lighter grade to reduce maintenance costs.

In any sense, the spiralling costs of the Rotherham project (now 5x overbudget) would put a dent in any business case for such a solution anyway, so I wouldn't worry too much. That project alone has probably put Tram-Train projects in the UK back 2 decades, so trying it for an 80-mile route looks less likely than ever. :roll:

TBTC sums up the likely scenario well - as somebody with experience of local government, I can confirm that even the most bat-poo crazy ideas have to be entertained in the name of impartiality, even if that's just to give them a crap GVA figure and sweep them away as quickly as possible. :lol:
 
Last edited:

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Street running can certainly be accommodated in small sections. As others mentioned, it worked in Porthmadog and does so safely in many other parts of the world.

Part of the problem is that ORR take the position that there will be no NEW level crossings authorised except in exceptional circumstances. Is this case such an exceptional circumstance? I don't know but seeing as ORR are also the road regulator now, they might be in a a better position to make an 'integrated decision' on this one. The powers for the long crossing at Porthmadog probably didn't expire as the original railway never officially closed, so perhaps ORR were not in a position to refuse its reactivation.

Declassifying the whole route to become a light rail "tram train" system, on the other hand, would be absolutely insane given the tourist potential from the charter market, whose usage of the route would be threatened as presumably track would be re-laid at a lighter grade to reduce maintenance costs.

Not insane but rather unwise in view of the charter market, including regular premium tour trains that make multiple trips every year. The linked page explains that regular trains on the route will be replaced in the next decade so it would certainly be possible to buy tram-train instead of standard heavy rail vehicles, or perhaps something in between, a 'train-tram' perhaps! Whatever happens, being able to run into Inverness rather than terminating at Dingwall would be highly desirable. Forcing a further change there would be very inconvenient and remove some of the frequency between there and Inverness, disincentivising local travel. I doubt lighter track would be appropriate, as tram-trains are not significantly lighter than lightweight multiple unit trains, although perhaps compatibility with the heavier axles of large locos and freight wagons might be removed when structures were renewed to save a few pennies. Again not a good development for future generations if ever railfreight solutions become more cost effective.

In any sense, the spiralling costs of the Rotherham project (now 5x overbudget) would put a dent in any business case for such a solution anyway, so I wouldn't worry too much. That project alone has probably put Tram-Train projects in the UK back 2 decades, so trying it for an 80-mile route looks less likely than ever. :roll:

I don't think Rotherham will be indicative of future roll out costs for the technology. Better planned schemes will be possible, technical standards have now been set and vehicles approved for use, so costs should be much better understood.

TBTC sums up the likely scenario well - as somebody with experience of local government, I can confirm that even the most bat-poo crazy ideas have to be entertained in the name of impartiality, even if that's just to give them a crap GVA figure and sweep them away as quickly as possible. :lol:

I agree, but the ORRs level crossing position needs to be established early, and the special circumstances and risks of a very long crossing studied and solved. Would obstacle detection for the entire length be practical? Could number plate recognition systems assist by counting road vehicles in then all out again before permitting a train to proceed? Could a 'locally monitored' rail solution be appropriate with a severe restriction so 'normal' trains could stop short of any obstruction encountered? How could a parallel cycle/pedestrian path be managed safely? As to rolling stock, perhaps new 'scenic' trains for the line built by Stadler (say) could incorporate the magnetic brakes mentioned, so would not be subject to as severe a speed restriction over the shared section as normal heavy locos used on charters and any future freights.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I think, to be fair, saying all tram-train schemes will be like Rotherham is a bit like saying all tram schemes will be like Edinburgh, ignoring massive successes like Metrolink.

The mention of Stadler is interesting - I know I'm a fan, but I would love to see a FLIRT DMU for the West Highland based on the scenic narrow gauge Swiss models (perhaps First Class with proper panoramic windows), with track brakes and fairings for street running, and it's exactly Stadler's core business to build small fleets of that sort of thing for vaguely decent money.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
Part of the problem is that ORR take the position that there will be no NEW level crossings authorised except in exceptional circumstances. Is this case such an exceptional circumstance? I don't know but seeing as ORR are also the road regulator now, they might be in a a better position to make an 'integrated decision' on this one. The powers for the long crossing at Porthmadog probably didn't expire as the original railway never officially closed, so perhaps ORR were not in a position to refuse its reactivation.

ORR don't have any Road role at all in Scotland where Transport Scotland and Scottish Ministers are the appropriate authorities for roads decisions.

Whether that makes ORR more or less likely to sign off a tramway I'm not sure.

I don't see the tramway option being a preferred option for Highland Council, locals, Transport Scotland or Network Rail to be honest.

Stromeferry Bridge is almost certainly the best option with Glenn Udalain a slightly cheaper but inferior choice.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,672
Location
Leeds
Street running can certainly be accommodated in small sections. As others mentioned, it worked in Porthmadog
Is working, present tense.

In any sense, the spiralling costs of the Rotherham project (now 5x overbudget) would put a dent in any business case for such a solution anyway, so I wouldn't worry too much. That project alone has probably put Tram-Train projects in the UK back 2 decades, so trying it for an 80-mile route looks less likely than ever. :roll:
The costs there seem to come largely from new designs of electrification equipment to allow future DC->AC conversion, so not relevant at Stromeferry!
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
How long is the proposed shared section?

Could it be operated as a long level crossing rather than (diesel, presumably) tram train?

I don't know if the proposed shared section covers the whole of the rockfall area, but that is 4.5km long. The temporary solution a few years back was only 150m.

www.highland.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/6486/exhibition_march_2014.pdf

The existing Stromeferry Bypass is an approximately 12km long section of public road alongside the southern shore of Loch Carron. Since opening in 1970, a 4.5km section between Ardnarff and Cuddies’ Point has been subject to a number of landslide and rock fall events causing temporary closures, requiring a 130 mile diversion.
 
Last edited:

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,672
Location
Leeds
The main section where the road is adjacent to the railway appears to be about 3.4km so the length affected by the proposal is presumably at most that.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
I don't know if the proposed shared section covers the whole of the rockfall area, but that is 4.5km long. The temporary solution a few years back was only 150m.
My reading of the report is that they don't seem to considering the entire 4.5km section. I don't think it's considerably longer than the area covered by the 2012 solution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top