Highland Mainline upgrade ideas

[47421]

might be higher from some intermediate stations, but as noted Inverness - Edinburgh/Glasgow by far the largest flow, "more journeys between Inverness - Edinburgh & Glasgow than all of the intermediate stations combined"

Edinburgh more popular destination than Glasgow from all HML stations other than Perth

 

[gingertom]

195,081 annual journeys Inverness to Edinburgh, 146,306 to Glasgow. A significant 33% more, but way off nearly 50%

would explain the proposed use of 2+4s on the Inverness route and 2+5s on the Aberdeen. How to cope with passenger growth though? Better order some more conversions from Wabtec now!

 

[47271]

I'd normally say 'at the risk of repeating myself', but on this occasion I really will repeat myself because I can see this thread starting to go full circle. Here's what I said upthread on 19 March:

If it was up to me as a resident of Speyside, and a pessimist in the light of the limited resources likely to be available, in the order of priority:

1. Sort out Ladybank-Hilton before worrying about the HML itself. The inefficiency of this section affects substantially more people than anything north of Perth but is relevant to woeful journey times between Edinburgh and the highlands.

2. Reinstatement of loops at Ballinluig, Killiecrankie and Etteridge.

3. Reinstatement of double track from Culloden to Daviot.

The realist in me tells me that not even any of the above is likely to happen in the next ten years. All we're getting is resignalling to allow increased speed of approach of HSTs at Pitlochry and Aviemore. Dunkeld station might get moved, but far more important is to get its useless platforms raised to an acceptable height.

Reengineering Killiecrankie viaduct and tunnel would shave two or three minutes maybe but I suspect that there are many more slow spots that could be tackled more cheaply than this one.

 

[gingertom]

I'd normally say 'at the risk of repeating myself', but on this occasion I really will repeat myself because I can see this thread starting to go full circle. Here's what I said upthread on 19 March:

If it was up to me as a resident of Speyside, and a pessimist in the light of the limited resources likely to be available, in the order of priority:

1. Sort out Ladybank-Hilton before worrying about the HML itself. The inefficiency of this section affects substantially more people than anything north of Perth but is relevant to woeful journey times between Edinburgh and the highlands.

2. Reinstatement of loops at Ballinluig, Killiecrankie and Etteridge.

3. Reinstatement of double track from Culloden to Daviot.

The realist in me tells me that not even any of the above is likely to happen in the next ten years. All we're getting is resignalling to allow increased speed of approach of HSTs at Pitlochry and Aviemore. Dunkeld station might get moved, but far more important is to get its useless platforms raised to an acceptable height.

Reengineering Killiecrankie viaduct and tunnel would shave two or three minutes maybe but I suspect that there are many more slow spots that could be tackled more cheaply than this one.

1. restoration of the Cowdenbeath-Glenfarg-Bridge of Earn route has been shown to potentially cut about 25 minutes off the journey time. Ladybank-Hilton was double track at one time so could be reinstated. There's been talk of station reopenings at Newburgh and Abernethy, which would require at the very least passing loops.
2 and 3. I'd go further and suggest as much double tracking as is possible, given certain structures are single track and would require obscene amounts of money to tackle. And of course putting the wires up.

 

[InOban]

1. Glenfarg to Bridge of Earn is occupied by the M90. Actually, I agree that the line should be reopened as far as Kinross, but as alternative terminus for the Dunfermline trains.

2. It's easier to list the sections I wouldn't double, because of engineering difficulties. Murthly through Dunkeld. (Tunnel and hillside above the Tay). Pitlochry to Blair Atholl (Killiecrankie) Slochd summit/ Tomatin viaduct.

 

[Indigo Soup]

1. Glenfarg to Bridge of Earn is occupied by the M90. Actually, I agree that the line should be reopened as far as Kinross, but as alternative terminus for the Dunfermline trains.

The conflict between the M90 and the historic rail alignment is relatively short, maybe 2.5 miles, over which a new alignment would be needed or the M90 to run parallel to the motorway. If the new route were built explicitly for electrification (which I think is the only way it would get built) then slightly steeper gradients than the historic route could be accepted.

 

[gingertom]

The conflict between the M90 and the historic rail alignment is relatively short, maybe 2.5 miles, over which a new alignment would be needed or the M90 to run parallel to the motorway. If the new route were built explicitly for electrification (which I think is the only way it would get built) then slightly steeper gradients than the historic route could be accepted.

nothing to stop the construction of a tunnel, except money of course! Helpful if the gradient is left as far as possible as is, so as not to have an adverse affect on freight movements.

 

[InOban]

I think the original gradient was quite steep already.

 

[och aye]

1. restoration of the Cowdenbeath-Glenfarg-Bridge of Earn route has been shown to potentially cut about 25 minutes off the journey time. Ladybank-Hilton was double track at one time so could be reinstated. There's been talk of station reopenings at Newburgh and Abernethy, which would require at the very least passing loops.
2 and 3. I'd go further and suggest as much double tracking as is possible, given certain structures are single track and would require obscene amounts of money to tackle. And of course putting the wires up.

I know Newburgh has had a fairly active campaign for a number of years, but I thought there wasn't much serious talk or campaigning to reopen Abernethy?

 

[najaB]

I know Newburgh has had a fairly active campaign for a number of years, but I thought there wasn't much serious talk or campaigning to reopen Abernethy?

I can't see it generating much traffic, but if there was a station it might unlock the area for a housing development without too much loss of productive arable land.

 

[47271]

I don't think that Abernethy has ever been a serious suggestion. Newburgh and Bridge of Earn, with a Bridge of Earn station as part of the Oudenarde development to the east, are a lot more likely, but neither are going to happen without capacity improvements to a dismal uninterrupted 15 mile section of single track that attempts 1 tph in each direction.

Meanwhile, back on the HML itself, work has started on the platform extensions at Pitlochry, so at least something's happening at last.

 

[EveningStar]

Sort out Ladybank-Hilton before worrying about the HML itself. The inefficiency of this section affects substantially more people than anything north of Perth but is relevant to woeful journey times between Edinburgh and the highlands.

Totally agree ... has got the point where any journeys include this section I build in extra connection time afterwards to allow for the inevitable delays. Going south is worse, as the delays lose the timetable path south of the Forth Bridge and it ends up red lights all the way into Edinburgh.

 

[najaB]

...and it ends up red lights all the way into Edinburgh.

Is it that congested? I would've thought it would be yellows all the way.

 

[EveningStar]

Is it that congested? I would've thought it would be yellows all the way.

My last experience was stop start all the way into Edinburgh, followed by beating my best time running from platform 16 to 2 to make my connection.

 

[jingsmonty]

Level crossing sighting?

Wouldn't have thought so....there's not much difference in either direction. 'SP' speed is 70mph, which a 170/158 can't reach, an HST can easily do 60 & could go faster, easily.

As far as dynamic loops go, joining up Moy loop with Tomatin loop (to make 1 long loop), would be a (relatively) inexpensive way of increasing capacity....cheaper than full redoubling anyway!

 

[InOban]

Wouldn't have thought so....there's not much difference in either direction. 'SP' speed is 70mph, which a 170/158 can't reach, an HST can easily do 60 & could go faster, easily.

As far as dynamic loops go, joining up Moy loop with Tomatin loop (to make 1 long loop), would be a (relatively) inexpensive way of increasing capacity....cheaper than full redoubling anyway!

I'm not sure exactly where Moy loop is, but I recall substantial sections in that area are on quite high embankments.

 

[AndrewE]

I'm not sure exactly where Moy loop is, but I recall substantial sections in that area are on quite high embankments.

...So build them up a bit wider. Modern civil engineering is quite good at widening the formation without too much land-take.
(and we shall get slapped over the wrist again as this is infrastructure)

 

[mcmad]

Wouldn't have thought so....there's not much difference in either direction. 'SP' speed is 70mph, which a 170/158 can't reach, an HST can easily do 60 & could go faster, easily.

As far as dynamic loops go, joining up Moy loop with Tomatin loop (to make 1 long loop), would be a (relatively) inexpensive way of increasing capacity....cheaper than full redoubling anyway!

Not that familiar with the area, just had a quick peak at the sectional appendix and noted a good number of crossings. If its attainable speed then would probably require works to have a higher HST speed as (afaik) HST's aren't permitted to run at SP speeds.

As for jointing up loops, with the signalling costs involved unless done inconjuction with moving Inverness box to the ROC it'd be expensive, widening embankments on a live line isn't cheap either, look at the west coast projects as an example.

 

[Ben.A.98]

Not that familiar with the area, just had a quick peak at the sectional appendix and noted a good number of crossings. If its attainable speed then would probably require works to have a higher HST speed as (afaik) HST's aren't permitted to run at SP speeds.

As for jointing up loops, with the signalling costs involved unless done inconjuction with moving Inverness box to the ROC it'd be expensive, widening embankments on a live line isn't cheap either, look at the west coast projects as an example.

Falling slightly off HST discussion however;

There would be major embankment works to be done to double Moy - Tomatin, most to all of the route would need done, as well as several bridges. As for signalling costs the area is already getting control moved to Inverness early 2019, and thats the way it will remain. So short of some substantial funding for the HML I can't see it happening.

Perhaps a HML upgrade ideas thread is required?

 

[Highland37]

Inverness & the Highlands in general has been out on a limb for too long - I support the A9 dualling, but upgrading the HML is just as important - even some targeted smaller scale improvements would have a big impact (eg, longer 'dynamic' loops, targeted easing of speed restrictions)....Aviemore & Pitlochry is part of this, but more is needed.

I'd love to see some redoubling, but I'm not holding my breath....

Spot on!

 

[Highlandspring]

As for jointing up loops, with the signalling costs involved unless done inconjuction with moving Inverness box to the ROC it'd be expensive,

Inverness Signalling Centre won’t be recontrolled for many, many years. As in at least 20...

 

[Highland37]

Pendolino to Inverness.

Presuming full electrification from Glasgow to Inverness, no change in alignment, route equipped with tilt equipment, how much time could be shaved off?

 

[hexagon789]

Pendolino to Inverness.

Presuming full electrification from Glasgow to Inverness, no change in alignment, route equipped with tilt equipment, how much time could be shaved off?

Retaining or raising the 100mph ceiling?

 

[Highland37]

Both.

Same speed limits but also raising them to the maximum possible for the unit

 

[mullac30]

Pendolino to Inverness.

Presuming full electrification from Glasgow to Inverness, no change in alignment, route equipped with tilt equipment, how much time could be shaved off?

Short Pendolinos might actually be a decent proposition for an electrified Inter7City network, and it is likely that they would be available by the time that the HML and Aberdeen line have been electrified, if the press can get over the idea of "London Cast-offs".

 

[Highland37]

Or just order new stock.

Either way, could 20 - 30 minutes be shaved off?

 

[hexagon789]

Or just order new stock.

Either way, could 20 - 30 minutes be shaved off?

Maybe not as much as that without increasing linespeed. Maybe 5-10 mins for electrification, another 5-10 for allowing higher speeds on certain curves with tilt - say 10-15 mins in all.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Tilting trains allow you to marginally increase speeds around bends at the cost of increased mass. No matter how sophisticated a modern Pendolino design may be, the same traction package would perform better in a lighter, non-tiling bodyshell. The problem with increased mass is that it makes it slower to accelerate and decelerate. On some routes, that can reduce or wipe out the journey time improvements from being able to tilt. The HS2 classic-compatibles will be slower than Pendolinos on the northern WCML but not drastically so because of that fact.

The cost of tilt doesn't make sense for a single regional route with a maximum 1.5tph in future. Tilt cutting London-Glasgow journey times from 5 to 4.5 hours has a big effect on the economics of rail travel versus air travel, since that 30 minutes would be enough to make air faster for a large number of journeys. Inverness has no flights to Glasgow or Edinburgh so travellers only have the choice of train, car or bus. Train typically wins out by default then for the sorts of journeys where rail is even an option - e.g. a business traveller headed for a meeting and wanting to do a bit of work on the way. For other travellers, it wouldn't matter if rail were massively faster, since the start or end of their journeys is in an unsuitable place.

If the government wants to spend money cutting specifically Inverness to Central Belt journey times by serious amounts, then arguably subsidising a Loganair route would be a better use of money. Otherwise, expensive journey time improvements will need some other good justification. The idea of an express line in Fife might work because speeding up journeys to Inverness would be just one of the benefits it could deliver. Tilt, on the other hand, would be more-or-less pointless for all other journeys.

 

[Highland37]

Sorry but that is nonsense. Subsidising flights on a very short route using small aircraft is not a good idea. It is an absurd idea which would benefit about 20 people and emit a lot more carbon

Road is the only competition and will be very competitive against rail when the whole route is dualled.

A pendolino accelerates incredibly well relative to a 170. It would save five minutes from Blair Atholl to Dalwhinnie alone

 

[NotATrainspott]

Sorry but that is nonsense. Subsidising flights on a very short route using small aircraft is not a good idea. It is an absurd idea which would benefit about 20 people and emit a lot more carbon

Road is the only competition and will be very competitive against rail when the whole route is dualled.

A pendolino accelerates incredibly well relative to a 170. It would save five minutes from Blair Atholl to Dalwhinnie alone

It isn't absurd. A 20-seater Loganair flight a few times a day is an irrelevance in carbon terms compared to the rest of the transport sector. And, small domestic routes like that would be the first candidates for electric aircraft. Soon enough the carbon and climate change monster won't be a justification to avoid certain types of air travel. That means very expensive decade-long projects like speeding up the HML with expensive tilt may never pan out from an environmental perspective. The only speed upgrades which are worthwhile are the ones that result from general improvements like electrification, or other simple tweaks which increase efficiency (like increasing speeds over junctions).

It's not surprising a Pendolino accelerates better than a 170, since one is a 25kV AC-powered InterCity electric train capable of 140mph and the other is a slightly lethargic 100mph diesel-hydraulic multiple unit. The poor performance of the 170s is why ScotRail are getting the shortened HSTs. The introduction of a 40 year old train will cut journey times simply because of its massively improved acceleration.