Aberdeen - Inverness £170m Upgrade

[Trackbedjolly]

I haven't seen any detailed maps for the project but I would say that 9/10 people who use the trains on that route have some idea of where Kittybrewster is. Conversely 9/10 people have probably been mislead into thinking that Aberdeen means Aberdeen Station not a suburb several miles away.

If a higher speed turnout is sufficient why has it not been recommended by the consultants who wrote the report for NESTRANS? They saw these tunnels as a serious bottleneck if they remain singled. I am also wondering if the post-Phase 1 timetable will be robust for the same reason.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Is the current work going to actively preclude doubling between Kittybrewster and Aberdeen station in future? The A2I project required additional capacity at the Aberdeen end and it seems that the easiest way to provide this was a redoubling of all of the easy section. Redoubling the tunnels would have been significantly more expensive per route kilometre, and would have still required significant doubling of the easy section to deliver the same capacity improvement. The A2I team seem to have done the best they could have managed under the circumstances, getting the most bang for the limited buck they have to improve rail services in a neglected part of Scotland. Sure, any future projects (e.g. Ellon) would now have to bear the burden of doubling the tunnels themselves, but there will be natural traffic growth as a result of the current project which will make it even more worthwhile to redouble the last part. Doubling can be put off until there is an acute capacity problem, or the time is right to put up the wires, as wiring would likely set the tunnel layout in stone.

 

[JohnR]

Is the current work going to actively preclude doubling between Kittybrewster and Aberdeen station in future? The A2I project required additional capacity at the Aberdeen end and it seems that the easiest way to provide this was a redoubling of all of the easy section. Redoubling the tunnels would have been significantly more expensive per route kilometre, and would have still required significant doubling of the easy section to deliver the same capacity improvement. The A2I team seem to have done the best they could have managed under the circumstances, getting the most bang for the limited buck they have to improve rail services in a neglected part of Scotland. Sure, any future projects (e.g. Ellon) would now have to bear the burden of doubling the tunnels themselves, but there will be natural traffic growth as a result of the current project which will make it even more worthwhile to redouble the last part. Doubling can be put off until there is an acute capacity problem, or the time is right to put up the wires, as wiring would likely set the tunnel layout in stone.

And the problem is that the cost of that redoubling then make the project to Ellon (or further) unaffordable.

 

[Deltic1961]

For me it's more the fact that (for the general public) they have been told it's an entire redoubling.

I only found out about the tunnels when chatting to a ticket inspector one evening, and then it took many tweets to A2I for them to confirm the tunnels weren't being upgraded.

Seems the publicity has just omitted to mention that the one mile section will still be as before. I'm aware of the costs obviously but can't help thinking that the lack of tunnel expansions (and future delays resulting in this) have been quietly swept under the carpet. A half baked project.

Anyways, I have quite enjoyed the trains being off as I no longer have to put up with all the delays and cancellations on that line. I've been using the Stagecoach 35 service from Dyce to Aberdeen, and although it takes a bit longer at least the buses actually turn up!

 

[Red Onion]

With regards to the tunnels and double track, is part of the reason for leaving them single to allow clearance for freight?

If so, would gauntlet track ever be a viable option through the tunnels should traffic warrant further investment? I’m not sure exactly how it works but seems a potential solution in the future, should say the Buchan line reopen etc. I’m probably just having a pie in the sky dream and guess it would cause issues with signalling etc.

 

[NotATrainspott]

And the problem is that the cost of that redoubling then make the project to Ellon (or further) unaffordable.

The cost of doing the tunnels hasn't gone away. All you're asking for is that the cost is shifted onto a different project just to make another project look better. It seems quite likely that the added cost would make A2I look much less worthwhile, but without magically making the Ellon project viable. Instead of having one good rail project which 1. doesn't preclude Ellon and 2. will encourage rail commuting in the region you'd just have two unviable projects and no one winning. These folk are doing the best they can in the circumstances. There's no grand conspiracy against the Ellon re-opening.

 

[najaB]

There's no grand conspiracy against the Ellon re-opening.

I'm not even convinced that the tunnels *have* to be doubled to make rail to Ellon a reality. Yes, it would make the timetabling easier, but I'm confident that it's not impossible without it.

 

[InOban]

The single track section is much shorter than the Usan section south of Montrose, which carries two trains each way.

 

[kkong]

The single track section is much shorter than the Usan section south of Montrose, which carries two trains each way.

Agreed. The single track section will only be around 1.25 miles. The other 5 miles between Kittybrewster and Dyce will be doubled.

While this is not ideal, it's a huge improvement on the status quo and will allow much more flexible timetabling and increased service frequency.

 

[gingertom]

Agreed. The single track section will only be around 1.25 miles. The other 5 miles between Kittybrewster and Dyce will be doubled.

While this is not ideal, it's a huge improvement on the status quo and will allow much more flexible timetabling and increased service frequency.

would track lowering help and give electrification clearance in these tunnels? These tunnels are of cut and cover onstrution, so is lowering actually feasible, or major (expensive) civils? I'm not a tunnelling engineer.

 

[Deltic1961]

These lines will never be electrified. Diesel only.

 

[gingertom]

These lines will never be electrified. Diesel only.

never say never but I agree it is highly unlikely in my lifetime.

 

[kkong]

would track lowering help and give electrification clearance in these tunnels? These tunnels are of cut and cover onstrution, so is lowering actually feasible, or major (expensive) civils? I'm not a tunnelling engineer.

Given that the current tunnels can't support double track while maintaining the current gauge for container traffic, adding electrification into the mix as well would require a considerable intervention.

 

[furnessvale]

Given that the current tunnels can't support double track while maintaining the current gauge for container traffic, adding electrification into the mix as well would require a considerable intervention.

Gauge problems for containers are normally in the top corners. Problems for OHLE are along the centreline, (but can be alleviated by slewing the wire to one side under arches).

Thus problems for containers do not necessarily correspond to problems for OHLE.

 

[gingertom]

Gauge problems for containers are normally in the top corners. Problems for OHLE are along the centreline, (but can be alleviated by slewing the wire to one side under arches).

Thus problems for containers do not necessarily correspond to problems for OHLE.

would lowering the floor help gauge clearance or are these tunnels just far too small?

 

[furnessvale]

would lowering the floor help gauge clearance or are these tunnels just far too small?

I don't know the details of these particular tunnels so I cannot comment specifically.

However in general terms, yes, lowering the invert can solve the problem sometimes, and at a price.

 

[gingertom]

I don't know the details of these particular tunnels so I cannot comment specifically.

However in general terms, yes, lowering the invert can solve the problem sometimes, and at a price.

these tunnels are cut and cover so I imagine the engineering challenges lowering the track would be different to ones that have been bored, drilled or blasted through solid rock.

 

[Trackbedjolly]

The cost of doing the tunnels hasn't gone away. All you're asking for is that the cost is shifted onto a different project just to make another project look better. It seems quite likely that the added cost would make A2I look much less worthwhile, but without magically making the Ellon project viable. Instead of having one good rail project which 1. doesn't preclude Ellon and 2. will encourage rail commuting in the region you'd just have two unviable projects and no one winning. These folk are doing the best they can in the circumstances. There's no grand conspiracy against the Ellon re-opening.

That is not the main problem. People will see the A2I as an internal railway project whereas they see any re-opening as a Council-led project and therefore they will be paying for it more directly and as a result of a delay it will cost more to do it at a later date.
Apart from the political aspect there is also the issue of when could the work be done? If it is not done as part of A2I it may be decades before another chance comes along. No train operator wants their stretch of track closed for weeks at a time. So when that does happen the closure needs to be fully utilised to get ALL the work done at one time.
Personally I would rather have seen the City Deal funds used for this than for the Usan-Montrose doubling. It has much more to do with with Aberdeen city and shire than a project in Angus! I still think that the people who should have oversight of this have been or are about to be caught napping.

 

[najaB]

Personally I would rather have seen the City Deal funds used for this than for the Usan-Montrose doubling. It has much more to do with with Aberdeen city and shire than a project in Angus!

What percentage of Aberdonian's journeys are to places south vs places north?

 

[Altnabreac]

As far as I can see they've been fairly up front about the doubling not including the tunnels.

My reading of the Ellon reopening report is that they suggest an hourly service to Ellon, the current booked freight paths and the proposed 2tph Inverurie service (3-4tph in the peaks) can be delivered without further doubling of the tunnels.

If a 2tph Ellon service is needed to make a positive business case then the options are:

• Reduce the freight services
• Reduce peak Inverurie services (they could obviously run as far as Dyce for Ellon)
• Redouble track in tunnels
• Increase line speeds / decrease section occupancy (electrification?)
• Other infrastructure intervention not yet identified

Given the Ellon business case looks fairly awful even without the cost of redoubling it looks a slightly academic argument.

A better intervention to expand rail access to Buchan might well be a reopening to Oldmeldrum. Advantages are:

• Its only a four mile long route
• No trackbed obstructions
• Greenfield station site in Oldmeldrum with plenty of space for large Park and Ride
• Easy to run a 2tph service by extending the Inverurie terminators (and making the peak extras all day)
  
• Increases capacity on main A-I line by reducing platform occupancy at Inverurie through removing the reversals there.
• No further infrastructure work needed on tunnels
• Potential for terminating direct services from Central belt at new station (more likely than at Ellon)

You might just manage to get an acceptable business case from the Oldmeldrum reopening that Ellon wouldn't give you.

 

[JohnR]

Since the long term aspiration is for all the lines connecting the 7 scottish cities to be electrified, it will happen at some point. I'd imagine that electrification beyond Aberdeen as far as Dyce will be included within the project to electrify Dundee-Aberdeen though.

 

[JohnR]

Personally I would rather have seen the City Deal funds used for this than for the Usan-Montrose doubling. It has much more to do with with Aberdeen city and shire than a project in Angus! I still think that the people who should have oversight of this have been or are about to be caught napping.

The vast majority of Aberdeen's passenger flow passes through that bottle neck - as does all of its freight traffic. At the moment its tricky to increase freight traffic to Aberdeen because of the single line section. The idea that the project will only help people in Angus is laughable - for starters most of them live SOUTH of the single line section so arnt affected.

 

[Trackbedjolly]

The vast majority of Aberdeen's passenger flow passes through that bottle neck - as does all of its freight traffic. At the moment its tricky to increase freight traffic to Aberdeen because of the single line section. The idea that the project will only help people in Angus is laughable - for starters most of them live SOUTH of the single line section so arnt affected.

I haven't said that the Usan-Montose doubling helps people in Angus-what's really laughable is that the Aberdeen City Deal includes a project which is physically situated in Angus when there are better projects closer to the city which could benefit more local people. Clearly it does not benefit Angus folk otherwise it could have been included in the Dundee City Deal.

 

[NotATrainspott]

That is not the main problem. People will see the A2I as an internal railway project whereas they see any re-opening as a Council-led project and therefore they will be paying for it more directly and as a result of a delay it will cost more to do it at a later date.
Apart from the political aspect there is also the issue of when could the work be done? If it is not done as part of A2I it may be decades before another chance comes along. No train operator wants their stretch of track closed for weeks at a time. So when that does happen the closure needs to be fully utilised to get ALL the work done at one time.
Personally I would rather have seen the City Deal funds used for this than for the Usan-Montrose doubling. It has much more to do with with Aberdeen city and shire than a project in Angus! I still think that the people who should have oversight of this have been or are about to be caught napping.

A2I is being funded by the Scottish Government in the same way as the works around the Central Belt. An Ellon reopening would not be a council-led thing either since it would require significant changes to the way the ScotRail network operates up around Aberdeen. Councils are able to lead projects which don't require major changes to timetables and operations, like an extra station or maybe even a few hundred metres of single track to extend an existing service.

Reopening the Ellon line wouldn't require another massive blockade. It doesn't take that long to install a set of crossovers and a junction - maybe a 52 hour weekend possession? The redoubling work required that much time because there's such a long length of track that needs work done to it, while the cost of doing more of it in parallel with extra workers and equipment wasn't worth the benefit it would have.

I haven't said that the Usan-Montose doubling helps people in Angus-what's really laughable is that the Aberdeen City Deal includes a project which is physically situated in Angus when there are better projects closer to the city which could benefit more local people. Clearly it does not benefit Angus folk otherwise it could have been included in the Dundee City Deal.

That project in Angus does help local people in Aberdeen. That bottleneck will be the primary constraint on all train services in and around Aberdeen. Addressing it unlocks a lot of other possible improvements, and can only help the case for reopening to Ellon.

 

[najaB]

...when there are better projects closer to the city which could benefit more local people...

What rail projects are there that would benefit more people than improving both passenger and freight connections to the Central Belt and the rest of mainland UK?

 

[Sybic26]

A2I is being funded by the Scottish Government in the same way as the works around the Central Belt. An Ellon reopening would not be a council-led thing either since it would require significant changes to the way the ScotRail network operates up around Aberdeen. Councils are able to lead projects which don't require major changes to timetables and operations, like an extra station or maybe even a few hundred metres of single track to extend an existing service.

Reopening the Ellon line wouldn't require another massive blockade. It doesn't take that long to install a set of crossovers and a junction - maybe a 52 hour weekend possession? The redoubling work required that much time because there's such a long length of track that needs work done to it, while the cost of doing more of it in parallel with extra workers and equipment wasn't worth the benefit it would have.



That project in Angus does help local people in Aberdeen. That bottleneck will be the primary constraint on all train services in and around Aberdeen. Addressing it unlocks a lot of other possible improvements, and can only help the case for reopening to Ellon.

There are a considerable number of people who work in Aberdeen and commute by train from Dundee, Carnoustie and Arbroath.

Freight trains to Aberdeen are routed through Perth instead of over both the Forth and Tay bridges.
Would it not also adviseable therefore to double the section of line between Perth station and Barnhill?

 

[najaB]

Would it not also adviseable therefore to double the section of line between Perth station and Barnhill?

It's not as much of a limitation due to the slow speed through Perth station and all passenger trains stopping there. But yes, it would be useful.

 

[gingertom]

That is not the main problem. People will see the A2I as an internal railway project whereas they see any re-opening as a Council-led project and therefore they will be paying for it more directly and as a result of a delay it will cost more to do it at a later date.
Apart from the political aspect there is also the issue of when could the work be done? If it is not done as part of A2I it may be decades before another chance comes along. No train operator wants their stretch of track closed for weeks at a time. So when that does happen the closure needs to be fully utilised to get ALL the work done at one time.
Personally I would rather have seen the City Deal funds used for this than for the Usan-Montrose doubling. It has much more to do with with Aberdeen city and shire than a project in Angus! I still think that the people who should have oversight of this have been or are about to be caught napping.

is there any info on the Usan-Montrose doubling? Perhaps we could start a dedicated thread on that long overdue project.

 

[JohnR]

The Minister who was strongly pushing for it, Keith Brown, is no longer in Government, so I do worry for the future of it. The new transport Minister hasnt replied to me yet about it.

 

[och aye]

An update from Network Rail:

https://twitter.com/NetworkRailA2I/status/1021704674112626689