Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[snowball]

• Providing one express train per hour to Glasgow (21⁄4 hour journey time);

Five and a quarter hours seems a lot.

 

[railjock]

Yes. I think it's challenging to make positive business cases for new lines in general but my view is that a new Perth line will only wash its face by improving Dundee and Aberdeen journey times as well. Hence a new link cross Tay to St Madoes is in my view as likely to happen as anything else north of Halbeath.

Doesn’t missing out Perth for Glasgow to Dundee/Aberdeen raise viability questions?

 

[mcmad]

would suggest it needs to stop at Perth and Stirling along with Dundee

 

[najaB]

I wonder what more could be done to get Glasgow-Aberdeen down to the 2 hour mark if there was another few hundred million to spend (without bypassing Dundee)?

New double-track bridge at Perth with higher speed would knock a couple of minutes off. Line speed increases should be possible between Dunblane and Hilton Junction taking a few more minutes off, and I don't understand why more of Barnhill-Invergowrie isn't cleared for 100mph.

 

[Clansman]

Doesn’t missing out Perth for Glasgow to Dundee/Aberdeen raise viability questions?

For clarification, a Perth bypass line from Bridge of Earn to St. Madoes wouldn't benefit Glasgow to Aberdeen journeys - unless my perception of the proposal is different from other users'?

But I agree with you there, missing out Perth would significantly reduce any viability, and it also seems pointless (in the case of Aberdeen to Glasgow services) given Perth to Dundee/Glasgow is a very busy passenger corridor - such that providing faster Intercity services along is key to getting people off the road in the first place.

New double-track bridge at Perth with higher speed would knock a couple of minutes off. Line speed increases should be possible between Dunblane and Hilton Junction taking a few more minutes off, and I don't understand why more of Barnhill-Invergowrie isn't cleared for 100mph.

The ride quality between Barnhill and Invergowrie is poor, particularly at Errol - the same could be said for most of the route to be fair. The first port of call needs to be relaying the track and getting rid of the level crossings that plauge the stretch. As has been said many times, with decent investment, 125mph running isnt an unrealistic goal to achieve between Dunblane to Hilton Jn and Barnhill to Invergowrie, when looking for ways to improve journey times significantly. But line quality is bound to be a massive factor (with decent track alignments). If it isn't, I've no idea what is either.

No idea if this has been mentioned anywhere but a Carmont bypass (along with the enhanced alignments at Usan) would further enhance journey times by allowing trains to get a faster run between Montrose and Stonehaven, particularly through Laurencekirk. The cost is obviously another thing.

 

[najaB]

The ride quality between Barnhill and Invergowrie is poor, particularly at Errol - the same could be said for most of the route to be fair. The first port of call needs to be relaying the track and getting rid of the level crossings that plauge the stretch.

Other than the 'kink' at Errol I've never really found it to be that bad. I agree that it would be great to close the level crossings but I doubt the traffic levels would support the investment in bridges.

 

[Clansman]

Other than the 'kink' at Errol I've never really found it to be that bad. I agree that it would be great to close the level crossings but I doubt the traffic levels would support the investment in bridges.

I can't remember where, but there's a terrible kick somewhere around Stonehaven that's pretty infamous for being one the most violent in the UK.

Agree with you about the level of traffic not justifying bridges etc. Perhaps an alternative solution would be to have two bridges, at Errol and Grange, and improve the road links to the areas which otherwise would've relied on the crossings. Could always tie it in with area regenration projects such as those that Bridge of Earn has significantly benefitted from in recent years and will benefit from in years to come. But aside from all the non related stuff, riddance of the level crossings really should be at the top of the pecking order for sorting out the route. How they'll go about doing so, is another question.

 

[Altnabreac]

For clarification, a Perth bypass line from Bridge of Earn to St. Madoes wouldn't benefit Glasgow to Aberdeen journeys - unless my perception of the proposal is different from other users'?

But I agree with you there, missing out Perth would significantly reduce any viability, and it also seems pointless (in the case of Aberdeen to Glasgow services) given Perth to Dundee/Glasgow is a very busy passenger corridor - such that providing faster Intercity services along is key to getting people off the road in the first place.

If you had already built an Edinburgh - Glasgow High Speed line with a Fife spur then you could send Aberdeen - Glasgow trains that way.

I suspect dropping the Perth stop won't happen in the near future but with a more regular Dundee - Glasgow semi fast service dropping other intermediate stops would be a good plan.

 

[clc]

New double-track bridge at Perth with higher speed would knock a couple of minutes off. Line speed increases should be possible between Dunblane and Hilton Junction taking a few more minutes off, and I don't understand why more of Barnhill-Invergowrie isn't cleared for 100mph.

Would electrification make much difference to journey time on the Glasgow-Aberdeen route?

 

[najaB]

Would electrification make much difference to journey time on the Glasgow-Aberdeen route?

It certainly should do, though there aren't *that* many stops for the acceleration advantage to shine through.

 

[clc]

So with electrification, some 125mph running between Dunblane to Hilton Jn and Barnhill to Invergowrie, a new double-track bridge at Perth, Carmont bypass and enhanced alignments at Usan you could get down to 2 hours stopping at Dundee only or 2 hrs 5 mins if also stopping at Perth?

 

[NotATrainspott]

It certainly should do, though there aren't *that* many stops for the acceleration advantage to shine through.

As on the E&G, much of the benefit of electrification comes from speeding up the stopping services. Inevitably there are going to be more and more stopping services sharing the same two-track railway as Glasgow-Aberdeen expresses, so electrification will help. Electrification makes stopping services more viable, and more services makes electrification more viable. I assume we'll see some real development of an Aberdeen commuter network at some point.

 

[mcmad]

So with electrification, some 125mph running between Dunblane to Hilton Jn and Barnhill to Invergowrie, a new double-track bridge at Perth, Carmont bypass and enhanced alignments at Usan you could get down to 2 hours stopping at Dundee only or 2 hrs 5 mins if also stopping at Perth?

If you've a new double track bridge at Perth on a new alignment, you can't stop at Perth Surely?
Oh, and Scotrail safety case is for 100mph max so there is no 125mph running available no matter how good the track is

 

[najaB]

If you've a new double track bridge at Perth on a new alignment, you can't stop at Perth Surely?

Yes, you can. The realignment would be about easing the curve at the Barnhill side of the river and removing the pathing constraint of the single section.

And don't call me Shirley.

 

[NotATrainspott]

A Perth cut-off would only benefit Glasgow-Aberdeen expresses. If that journey time reduction is possible elsewhere on the line east of Dundee, then it will benefit both Glasgow and Edinburgh services. It's a similar story for possible improvements north of Perth.

 

[clc]

I think a Perth cut off would only be considered in the context of a new 140mph line from Halbeath to Bridge of Earn.

 

[IanXC]

Oh, and Scotrail safety case is for 100mph max so there is no 125mph running available no matter how good the track is

It is currently 100mph max, and it seems they have decided that there is not enough to be gained by raising this when the HSTs enter service with the franchise.

That doesn't mean that if there was significantly more 100mph+ speeds available on the relevant routes and suitable stock was available, that they would not amend their safety case. There is plenty of precedent for this, see London Midland for instance.

 

[gsnedders]

It is currently 100mph max, and it seems they have decided that there is not enough to be gained by raising this when the HSTs enter service with the franchise.

Is there anywhere north of Edinburgh/Glasgow which has a >100mph line speed currently? If so, where?

 

[Clansman]

For the sake of five minutes tops, is ommiting calls at Perth anyway a logical solution for improving journey times, unless you are going all out for a HSR which bypasses the city altogether? If the platforms sat on 75mph+ straights then it'd seem logical, but given the nature of the approach from Dundee and the usage of Perth itself, you're still limiting yourself to 25mph odd trundling through anyway.

Is there anywhere north of Edinburgh/Glasgow which has a >100mph line speed currently? If so, where?

Nowhere North of Edinburgh or Glasgow has speed limits greater than 100mph.

 

[Grinner]

Yes, I can't see the value in skipping Perth. In fact it would kind of by a double hit, as by omitting Perth from Glasgow-Aberdeen you are also preventing the fastest train from providing the Inverness connection from Glasgow.

 

[najaB]

Is there anywhere north of Edinburgh/Glasgow which has a >100mph line speed currently? If so, where?

No, but there are a fair number of places where the limits could be higher. For example between Dundee and Arbroath there are a few stretches where the normal limit is 100mph which leads to me to believe that a HST differential limit could be higher.

 

[Highlandspring]

Nowhere north of Edinburgh Waverley or Carstairs currently has a higher line speed than 100mph.

 

[najaB]

Nowhere north of Edinburgh Waverley or Carstairs currently has a higher line speed than 100mph.

Unless my geographic knowledge is lacking, I'm not convinced that is true.

 

[Highlandspring]

You're right enough, there is a section of EPS105 immediately south of Motherwell station.

 

[dcsprior]

You're right enough, there is a section of EPS105 immediately south of Motherwell station.

Also, are there no >100 stretches on the ECML in Scotland? I think the point where it crosses the border is north of Carstairs.

 

[gsnedders]

Also, are there no >100 stretches on the ECML in Scotland? I think the point where it crosses the border is north of Carstairs.

There are. This was the "nowhere north of Edinburgh Waverley" part of their answer.

 

[dcsprior]

There are. This was the "nowhere north of Edinburgh Waverley" part of their answer.

But what was originally said was:

Nowhere north of Edinburgh Waverley or Carstairs currently has a higher line speed than 100mph.

Which means that anywhere with a linespeed over 100mph isn't north of either Edinburgh or Carstairs, the Scottish bit of the ECML is north of Carstairs

 

[InOban]

Carstairs is on the WCML!

I had thought that there was a stretch of the HML in the Spey valley on which the HST was allowed to exceed 100mph.

 

[marks87]

Carstairs is on the WCML!

I sense that they're taking "north of" very literally, i.e. in terms of geography, not lines.

 

[najaB]

I had thought that there was a stretch of the HML in the Spey valley on which the HST was allowed to exceed 100mph.

Had a look at the Sectional Appendix and there's 100mph limits but nothing higher.