Expansions for Scotland's rail network proposed

[sqrtc]

Far too much to justify it really but it'd be a better diversion route for when Perth gets remodelled on the Glasgow - Dundee/Aberdeen route, keeping Stirling in the calling points at least.

 

[clc]

The March 2019 Infrastructure Plan programme pipeline update includes some info about doubling Montrose-Usan:

Reference Group met in December 2018 to review and consider findings of report commissioned from ARUP. Report demonstrated that no quick or easy infrastructure interventions were available to increase line speeds, limited journey time savings were achievable from lots of small line speed improvements and doubling Montrose-Usan does not provide any journey time benefits. Benefits from line doubling are in capacity, reliability / punctuality and in flexibility.
Removal of constraint at Montrose would provide poor value for money due to a very high financial cost and possibly a significant environmental impact. It may not on its own, provide a step change in journey times, and needs to be considered in context of whole route.
Consensus across Reference Group was that further work is required to identify maximum possible benefits achievable for £200 million available.
Signalling capacity constraints immediately south of Aberdeen were identified and work is underway to install new signalling between Newtonhill and Craiginches. This will support capacity for Revolution in Rail (RiR) between Aberdeen and Stonehaven.

https://www.gov.scot/policies/government-finance/infrastructure-investment/

I also noticed that the £1.3-£3 billion Glasgow Terminal Stations project is no longer listed which suggests it has dropped down the priority list. As you can see, it was included in the original plan published in 2015:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/infrastructure-investment-plan-2015/

 

[JohnR]

If you look at it in terms of reducing journey time - but the original thoughts were surely about removing it as a capacity constraint!

 

[clc]

If Transport Scotland is also citing the environmental impact of doubling Montrose- Usan as an obstacle surely the only option remaining is to bypass Montrose with a new line via the old solum through Frockheim? Could that be done within the available budget of £200 million?

 

[Tobbes]

If Transport Scotland is also citing the environmental impact of doubling Montrose- Usan as an obstacle surely the only option remaining is to bypass Montrose with a new line via the old solum through Frockheim? Could that be done within the available budget of £200 million?

Thanks, I didn't know anything about the old route. But I can't see £200m being enough....

 

[najaB]

Could that be done within the available budget of £200 million?

Short answer: no.
Long answer: not very likely.

You're looking at something like 20km of essentially new railway (the formation hasn't been maintained for a long time) from Arbroath to Bridge of Dun , so costs would have to come in well under £10m/km - doable, but that's just the actual construction costs. Looking at satellite images it looks like the original route has been built on in places, plus I've no idea what state the bridge over the Esk is in - a new one could add £5-10M by itself.

 

[clc]

Short answer: no.
Long answer: not very likely.

You're looking at something like 20km of essentially new railway (the formation hasn't been maintained for a long time) from Arbroath to Bridge of Dun , so costs would have to come in well under £10m/km - doable, but that's just the actual construction costs. Looking at satellite images it looks like the original route has been built on in places, plus I've no idea what state the bridge over the Esk is in - a new one could add £5-10M by itself.

Perhaps it could be built as single track to bring down the cost? It could carry the northbound Express services, and maybe one of the southbound express services or whichever permutation of express and freight services it was possible to timetable?

 

[47271]

I'm not saying never, but it looks like a long way round with the route heading quite definitely north west from Arbroath, then north east towards Bridge of Dun with pronounced dog leg at Friockheim.

It would make restoration of a service to Brechin a lot easier, but I think that on this thread we've long concluded that this would struggle to be made a priority in it's own right.

 

[Tobbes]

I'm not saying never, but it looks like a long way round with the route heading quite definitely north west from Arbroath, then north east towards Bridge of Dun with pronounced dog leg at Friockheim.

It would make restoration of a service to Brechin a lot easier, but I think that on this thread we've long concluded that this would struggle to be made a priority in it's own right.

True, but what this would do would be to make it easier (somewhat/much?) to reopen Stanley Junction - Forfar - Kinnaber Junction for faster Aberdeen - Glasgow services. Never understood why Forfar was closed - tragic, and tragically late.

 

[najaB]

Never understood why Forfar was closed - tragic, and tragically late.

Because they didn't see the need for two routes and it was more important to keep Dundee connected to Aberdeen than it was Forfar.

 

[Tobbes]

I can see that in 1982, but tragic nonetheless - how would the Aberdeen-Glasgow journey time today via Forfar compare with via Dundee?

 

[Highlandspring]

I can see that in 1982, but tragic nonetheless - how would the Aberdeen-Glasgow journey time today via Forfar compare with via Dundee?

The Strathmore main line closed to through traffic in 1964. The latest timetable I have dates from 1953 an generally has trains timed 60 minutes from Stanley Jn to Kinnaber Jn with one 4 minute stop at Forfar, taking 117 minutes in total from leaving Perth to arriving Aberdeen.

 

[najaB]

The Strathmore main line closed to through traffic in 1964. The latest timetable I have dates from 1953 an generally has trains timed 60 minutes from Stanley Jn to Kinnaber Jn with one 4 minute stop at Forfar, taking 117 minutes in total from leaving Perth to arriving Aberdeen.

Do you happen to have a comparable timetable for the route via Dundee, for an apples to apples comparison?

 

[Tobbes]

The Strathmore main line closed to through traffic in 1964. The latest timetable I have dates from 1953 an generally has trains timed 60 minutes from Stanley Jn to Kinnaber Jn with one 4 minute stop at Forfar, taking 117 minutes in total from leaving Perth to arriving Aberdeen.

Excellent, VMT.

 

[daodao]

Do you happen to have a comparable timetable for the route via Dundee, for an apples to apples comparison?

There is no equivalent, as trains from Perth to Dundee terminated there at Dundee West station until the Strathmore main line closed and Glasgow-Perth-Aberdeen trains were diverted via the remaining Dundee (Tay Bridge) station in the mid 1960s.

 

[najaB]

There is no equivalent, as trains from Perth to Dundee terminated there at Dundee West station until the Strathmore main line closed and Glasgow-Perth-Aberdeen trains were diverted via the remaining Dundee (Tay Bridge) station in the mid 1960s.

Did Edinburgh to Aberdeen trains go via Dundee? We could extrapolate from Perth - Dundee and Dundee - Aberdeen.

 

[Steamysandy]

The Strathmore main line closed to through traffic in 1964. The latest timetable I have dates from 1953 an generally has trains timed 60 minutes from Stanley Jn to Kinnaber Jn with one 4 minute stop at Forfar, taking 117 minutes in total from leaving Perth to arriving Aberdeen.

The line via Forfar actually closed later than 1964. I was on Grand Scottish Tour no 1 on 25 March 1967 which went via Forfar behind Black 5 44997 piloting 60009 which had been bought by John Cameron but was given a last run as it were at that time.

Did Edinburgh to Aberdeen trains go via Dundee? We could extrapolate from Perth - Dundee and Dundee - Aberdeen.

All Edinburgh to Aberdeen trains went via Dundee and had done so since the second Tay Bridge opened in 1887

 

[route:oxford]

The Alloa - Dunfermline (via Culross) line is another bit of railway like the Edinburgh Sub and bits of Glasgow crossrail that people like to propose for reopening to solve a problem that isn't really there. The current line is slow, twisty and single track. The junction at the Fife end only faces North. It also falls down on almost all of Altnabrec's reopening 'rules'.

I'd agree that the Edinburgh Sub is simply a useful avoiding route for Waverley.

The Alloa-Dunfermline route has different opportunities though.

For example, how terrible is the two miles or so of track between Alloa & Clackmannan?

I do wonder if an OA operator were to apply to run services between Stirling and a new privately owned station in Clackmannan, if it would stir Transport Scotland and Scotrail into action.

Having a look at the timetable, it looks like, for much of the day, a diesel unit could run 10 minutes ahead of a Scotrail service via Alloa to Clackmannan and 10 minutes behind it on the way back.

Whilst there would be a lot of handwringing about "abstraction", the OA service couldn't run behind it as the Alloa platform would be blocked by the Scotrail train.

 

[JohnR]

The line via Forfar actually closed later than 1964. I was on Grand Scottish Tour no 1 on 25 March 1967 which went via Forfar behind Black 5 44997 piloting 60009 which had been bought by John Cameron but was given a last run as it were at that time.


All Edinburgh to Aberdeen trains went via Dundee and had done so since the second Tay Bridge opened in 1887

Yes, the through route closed to passengers on 4th September 1967. The line from Stanley Junction to Forfar remained open for freight traffic (mostly agricultural) until 1982. If it had remained open for freight for a little longer, it could have survived - and been the subject of a serious campaign for reopening. In terms of what would be demolished, in overall terms, probably very little. There are about 20 houses at the Montrose end that would have to go. The old Forfar station site is now completely built over, but a new line should probably not curve into Forfar, but maintain a straight line, with the new Forfar being on the outskirts of Town, near the A90. There is a little work at some of the intermediate stations where the odd building has been placed on the track, but the other main obstruction is at Coupar Angus, where the by-pass has used some of the trackbed. This is not a major problem, as the railway line could be run slightly to the south along agricultural land.

However, a full reinstatement is probably looking at £600m+ in today's prices, and while it would cut the journey time by about 15-20 minutes for Aberdeen-Glasgow traffic, its real use would be for increasing capacity, especially for freight.

The reason for the dog-leg in the alternative line from Arbroath to Bridge of Dun, is of course that it was originally part of the Arbroath-Forfar line, and that a third side of the triangle was built at Friockheim to allow traffic to reach Aberdeen. From memory it was out of use after 1908, partly because the timber trestles over the River Lunan were rotting and it wasnt considered worth replacing. You can still see the embankment as you enter the village of Friockheim.

In terms of using it (or part of it) as an alternative to doubling Usan-Montrose, it would speed up Aberdeen-Glasgow traffic - but not of course Aberdeen-Edinburgh. It would also miss out the important traffic centre of Dundee - not considering the traffic from Arbroath and Montrose to Aberdeen.

The whole point of removing the single line section is surely about capacity, not reducing journey times? We are pretty close to full capacity on this section at certain times of the day, and delays can easily be incurred here, which have knock on effects to the rest of the route for some hours afterward. Remove these and recovery is a lot quicker (I'd argue that some suitable freight loops and shorter sections can help here - looks like Craigo has recently reopened, so this can help). It really wont matter if you remove speed restrictions to reduce journey times elsewhere, if it can all be lost again (and more) by a late running train through Usan.

The "environmental" issues, are presumably building the eastern section of the Montrose Basin. This is a designated Local Nature Reserve, which means that while it is a sensitive area, it does not mean that it is prohibited from construction within it, especially as this work will be confined to the very eastern edge of the basin.

 

[47271]

You can make a direct comparison between the two routes, but only by comparing the final best times via Strathmore, produced by hand me down A4 Pacifics in the 1960s, with BR's first sub three hour time via Dundee in the 1980s.

First, the 1960s:
http://www.davidheyscollection.com/page71.htm

...there were, if I recall correctly, six of these trains per day, three from either end. Over the few years of their operation the timetable may have shifted slightly but departure times were roughly 7.15, 13.30 and 17.15, running time approximately three hours, with stops at (going south) Stonehaven, Forfar, Perth and Stirling. Timings were tight: 19 minutes out to Stonehaven (16.1 miles), 43 minutes Stonehaven to Forfar (41.2 miles with a 5 mile climb to Carmont Summit at 1 in 102 from a standing start), 31 minutes Forfar to Perth (32.5 miles), 35 minutes Perth to Stirling (33 miles with 6 miles at 1 in 100 Dunning to Gleaneagles), 52 minutes Stirling to Glasgow. Train composition was generally around 6-7 coaches, 210 to 265 tons full, but could get up to 8 packed coaches in summer.

The May 1982 timetable allowed a 1725 departure from Queen Street to arrive in Aberdeen at 2013, but this was only achieved by this unique service stopping only at Stirling, Perth and Dundee - three hours was by no means routine.

As far as I can see 2h33m is pretty much the best they can get with 170s at the moment.

 

[mcmad]

The Alloa-Dunfermline route has different opportunities though.

For example, how terrible is the two miles or so of track between Alloa & Clackmannan?

I do wonder if an OA operator were to apply to run services between Stirling and a new privately owned station in Clackmannan, if it would stir Transport Scotland and Scotrail into action.

Having a look at the timetable, it looks like, for much of the day, a diesel unit could run 10 minutes ahead of a Scotrail service via Alloa to Clackmannan and 10 minutes behind it on the way back.

Whilst there would be a lot of handwringing about "abstraction", the OA service couldn't run behind it as the Alloa platform would be blocked by the Scotrail train.

The station at Alloa is on a siding off the main line so your proposed OA service would miss Alloa altogether unless it was upgraded to a loopwith the addition of a turnout and associated resignalling. There also isn't an east (north?) facing bay at Stirling accessable from the Alloa line so the OA service would have to block either Platform 6 or 9 between runs unless it shunts into one of the bays, blocking the main line.

I'm sure with the lack of coal traffic on the line TS have or are looking at additional services and/or extensions but not sure the numbers will stack up.

 

[Class 170101]

The May 1982 timetable allowed a 1725 departure from Queen Street to arrive in Aberdeen at 2013, but this was only achieved by this unique service stopping only at Stirling, Perth and Dundee - three hours was by no means routine.

As far as I can see 2h33m is pretty much the best they can get with 170s at the moment.

Wonder how close to two hours one would get with that stopping pattern today?

 

[47271]

Wonder how close to two hours one would get with that stopping pattern today?

Actually, I beg your pardon, I only looked at the best Glasgow-Aberdeen times as of now. Doing it from north to south, with the 1245 departure from Aberdeen you get 2h27m with stops at only Montrose, Arbroath, Dundee, Perth and Stirling. So dropping Montrose and Arbroath could get you to maybe 2h20m.

Anyway, my earlier point was that the gains made by running direct from Perth to north of Montrose would have to be pretty spectacular to justify dropping Scotland's fourth largest centre of population, as well as Arbroath and Montrose, from the route. I think that this thread has reached that conclusion a number of times before, but it was interesting to have a look at what was achieved via Strathmore at best in the sixties.

 

[route:oxford]

The station at Alloa is on a siding off the main line so your proposed OA service would miss Alloa altogether unless it was upgraded to a loopwith the addition of a turnout and associated resignalling. There also isn't an east (north?) facing bay at Stirling accessable from the Alloa line so the OA service would have to block either Platform 6 or 9 between runs unless it shunts into one of the bays, blocking the main line.

I'm sure with the lack of coal traffic on the line TS have or are looking at additional services and/or extensions but not sure the numbers will stack up.

Platforms 6 & 9 aren't that busy are they? I think Platform 10 can be accessed with a shunt without blocking the mainlines.

I suppose the OA operator would just have to build Platform 1B to the East at Alloa, but accessible from Platform 1.

 

[JohnR]

Actually, I beg your pardon, I only looked at the best Glasgow-Aberdeen times as of now. Doing it from north to south, with the 1245 departure from Aberdeen you get 2h27m with stops at only Montrose, Arbroath, Dundee, Perth and Stirling. So dropping Montrose and Arbroath could get you to maybe 2h20m.

Anyway, my earlier point was that the gains made by running direct from Perth to north of Montrose would have to be pretty spectacular to justify dropping Scotland's fourth largest centre of population, as well as Arbroath and Montrose, from the route. I think that this thread has reached that conclusion a number of times before, but it was interesting to have a look at what was achieved via Strathmore at best in the sixties.

The case for the Strathmore line has to be based not in replacing the joint line, but on supplementing it, and providing additional journey opportunities.

 

[marks87]

The case for the Strathmore line has to be based not in replacing the joint line, but on supplementing it, and providing additional journey opportunities.

What "additional journey opportunities" would these be? Express Glasgow-Aberdeen services?

Fine...but you'd effectively be relegating Scotland's fourth city to a stop on a regional stopping route. Two regional stopping routes if the Glenfarg Route were to ever re-open.

It's just not going to happen. Any journey time improvements need to be based on either the existing route, or (if money were no object) a new route that starts east of Dundee*...or even Arbroath.

 

[JohnR]

What "additional journey opportunities" would these be? Express Glasgow-Aberdeen services?

Fine...but you'd effectively be relegating Scotland's fourth city to a stop on a regional stopping route. Two regional stopping routes if the Glenfarg Route were to ever re-open.

And where did I say I'd be relegating Dundee to a regional stopping route? Was it on a regional stopping route before 1967? Or did it have express trains to both Glasgow and Edinburgh?

I'm not one of those gung-ho "lets rebuild it" types. My point is exactly the opposite - it has to be based on its own merits, and cant replace the coastal route for obvious reasons. Does that mean there ISNT a case? No, of course not.

These arguments are almost identical to the ones about rebuilding Exeter-Okehampton-Tavistock-Plymouth.

 

[marks87]

And where did I say I'd be relegating Dundee to a regional stopping route? Was it on a regional stopping route before 1967? Or did it have express trains to both Glasgow and Edinburgh?

It's the logical conclusion. Why open up a new route that's faster if you're not going to send the express services that way?

I'm not even going to entertain an argument that tries to invoke pre-1967 as a valid comparison to today.

 

[47271]

And let's not overlook that the 2h20m I gave for Aberdeen-Glasgow via Dundee was based on 170 capability, not HSTs or anything that might follow them.

Anyway, the Strathmore question only reared its head again because of a via Friockheim suggestion made for any Montrose diversion.

My prediction is that trains will still be crossing a single line viaduct between Usan and Montrose in 20 years time!

 

[RLBH]

Fine...but you'd effectively be relegating Scotland's fourth city to a stop on a regional stopping route. Two regional stopping routes if the Glenfarg Route were to ever re-open.

It's true that Glasgow - Dundee would probably lose out, going from 2tph to 1tph, but the city's other links wouldn't really be affected. The Edinburgh-Dundee service would never go anywhere near Glenfarg or Strathmore, and that is always going to be one of the premier routes in Scotland.

I don't think either route is particularly likely to happen, largely on cost grounds, but it's not as though Dundee would be abandoned.