Highland Main Line

[HSTEd]

I was wondering why it takes 2 hours 15 minutes for a train to transit the Highland Main Line between Perth and Inverness, a distance of approximately 117 miles by the railway line.
There also appears to be a 30 mile gap north of Carrbridge and 20 miles between Dalwhinnie and Blair Atholl that should allow trains to improve the average speed they attain considerably so this seems rather anomalous as the line is listed as having an 80+mph ruling line speed by Network Rail.

Is this related to the protracted stretches of double line on the route and its steep gradients or simply the large number of stops on the southern end of the route?

Secondly: is the track in sufficiently good condition to allow the relatively cheap employment of tilting trains such as Super Voyagers to improve journey times?
Thanks in advance for any information.

 

[rail-britain]

Pretty much as you have covered, inclines
Most trains also have to wait up to 10 minutes at each crossing point and in some cases it is up to 40 minutes
This issue of restrictive passing places is now being resolved

Although the route does have sections of up to 80mph, there are also some sections of just 40mph
There would be little advantage in installing tilt as the line has relatively few severe high speed curves
Typically where there are curves this is due to an incline

 

[ObservationCar]

Pretty much as you have covered, inclines
Most trains also have to wait up to 10 minutes at each crossing point and in some cases it is up to 40 minutes
This issue of restrictive passing places is now being resolved

This is not the case, Passing Loops are

INVERNESS - Culloden is doubled
Moy
Tomatin
Slochd
CARRBRIDGE
AVIEMORE
Kincraig
DALWHINNIE - BLAIR ATHOLL is doubled
Pitlochry
Dunkeld & Birnam
Stanley - PERTH is doubled

You will normally always cross something between Inverness and Carrbridge, and although its not at a station, the timings are very slick, if the delay was more than 10 mins, the train would cross at the next loop instead, to minimise delays. This flexability of passing and timings has to be included as any delay here can cause delays as far away as Wick or Inverkeithing. If you were caught for 40 mins you were unlucky, unless you were on board a special as they can sometimes be looped, as all loops have bi-directional signalling.

We should see an improvement in the winter timetable as there will be 2 additional trains. But there are some pinchpoints such as Killiecrankie tunnel which is 30mph and a few timber structures north of Aviemore which are treated with caution. There is a 100mph for both DMU's and Engines section south of Kincraig, and I think there are a few other higher speed sections along the line.

I would like to see HS1 reach Inverness though, as a journey to Glasgow would take an hour, or London in 3.5 hours, but this will probably never happen.

The loops themselves are not really restrictive, but the sections in between are, and I think may be getting additional signaling to allow two trains going in same direction to be allowed to run closer together, which will increase freight paths.

 

[NSEFAN]

How much of the route could be "easily" double tracked? Are there many restrictive structures, such as single line tunnels and bridges?

 

[rail-britain]

This is not the case, Passing Loops are

In the current timetable there is one service that suffers a 40 minute wait, the rest normally suffer a 10 minute wait
These times are absorbed in recovery and passenger timetable

 

[matchmaker]

How much of the route could be "easily" double tracked? Are there many restrictive structures, such as single line tunnels and bridges?

I am not sure - photos of the Findhorn Viaduct (which is the largest single track bridge on the route) look as if it is wide enough for double track. I suspect that when the Direct Line from Aviemore via Carr Bridge was built they may have allowed for doubling.

South of Blair Atholl I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

 

[HSTEd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnRtuwFqMQ4
Found this on youtube.
It would appear that there is no practical way to double the line south of Blair Atholl due to all the bridges/tunnels that are sized for a single track but you could probably fit lots more passing loops and double the line between them fairly easily.

So improvements in travel time would have to be derived from doubling and replacing some of the bridges north of Aviemore?

 

[jopsuk]

I am not sure - photos of the Findhorn Viaduct (which is the largest single track bridge on the route) look as if it is wide enough for double track.

I'm not so sure it is

For much of the route, due to the cuttings, tunnels, bridges etc "doubling" would have to be achieved much like the dualing of the adjacent A9- by essentially building a second single track line, with any crossovers (if desired) at opertunistic places where the tracks happen to be level with each other- the contra-flow corossovers on the A9 in places are steep, single lane roads of some length connecting the two carriageways

 

[exile]

The section from Inverness to Daviot could be doubled - and indeed it was double track for several decades. There are several former passing loops that could be reinstated.

 

[Liam]

For much of the route, due to the cuttings, tunnels, bridges etc "doubling" would have to be achieved much like the dualing of the adjacent A9- by essentially building a second single track line, with any crossovers (if desired) at opertunistic places where the tracks happen to be level with each other- the contra-flow corossovers on the A9 in places are steep, single lane roads of some length connecting the two carriageways

This is how they done Blair Atholl-Dalwhinnie. There are a couple of sections which are two different parallel bridges carrying 1 line each.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

@HSTEd. Have you read the 2006 Scott Wilson Report?
That explored several interventions which might improve Highland Mainline journeytimes, capacity and resilience. If not, I strongly recommend it. It examined enhancements which were found to be more effective than those you've proposed, so perhaps you haven't read it or have grounds to disagree with the data?

Anyway, matters such as tilting trains didn't come into it (and I struggle to see what benefit they would bring). Much of the stress on capacity on the HML is the speed differential between freight and passenger services - increasing potential passenger speeds only REDUCES capacity!.
Suggestions for future exploration were improvements to signalling (shorter block length, doubling Daviot-Culloden, reinstaing loops at Newtonmore and Ballinluig, increasing linespeed in the LOWLAND areas, e.g. between Edinburgh & Stirling where the terrain is more amenable to civils - the average speed over the low-lying 70 miles between Edinburgh & Perth is 52mph, or the 62 miles between Glasgow and Perth is 60mph).
The doubling near Inverness was not intended to improve journey times but to increase capacity and resilience (ie if a Northbound service is delayed, the Southbound service need not be delayed in departing Inverness).

The constrainst of route capability has been nicely addressed by the deployment of non-standard low-profile containers for the 'Tesco Train'. The constriansts on route capacity requires shorter sections (signalling).
More loops can create more problems for an intense timetable than is helps - there's little resilience in Single track railways, timetabling more services and/or increasing linespeeds only reduces its resilience (and consequently reduces performance).

Anyway, you will not be surprised I'm sure, if I point out that this is amongst the UK's most challenging terrain for any rail transport, including the highest point on the network at Drumochter and some extremely narrow passes, damp ground and a low density of potential passenger or freight use per mile.

Despite the 5 years since the Scot Wilson report, not much has changed.

 

[HSTEd]

If freight services are too slow at the moment, then there is only real option to speed them up over the inclines, my father tells a story of coming back from Wick on the train where the diesels were well past the black smoke limit as they tackled a summit.

That would be electrification which is apparently in a Transport Scotland report although I doubt that would be viable at the moment, it would however solve almost all power concerns.
It would become viable however if they do build a proper container port at Invergordon.

Class 92s in the highlands anyone?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If freight services are too slow at the moment, then there is only real option to speed them up over the inclines, . . . .

Whaaaaat?
Is this serious?
Have you looked at those gradients?
Just remind me why the Highland mainline was closed for 3 weeks in Jan 2010? Read it here.

I can't decipher your grammar clearly, but I think you are proposing re-timetabling which increase the risk of this sort of catastrophy, line closure (and cost).

 

[HSTEd]

No, im suggesting that the only way we could speed up freight trains would be electrification and then screaming "POWAH!" as 6000hp hauls freight over the top of the line.
Regenerative braking would reduce the requirement to use friction brakes which would help prevent the problem with either brakes freezing or brake fade during descents over those gradients.

This is unfortunately ridiculous even though its in a Transport Scotland report on electrification strategy.

EDIT:
Of course, if the line was doubled you could signal it for bidirectional running and then have passenger trains swap onto the opposite line to pass freights if the line was still relatively lightly used.

 

[tbtc]

The doubling near Inverness was not intended to improve journey times but to increase capacity and resilience (ie if a Northbound service is delayed, the Southbound service need not be delayed in departing Inverness)

True.

You could even argue that a double track Highland Main Line would be slower than the current service, if the current alignment is in the optimum position (whereas a two track line may need to be slower round curves)

Given the growth of Inverness in the past decade, I can see the logic in investing in this line

 

[HSTEd]

What is the freight over the Highland Line at the moment? Primarily containers or is there some heavy freight up there still?

 

[scotsman]

What is the freight over the Highland Line at the moment? Primarily containers or is there some heavy freight up there still?

Oil tanks, Tesco trains and the odd load of pipes for Georgemas

 

[HSTEd]

Although higher line speeds would to start with decrease line capacities this could be offset by either refuge loops or bi directional signalling on the double track sections and additional loops on the single track sections, allowing freight trains to be bypassed or moved out of the way of passenger runs.

 

[ObservationCar]

In the current timetable there is one service that suffers a 40 minute wait, the rest normally suffer a 10 minute wait
These times are absorbed in recovery and passenger timetable

There is nothing with a 40 minute wait, the northbound HST has around 10 mins padding but this is often required from earlier delays further south. The faster trains take around 2:05-10 and the ones that call at most stations take 2:20-25.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Anyway, you will not be surprised I'm sure, if I point out that this is amongst the UK's most challenging terrain for any rail transport, including the highest point on the network at Drumochter and some extremely narrow passes, damp ground and a low density of potential passenger or freight use per mile.

Druimuachdar (sorry i'm not normally this pedantic, must be this forum that does it)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oil tanks, Tesco trains and the odd load of pipes for Georgemas

Blue Circle still runs once a week, think its still Freightliner, but can't remember, and in the past year I have seen a daily DRS train going south with around 4 containers, which sometimes attached the oil tanks to the back, don't know if this still runs either?

 

[jopsuk]

Druimuachdar (sorry i'm not normally this pedantic, must be this forum that does it)

Is that a railway spelling? Most of the search results for it seem to be results on rail-scot. Ten times as many results for the "Anglicised" version, and the proper Gaelic is Druim Uachdair

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . the proper Gaelic is Druim Uachdair

I have no Gaelic, but recognise the authenticity of the "dair"suffix.

Although higher line speeds would to start with decrease line capacities this could be offset by either refuge loops or bi directional signalling on the double track sections and additional loops on the single track sections, allowing freight trains to be bypassed or moved out of the way of passenger runs.

I'm struggling to see where all of your suggestions are taking us other than to a more restrictive railway.

Now you're proposing both higher linespeeds and holding freight in loops. These are mutually exclusive! We've spent a fortune in increasing freight speeds (to minimise conflicts) and it can take a great distance to bring a thousand tonnes or whatever to a stand and then back to linespeed. Why do it?
As for bi-di. How much additional loss of capacity is that going to bring in the face of timetabled opposite - direction moves? Add the headways Add the stopping distances Add the longer journey times for 'wrong-way' working. These proposals are brining the HML to a crawl!

Please lets stick to computable improvements, the reduction of a couple of section lengths (which will allow consecutive services in the same direction to complete their transit in less time) and increase capacity at either end (Edin - Perth and Inv - Daviot). You can model these with real life traffic and they work.

 

[HSTEd]

I was referring to higher line speeds for passenger trains, not necessarily freight train speeds, passenger speeds have to be the priority, especially as freight could potentially be rerouted via Aberdeen as required.

I also doubt that the capacity of the double track sections are really limiting the line in the face of the single track sections of the route so Bi-directional running is unlikely to limit overall throughput. And a properly timetabled bidirectional move would either require neither train to brake at all, the passenger train could cross to the opposite line and use its superior speed to pass the freight before switching back over in front of it without the freight crew having to do anything.

As for headways I doubt that bi directional signalling for normal use could be implemented without a massive resignalling programme so they aren't really that much of an issue.

EDIT:
It would appear that the only solution is either complete doubling, electrification or both, and that is never going to happen.

 

[Butts]

Oil tanks, Tesco trains and the odd load of pipes for Georgemas

Are you talking about Tesco as in supermarkets ? - forgive my ignorance

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Are you talking about Tesco as in supermarkets ?

There's another one?

See here

Stobart / DRS use low special profile containers on this service due to the limited gauge of the HML. Its been a success in taking a considerable amount of freight off the A9 though it was this service that failed to stop on the descent into Carrbridge in the winter of 09-10.

 

[sprinterguy]

Are you talking about Tesco as in supermarkets ?

Yes, the very same.

 

[MacCookie]

...passenger speeds have to be the priority, especially as freight could potentially be rerouted via Aberdeen as required.

ITYM the A9.

Ewan

 

[Barrett M95]

I would like to see HS1 reach Inverness though, as a journey to Glasgow would take an hour, or London in 3.5 hours, but this will probably never happen.

HS1? Eurostars at Inverness?...

 

[Bedpan]

There's another one?

See here

Mader me chuckle that they call it the Tesco Express. I wonder who at Tesco was charged with coming up with an entirely new and unique name for the train.

 

[Eagle]

Mader me chuckle that they call it the Tesco Express. I wonder who at Tesco was charged with coming up with an entirely new and unique name for the train.

They could start running suburban freight and call that Tesco Metro...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Findhorn Viaduct (and the nearby Tomatin Viaduct) were both commenced in 1894 by Murdoch Paterson, Chief Engineer of the Highland Railway. This viaduct has trussed iron roadway as its base topped by trussed iron railings that run between masonry spans. These are supported by tapering stone piers. I cannot trace any strength evaluation figures on this viaduct, unfortunately, but would say that whilst being suitable for single track usage, there may be clearance difficulties in double track running due to the curvature profile of the viaduct, let alone the other difficulties that could ensue.