Highland Mainline upgrade ideas

[Stopper]

Looking at the timings on the draft timetable, it certainly suggests there are 1 or 2 extra stops between Kirkcaldy and Haymarket on a lot of services sadly. It’s hard to tell about stops between Kirkcaldy and Perth due to the complicated pathing and irregular timings. Again, these aren’t much more than guesses, but the timings on the Glasgow services suggest that between Stirling and Perth there may not be a single call, which is how it should be.

 

[InOban]

Is this draft timetable any different from the one published a few months ago in an earlier thread? I think it had been presented to a Hitrans meeting.

 

[route:oxford]

Thanks for the info. I for one am glad Dunblane and Bridge of Allan have been removed from the stops as it just added to the time and no one ever gets off there.

Absolute lies

 

[route:oxford]

If anyone in authority actually wants Edinburgh Gateway to become some kind of remote terminal of Edinburgh airport itself, it needs to be branded as part of the airport and provided with a high frequency free or only nominal cost transfer.

They don't though.

It would take a stroke of a pen of the Labour-SNP coaliton to withdraw this outrageous "tax" on ordinary families using public transport to reach our National Airport at Edinburgh.

 

[DuncanS]

Thanks for the info. I for one am glad Dunblane and Bridge of Allan have been removed from the stops as it just added to the time and no one ever gets off there.

Arrant nonsense

 

[47271]

I think what Highland37 means in reference to Dunblane and Bridge of Allan is that '...noone [travelling from north of Perth] ever gets off there.'

This isn't quite accurate, but I agree that south of Perth, Glasgow to Inverness trains shouldn't be stopping anywhere other than Stirling any more than Aberdeen expresses call at Larbert, Bridge of Allan, Dunblane or Gleneagles.

 

[InOban]

They don't though.

It would take a stroke of a pen of the Labour-SNP coaliton to withdraw this outrageous "tax" on ordinary families using public transport to reach our National Airport at Edinburgh.

Who does collect the money from the surcharged fares on the buses and tram? Or do they, like the taxis, have to pay for a licence to operate into the airport?

 

[MarkyT]

Who does collect the money from the surcharged fares on the buses and tram? Or do they, like the taxis, have to pay for a licence to operate into the airport?

The taxi surcharge, surely that just applies to waiting on rank? What about a pre-booked minicab, could they not just pick up and drop as any normal private vehicle? Surely there must be a loophole for an operator to run a cut price minibus between Gateway and the terminal with a pre-book app for getting out of the airport to Gateway and a deal with Scotrail to sell prebook inbound as part of a rail package. Business opportunity? Probably get beaten up one dark night by the cabbies though...

 

[InOban]

But private vehicles now have to pay to pickup or drop. But not, I think, as much as the bus surcharge.

 

[MarkyT]

But private vehicles now have to pay to pickup or drop. But not, I think, as much as the bus surcharge.

There is a free pickup/dropoff point in the long term parking area. You get the free bus to and from the terminal in that case. No restrictions on taxis and minicabs either. Minibuses allowed too.
https://www.edinburghairport.com/edinburgh-airport-parking/drop-off-and-pick-up
Getting a bit OT though really. We should probably should stop before the mods step in.
My point stands though that Highland and other longer distance services would stand a better chance of justifying an Edinburgh Gateway or Park stop if the transfer arrangements weren't such a blatant rip-off.

 

[InOban]

Agreed.
Back to thread. The amount being spent on the HML upgrade is peanuts compared with that being spent on the A9. So the timetable is the best they can manage. The varying times required by the fast trains shows that they will often be waiting in loops for several minutes.

 

[Northhighland]

As a regular business traveller from Inverness to Glasgow and Edinburgh, I know many colleagues are put off by the overcrowded trains especially North bound. This for me explains the lack of growth in passenger numbers. With the cost of the ticket and no seat regularly to Perth, especially leaving Glasgow many just take the car. Think the introduction of HST's will improve passenger numbers. If you look at numbers getting off the VTEC train every night in Inverness it is really busy. People like the comfort and the fact it is much quieter than the 170's.

Think the improvements mentioned here with extra passing loops should be seriously modelled to see exactly how much improvement could be derived from the investment. HML is a great asset to the Highlands, with the HST will really offer competition to the A9. Much cheaper to improve the HML than dual the A9.

 

[Stopper]

Losing the Bridge of Allan, Dunblane and Gleneagles calls on to the Dundee/Arbroath semi-fasts should avoid commuters overcrowding the long-distance Inverness services. Something that has definitely plagued the Edinburgh services, with Fife passengers taking up a lot of seats, when they have other options.

 

[47271]

The decision to dual the A9 is long since taken, and the work is happening now. Kincraig to Dalraddy is complete and earthworks have started on Luncarty to Pass of Birnam, with much more to come over the next five or so years. We need to move on and treat the Highland Main Line as an entirely separate case.

 

[Class 170101]

The last service south is still around 20:15 - 20:30 surely there should be a short service to Perth post 21:30.

 

[clc]

The decision to dual the A9 is long since taken, and the work is happening now. Kincraig to Dalraddy is complete and earthworks have started on Luncarty to Pass of Birnam, with much more to come over the next five or so years. We need to move on and treat the Highland Main Line as an entirely separate case.

I think it’s reasonable to make the point that the current proposals for the HML are less ambitious than they should be.

Southbound the fastest 10 services would have an average journey time of 3h14m compared to 3h32m today, a saving of 18 minutes.

Northbound the fastest 10 services would have an average journey time of 3h14m compared to 3h21m today, a saving of 7 minutes.

The STPR appraisal stated HML improvements would deliver sub 3 hour journey times through line speed improvements, additional loops, dynamic loops or lengthening of double track sections, signalling improvements and more powerful traction:-
https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/23618/j10194a-a2d15.pdf

These interventions would have cost £150m-£350m plus a further £50m-£100m for freight enhancements.

The actual amount being spent on the HML is £57m.

£3 billion is being spent on the A9 project, the scope for which is greater than envisaged in the STPR (recommended partial dualling plus some overtaking lanes).

There’s definitely an imbalance in the Scottish Government’s priorities.

 

[route:oxford]

£3 billion is being spent on the A9 project, the scope for which is greater than envisaged in the STPR (recommended partial dualling plus some overtaking lanes).

There’s definitely an imbalance in the Scottish Government’s priorities.

Even then, more money needs to be spent. The Keir roundabout is now utterly hellish, the last time I used it the queue at 5pm started shortly after the QV. Absolutely no warning signs for stationary traffic. It wasn't that long ago that the queue didn't start until the Doune Road junction - where there is an information sign - but it never says anything other than "check your tyres" or "don't drink and drive" - not "careful you don't slam into the back of the stationary vehicle just over the brow of the hill ahead".

 

[47271]

I think it’s reasonable to make the point that the current proposals for the HML are less ambitious than they should be.

Southbound the fastest 10 services would have an average journey time of 3h14m compared to 3h32m today, a saving of 18 minutes.

Northbound the fastest 10 services would have an average journey time of 3h14m compared to 3h21m today, a saving of 7 minutes.

The STPR appraisal stated HML improvements would deliver sub 3 hour journey times through line speed improvements, additional loops, dynamic loops or lengthening of double track sections, signalling improvements and more powerful traction:-
https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/23618/j10194a-a2d15.pdf

These interventions would have cost £150m-£350m plus a further £50m-£100m for freight enhancements.

The actual amount being spent on the HML is £57m.

£3 billion is being spent on the A9 project, the scope for which is greater than envisaged in the STPR (recommended partial dualling plus some overtaking lanes).

There’s definitely an imbalance in the Scottish Government’s priorities.

All agreed on the disappointment felt on spend on HML infrastructure - I live on Speyside so above most people on this thread I'm frustrated daily by the route.

However if you asked me the question on whether there should have been a reduction in spend on the A9 to fund improvements to the railway then I would've been hard pressed to go with that.

To complicate matters further - and these are my personal views of course as a resident of the highlands - if there was a single £100m going spare I'd sooner see it spent on Ladybank-Hilton than anything north of Perth.

 

[47271]

Something's about to happen at last.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/new...tation-set-for-multi-million-pound-make-over/

Badly written piece in The Courier on changes at Pitlochry this autumn, and a link to the PKC planning application.

As well as resignalling, a major change in the overall location of platforms, with removal of the old wooden extensions to the south and new build out northwards.

Pitlochry train station will get a major overhaul later this year as part of a £20 million upgrade of the Highland mainline.

Plans for the make-over, which involves upgrading platforms and replacing old signalling posts, have been given the go ahead by Perth and Kinross Council.

Network Rail hopes the project will help cut journey times between Perth and Inverness by 10 minutes. It will also clear the way for a more frequent, hourly service and faster intercity trains.

With permission granted for work on the A-listed property, the upgrade is expected to get under way over five weekends in November and October. Rail bosses have warned the project will involve some short line closures.

There was some concern locally that the work could disrupt the Enchanted Forest event which is held near Pitlochry around the same time.

However, organisers said they don’t believe the project will have much of an impact, with very few visitors arriving by train.

In her report, council planning officer Marianna Porter said: “The timber platforms proposed for removal are in poor condition and unlikely to be part of the original station.

“They are to be replaced with considerably larger platforms in a revised layout, using contemporary materials.”

She said that the loss of the station’s historic semaphore signal — to be replaced by coloured lights — was “regrettable”, but it was “accepted that it is redundant and that relocation to the Strathspey Heritage Railway will ensure its preservation.”

A Network Rail spokesman said: “This work will help to transform travel on the Highland mainline, enabling the introduction of intercity trains and improving the timetable to deliver more services.

“Throughout this project, we will work closely with our contractors, train operators and other partners to deliver in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible whilst minimising disruption to both line-side communities and passengers.”

A date for the work has still to be set.

Zoë Squair, Enchanted Forest producer and production manager, said: “We expect that the improvement work at Pitlochry Railway Station will have a minimal effect on The Enchanted Forest event as only a very small number of our visitors travel by train.

“However, we are working closely with contractors BAM Nuttall to ensure that any potential disruption is minimised.”

http://planningapps.pkc.gov.uk/onli...s.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P8RQP4MKLSN00

 

[InOban]

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/f...oken-promises-over-north-train-journey-times/
The rail campaign groups are, correctly, highlighting the disproportionate spend on the A9 compared with the HML. The same story is in other Scottish media.
The scogov may be electrifying more than down south; but they are actually spending a higher proportion of their transport investment on roads than London is. The contrast between trivial enhancements to the HML and the complete dualling of the A9 is stark.

 

[47271]

Piece in the Herald today about slow progress. A bit of a flowery start but worth reading

I'd forgotten that in 2008 Salmond had promised 2h45 by 2012.

Rail campaigners highlight decade of broken promises on Highland Main Line

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...ade-of-broken-promises-on-highland-main-line/

IN centuries past, the idea of change at ancient Birnam Wood was so unthinkable that Shakespeare used it to lull one of his most famous villains into false sense of security.

“Macbeth shall never vanquished be until Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill shall come against him,” said an apparition, and little did the King suspect it just might.

These days, it’s the railway that runs past the site of the former Perthshire forest that for many has come to symbolise inertia on a dramatic scale.

In 2008, the First Minister Alex Salmond promised to cut 35 minutes off the train journey between the Central belt and Inverness in four years.

Today, exactly ten years later, campaigners will highlight times have been reduced by an average of just four minutes, and two-thirds of the 118-mile Highland Main Line between Perth and Inverness remains single track.

Meanwhile, over the same decade, work has started on a £3bn upgrade to the A9 that follows the same route.

The government quango Transport Scotland says the current aim is to deliver an average rail service lasting three hours, and a "fastest" of 2hrs 45 mins, by 2025.

Transform Scotland, which campaigns for sustainable transport, says the government should now make doubling and electrification of the Highland Main Line, a key connection for the far north, a top priority in its new Strategic Transport Projects Review.

The gorup's Paul Tetlaw said: "In 2008, Alex Salmond said that within four years the rail journey time would be cut to 2 hrs 45 mins, but a decade later it averages around three and a half hours – yet A9 journeys are getting faster as road dualling.

“The public were told that there would be additional rail passing loops and double-tracking, but all that is being delivered is resignalling of two crossing loops.

“Hourly passenger trains and an average journey time saving of 10 minutes are promised but with no additional track it's highly likely we'll see more delays and cancellations as more trains are squeezed onto the single track railway.”

He said the Borders Railway was a reminder single track sections meant poor performance.

He said: “The Scottish Government now needs to deliver serious investment in the railway to ensure there is a level playing field between road and rail.”

Ian Budd, of Friends of the Far North Line, said: “The Highland Main Line is key to the whole regional rail network. Slow journey times and unreliability between Perth and Inverness have a knock-on impact on connecting trains to the Far North Line, Kyle and Elgin, and discourage people from switching from car to train.

“Rail travellers are entitled to see the Scottish Government deliver on its manifesto promises and make the step-change improvements which Alex Salmond announced 10 years ago.


“What we have at the moment in no way equates with the government's stated policy."

David Spaven, from the Rail Freight Group, added: ‘Everyone wants to see fewer 44-tonne trucks on the A9, but the current very limited upgrade to the Highland Main Line offers little or nothing for rail freight.

“Indeed the worry is that rather than freight shifting from road to rail - the Government’s policy objective - we will see the loss of existing rail traffics, as the A9 gets faster and the single-track railway increasingly congested. That’s economic and environmental madness.

“We need longer crossing loops, so that freight trains 40 per cent longer than at present can compete much more effectively with road hauliers.”

The Scottish Government said Phase 1 of the Highland Main Line improvements, increasing services from 9 to 11 per day and shaving six minutes off average trips, had been delivered.

However UK cuts meant spending was restrained.

A spokeswoman said: “Phase 2 is well underway and aims to deliver an hourly service between Inverness and Perth (continuing to Glasgow or Edinburgh), further journey time reductions of around 10 minutes, and more efficient freight operations by Spring 2019.”

“Our ongoing future investment is truly transforming the rail network and giving passengers and freight users across rural and urban Scotland the best railway they’ve ever had.”

She blamed the UK Government for a shortfall in funding for 2019-2024 of "at least £460 million short of early industry estimates of costs to deliver the improvements required to meet forecast future demand for services. This means our future investment decisions will need to reflect the financial climate we are faced with as a consequence of decisions taken by the UK Government.”

 

[deltic08]

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/f...oken-promises-over-north-train-journey-times/
The rail campaign groups are, correctly, highlighting the disproportionate spend on the A9 compared with the HML. The same story is in other Scottish media.
The scogov may be electrifying more than down south; but they are actually spending a higher proportion of their transport investment on roads than London is. The contrast between trivial enhancements to the HML and the complete dualling of the A9 is stark.

It gives a free leg-up to coach operators on the route in terms of reduced journey time and reduced fuel costs. Very unfair competition.

 

[najaB]

I'd like to see much more doubling of the HML as without it the benefits of electrification are marginal.

I agree that doubling is needed, but it doesn't need to be a significant proportion of the route - we just need a couple of dynamic loops with higher entry/exit speeds.

 

[gingertom]

I agree that doubling is needed, but it doesn't need to be a significant proportion of the route - we just need a couple of dynamic loops with higher entry/exit speeds.

Highland Main Line is poorly named. It is predominantly single track with a few passing places. "Main Line"? Whoever coined that phrase must have been joking.
We agree it needs wires. We agree it needs double tracking. We disagree on the extent of that double tracking.

 

[matchmaker]

A quarter of it is double track. That's hardly "predominantly single track"!

 

[najaB]

Highland Main Line is poorly named. It is predominantly single track with a few passing places. "Main Line"? Whoever coined that phrase must have been joking.

Being single track doesn't preclude it being a mainline. With long enough loops in the correct location you can achieve pretty decent average speeds, certainly in excess of 100mph.

 

[gingertom]

Being single track doesn't preclude it being a mainline. With long enough loops in the correct location you can achieve pretty decent average speeds, certainly in excess of 100mph.

Not doubting that at all. The current set of loops and their locations were fine for the level of service for the Victorian railway but they aren't fit for today's railway. The ScotGov's aspiration for a half hourly service plus freight paths is going to need more and longer loops to make it work. Recovery from disturbances is challenging on single track; much more double track, where appropriate, ensures a robust timetable.

 

[marks87]

A quarter of it is double track. That's hardly "predominantly single track"!

If a quarter is double track, that means three-quarters is single - that satisfies the strictest definition of "predominantly" ("for the most part").

 

[mcmad]

How much has always been single track and how much was singled by BR? Obviously the latter would be more practical than the former.

 

[InOban]

AFAIK the major section once double, now single, is from the south end of Culloden viaduct to Daviot. The problem is not the limited amount of double track, it's that it's concentrated into three sections - one long ( Blair Atholl to Dalwhinnie) and two shorter (Inverness to Culloden and Perth to Stanley Junction). One would have to create a possible timetable to decide where dynamic loops could be most effectively located.

And it would probably be less disruptive, and therefore cheaper, to build a new section of line on a different alignment than to add an additional track alongside the existing one.