Limiting structures on Highland Mainline

[Highland37]

Apologies if this information is available already.

Could anyone tell me, or point me in the direction of, information on the restrictive structures on the Highland Mainline which limit the loading gauge to W8?

I have found this http://timeline.hie.co.uk/media/1366/transport-room-for-growth-report.pdf which seems fairly comprehensive.

Is W12 a huge ask?

 

[Trog]

It appears from the document you attached that the main clearance problems are in tunnels. Improving those clearances could be done three ways....

1. You might get some improvement by track lowering and sluing, but that would depend on the existing ballast depth, and the relationship between the existing alignment and the best possible alignment.

2. Lower the track by digging out and installing a track slab, expensive and would involve a long closure of the line. Practicality may depend on the construction of the existing tunnel floor.

3. Enlarge the tunnel would cost mega bucks and would involve a long closure of the line.


For the Highland Mainline I would suggest option 1 is the only one that might be worth doing, and only then if their is a suitable traffic to pay for the work. The downside of this would be that any improvement would be limited to what could be done at the most restrictive inch of the route.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Is W12 a huge ask?

What would be gained from providing W12 along this line?

 

[The Planner]

What would be gained from providing W12 along this line?

Exactly!

 

[DPWH]

A lot of container traffic is there?

Maybe HS2's double decker trains could be extended to Inverness?

 

[DarloRich]

Apologies if this information is available already.

Could anyone tell me, or point me in the direction of, information on the restrictive structures on the Highland Mainline which limit the loading gauge to W8?

I have found this http://timeline.hie.co.uk/media/1366/transport-room-for-growth-report.pdf which seems fairly comprehensive.

Is W12 a huge ask?

what would you get for your investment in clearing to W12 gauge? is it really required?

 

[najaB]

A lot of container traffic is there?

There's currently a daily(?) container train from Mossend to/from Inverness and a *lot* of traffic on the A9. Don't know if it's enough to justify W12 (hint: it isn't) but there is some scope for increased clearance and longer loops.

 

[Highland37]

There's currently a daily(?) container train from Mossend to/from Inverness and a *lot* of traffic on the A9. Don't know if it's enough to justify W12 (hint: it isn't) but there is some scope for increased clearance and longer loops.

Have you considered that the reason there is only one container train is that the railway is more expensive than road, and slower as far as I know? The population of the Highlands is not huge.

My understanding is that the wagons are low loaders (Swap bodies?) and non-standard, therefore standardisation is going to be easier (cheaper) for freight companies. Meanwhile, the A9 is being upgraded and lorries are getting bigger and more efficient.

Why not just shut the line and have buses and trucks? It's cheaper after all.

 

[The Planner]

Its a genuine question though, would anyone be able to recoup the costs of all the works for W12 in terms of benefits it produces. For one train you are never going to scratch the surface.

 

[hwl]

Its a genuine question though, would anyone be able to recoup the costs of all the works for W12 in terms of benefits it produces. For one train you are never going to scratch the surface.

Indeed - Longer passing loops and sidings / more double track sections so the train length can be increased sounds like better way to go to increase container capacity and might also have some benefit for passenger services too.

 

[najaB]

Have you considered that the reason there is only one container train is that the railway is more expensive than road, and slower as far as I know? The population of the Highlands is not huge.

The main reason is pathing on a line that has long single-line sections and severe gradients.

Why not just shut the line and have buses and trucks? It's cheaper after all.

I hope that's a rhetorical question, asked for effect.

 

[47271]

Given that we can't even seem to get the CP5 investment we were looking for anything like this looks like a long shot for the HML.

I'd argue that if there was such a demand for containerised freight to Inverness it would almost be cheaper and more effective to ensure the capacity so that it could be brought round via Aberdeen. At least nearly all of that route was originally built to double track standard and it crosses far less tricky terrain.

That said, there are actually surprising few tunnels between Perth and Inverness, two of which bookend Dunkeld: Kingswood and Inver, and Killiecrankie, and they're all really quite short. They'd be little sods to enlarge however - look at the fuss and palaver around even thinking about getting the dualled A9 through Birnam.

 

[najaB]

I'd argue that if there was such a demand for containerised freight to Inverness it would almost be cheaper and more effective to ensure the capacity so that it could be brought round via Aberdeen. At least nearly all of that route was originally built to double track standard and it crosses far less tricky terrain.

I suppose if you upgraded all the loops between the Central Belt and Aberdeen to at least 1250m then you could combine the Aberdeen and Inverness freights as far as Aberdeen.

 

[Highland37]

Its a genuine question though, would anyone be able to recoup the costs of all the works for W12 in terms of benefits it produces. For one train you are never going to scratch the surface.

They wouldn't and I find it curious that many jump to focus on the argument that is by far the weakest for the railway - return on investment.

Railways are expensive and require large subsidy. I am comfortable with that as I think the investment pays back in other ways, but not in the simple return on investment. If we use that focus, most railways would close.

But of course investment in railways is like investing in the NHS. It doesn't make money directly but is an essential service. A country is not a company.

I drove down the A9 from Inverness to Glasgow on Tuesday and back last night. I counted 192 north bound trucks in the section from Inverness to Perth. That's in about 2.5 hours so overall a lot more every day. Of course they aren't all going to Inverness but the general point is that the vast majority of freight goes by road. It must be in the tenths of percentage points the amount by rail, unfortunately.

With the £3 billion being invested in the A9, more efficient trucks which are also larger and more flexible, able to carry larger loads and at lower cost, everything is against rail freight. It's only going to become relatively more expensive to ship by rail.

So whether it's W12 or W99, I suggest that those in favour of rail need to re-examine their stance and at least start pushing for standard container size clearance on standard wagons.

In a totally unrelated matter but related to rail freight, I highly recommend this video which is exciting and impressive. I have started a thread in "international transport". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUg0jFO7NTo

 

[najaB]

So whether it's W12 or W99, I suggest that those in favour of rail need to re-examine their stance and at least start pushing for standard container size clearance on standard wagons.

I believe that is W8 gauge. W10 for higher reefer containers that are more common these days.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

My hunch is that the single most limiting physical structure is the very narrow Killiecrankie tunnel, three miles north of Pitlochry, which has a linespeed of just 35mph.

 

[Highland37]

I believe that is W8 gauge. W10 for higher reefer containers that are more common these days.

I am guilty of not yet reading the report which I linked to but the Killiecrankie tunnel appears to be one of the most significant obstacles. Given that we are talking about pretty small pieces of work relative to tunnels in other parts of the world, I think it reasonable to push for politicians to start thinking about this.

 

[The Planner]

They wouldn't and I find it curious that many jump to focus on the argument that is by far the weakest for the railway - return on investment.

Railways are expensive and require large subsidy. I am comfortable with that as I think the investment pays back in other ways, but not in the simple return on investment. If we use that focus, most railways would close.

But of course investment in railways is like investing in the NHS. It doesn't make money directly but is an essential service. A country is not a company.

Tell that to the DfT then, the simple case is that unless there is a tangible benefit (or a freight operator or third party pays) then it won't get considered. If doing this allowed quicker or more passenger journeys then it would be in with a shout but freight in general is worth pennies in these sort of cases.

 

[najaB]

My hunch is that the single most limiting physical structure is the very narrow Killiecrankie tunnel, three miles north of Pitlochry, which has a linespeed of just 35mph.

I think you're right about that one - can't think of anything tighter than that. Slab track might gain you a few inches, but it would require either track lowering or a tunnel re-bore to get anything significant.

Similar position to Kinghorn Tunnel.

 

[furnessvale]

Indeed - Longer passing loops and sidings / more double track sections so the train length can be increased sounds like better way to go to increase container capacity and might also have some benefit for passenger services too.

I believe this is the preferred option.

 

[edwin_m]

Would it be better to push for W12 on the route via Aberdeen to serve both places?

 

[bavvo]

How does the cost of drilling a new tunnel in parallel to and existing one compare to trying to enlarge one? (Yes I know this is a bit of a 'how long is a piece of string' question)

 

[najaB]

How does the cost of drilling a new tunnel in parallel to and existing one compare to trying to enlarge one? (Yes I know this is a bit of a 'how long is a piece of string' question)

You're right, it is very hard to answer. You need consider that you can't bore the new tunnel too close to the existing one (for structural reasons). So you'll have quite a sizable diversion of the existing line to meet the new tunnel, and normally there's a good reason why the line was built where it is. In the case of both Killiecrankie and Kinghorn the line runs along a steep gradient (river valley, sea cliffs) so the new alignment would need to be considerably higher/lower on the slope than the existing line.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

You're right, it is very hard to answer. You need consider that you can't bore the new tunnel too close to the existing one (for structural reasons). So you'll have quite a sizable diversion of the existing line to meet the new tunnel, and normally there's a good reason why the line was built where it is. In the case of both Killiecrankie and Kinghorn the line runs along a steep gradient (river valley, sea cliffs) so the new alignment would need to be considerably higher/lower on the slope than the existing line.

It also depends on the local geology, in particular stability. I'm old enough to remember Penmanshiel...

 

[furnessvale]

You're right, it is very hard to answer. You need consider that you can't bore the new tunnel too close to the existing one (for structural reasons). So you'll have quite a sizable diversion of the existing line to meet the new tunnel, and normally there's a good reason why the line was built where it is. In the case of both Killiecrankie and Kinghorn the line runs along a steep gradient (river valley, sea cliffs) so the new alignment would need to be considerably higher/lower on the slope than the existing line.

On the other hand, there are many tunnels in existence (not necessarily on the Highland Line) which today using modern heavy plant, would be large cuttings.

 

[Highland37]

Tell that to the DfT then, the simple case is that unless there is a tangible benefit (or a freight operator or third party pays) then it won't get considered. If doing this allowed quicker or more passenger journeys then it would be in with a shout but freight in general is worth pennies in these sort of cases.

Yes I know and it's a sad state of affairs. But this is the UK where everything we own is for sale to satisfy a political ideology and which no one voted for. Steel? Sell! Blood bank? Sell it! Prisons? Privitise the service etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You're right, it is very hard to answer. You need consider that you can't bore the new tunnel too close to the existing one (for structural reasons). So you'll have quite a sizable diversion of the existing line to meet the new tunnel, and normally there's a good reason why the line was built where it is. In the case of both Killiecrankie and Kinghorn the line runs along a steep gradient (river valley, sea cliffs) so the new alignment would need to be considerably higher/lower on the slope than the existing line.

Or a longer tunnel taking a diversion route, a quite large one.

In the "Stromeferry Options Appraisal Stage 2" report, the consultants looked at the costs of road tunnels in Norway and found that similar tunnels in Scotland would cost £56,700 per metre.

If we times that by four (random), then we get a figure of £68 million for Killicrankie. A lot more use than a palace in London that's for sure!

 

[class26]

Yes I know and it's a sad state of affairs. But this is the UK where everything we own is for sale to satisfy a political ideology and which no one voted for. Steel? Sell! Blood bank? Sell it! Prisons? Privitise the service etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




If we times that by four (random), then we get a figure of £68 million for Killicrankie. A lot more use than a palace in London that's for sure!

But without that palace a lot of tourists might not come here at all and many lost millions.

 

[Class 170101]

You're right, it is very hard to answer. You need consider that you can't bore the new tunnel too close to the existing one (for structural reasons).

Why not? NR have just done exactly that at Farnworth.

 

[najaB]

Why not? NR have just done exactly that at Farnworth.

Done what, bored it too close? That was careless of them.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

In the "Stromeferry Options Appraisal Stage 2" report, the consultants looked at the costs of road tunnels in Norway and found that similar tunnels in Scotland would cost £56,700 per metre.

If we times that by four (random), then we get a figure of £68 million for Killicrankie.

Why not? NR have just done exactly that at Farnworth.

Just for reference Farnworth Tunnel is 295yds/270m long and the recent reboring project cost £20.8M or £77,037/m. The combined length of the much narrower tunnels in question is 920yds/840m. Anyone got £65M spare?

And any talk of widening the structure gauge for HML freight is all academic if Mossend to Perth isn't cleared too. That has tunnels at Kippenross (610yds/560m) and Moncrieffe (1,210yds/1100m). Is there any point in this discussion at all?