Low cost interventions for the WHL

[najaB]

Note: Original post was in this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...to-bike-and-baggage-vans-for-scotrail.159376/

Having had experience of dealing with additional traffic on the route it was hard enough sometimes before the Alcan issue begun as there were so many conflicts due to poorer numbers of loops beyond Crianlarich (even ghost freight paths often ruined schedules e.g an MOD train that rarely ran). After the Alcan started it got tougher depending on the direction the Alcan was going too and day of the week. Then when the extra Oban services started (especially on a weekday when the school ex limits the Oban paths even more) it got somewhat harder. It will still be possible to run extra traffic with increased flexibility probably after the recast for the bike carriages, but it will be harder and harder. Possibly a land cruise overnighting at Fort William and returning on the Sunday or a Jacobite ECS will be safer than any out and back stuff. Good job the charter industry is in sleep mode for now then really so nobody need test it too soon.

Does anyone have ideas for relatively low cost interventions that could resolve these issues? For example, extending the loops so that the Alcan train actually can be crossed. Are there any old loops that could be brought back into use?

 

[30907]

A major problem with timetabling the FW route is the Aluminium oxide train which is much longer than any of the loops except possibly Crianlarich, and has to stop at every one to exchange the radio token. Starting up the hill from Rannoch to Corrour anyone?
The southbound path is a particular problem to an improved FW service.

Note: Original post was in this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...to-bike-and-baggage-vans-for-scotrail.159376/

Does anyone have ideas for relatively low cost interventions that could resolve these issues? For example, extending the loops so that the Alcan train actually can be crossed. Are there any old loops that could be brought back into use?

Looking at the path taken by the Alcan on RTT, it appears that the problem of short loops has been resolved - the train appears to be looped, in one direction or another, at most of the crossing points en route, rather than having other trains looped for it. I presume this means it fits inside the loops concerned?
The exceptions are Glen Douglas and Corrour.

 

[47827]

Looking at the path taken by the Alcan on RTT, it appears that the problem of short loops has been resolved - the train appears to be looped, in one direction or another, at most of the crossing points en route, rather than having other trains looped for it. I presume this means it fits inside the loops concerned?
The exceptions are Glen Douglas and Corrour.

I can't comment on what it does currently having not studied its schedules or seen it operating since 2014. When I used to go up there a lot more it sometimes stopped to wait at the stopping point outside the loop and then let the other train arrive before setting off and passing the stopped train. I have seen it also sat in loops with the back of the train overhanging in smaller ones and then moving once the other train had arrived. There's only a few of the really long ones where it fits completely with no overhang at the back. I think Spean Bridge may have been one of them but am relying on an iffy memory. The West Highland lines and their infrastructure are not friendly towards any long trains, although they can be run when they don't have to pass each other at the wrong places. I once recall a return passenger charter train having nearly an hour sit at Crianlarich for the Alcan. Network Rail wanted a carriage removed but I advised them shunting onto the end of the Oban branch with the rear engine was infinitely more sensible and so it was agreed. The station cafe were contacted. In one hour of a special opening they were run ragged and took more than in the rest of the week put together. The loop situation on all these lines does need reviewing to see if any lengthening (or even extra ones if viable anywhere) could be done without unreasonable cost versus long term benefit. The development of future traffic (including freight) and growth of passenger numbers may well depend on longer trains being more easily catered for and able to pass each other at alternative points. Shorter trains at greater frequency aren't necessarily the best option on these routes as they don't suit it and certain services will always be more popular anyway.

 

[adrock1976]

From what I remember, there is a disused side platform at Roy Bridge station. All it requires is for the missing track to be put back and the platform tidied up.

Also, I don't know if Helensburgh Upper ever had a second platform or not.

 

[najaB]

From what I remember, there is a disused side platform at Roy Bridge station. All it requires is for the missing track to be put back and the platform tidied up.

Pictures at Railscot.co.uk indicate that you are correct. https://www.railscot.co.uk/locations/R/Roy_Bridge/

Also, I don't know if Helensburgh Upper ever had a second platform or not.

Again, Railscot says that it did: https://www.railscot.co.uk/locations/H/Helensburgh_Upper/

 

[adrock1976]

Pictures at Railscot.co.uk indicate that you are correct. https://www.railscot.co.uk/locations/R/Roy_Bridge/
Again, Railscot says that it did: https://www.railscot.co.uk/locations/H/Helensburgh_Upper/

Many thanks for those links.

The Railscot website is handy for Scotland specific railway history from having a quick look at it, hence I have bookmarked it now.

 

[30907]

I can't comment on what it does currently having not studied its schedules or seen it operating since 2014. When I used to go up there a lot more it sometimes stopped to wait at the stopping point outside the loop and then let the other train arrive before setting off and passing the stopped train. I have seen it also sat in loops with the back of the train overhanging in smaller ones and then moving once the other train had arrived. There's only a few of the really long ones where it fits completely with no overhang at the back.

Thanks. I didn't realised such moves were permitted - or that they could be done without delaying the other train. Fairly certain the loops haven't been lengthened since 2014 anyway.

 

[najaB]

Thanks. I didn't realised such moves were permitted - or that they could be done without delaying the other train.

I dare say that there are a lot of things that can be done in RETB territory that the signalling system wouldn't allow elsewhere.

 

[Tio Terry]

From what I remember, there is a disused side platform at Roy Bridge station. All it requires is for the missing track to be put back and the platform tidied up.

Also, I don't know if Helensburgh Upper ever had a second platform or not.

You would also need to change the configuration of the RETB to add another passing loop. This may require additional radio base station(s) dependant on coverage, the WHL does not use GSM-R, it is a bespoke system.

 

[adamedwards]

The impression I have is Ardlui is a key passing point so is there a value in lengthening this crossing into a dynamic loop? If so is it possible given the terrain and proximity to Loch Lomond?

 

[Bald Rick]

The impression I have is Ardlui is a key passing point so is there a value in lengthening this crossing into a dynamic loop? If so is it possible given the terrain and proximity to Loch Lomond?

Oh it would be possible. The A82 had a small improvement there recently which required building out into the Loch. The railway isn’t that close, and the A82 is between it and the Loch. Wouldn’t be cheap though.

 

[mcmad]

The biggest issue with finding a low cost solution is that the spring point system that the loops work on are no longer a permitted method so its not as simple as just lengthening loops. I believe there is a project looking at driving points via the RETB system where it would automatically set a route based on the token issued but (a) this is still in development albeit I think full scale (but off system) trials are underway and (b) as with anything S&T, isn't likely to be 'low cost'.

If and when it progresses to a full in system trial then logically that would be the time to lengthen (or install on a new) loop but as to whether the cost stacks up, who knows.

 

[adamedwards]

That won't be cheap given the length of the line plus also getting power to remote locations. Having said that, if Modern Railways is right and electrification happens to Garelochhead, maybe money is possible.

 

[wallan]

The biggest issue with finding a low cost solution is that the spring point system that the loops work on are no longer a permitted method so its not as simple as just lengthening loops. I believe there is a project looking at driving points via the RETB system where it would automatically set a route based on the token issued but (a) this is still in development albeit I think full scale (but off system) trials are underway and (b) as with anything S&T, isn't likely to be 'low cost'.

If and when it progresses to a full in system trial then logically that would be the time to lengthen (or install on a new) loop but as to whether the cost stacks up, who knows.

Are these The Points that are due to be trialed at Muir Of Ord on the Far North Line

 

[Journeyman]

Does RETB on the West Highland have a long term future? What would be the future? Presumably something based on ERTMS, on an appropriate scale.

 

[Tio Terry]

Does RETB on the West Highland have a long term future? What would be the future? Presumably something based on ERTMS, on an appropriate scale.

NR had to give up the frequencies originally allocated to RETB both in Scotland and the East Suffolk line. Because of the prohibitive cost of GSM-R in Scotland, a solution using commercially available frequencies was designed and commissioned around 5 years ago. This could last for many years to come.

However, if modifications are required for additional facilities, such as additional passing loops or controlled points in place of spring points then an alternative system may be required. The current radio systems are designed to cover token change over points only, it's not designed to cover the entire line of route as GSM-R would, so any additional token exchange points - as would be required for additional passing loops - would probably require additional radio base stations.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Just to add to @Tio Terry's comments about RETB base stations, they're not always conveniently located within the boundary of the railway - the RETB station serving part of the WHL through Glen Coe is situated at 3,500ft close to the top of the Meall a' Bhùiridh, and can require helicopter airlifting of parts for maintenance and upgrading. It's also prone to some rather inclement weather during winter, with drifting snow and extensive icing to take into account.

 

[Bald Rick]

Just to add to @Tio Terry's comments about RETB base stations, they're not always conveniently located within the boundary of the railway - the RETB station serving part of the WHL through Glen Coe is situated at 3,500ft close to the top of the Meall a' Bhùiridh, and can require helicopter airlifting of parts for maintenance and upgrading. It's also prone to some rather inclement weather during winter, with drifting snow and extensive icing to take into account.

Every day’s a school day! I wondered what the transmitter was when I was up that mountain a couple of years ago. If I’d have known then, I’d have taken my HV up

 

[Tio Terry]

Just to add to @Tio Terry's comments about RETB base stations, they're not always conveniently located within the boundary of the railway - the RETB station serving part of the WHL through Glen Coe is situated at 3,500ft close to the top of the Meall a' Bhùiridh, and can require helicopter airlifting of parts for maintenance and upgrading. It's also prone to some rather inclement weather during winter, with drifting snow and extensive icing to take into account.

Indeed, and all the staff likely to be involved with maintaining and fault finding the system had to go on a Winter Survival Training Course when it was first introduced!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Indeed, and all the staff likely to be involved with maintaining and fault finding the system had to go on a Winter Survival Training Course when it was first introduced!

The most important question though - if you're airlifted up by helicopter, can you claim it as a Munro ?

 

[Bald Rick]

The most important question though - if you're airlifted up by helicopter, can you claim it as a Munro ?

Definitely not. You can’t even claim it if you walk up and are airlifted off! And no, chairlifts don’t count either

 

[MarkyT]

Just to add to @Tio Terry's comments about RETB base stations, they're not always conveniently located within the boundary of the railway - the RETB station serving part of the WHL through Glen Coe is situated at 3,500ft close to the top of the Meall a' Bhùiridh, and can require helicopter airlifting of parts for maintenance and upgrading. It's also prone to some rather inclement weather during winter, with drifting snow and extensive icing to take into account.

The reason it's up there is to reliably cover a large area, which I think serves a number of token exchange locations en route. The system requires many fewer base stations than any GSM-R set up.

 

[Tio Terry]

The reason it's up there is to reliably cover a large area, which I think serves a number of token exchange locations en route. The system requires many fewer base stations than any GSM-R set up.

In fairness, the coverage specifications for GSM-R and RETB are very different. RETB is not required to give 100% coverage of the entire line, just token changeover points, anything else is a bonus. GSM-R has to cover 100% of the line of route. But you are right about the difference in cost, and the cost of on-going maintenance.

 

[181]

Are there any old loops that could be brought back into use?

Gorton and Corrour already have loops that as far as I know aren't currently used for passing trains, although I understand they are equipped and signalled just as double-ended sidings and would need quite a lot of work to make them suitable for regular use. I don't know about length.

Does anyone know what they are used for? -- is it just for getting engineers' vehicles out of the way of trains? The Gorton one was reinstated some years ago (was it when the RETB was introduced?) so there must have been a perceived need, rather than just no-one getting round to removing it.

 

[30907]

Gorton and Corrour already have loops that as far as I know aren't currently used for passing trains, although I understand they are equipped and signalled just as double-ended sidings and would need quite a lot of work to make them suitable for regular use. I don't know about length.

Does anyone know what they are used for? -- is it just for getting engineers' vehicles out of the way of trains? The Gorton one was reinstated some years ago (was it when the RETB was introduced?) so there must have been a perceived need, rather than just no-one getting round to removing it.

Fairly sure Gortan was just for engineers' trains. It doesn't show on RTT anyway.
In any case the block sections aren't excessively long in proportion to the service frequency, though I realise pathing a train over a long single line route is awkward. It's hardly worse than the Cambrian which has rather more trains.

 

[najaB]

Fairly sure Gortan was just for engineers' trains. It doesn't show on RTT anyway.

Well, it makes sense that it wouldn't show on RTT - if it's neither a token exchange point (TEP) nor a intermediate TEP there would be no data in the feed for RTT to consume.

 

[Unstoppable]

Gorton and Corrour already have loops that as far as I know aren't currently used for passing trains, although I understand they are equipped and signalled just as double-ended sidings and would need quite a lot of work to make them suitable for regular use. I don't know about length.

Does anyone know what they are used for? -- is it just for getting engineers' vehicles out of the way of trains? The Gorton one was reinstated some years ago (was it when the RETB was introduced?) so there must have been a perceived need, rather than just no-one getting round to removing it.

On certain occasions in recent times Corrour has been used to crossover services during increased traffic. Gorton as far as I am aware has never been class as disused however as above it is used as an engineer siding. Patrols between Gorton and Bridge between services are common and can be heard over the radio in the cab for this section of line

 

[181]

On certain occasions in recent times Corrour has been used to crossover services during increased traffic. Gorton as far as I am aware has never been class as disused however as above it is used as an engineer siding. Patrols between Gorton and Bridge between services are common and can be heard over the radio in the cab for this section of line

Wikipedia says this about Gorton:

After closure of the signal box in 1975 due to the difficulty of recruiting signalmen at this location, the loop, previously lifted was reinstated in 1988 as an Engineer's siding, not a dedicated crossing loop although it could be switched in as required.[20] The platform has been removed however controlling ground frames and containers as basic facilities for Network Rail or contractor use are located on site as required. It is a Radio Electronic Token Block exchange point.[21]

Reference 20 is 'McGregor, John (1994). 100 years of the West Highland Railway. ScotRail. p. 96.' Reference 21 is a thread on these forums (which also gives the 1988 data for reinstatement).

 

[Journeyman]

Wikipedia says this about Gorton:

After closure of the signal box in 1975 due to the difficulty of recruiting signalmen at this location, the loop, previously lifted was reinstated in 1988 as an Engineer's siding, not a dedicated crossing loop although it could be switched in as required.[20] The platform has been removed however controlling ground frames and containers as basic facilities for Network Rail or contractor use are located on site as required. It is a Radio Electronic Token Block exchange point.[21]

Reference 20 is 'McGregor, John (1994). 100 years of the West Highland Railway. ScotRail. p. 96.' Reference 21 is a thread on these forums (which also gives the 1988 data for reinstatement).

Gorton is in a very remote location indeed. Presumably signalling staff had to be taken in and out by train? I've stayed at Gorton bothy, which isn't far from the railway, and was occupied by a farming family well into the fifties. It's a good five miles from the nearest proper road.

 

[181]

Gorton is in a very remote location indeed. Presumably signalling staff had to be taken in and out by train? I've stayed at Gorton bothy, which isn't far from the railway, and was occupied by a farming family well into the fifties. It's a good five miles from the nearest proper road.

I presume that access to Gorton was usually by train, but that staff would have lived there rather than travelling in every day.

Corrour is even further from a public road (it's now connected to the outside world by a very long estate track, but that wasn't built until long after the station (1970s?), and I doubt if anyone uses it for daily commuting anyway). I think in the latter years of mechanical signalling it was staffed by a husband and wife who lived on site and presumably did one shift each.

(Note that notwithstanding the mention of 1975 in the quote from Wikipedia in my previous post, the same page says further up that the signalbox at Gorton was closed circa 1964).

Apologies for continuing the thread drift from speculation to history.