Scotrail future plans for network enhancements

[Bald Rick]

Makes you wonder why electric isn't mandated if it's that much of an issue. For existing services give operators 4 years notice if there is an issue around procurement of suitable locomotives. If it can be justified on capacity and environmental costs, and in doing so adds further capacity which then has the potential to further improve the environmental gain, it feels like a no-brainer.

And don't tell me it can't be done, because of existing rules etc, etc. The government owned railway can change the rules if it so wishes.

Oh it can be done. But who pays?

 

[alf]

Waverley’s points in post 89 above seem to be presented to prove nothing should be done at all about what he says is a stretch of the WCML where in his own words it is incredibly difficult to get an unchecked path through.

Unless he is suggesting the situation be left as it is for all time you have to start somewhere.

Getting trains from the south on the WCML to Edinburgh at 70 mph instead of 15 mph plus a painfully slow approach control will also help WCML trains going south through Carstairs by blocking their path for(at a guess) 2 mins instead of 6 minutes.

And it also helps the train behind the Edinburgh bound service which will no longer be severely checked waiting for the tortoise to get out of its way.

Reinstating the queens curve is easily done. It saves energy, CO2 & passenger & train time. It needs no property demolition.

Waverley makes the good point that it is presently not in any ones direct interest to do it. Perhaps the new joined up railway, unless it is a PR stunt, should do it as a benefit for the railway as a whole.

 

[GLC]

Oh it can be done. But who pays?

I’m sure this would actually result in “ah fine we won’t bother to run trains at all then”, but could NR effectively penalise FOCs via access charges for running diesel under wires in a given area, or are access charges standard across the whole country?

 

[Bald Rick]

Waverley’s points in post 89 above seem to be presented to prove nothing should be done at all about what he says is a stretch of the WCML where in his own words it is incredibly difficult to get an unchecked path through.

Unless he is suggesting the situation be left as it is for all time you have to start somewhere.

Getting trains from the south on the WCML to Edinburgh at 70 mph instead of 15 mph plus a painfully slow approach control will also help WCML trains going south through Carstairs by blocking their path for(at a guess) 2 mins instead of 6 minutes.

And it also helps the train behind the Edinburgh bound service which will no longer be severely checked waiting for the tortoise to get out of its way.

Reinstating the queens curve is easily done. It saves energy, CO2 & passenger & train time. It needs no property demolition.

Waverley makes the good point that it is presently not in any ones direct interest to do it. Perhaps the new joined up railway, unless it is a PR stunt, should do it as a benefit for the railway as a whole.

The point @waverley47 makes is that raising the speed at Carstairs South doesn’t release any capacity on the WCML, which is what you claimed, and I queried.

There’s no doubt it would save a couple of minutes journey time.

Incidentally, it is very rare for an Edinburgh bound service to cause a following train to be ‘checked’. There are only 4 instances in the SX timetable where a second train is within 10 minutes of an Edinburgh, and two of those are freights overtaken at Abington (and are therefore at least a headway behind from a standing start). None are less than 6 minutes behind.

I’m sure this would actually result in “ah fine we won’t bother to run trains at all then”, but could NR effectively penalise FOCs via access charges for running diesel under wires in a given area, or are access charges standard across the whole country?

There’s a rather complicated methodology for how they are set. Electric / diesel traction doesn’t have a direct effect, although it does indirectly.

However the answer to my question can only be ‘the taxpayer’ or ‘the freight end customers’. And if the latter have to pay too much, they’ll go elsewhere (ie road) and the point of the exercise is lost.

It’s a tricky one!

 

[waverley47]

Waverley’s points in post 89 above seem to be presented to prove nothing should be done at all about what he says is a stretch of the WCML where in his own words it is incredibly difficult to get an unchecked path through.

Unless he is suggesting the situation be left as it is for all time you have to start somewhere.

Getting trains from the south on the WCML to Edinburgh at 70 mph instead of 15 mph plus a painfully slow approach control will also help WCML trains going south through Carstairs by blocking their path for(at a guess) 2 mins instead of 6 minutes.

And it also helps the train behind the Edinburgh bound service which will no longer be severely checked waiting for the tortoise to get out of its way.

Reinstating the queens curve is easily done. It saves energy, CO2 & passenger & train time. It needs no property demolition.

Waverley makes the good point that it is presently not in any ones direct interest to do it. Perhaps the new joined up railway, unless it is a PR stunt, should do it as a benefit for the railway as a whole.

You seem to think the railway network is the same as a tube network. Trains aren't queued up end to end for a free run up Beattock. Solving a 'problem' doesn't always solve anything.

Grade separating a single junction somewhere on the network may help make timetabling that bit easier, so you can squeeze out an extra train somewhere else, but at the end of the day, you can only run so many trains.

Every train has a path. Each path is set, non negotiable, and reexamined once every six months. Outside of London, there usually aren't many paths.

Most of the railway network in the UK sees fewer than two trains per hour in each direction. The Carstairs to Slateford line sees on average three in each direction, including freights. Sure, a train has to wait at Haymarket for an extra five minutes on its way in but who cares really, the next train behind it is thirty minutes back at that point.

By making the network simpler, removing single lead junctions and smoothing out speed profiles, what you do is remove capacity constraints. But as I said, that might not result in more trains. It might mean that trains don't have to stop and wait somewhere, it might mean that two trains cross a junction in a parallel move, it might mean a freight train has a clear run at a long bank.

Om the west coast main line, there are between 2 and 4 tph each way. Fast passenger gets up Beattock in 6 minutes, slow freight gets up in 22 minutes, rinse and repeat. The times that these trains meet and overtake are determined by the locations of loops and the time of takes them to get up the hill.

Most of the railway interventions you could make on this network in the next five years wouldn't actually solve very much on their own. They need supporting schemes or new stock or wiring or signalling ect. If you solve Carstairs, sure, congratulations but all you've done is smooth out the speed profile and make it slightly easier to clear a late train out of the way.

Carstairs isnt a priority. Many people on this thread have told you it isn't a priority. I could give you a lost of interventions around Carstairs that would genuinely help improve capacity on that line, but reopening queen's curve just isn't one of them*. It's not important enough. I found your reply disingenuous on that point, you can look and see why it shouldn't be done until countless other things have been done.

I spent a long professional career telling politicians or interest groups why a certain special project just wasn't worth it. I had to work with the operational railway and made several decisions having to choose between equally important projects. If I had to choose between reopening queen's curve or any of the ones I'd cancelled, I wouldn't go for the former.

Try asking one of the many well informed people on here about a lost of projects they'd see as important. I'm sure you'd find many useful suggestions up there. Personally I've spent many hours waiting for the crawl at Carstairs, and I'd love it solved as much as you, but if you read my earlier message properly you'll see it's telling you why it's not as helpful as you believe it is.


*Potential improvements.

Grade separation of Law Junction, allowing for full grade separation of freights going to Mossend.

Improved voltage on the northern ECML, and wiring of the Edinburgh sub to allow electric freights via Newcastle.

Building the almond chord, shifting some services into the north tunnel and allowing more paths into Edinburgh from Carstairs

Bypassing the Glasgow to law junction stretch for high speed trains.

Speeding up the layout at Carlisle and Preston station (done post HS2)

Fixing Crewe (done post HS2)

Grade separating Euxton Junction

 

[mcmad]

Getting back onto topic, has the scope of works being done at Carstairs been announced and any before/after diagrams?

 

[Meerkat]

You seem to think the railway network is the same as a tube network. Trains aren't queued up end to end for a free run up Beattock. Solving a 'problem' doesn't always solve anything.

Grade separating a single junction somewhere on the network may help make timetabling that bit easier, so you can squeeze out an extra train somewhere else, but at the end of the day, you can only run so many trains.

Every train has a path. Each path is set, non negotiable, and reexamined once every six months. Outside of London, there usually aren't many paths.

Most of the railway network in the UK sees fewer than two trains per hour in each direction. The Carstairs to Slateford line sees on average three in each direction, including freights. Sure, a train has to wait at Haymarket for an extra five minutes on its way in but who cares really, the next train behind it is thirty minutes back at that point.

By making the network simpler, removing single lead junctions and smoothing out speed profiles, what you do is remove capacity constraints. But as I said, that might not result in more trains. It might mean that trains don't have to stop and wait somewhere, it might mean that two trains cross a junction in a parallel move, it might mean a freight train has a clear run at a long bank.

Om the west coast main line, there are between 2 and 4 tph each way. Fast passenger gets up Beattock in 6 minutes, slow freight gets up in 22 minutes, rinse and repeat. The times that these trains meet and overtake are determined by the locations of loops and the time of takes them to get up the hill.

Most of the railway interventions you could make on this network in the next five years wouldn't actually solve very much on their own. They need supporting schemes or new stock or wiring or signalling ect. If you solve Carstairs, sure, congratulations but all you've done is smooth out the speed profile and make it slightly easier to clear a late train out of the way.

Carstairs isnt a priority. Many people on this thread have told you it isn't a priority. I could give you a lost of interventions around Carstairs that would genuinely help improve capacity on that line, but reopening queen's curve just isn't one of them*. It's not important enough. I found your reply disingenuous on that point, you can look and see why it shouldn't be done until countless other things have been done.

I spent a long professional career telling politicians or interest groups why a certain special project just wasn't worth it. I had to work with the operational railway and made several decisions having to choose between equally important projects. If I had to choose between reopening queen's curve or any of the ones I'd cancelled, I wouldn't go for the former.

Try asking one of the many well informed people on here about a lost of projects they'd see as important. I'm sure you'd find many useful suggestions up there. Personally I've spent many hours waiting for the crawl at Carstairs, and I'd love it solved as much as you, but if you read my earlier message properly you'll see it's telling you why it's not as helpful as you believe it is.


*Potential improvements.

Grade separation of Law Junction, allowing for full grade separation of freights going to Mossend.

Improved voltage on the northern ECML, and wiring of the Edinburgh sub to allow electric freights via Newcastle.

Building the almond chord, shifting some services into the north tunnel and allowing more paths into Edinburgh from Carstairs

Bypassing the Glasgow to law junction stretch for high speed trains.

Speeding up the layout at Carlisle and Preston station (done post HS2)

Fixing Crewe (done post HS2)

Grade separating Euxton Junction

And I assume many of those projects are in the pile distracted/delayed by ”do we really need this if we get (semi-mythical) new HS routes between Edinburgh, Glasgow and the WCML”?

 

[InOban]

I would expect or at least hope that a new pair of fast lines will bypass at least the Cambuslang section shared with local trains.

 

[chiltern trev]

The proposed upgrade of the WCML for HS2 would be to ease the radius of curves through Annandale. Major civil engineering.

Could you define Annandale please - start and end locations.

 

[Altnabreac]

Could you define Annandale please - start and end locations.

Devil’s Beef Tub and Solway Firth.

 

[snowball]

Devil’s Beef Tub and Solway Firth.

I suppose you could say the WCML is in that valley from Beattock village to Lockerbie, but I don't know whether the proposed easing of curves referred to by Frankton fell entirely within that range.

 

[chiltern trev]

So the Annandale definition is what I was ecpting and is not Elvanfoot to Abington which in the River Clyde - the Clyde to Annandale watershed being about 200m south of the A74(M) Vosa station which is just south of Elvanfoot.

So does HS2 propose realigning Elvanfoot to north of Abington?

 

[snowball]

NR press release (with video) about the Aberdeen to Central Belt Enhancement Project. Complete absence of detail about what is proposed, but electrification and decarbonisation are at least mentioned.

Transport Minister visits Aberdeen to Central Belt Enhancement Project

Transport Minister, Graeme Dey visited the team delivering the Aberdeen to Central Belt Enhancement Project and heard first-hand about the next phase of works which is due to commence next month.

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

Transport Minister, Graeme Dey visited the team delivering the Aberdeen to Central Belt Enhancement Project and heard first-hand about the next phase of works which is due to commence next month.

Mr Dey had the opportunity to see one of the ground drilling rigs which will be used to undertake geological investigations to inform development of proposals to enhance the railway between Aberdeen and the Central Belt. The Minister also had the opportunity to discuss the upcoming works with the project team, an alliance made up of Network Rail and Siemens.

The project – which is being funded by the Scottish Government, alongside the Aberdeen City Region Deal, as part of ongoing investment in Scotland’s Railway – will improve connectivity in the region and reduce journey times.

Mr Dey said: “This project is vital for Aberdeen and the wider North East region, so I was delighted to be able to come along to meet the team that will be carrying out this work and understand the importance the investigatory work will have to inform the design. It’s great to hear that some of the work including ecology surveys is already underway.

“Scotland’s Railway is an integral part of Scotland’s social and economic infrastructure and this project will be supporting communities, businesses and the environment in the North East.

“Improved capacity and faster services will be great for passengers, but the scheme will also deliver improved capabilities for freight services enabling further growth in this important sector.”

Mr Dey added: “I was really pleased to hear that the site and ground investigation work is being carried out in a way that it will inform both the enhancements projects and the future electrification scheme, delivering efficiencies for both. This is great to hear given our commitment to decarbonising the passenger railway in Scotland by 2035. I look forward to returning to see the team in the near future.”

 

[Frankton Junct]

Could you define Annandale please - start and end locations.

Sorry - I didn't notice your question.

The speaker didn't tell us details of the proposals, only that they were considering how to divert services during a long blockade.

 

[alangla]

It’s going to be great having an upgraded railway

with no trains…

 

[Waverleystu]

Just wondering why the Aberdeen to Central belt project is so vague. Is electrification of the route commencing after the project or running alongside?

 

[PhilH]

Just wondering why the Aberdeen to Central belt project is so vague. Is electrification of the route commencing after the project or running alongside?

It's vague because NR and TS haven't yet decided what to do. It's likely to involve signalling upgrades to increase capacity and shorten journeys. There's likely to be work at Dundee, Arbroath, Montrose and Aberdeen stations that could include longer platforms. There might be extra freight loops but how many and where hasn't been decided.
That the minister put his name to the press release is a good sign but without the scope agreed there can't be a funding package. At best, this is a pre-announcement announcement.

 

[waverley47]

It's vague because NR and TS haven't yet decided what to do. It's likely to involve signalling upgrades to increase capacity and shorten journeys. There's likely to be work at Dundee, Arbroath, Montrose and Aberdeen stations that could include longer platforms. There might be extra freight loops but how many and where hasn't been decided.
That the minister put his name to the press release is a good sign but without the scope agreed there can't be a funding package. At best, this is a pre-announcement announcement.

Currently on this list, and funded, is the Dundee station remodelling. On this list and foster, though as yet unfunded, is either reinstating the loop platform or the turnback north of Arbroath station.

Aberdeen works include remodelling the approaches from the north, to allow faster entry and exit from the station. Dundee tunnel (Docks Street tunnel) is also expected to get some refurbishment for catenary supports.

As has been said, TS and NR haven't decided what works are needed to improve this line to the point of future proofing for the next decades. Likely to be on this list include a long loop at Montrose and stations at Cove and Newtonhill.

The full decision hasn't been made yet because there is a larger scheme unfolding about what needs to be done to switch over to battery bimodes on this route as fast as possible, while also allowing future catenary to fill in the gaps. For example, decisions are being made about the locations of feeder stations around Aberdeen which will be needed for bimodes, but ensuring that when wires come online for the whole route, the feeder stations complement eachother to allow full electric running to Aberdeen.

As PhilH said, this package is an announcement of an announcement, and we should expect further information soonish.

 

[Tobbes]

If you were worried about Central Belt - Aberdeen end-to-end times, how much faster would it be to reinstate the line via Forfar?

 

[waverley47]

If you were worried about Central Belt - Aberdeen end-to-end times, how much faster would it be to reinstate the line via Forfar?

Not even worth thinking about in all honesty.

The money you'd spend would be a lot, likely upwards of £800 million. With that you'd;

-Serve a total population of less than 30,000 for 20 miles of new build
-Lose the largest city/town along the route, several large towns, with a significant traffic sink, and all of the passengers that come with it in exchange for ..... Forfar?

It would get one train an hour in each direction, and for that it just absolutely wouldn't be worth it. It was nice while it existed but it's a bit like the full Waverley route: if it was there now, we wouldn't think about closing it, but if it had never been there, we wouldn't be building a new railway there today.

 

[lachlan]

Currently on this list, and funded, is the Dundee station remodelling. On this list and foster, though as yet unfunded, is either reinstating the loop platform or the turnback north of Arbroath station.

Aberdeen works include remodelling the approaches from the north, to allow faster entry and exit from the station. Dundee tunnel (Docks Street tunnel) is also expected to get some refurbishment for catenary supports.

As has been said, TS and NR haven't decided what works are needed to improve this line to the point of future proofing for the next decades. Likely to be on this list include a long loop at Montrose and stations at Cove and Newtonhill.

The full decision hasn't been made yet because there is a larger scheme unfolding about what needs to be done to switch over to battery bimodes on this route as fast as possible, while also allowing future catenary to fill in the gaps. For example, decisions are being made about the locations of feeder stations around Aberdeen which will be needed for bimodes, but ensuring that when wires come online for the whole route, the feeder stations complement eachother to allow full electric running to Aberdeen.

As PhilH said, this package is an announcement of an announcement, and we should expect further information soonish.

The single-track section at Montrose keeps coming up but I'm not sure if there are still plans to dual it or not. Last I heard it had been dismissed on the basis of high cost and minimal journey time savings, which seems to miss the point as I thought the main benefits were better capacity and reliability. I know I've been stuck there a few times!

 

[Falcon1200]

It is a pity that Stanley Jc/Forfar was not retained, it could be served by a simple extension of the Edinburgh/Perth service, but as waverley47 says no case beyond there.

The single-track section at Montrose keeps coming up but I'm not sure if there are still plans to dual it or not.

It's a fairly short section, the basic passenger service is two trains per hour each way, with not a great deal of freight, so the huge cost (of having to build a new viaduct) would be very hard to justify.

 

[Tobbes]

Not even worth thinking about in all honesty.

The money you'd spend would be a lot, likely upwards of £800 million. With that you'd;

-Serve a total population of less than 30,000 for 20 miles of new build
-Lose the largest city/town along the route, several large towns, with a significant traffic sink, and all of the passengers that come with it in exchange for ..... Forfar?

It would get one train an hour in each direction, and for that it just absolutely wouldn't be worth it. It was nice while it existed but it's a bit like the full Waverley route: if it was there now, we wouldn't think about closing it, but if it had never been there, we wouldn't be building a new railway there today.

Fair enough. BUt just out of interest, if electrified, how much faster (if at all) would Glasgow-Aberdeen via Stanley Junction and Forfar be rather than via Dundee?

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Fair enough. BUt just out of interest, if electrified, how much faster (if at all) would Glasgow-Aberdeen via Stanley Junction and Forfar be rather than via Dundee?

The route via Forfar was about 2 miles shorter from Perth to Aberdeen than via Dundee but wheas there are several severe speed restictions via Dundee from memory Forfar itself was the only severe speed restriction on that route so probably a gain of quite a few minutes but not game changing for a train from Glasgow but logically trains from Edinburgh would continue to use the much shorter route via Cupar and Dundee.

 

[Tobbes]

The route via Forfar was about 2 miles shorter from Perth to Aberdeen than via Dundee but wheas there are several severe speed restictions via Dundee from memory Forfar itself was the only severe speed restriction on that route so probably a gain of quite a few minutes but not game changing for a train from Glasgow but logically trains from Edinburgh would continue to use the much shorter route via Cupar and Dundee.

This makes sense, too - but presumably would also change if there was a new railway through Kinross that included a Glenfarg II line to Perth rather than having to run all of the way around Fife to get to the Tay Bridge.

 

[InOban]

Doubling the section south of Montrose would certainly improve the reliability of services - the four trains, two each way, must occupy the single track for most of each hour. However I appreciate the difficulty. Immediately south of the station the line starts climbing at 1:88 across the listed viaduct, which later becomes an increasingly high brick one before it starts to climb up the hill to Usan. Doubling this southern part to shorten the single track section would result in the tracks merging on this gradient and I doubt that any safety authority would approve!

 

[lachlan]

Doubling the section south of Montrose would certainly improve the reliability of services - the four trains, two each way, must occupy the single track for most of each hour. However I appreciate the difficulty. Immediately south of the station the line starts climbing at 1:88 across the listed viaduct, which later becomes an increasingly high brick one before it starts to climb up the hill to Usan. Doubling this southern part to shorten the single track section would result in the tracks merging on this gradient and I doubt that any safety authority would approve!

It is a pity that Stanley Jc/Forfar was not retained, it could be served by a simple extension of the Edinburgh/Perth service, but as waverley47 says no case beyond there.



It's a fairly short section, the basic passenger service is two trains per hour each way, with not a great deal of freight, so the huge cost (of having to build a new viaduct) would be very hard to justify.

That's fair, though it would presumably also allow the stopping service terminating at Arbroath to be combined with the stopping service terminating at Montrose, improving connectivity?

 

[waverley47]

That's fair, though it would presumably also allow the stopping service terminating at Arbroath to be combined with the stopping service terminating at Montrose, improving connectivity?

This actually happened about three years ago and is an important part of the Aberdeen/ECML timetable.

The split wasn't a split as such, instead the Aberdeen IC fasts were sped up, and lost stops at intermediate stations. Now the HSTs stop at some of Arbroath, Montrose or Stonehaven.

The Edinburgh to Dundee semi fasts were extended to Arbroath and picked up the southern local stops.

All Aberdeen fasts were cut back to Aberdeen, whereas previously many were extended through to Inverness, Duce or Inverurie. In their place, a new hourly service was introduced from Inverurie to Montrose, to pick up the local stops on this route and offer connections into the intercity trains at bigger stations.

However, the best side effect was that the local timetables of Aberdeen and the Central Belt were floated off from eachother, completely separate, and all timetabling is now a lot easier. You also cleared up freight paths north of Dundee by allowing a clear run at the single line section at Usan, as suddenly all that crosses the single track are the HSTs or freights.


To sum up, it won't happen because it was explicitly intended as is, with separate timetables and unit diagrams.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

This makes sense, too - but presumably would also change if there was a new railway through Kinross that included a Glenfarg II line to Perth rather than having to run all of the way around Fife to get to the Tay Bridge.

Edinburgh to Perth via Kinross was just under 50 miles, so assuming a similar distance for 'new' route + just under 90 Perth to Aberdeen makes Edinburgh to Aberdeen via Kinross and Forfar about 9 miles further than via Dundee but without the severe restictions at Burntisland, Kinghorn and Dundee and of course the Tay Bridge - I have discounted the Arbroath restriction as I think all trains call there although it must impact on the speed & timings of trains approaching and departing.
Other less severe speed restriction might potentially be balanced by intermediate restrictions via the 'new' routing.

Interesting to note a straight line on the map from the Forth Bridge to Aberdeen goes nowhere near Perth but almost straight through Dundee albeit avoiding e.g. Kirkcaldy!

 

[Tobbes]

Edinburgh to Perth via Kinross was just under 50 miles, so assuming a similar distance for 'new' route + just under 90 Perth to Aberdeen makes Edinburgh to Aberdeen via Kinross and Forfar about 9 miles further than via Dundee but without the severe restictions at Burntisland, Kinghorn and Dundee and of course the Tay Bridge - I have discounted the Arbroath restriction as I think all trains call there although it must impact on the speed & timings of trains approaching and departing.
Other less severe speed restriction might potentially be balanced by intermediate restrictions via the 'new' routing.

Interesting to note a straight line on the map from the Forth Bridge to Aberdeen goes nowhere near Perth but almost straight through Dundee albeit avoiding e.g. Kirkcaldy!

Fascinating, thank you. Well, LGV Bon Accord designs itself!