Why a single line

[lmsforever]

Wathing a dvd yesterday of a journey to Aberdeen the section through Montrose puzzled me, why is the southern approach single track.How come the LNER when modernising the line did not turn this section into double track it must cause problems with services.Why did BR  not do the job or was it a case of save money but you would have thought that Scotrail would be keen to rid themselves of this single line.Any know why its still there looking forward to replies.

[BoD]

The viaducts south of Montrose?

Just a guess.

[phil-b259]

5 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Wathing a dvd yesterday of a journey to Aberdeen the section through Montrose puzzled me, why is the southern approach single track.How come the LNER when modernising the line did not turn this section into double track it must cause problems with services.Why did BR  not do the job or was it a case of save money but you would have thought that Scotrail would be keen to rid themselves of this single line.Any know why its still there looking forward to replies.

 

Building a brand new viaduct across the river Esk would be extremely expensive and not something Network Rail (Please remember ScotRail is merely a TOC and has no involvement in infrastructure provision) would consider without the Scottish Government paying for it.

 

The current railway setup does not pose a significant hindrance to timetabling - particularly with modern signalling, and even if it did then enhancing the signalling is far cheaper than new bridge construction. Hence its never needed 'fixing' as it were...

 

As for BR, please remember that after 1960 they were there to 'manage the decline' of the railway system which was to be got rid of in favour of cars and aeroplanes. As such BR was not going to spend money on bulding a new viaduct in NE Scotland to enhance capacity...

 

Of course before Beaching took effect there was the alternative Caledonian route via Coupar Angus which took a significant quantity of Aberdeen - Glasgow traffic and would have made the need for the newly founded BR to do anything to the Montrose section rather less important.

 

Going further back, I believe that doubling the section through Montrose was looked at several times by the LNER - but each time it was rejected or overtaken by other events. Folk need to remember that despite the likes of the A4s, etc the LNER was extremely short of cash throughout its existence and as such was frequently unable to go ahead with grand plans for infrastructure enhancements.

 

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by phil-b259

[Right Away]

Similar history as that of IKB's Royal Albert Bridge for the GWR over the Tamar at Saltash.

[Alex TM]

Hi again,

 

I thought this question looked familiar, so I had a quick search and came across this:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/128427-why-is-the-ecml-single-at-montrose/&tab=comments#comment-2934706

 

Regards,

 

Alex.

[Edwin_m]

Historically some of the trains for Aberdeen took the Caledonian route via Forfar and joined the current line at Kinnaber Junction just north of Montrose (effectively the finishing post for one of the "Railway Races", as whichever company got there first would be first to Aberdeen).  So the single line is unlikely to have been a constraint until the service increases of recent years.  I believe it is considered to be something of a constraint now, but not enough of one to make it worth spending hundreds of millions either doubling the viaduct or constructing a long deviation inland (perhaps re-using part of that Caledonian line).  

[scottystitch]

It was looked at very recently, with money supposedly allocated (some would use the word "promised"), but that has fallen by the wayside, as Network rail and Transport Scotland believe that there is better value for money in enhancements elsewhere.

 

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/angus-mearns/792212/snp-should-go-back-to-the-drawing-board-on-usan-rail-promise/

 

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen/1506290/transport-chiefs-accused-of-betraying-north-east-by-turning-back-on-rail-improvement-pledge/

 

For interest, a similar situation exists at Perth, on the bridge that carries the Perth & Dundee railway over the Tay. In Fact, it is single track from Barnhill on the east bank all the way to Perth Station.

 

Best

 

Scott.

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, scottystitch said:

For interest, a similar situation exists at Perth, on the bridge that carries the Perth & Dundee railway over the Tay. In Fact, it is single track from Barnhill on the east bank all the way to Perth Station.

The Tay Bridge is also effectively a single line, as weight restrictions prevent trains being signaled over it simultaneously in both directions.  Along with the other two, that probably makes timetabling the recently enhanced service a lot more difficult than it looks!  

[scottystitch]

2 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

The Tay Bridge is also effectively a single line, as weight restrictions prevent trains being signaled over it simultaneously in both directions.  Along with the other two, that probably makes timetabling the recently enhanced service a lot more difficult than it looks!  

I think it might be just the centre section of the Dundee Tay Bridge? I've definitely passed another train whilst on the bridge in the past, but it wasn't in the centre portion.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, scottystitch said:

I think it might be just the centre section of the Dundee Tay Bridge? I've definitely passed another train whilst on the bridge in the past, but it wasn't in the centre portion.

 

I believe the restriction is for loco hauled trains. DMUs are permitted to pass on the bridge due to their typically* lower axle loadings.

 

Not sure if HSTs count as locos or DMUs in this specific instance though.

 

 

* The TPE class 185s are so heavy that they must use loco and not 'Sprinter' / DMU speed limits across the Pennines

[PerthBox]

8 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I believe the restriction is for loco hauled trains. DMUs are permitted to pass on the bridge due to their typically* lower axle loadings.

 

Not sure if HSTs count as locos or DMUs in this specific instance though.

 

No trains are allowed to pass in the High Spans and this restriction is hard wired into the interlocking. There are no restrictions on the bridge outwith the High Spans.

 

As for the Usan - Montrose section, you have to bear in mind that the section between Abroath and Montrose was opened as a single line and doubled in two stages (Arbroath - Inverkeilor and Inverkeilor - Usan) as a 'make work' scheme during the great depression. The deep granite cutting and viaducts on the Southern approach to Montrose make doubling extremely challenging. Transport Scotland has recently ruled out doubling the section as part of the "Cities Deal" scheme and has instead asked Network Rail to examine other enhancements on the Dundee - Aberdeen corridor, which is likely to amount to resignalling and a few new 650m loops for freight.

Edited May 8, 2020 by PerthBox

[turbos]

The whole of the old North British Railway east coast route from the Forth Bridge to Montrose is a badly built and poorly planned railway, it’s just one after another speed restriction before an incline. Sir Nigel Gresley went as far as designing the P2, the most powerful express steam locomotive class to try and deal with it.