Study to look at Highland Main Line enhancements

[DavidB-AU]

Transport Scotland has appointed WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff to produce a business case for improvements to the Highland Main Line between Perth and Inverness.

 

The long-term aim of the project is to reduce the fastest Inverness - Edinburgh journey time from 3h 18min to 2h 45min with an average journey time of three hours and hourly services by 2025.

 

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/main-line/study-to-look-at-highland-main-line-enhancements.html

[david.hill64]

Typical woolly request to produce something that politicians use to support their pet projects - not just rail.

 

If the reported remit were to identify potential improvements to the Highland Main Line, cost them and make recommendations then it would be a more valuable exercise but presenting the solution and then asking for a justification is not the right approach.

[cal.n]

Much of the Highland Main Line north of Perth will be resignalled and gauge modified for the IEP anyway, which will make faster journey times compared to HSTs

[sulzer27jd]

Typical woolly request to produce something that politicians use to support their pet projects - not just rail.

 

If the reported remit were to identify potential improvements to the Highland Main Line, cost them and make recommendations then it would be a more valuable exercise but presenting the solution and then asking for a justification is not the right approach.

 

Actually, the report will need to comply with TS guidance on evaluation of projects. https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/11093/transport-research-rail-evaluation-rail-evaluation-guidance-2015-version-final-pdf-may-2015.pdf

 

I think, overall, I prefer the Scottish Governments supportive stance on rail travel to some of the current alternatives.

[Edwin_m]

Typical woolly request to produce something that politicians use to support their pet projects - not just rail.

 

If the reported remit were to identify potential improvements to the Highland Main Line, cost them and make recommendations then it would be a more valuable exercise but presenting the solution and then asking for a justification is not the right approach.

I've been involved in studies on other routes which started from a journey time target and identified the most cost-effective way to achieve it, and it seems to me a perfectly valid approach rather than the more traditional one of treating the engineering in isolation of how it's going to be used.  For example when journey time falls below a particular figure the number of trains and crews may reduce, with a corresponding drop in operating cost which boosts the business case. 

[caradoc]

Actually, the report will need to comply with TS guidance on evaluation of projects. https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/11093/transport-research-rail-evaluation-rail-evaluation-guidance-2015-version-final-pdf-may-2015.pdf

 

I think, overall, I prefer the Scottish Governments supportive stance on rail travel to some of the current alternatives.

 

Perhaps, although bear in mind that the Scottish Government cancelled the Glasgow Airport rail link.

[ejstubbs]

And the Edinburgh Airport rail link - leaving us with the tram, which they found they couldn't cancel, and which by all accounts is slower and more expensive than the airport bus.

 

At least we now have Edinburgh Gateway - nine years after the airport rail ink was canned.  And you still have to change on to the tram to get to and from the airport.

 

I wouldn't necessarily point to the Scottish Government's example as an ideal model for governance of transport and infrastructure.

 

On the other hand, I can't see much wrong with the new study that's been commissioned.  From that brief article it sounds like infrastructure improvements are being considered, with the aim being to reduce journey times.  The proposed changes have been budgeted, and they're now asking an independent party to verify that there is a business case for taking the project further.

[sulzer27jd]

Perhaps, although bear in mind that the Scottish Government cancelled the Glasgow Airport rail link.

 

Is that not the point of having an evaluation process for projects?

[sulzer27jd]

And the Edinburgh Airport rail link - leaving us with the tram, which they found they couldn't cancel, and which by all accounts is slower and more expensive than the airport bus.

 

At least we now have Edinburgh Gateway - nine years after the airport rail ink was canned.  And you still have to change on to the tram to get to and from the airport.

 

I wouldn't necessarily point to the Scottish Government's example as an ideal model for governance of transport and infrastructure.

 

On the other hand, I can't see much wrong with the new study that's been commissioned.  From that brief article it sounds like infrastructure improvements are being considered, with the aim being to reduce journey times.  The proposed changes have been budgeted, and they're now asking an independent party to verify that there is a business case for taking the project further.

 

The tram fiasco was a previous Edinburgh City Council project. 

 

I agree that the current model is far from ideal, but that is significantly due to the method used to divide up what was British Rail and privatise it. It should also be borne in mind that the systemic issues around rail stem from the fractured franchise system, which is a reserved matter. The point I was making was that I prefer to have a Government that is pro-rail, rather than anti. After all, this has given us the Airdrie-Bathgate line, the Alloa link, the Waverly Route, the reinstatement of Laurencekirk station, the rebuilding of Glasgow Queen Street, the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Project, the start of long overdue improvements between Aberdeen and Inverness, improved disabled access to many stations and numerous other service improvements. 

 

It is very easy to take a cheap shot for political purposes, but when it comes down to it I would take this pro-rail Government over any of the alternatives.

[The Stationmaster]

Much of the Highland Main Line north of Perth will be resignalled and gauge modified for the IEP anyway, which will make faster journey times compared to HSTs

 

Looks like they'll need to add some oomph to Class 800s if they want to beat HST times over that route without electrifying it.

[The Stationmaster]

The tram fiasco was a previous Edinburgh City Council project. 

 

I agree that the current model is far from ideal, but that is significantly due to the method used to divide up what was British Rail and privatise it. It should also be borne in mind that the systemic issues around rail stem from the fractured franchise system, which is a reserved matter. The point I was making was that I prefer to have a Government that is pro-rail, rather than anti. After all, this has given us the Airdrie-Bathgate line, the Alloa link, the Waverly Route, the reinstatement of Laurencekirk station, the rebuilding of Glasgow Queen Street, the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Project, the start of long overdue improvements between Aberdeen and Inverness, improved disabled access to many stations and numerous other service improvements. 

 

It is very easy to take a cheap shot for political purposes, but when it comes down to it I would take this pro-rail Government over any of the alternatives.

I don't think it is a cheap shot - more a rather inflated and conflated project when as Edwin has said it could be a lot more straightforward, and no doubt cheaper  (says he who has in the past done work on a project in respect of rail improvements in Scotland and odd tho' it might sound some of what subsequently happened on the ground reflected my recommendations).

[ejstubbs]

The tram fiasco was a previous Edinburgh City Council project.

 

I'm well aware of that.  I wasn't citing the tram as an example of the government's mistakes, but the cancellation of the airport rail link.  It is the case, however, that the existence of the tram project was an enabling factor in the cancellation of the rail link.

 

Re EGIP: arguably the removal of the Dalmeny chord, the Greenhill Junction remodelling and other parts of the original EGIP plan have not been helpful wrt the implementation of the project, and the scale of the service improvements it is eventually going to deliver (ie journey times reduced from 50 minutes to only 42 rather than the originally proposed 30, and no increase in frequency).  Due to continuing increases in passenger numbers, the cost-saving achieved by increasing train lengths rather than service frequency now appears to have been a false economy: the scrapped elements of EGIP look like having to be done after all in order to meet demand by improving service frequency as well (example reference).  The curse of limited-term thinking.

 

this has given us ... the Waverly Route

 

Hardly.  It's given us Border Rail, which is far from being "the Waverley Route", and which again was done on the cheap and is now suffering the consequences.

 

I am as happy as you are that there is investment being made in Scotland's railway infrastructure and services.  I just wish that it was being done properly, rather than paring the spec down to the bone in order to deliver something at the lowest possible cost that can be trumpeted for political purposes, which experience then shows is barely fit for purpose.  It must be frustrating for politicians when real life threatens to undermine their ideological foundations...

 

And it's not as if there is no investment being made in rail south of the border - though in that instance the shortfalls in deliverables vs expectations seems to be more due to failings on the project management/engineering side than cost-cutting and scope squeeze.

[Ken.W]

Much of the Highland Main Line north of Perth will be resignalled and gauge modified for the IEP anyway, which will make faster journey times compared to HSTs

Erm, no it won't, latest I've heard of them is the 800s aren't powerful enough for Inverness. They also draw too much power on electric to go north of Newcastle !

And when considering the overall Perth - Inverness service, the current HST is just one train a day.

 

Of coarse the IEP will still lead to improvements on Perth / Inverness services - when Scotrail get their 2+5 HSTs

[D854_Tiger]

Erm, no it won't, latest I've heard of them is the 800s aren't powerful enough for Inverness. They also draw too much power on electric to go north of Newcastle !

And when considering the overall Perth - Inverness service, the current HST is just one train a day.

 

Of coarse the IEP will still lead to improvements on Perth / Inverness services - when Scotrail get their 2+5 HSTs

 

Is it not now the case that all the diesel IEPs are to be equipped with the same uprated diesel engines that the West of England sets will have.

 

A decision brought about be the expected delay to full GW electrification.

[phil-b259]

I'm well aware of that.  I wasn't citing the tram as an example of the government's mistakes, but the cancellation of the airport rail link.  It is the case, however, that the existence of the tram project was an enabling factor in the cancellation of the rail link.

 

Re EGIP: arguably the removal of the Dalmeny chord, the Greenhill Junction remodelling and other parts of the original EGIP plan have not been helpful wrt the implementation of the project, and the scale of the service improvements it is eventually going to deliver (ie journey times reduced from 50 minutes to only 42 rather than the originally proposed 30, and no increase in frequency).  Due to continuing increases in passenger numbers, the cost-saving achieved by increasing train lengths rather than service frequency now appears to have been a false economy: the scrapped elements of EGIP look like having to be done after all in order to meet demand by improving service frequency as well (example reference).  The curse of limited-term thinking.

 

 

Hardly.  It's given us Border Rail, which is far from being "the Waverley Route", and which again was done on the cheap and is now suffering the consequences.

 

I am as happy as you are that there is investment being made in Scotland's railway infrastructure and services.  I just wish that it was being done properly, rather than paring the spec down to the bone in order to deliver something at the lowest possible cost that can be trumpeted for political purposes, which experience then shows is barely fit for purpose.  It must be frustrating for politicians when real life threatens to undermine their ideological foundations...

 

And it's not as if there is no investment being made in rail south of the border - though in that instance the shortfalls in deliverables vs expectations seems to be more due to failings on the project management/engineering side than cost-cutting and scope squeeze.

 

It still got delivered through - look can we please stop this whinging about it being under specced because the 'full fat' version most enthusiasts seem to be clamouring for would never have got past the Bean counters in the first place! As I have said many times before it wasn't a choice between the current 'budget' railway and a much more future proofed 'full fat' railway - it was a choice between a 'budget' railway ir no railway at all!

 

Yes it may seem perverse, but its a lot easier to justify (to the financial bean counters and politicians) further improvements to an existing railway compared to folding them into when its original construction even if it costs more in the long run.

 

To all those complaining about the situation in Scotland - 3 lines rebuilt from scratch (2 electrified) compares very favourably to the situation in England where the Bureaucrats in Westminster have continued to squish any line re-openings.

 

Its a fact of life in this country that infrastructure projects are crippled by an over reliance on BCR type financial analysis that seems deliberately designed to stop anything happening unless its really, really essential - or some private sector developer is willing to dump a large wedge of money into the pot (which is why we get by-passes festooned with roundabouts to provide access to new housing estates)

[russ p]

Erm, no it won't, latest I've heard of them is the 800s aren't powerful enough for Inverness. They also draw too much power on electric to go north of Newcastle !

And when considering the overall Perth - Inverness service, the current HST is just one train a day.

 

Of coarse the IEP will still lead to improvements on Perth / Inverness services - when Scotrail get their 2+5 HSTs

Is there anything these metro trains with noses can actually do properly?

A classic case of the government poking it's nose into something it knows nothing about

[frobisher]

Erm, no it won't, latest I've heard of them is the 800s aren't powerful enough for Inverness. They also draw too much power on electric to go north of Newcastle !

Citation? "Rumour 1" I might not necessarily dispute (yet), but "Rumour 2" doesn't ring true. A Class 91 is rated at 4.8MW, and a 9 car IEP has 3.4MW worth of traction motors, so in theory traction supply is about 25% less draw on the supply. If the supply is good enough for the 91 north of Newcastle, then... The difference between the two is enough for each of 1200 passengers to have a 1kW electric fire in their possession.

[Bon Accord]

Hardly.  It's given us Border Rail, which is far from being "the Waverley Route", and which again was done on the cheap and is now suffering the consequences.

 

I am as happy as you are that there is investment being made in Scotland's railway infrastructure and services.  I just wish that it was being done properly, rather than paring the spec down to the bone in order to deliver something at the lowest possible cost that can be trumpeted for political purposes, which experience then shows is barely fit for purpose.  It must be frustrating for politicians when real life threatens to undermine their ideological foundations...

 

 

When you consider that all the Scottish re-openings have been delivered without any extra Westminster funding and without the ability to borrow money, plus in some cases (e.g. Waverley route) having to deal with outright opposition from the Tories/Labour etc then I must say I think Transport Scotland and the Scottish government have done exceptionally well with the resources available.

[luckymucklebackit]

But apart from the Airdrie-Bathgate line, the Alloa link, the Waverly Route, the reinstatement of Laurencekirk station, the rebuilding of Glasgow Queen Street, the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Project, the start of long overdue improvements between Aberdeen and Inverness, improved disabled access to many stations and numerous other service improvements, what has the Scottish Government done for us.!

 

:-)

[Guest eddie reffin]

Gauge enhancement has basically meant that the old station platforms at Tomatin and  Culloden have been chopped back. Resignailling is a few years away (unfortunately) with the route control to be brought into Inverness SC. Aviemore is due to be first. 

 

As regards upgrades, full doubling is not going to happen- too many expensive obstacles to overcome. The best we can hope for is some modest sections doubled. For example, Kincraig to Newtonmore, long dynamic loop at Ballinluig, doubling from Culloden to Daviot. Slow sections that need raising include Stanley Junction (35mph in the Up direction), South points at Carrbridge, Killiecrankie Tunnel- not going to be an easy one at all. There also a couple of corners on the double between Dalwhinnie and Blair that could be tweaked to get another 5-10mph from them but whether the cost is justified would be very doubtful.

 

As for the trains..... The much fabled HSTs in 2+5 formation may increase the acceleration rates but we'll have to wait and see. Electrification would bring great reductions in journey times but that is just not happening. The best we can hope for is Bi-mode units and the wires to go as far Perth. It would mean Diesel power south till Perth and then on to the juice. The cost of these new units may well be prohibitive. 

[lmsforever]

One theme goes through this topic ,meddling politicos they don't have any idea as to what is required for projects and their civil servant minions are just as bad lookat IEP.Rail pro,s should be working on these projects and I doubt the results from studies carried out by companies employed to do studies will have any real rellavence to what is needed.The line to Inverness dose need up grading and the ideas from Mr Reffin have a great deal of sense but consultants will not be interested in someone who actually drives up there..I hope that rail in Scotland continues to grow and I have a forlorn hope that England will receive similar treatment but I am not holding my breath.

[The Stationmaster]

One theme goes through this topic ,meddling politicos they don't have any idea as to what is required for projects and their civil servant minions are just as bad lookat IEP.Rail pro,s should be working on these projects and I doubt the results from studies carried out by companies employed to do studies will have any real rellavence to what is needed.The line to Inverness dose need up grading and the ideas from Mr Reffin have a great deal of sense but consultants will not be interested in someone who actually drives up there..I hope that rail in Scotland continues to grow and I have a forlorn hope that England will receive similar treatment but I am not holding my breath.

 

It all depends on who the companies involved recruit or sub-contract to do the work although I suspect that experienced capacity and infrastructure planners capable of original thought are a bit thin on the ground (in fact we always have been as it requires a mix of experience and disciplines which isn't too common!).

[Ken.W]

Citation? "Rumour 1" I might not necessarily dispute (yet), but "Rumour 2" doesn't ring true. A Class 91 is rated at 4.8MW, and a 9 car IEP has 3.4MW worth of traction motors, so in theory traction supply is about 25% less draw on the supply. If the supply is good enough for the 91 north of Newcastle, then... The difference between the two is enough for each of 1200 passengers to have a 1kW electric fire in their possession.

Citation? Not on a public forum!

However, "Non-rumour 1", there's been much discussion on the GWML Electrification topic that the IEPs on diesel are less powerful than the HST, and I've reliably heard this is significantly so, eg, from leaving Doncaster southbound, 90 going round Bawtry - an HST does 110 and a 91 has to reduce for the 110 restriction. Also, on diesel they can't manage to do 125, 121 / 123 max descending Stoke bank - an HST will descend at 125 on half power and maintain 125 half-way up ascending, topping the bank at 115.

"Non-rumour 2", although this is the current rumour about them, there's been no attempt to counter it and they've not yet been allowed North of Newcastle. Faster than a 91 on 3/4 of the power?, that doesn't add, up and if so why is the OHL power supply being upgraded for them further south?

[Ken.W]

Is it not now the case that all the diesel IEPs are to be equipped with the same uprated diesel engines that the West of England sets will have.

 

A decision brought about be the expected delay to full GW electrification.

The uprated West of England sets (802s?) are a direct order by GWR independent of the IEP program, not part of it. 

 

Due to the electrification delays all the GWR IEP sets are now to be bi-mode instead of some being electric only , but there seems to have been no mention of them being uprated as the 802s

[phil-b259]

Citation? Not on a public forum!

However, "Non-rumour 1", there's been much discussion on the GWML Electrification topic that the IEPs on diesel are less powerful than the HST, and I've reliably heard this is significantly so, eg, from leaving Doncaster southbound, 90 going round Bawtry - an HST does 110 and a 91 has to reduce for the 110 restriction. Also, on diesel they can't manage to do 125, 121 / 123 max descending Stoke bank - an HST will descend at 125 on half power and maintain 125 half-way up ascending, topping the bank at 115.

"Non-rumour 2", although this is the current rumour about them, there's been no attempt to counter it and they've not yet been allowed North of Newcastle. Faster than a 91 on 3/4 of the power?, that doesn't add, up and if so why is the OHL power supply being upgraded for them further south?

 

(1) Do the IEPs currently running round on test have de-restricted engines - because that could be significant when comparing the performance statistics with HSTs

 

(2) Power upgrades - its well known that to meet Treasury demands, electrification schemes in the 1980s were very done by only fitting what was absolutely necessary at the time. Subsequently more power hungry EMUS have caused significant upgrading work to be needed, particularly as service frequencies have also increased? Consequently it could simply be that there is a general need to strengthen ECML power supplies (including replacing outdated supply switchgear) and thus to try and claim it is all down to the introduction of IEPs is false.