Study to look at Highland Main Line enhancements

[frobisher]

Citation? Not on a public forum!

So rumour spreading then

 

The IEP will struggle most Edinburgh to Aberdeen trying to keep to HST times, Inverness not so much given the line speed at the moment (though the Scotrail short sets will start embarrassing the ex-KX HSTs for a brief period of overlap).

 

"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?

As noted by phil-b259 the upgrades to the OHL are not necessarily connected to IEP, and as I pointed out, the rated power draw of a nine car IEP is less than that of a 91 - simple power draw is not the reason for not going north of Newcastle at the moment. Who said they were faster than the 225 train sets? As I understand it the IEP spec was for 125mph running on electric (100mph on diesel) with a future potential of 140mph running (E) on suitable track conditions. The 91 was specified for 140mph running right out of the box even if it can't ever do it.

[Legend]

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.!

 

:-)

Err wasn't Airdrie- Bathgate and Alloa the previous regime?

 

Still going back to the original question , surely anything that could conceivably speed up travel should be welcomed. The A9 is getting a massive upgrade so they need to do something to make rail competitive again

[phil-b259]

Err wasn't Airdrie- Bathgate and Alloa the previous regime?

 

How do mean 'previous regime'

 

Both projects only got going AFTER the Scottish Parliament was established and took over transport matters within Scotland and the dead hand of Whitehall could not block them.

[Ken.W]

So rumour spreading then ;)The IEP will struggle most Edinburgh to Aberdeen trying to keep to HST times, Inverness not so much given the line speed at the moment (though the Scotrail short sets will start embarrassing the ex-KX HSTs for a brief period of overlap).As noted by phil-b259 the upgrades to the OHL are not necessarily connected to IEP, and as I pointed out, the rated power draw of a nine car IEP is less than that of a 91 - simple power draw is not the reason for not going north of Newcastle at the moment. Who said they were faster than the 225 train sets? As I understand it the IEP spec was for 125mph running on electric (100mph on diesel) with a future potential of 140mph running (E) on suitable track conditions. The 91 was specified for 140mph running right out of the box even if it can't ever do it.

No just some very reliable source I can't quote in public

It's not about the IEPs keeping HST timings (which the figures would say they won't) on diesel, or line speed, the issues getting over Slochd and Drumochter. The performance figures were quoted to show how deficient they are compared to the HST, particularly still doing 90 where an HSTs up to 110, rather than not doing 125.

They are, or at least expected to be, faster than the 225 sets (on electric of coarse) and reduced journey times are being advertised on that basis. OHL Upgrade work is also taking place north of Peterborough, no emu's to account for it there. Some of this is reliability improvements but also power supply improvements.

The 91 is quite capable of 140 operation, its only lack of in-cab signalling that prevents it - and capacity issues meaning they can now bearly run at 125

[Zomboid]

It could be that power upgrades are needed because trains which are presently HSTs will be electric trains south of Edinburgh.

And also because a power supply which was designed for the 1988 electric service might not be adequate for the 2020 service. IEPs may be the straw which breaks that particular camels back.

 

They may not have been North of Newcastle yet because going there will not add anything to the knowledge gained from testing between Doncaster and Newcastle.

[The Stationmaster]

It could be that power upgrades are needed because trains which are presently HSTs will be electric trains south of Edinburgh.

And also because a power supply which was designed for the 1988 electric service might not be adequate for the 2020 service. IEPs may be the straw which breaks that particular camels back.

 

They may not have been North of Newcastle yet because going there will not add anything to the knowledge gained from testing between Doncaster and Newcastle.

 

The power supply north of Newcastle was originally pared to the bone - to the extent that there were restrictions on the number of electrics trains permitted in various supply sections at any one time.  However supply upgrades were carried out for Tegional Eurostar and paid for out of funding for that project but that only applied (as far as power supply was concerned) to that section of the ECML.

 

The problem further south on the ECML has always been the lack of stiffness in headspan supported catenary and in any case overall the ECML catenary could not cope with the relatively high uplift forces of Class 373 pantographs with the result (on testing) that running with both pantographs raised in excess of 110mph was positively dangerous and likely to bring down headspan supported catenary.  The Regional Eurostar pan uplift forces were modified but the situation remains that BR headspan catenary and trains using more than one pantograph do not mix well at high speeds.

[Legend]

How do mean 'previous regime'

 

Both projects only got going AFTER the Scottish Parliament was established and took over transport matters within Scotland and the dead hand of Whitehall could not block them.

Labour , not the SNP who I think have been in power for 11 years? People tend to think of the Scottish Parliament and indeed the Saltire as being synonymous with SNP . It isn't

[lmsforever]

​Maybe more loops will be put in place this would enable more trains to run this would seem to a no brainer but you never can tell what will happen the line certainly needs to upgraded.

[The Stationmaster]

​Maybe more loops will be put in place this would enable more trains to run this would seem to a no brainer but you never can tell what will happen the line certainly needs to upgraded.

 

Loops of themselves are not necessarily much use but properly sited dynamic loops where trains need only slow (depending on linespeed) for turnouts off/onto the single line can make a big impact on capacity.  But of practical necessity they do need to be several miles long (again linespeed plays a part in deciding a minimum suitable length along with signal spacing) although regrettably the principle has only relatively rarely been applied in Britain.

[jjb1970]

I think its a bit unfair to label Whitehall as anti-rail, or at least it has been unfair for a fair few number of years. HS2 has recieved pretty good support, the Elizabeth line is nearing completion (a vast project), the lines out of Marylebone have been rebuilt and transformed from a closure waiting to happen to a proper main line again, the GWML electrification may have been very badly managed but it is nevertheless a huge investment, there is lots more. I think the main risk to Whitehall releasing funding for major rail projects is less about being anti-rail and more about a lack of confidence in NR's capability to deliver following the GWML problems.

[SwissRailPassion]

I think its a bit unfair to label Whitehall as anti-rail, or at least it has been unfair for a fair few number of years. HS2 has recieved pretty good support, the Elizabeth line is nearing completion (a vast project), the lines out of Marylebone have been rebuilt and transformed from a closure waiting to happen to a proper main line again, the GWML electrification may have been very badly managed but it is nevertheless a huge investment, there is lots more. I think the main risk to Whitehall releasing funding for major rail projects is less about being anti-rail and more about a lack of confidence in NR's capability to deliver following the GWML problems.

I beg to differ. Whitehall has stymied rail investment almost at every turn. There were hardly any useful schemes aside from LCR in the Blair years. Since then the very big politically backed projects have come off the drawing board in England and Wales. Both major parties agree on HS2 so things are easy. There are many other schemes that have not been progressed in England and Wales due to Whitehall's dead hand. Scotland has invested in rail and re-opened lines far more quickly.

It reflects the political situation in England. Big ticket ideas get political backing at ministerial level, whereas useful schemes on a regional level are stuck due to lack of political structures across the counties. TFN and Rail North are attempts to devolve and direct money across the north. Osbornes idea of the northern powerhouse is/was part of this. The Northern hub may have just escaped the DfT axe due to devolution, although NR have gone cold on the critical extra platforms at Piccadilly. The GWML project has turned to shambles directly due to NR and DfT wishing to save money.

[jjb1970]

The GWML project has turned to shambles directly due to NR and DfT wishing to save money.

 

The GWML project has turned into a shambles because NR mismanaged it and squandered a fortune. I can't stand DafT (and am not an advocate of government in general) but you can't blame the government for the fiasco that GWML electrification turned into. The funding was made available and NR tasked with delivering, the resulting NR mismanagement is what derailed things.

[phil-b259]

The GWML project has turned into a shambles because NR mismanaged it and squandered a fortune. I can't stand DafT (and am not an advocate of government in general) but you can't blame the government for the fiasco that GWML electrification turned into. The funding was made available and NR tasked with delivering, the resulting NR mismanagement is what derailed things.

 

Yes you can.

 

The simple fact is its obvious to anyone with half a brain that announcing 3 big electrification projects all at once (North West triangle, GWML and MML, plus of course the Edinburgh - Glasgow project funded by the Scottish Government) when the DfT had deliberately been downplaying the need for electrification in the preceding 20 years (see Roger Fords many articles on their obsession with 'byonic duckweeed' ,making electrification 'unnecessary' during this time period) was asking for trouble.

 

FACT:- Thanks to DfT policy, Railtrack (whose policies NR inherited) and all UK railway contractors has long since got rid of the skills necessary to design / install / undertake new electrification on the scale the Government suddenly decided it wanted to do. Also NR is fundamentally an organisation geared up to primarily maintain the current railway network - not undertake grand new projects. Thus while it does do enhancements these tend to be focused over a much smaller area than the GWML electrification scheme covers with the experience / skills base focused accordingly.

 

So yes, while it is entirely correct to say NR and UK contractors made a right pigs ear of the GWML scheme, including failing to get a grip when things started to go wrong -  you should also note that they crippled from the outset by not having a robust skills base in place from which to launch the project - which is mostly due to DfT policy on electrification (or to be precise, the lack of) for the past 20 years.

[jjb1970]

Yes you can.

 

The simple fact is its obvious to anyone with half a brain that announcing 3 big electrification projects all at once (North West triangle, GWML and MML, plus of course the Edinburgh - Glasgow project funded by the Scottish Government) when the DfT had deliberately been downplaying the need for electrification in the preceding 20 years (see Roger Fords many articles on their obsession with 'byonic duckweeed' ,making electrification 'unnecessary' during this time period) was asking for trouble.

 

FACT:- Thanks to DfT policy, Railtrack (whose policies NR inherited) and all UK railway contractors has long since got rid of the skills necessary to design / install / undertake new electrification on the scale the Government suddenly decided it wanted to do. Also NR is fundamentally an organisation geared up to primarily maintain the current railway network - not undertake grand new projects. Thus while it does do enhancements these tend to be focused over a much smaller area than the GWML electrification scheme covers with the experience / skills base focused accordingly.

 

So yes, while it is entirely correct to say NR and UK contractors made a right pigs ear of the GWML scheme, including failing to get a grip when things started to go wrong - but you should also note that they crippled from the outset by not having a robust skills base in place from which to launch the project - which is mostly due to DfT policy on electrification (or to be precise, the lack of) for the past 20 years.

 

That's no different to many projects where technical capacity building has to be factored in. Did NR build that into their planning? If NR accounted for capacity building issues or recommended a pause or deferment then they can point the finger at the government. Did they do that (genuine question)? If they didn't then NR cannot blame the government as they took on the project and committed to project costing and schedules, if they knew they were incapable of delivering or didn't know they were incapable and went ahead then it is NR's failure.

[SwissRailPassion]

DfT are culpable in the GWML fiasco. It is their failure to specify the exact requirements for the line and stick to them. They were changed shortly after the start. There was the pause masterminded by Philip Hammond and a revised specification issued almost a year later. People have short memories.

The DfT were set against electrification for many years. Alistair Darling authorised spending on new badly-needed diesel trains. £40M was spent but the trains were cancelled as the dash for electrification began thanks to Lord Adonis. 240 new diesel vehicles would have been very useful but the DfT thought new diesels were obsolete and the future would be electric or battery/hydrogen.

Who would have thought that strapping diesel engines onto electric trains would be the future.

 

Only the DfT could promise Diesel engines bolted to electric trains to "bring about the benefits of electrification, without the disruption of electrification"

[phil-b259]

That's no different to many projects where technical capacity building has to be factored in. Did NR build that into their planning? If NR accounted for capacity building issues or recommended a pause or deferment then they can point the finger at the government. Did they do that (genuine question)? If they didn't then NR cannot blame the government as they took on the project and committed to project costing and schedules, if they knew they were incapable of delivering or didn't know they were incapable and went ahead then it is NR's failure.

 

I remind you that by the time electrification was announced, NR had been re-classed as a "Public body" under the direct control of the DfT as per EU accounting rules. This move (which George Osborne resisted for as long as possible) saw Ministers / Civil Servants demanding (and getting) much more control over the organisation (than was the case all the time NR remained off the Governments books) as the Treasury rules insist that public sector bodies require close supervision so they don't waste taxpayers money.

 

As such even if NR insiders had concerns over the sheer quantity (plus the speed at which it was to be done) of electrification, there was very little the organisation could do in public than agree what a splendid idea it all was. Any NR boss publicly criticising the actions of the Government would have very quickly found themselves moved aside in favour of someone more acceptable to the Whitehall Mandarins that effectively run our railway system today.

[jjb1970]

Who costed the program, who was responsible for design and planning and was capacity identified as a risk and mitigated? If the answer is DafT, DafT and yes by NR but ignored by DafT then I’ll accept that the GWML mess is the responsibility of DafT. If NR costed it and managed the design and planning process and if they failed to understand the capacity issues (which clearly were not unforeseeable and should have been known and understood) then the responsibility is with NR, not DafT. If it was the case that senior NR management knew they could not deliver (for the sake of argument, I don’t believe they did) but agreed to the original costings and schedule then they would still have to accept responsibility for that decision. DafT have done enough to screw up the railways without taking the credit for even more blunders, the IEP program is a model of how not to procure new trains, their micromanagement of franchises is anything but positive and the problems of Southern seem to be the result of mandarins and a union from hell who’d deserve each other if it wasn’t for the fact that it is passengers whose lives are being wrecked to name but three examples (btw, I am always genuinely perplexed why so many see nationalisation as a panacea when there is such abundant evidence that the government is more cause than cure of the ills of the modern railway). As low as DafT are in my esteem I really do not see them are the party who carry the blame for what we’ve observed on the GWML. Although it is interesting that a sub-argument of this thread seems to have gone from a position that Whitehall is anti-rail to blaming Whitehall for investing too much in electrification, if it is true that DafT were unrealistic in demanding such an extension of the wires then it is a bit difficult to argue that England is the poor relation of Scotland thanks to the government being anti-rail.

This matters, as if the government loses confidence in NR’s capability to deliver major projects (and let’s be honest, that is not an entirely unjust view) then what effect do people think that will have on future rail investment? I think that the idea of using electro-diesel trains as a long term solution rather than as a transitional measure whilst the wires are extended is a silly one but if I was the one minding public funds I suspect I’d lean towards it much more favourably than I do if thinking as an engineer given NR’s performance. NR received the funding, they’ve squandered it, now they’re in a position where they have a major battle to convince people that further funds won’t also be wasted because of an inability to deliver.

Where I would blame the government is that this whole saga is symptomatic of a seeming lack of accountability and responsibility when it comes to government spending. Look at PFI, the problem is not that PFI is a bad idea (it’s effectively just a form of leasing and most businesses of any size use leasing very successfully) but that it was very poorly implemented and managed by the government and with seemingly no accountability for some of those contracts. NR are a state entity and I just don’t see much evidence of accountability and responsibility in some of their programs.

[dunwurken]

Would those who wish to discuss the failings of the GWML electrification project start a new thread please. I fail to see what a discussion about a two/four track botched electrification project has to contribute to the single/double Highland main line study

Dunwurken

[lmsforever]

Watching a dvd of this line its going to be a difficult job to upgrade what is still a Victorian infrastructure with many pinch points with enormous lumps of rock alongside.Double track is required on some sections but equally it is not possible on the majority of the route  plus the trains need to be replaced as the current units are getting long in the tooth thus will become unreliable.The government in Scotland does seem to want to improve the travel experience of passengers but will they have the money to do everything ,roads ,rail after the election without huge borrowing.I note that extra services are planned at each end this is at least a start and will provide an alternative to the car and bus .When something does happen the Scottish division of NR is a good deliverer of work ,maybe because of the smaller area covered so lets hope that good will come out of this discussion.

[D854_Tiger]

2250 x 2 / 11 means 409 bhp per coach for a nine car HST.

 

750 x 5 /  9  means 416 bhp per coach for the IEP.

 

I therefore do not understand how the IEP would be under powered over the Highland main line on what is the just one per day EC train currently operated 

 

 

[dunwurken]

Watching a dvd of this line its going to be a difficult job to upgrade what is still a Victorian infrastructure with many pinch points with enormous lumps of rock alongside.Double track is required on some sections but equally it is not possible on the majority of the route  plus the trains need to be replaced as the current units are getting long in the tooth thus will become unreliable.The government in Scotland does seem to want to improve the travel experience of passengers but will they have the money to do everything ,roads ,rail after the election without huge borrowing.I note that extra services are planned at each end this is at least a start and will provide an alternative to the car and bus .When something does happen the Scottish division of NR is a good deliverer of work ,maybe because of the smaller area covered so lets hope that good will come out of this discussion.

I have been around government building projects long enough to know that if there is the political will to do something like build a double track railway from Perth to Inverness then it would happen.  Others will correct me if I am wrong but I not think there is anything from an engineering point of view which would stop that happening - for much of its route the Highland main line is in open country with obstacles yes but nothing insurmountable if the cash was available.  It would put the cost up probably beyond what anyone might consider reasonable but it could probably be doubled, if not completely then at least for most of its route, for less than the overspend on the GWML electrification.

Dunwurken

[The Stationmaster]

I have been around government building projects long enough to know that if there is the political will to do something like build a double track railway from Perth to Inverness then it would happen.  Others will correct me if I am wrong but I not think there is anything from an engineering point of view which would stop that happening - for much of its route the Highland main line is in open country with obstacles yes but nothing insurmountable if the cash was available.  It would put the cost up probably beyond what anyone might consider reasonable but it could probably be doubled, if not completely then at least for most of its route, for less than the overspend on the GWML electrification.

Dunwurken

 

The starting point of course is that stretches of the HR main line were doubled at various times (e.g over Drumochter) but subsequently most of what had been doubled was singled - in fact the first time I went over the line in early 1967 there were some large piles of recovered track about in various places.  But having said that some stretches always remained single.

 

Now roll forward to 2017 - first of all a lot of the engineering associated with doubling a previously singled line seems to be far more complicated, for whatever reason, than the original construction, and that's just recovering on old formation.  The next, and rather important thing is whether or not the old stretches of double track are in the right places for 2017 train performance rather than what was seen as easiest to double or operationally desirable in the age of steam - there's a world of difference between today's railway and what used to be there.  Thus modern doubling, or at best some dynamic loops (which might well be more cost effective than doubling), won't necessarily suit the ideal places from an engineering viewpoint and what suits the civil engineers might not suit the operators.  Hence you need a  (railway) multi-disciplinary study to arrive at the optimum answer and simply throwing money at the route might well not be the optimum answer - however much money happens to be made available by taxpayers.

 

Whether or not there's an overspend on any rail project depends on one basic factor - which is where GWML electrification is highly relevant;  if you don't get the estimating right  then you won't get the cost right and costs will overrun.  And that before you have any nasties crawling out of the groundwork as it progresses.  And it can be very easy to get back on timescale and budget - you just do what happened on CTRL and de-scope the project (you should have seen the signalling plans I worked on for St Pancras, before it was de-scoped). 

[Edwin_m]

A long section over over Druimuachdar (sp?) was doubled back in the 70s.  Am I right in thinking this was a section that had been doubled and singled again some time earlier in its history, and most of the rest of the Highland has never been double? 

[jamie92208]

A long section over over Druimuachdar (sp?) was doubled back in the 70s.  Am I right in thinking this was a section that had been doubled and singled again some time earlier in its history, and most of the rest of the Highland has never been double?

Yes you are right. As Mike mentioned it was singled in the 60's. IIRC the re doubling came about to cope with lots of heavy trains of pipe sections for the north sea oil and gas fields.

 

Jamie