CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
"I think the passing loops are positioned in such a way to meet the proposed timetable."
Which is great in theory, but in practice a late running northbound train, causes the passing southbound train the be equally late, which in turn causes the same lateness in the next northbound train and so on until the end of the day.
I wonder what the punctuality record is like for Perth/Inverness compared to the rest of the network?
@Cb unfortunately Scotrail lumps Edinburgh/Glasgow to Inverness in with, Glasgow-Aberdeen, Edinburgh-Aberdeen and Edinburgh-Glasgow so it can't easily be picked apart in the performance data.
It has to be said that the "rural" service group is the least punctual, which includes mainly single track running; Glasgow to Stranraer,
Glasgow/Stranraer/Girvan to Dumfries to Carlisle/Newcastle, Inverness to Aberdeen, Kyle of Lochalsh and Wick/Thurso, the West Highland Lines .
"the "rural" service group is the least punctual"
Presumably that's after building in a certain amount of 'slack' into the timetable In anticipation?
"
Our Ambition for Rail
Inverness to Perth
Double and Electrify The Inverness to Perth ‘Highland Main Line’ railway has just celebrated its 150th anniversary –- and there is much that the Victorians would still recognise. Two-thirds of this key 118-mile route is just single track – limiting capacity, slowing journey times and undermining reliability – and the line is still not electrified. Rail journey times to Inverness are poor compared to road.
"
http://intercityexpress.transformscotland.org.uk/what-we-want/perth-inverness/
Which is great in theory, but in practice a late running northbound train, causes the passing southbound train the be equally late, which in turn causes the same lateness in the next northbound train and so on until the end of the day.
Yep. Well, it'll be for the signalling guys to sort out the mess in a way that is least disruptive (or in reality costs the least in terms of performance payments, which in theory should be the same thing).
It's less resilient, but it is quite a bit cheaper to build. I'm not sure who made the ultimate decision, but it may have been along the lines of we don't have the budget for full double-tracking, so it's either single-track with passing loops or it's nothing.
http://intercityexpress.transformscotland.org.uk
One of the things that would greatly accelerate the Edinburgh to Perth / Inverness services (~35 min saving) is the reinstatement of the direct route through Kinross, which was obliterated when the M9 was built at Glenfarg (the tunnels are still there...).
Currently services have to take the long route through Fife, heading off at Ladybank and running through the closed station at Newburgh.
"
Train is named after rail campaigner Madge Elliot
"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-32995577
Incidentally I think you have to blame the Victorians for not building more of the Highland Line double tracked in the first place - I think I'm right about this?
ah! new edition now out:
Might have to buy that book.
I have a copy of this DVD. It's a good bit of history:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Railways-Scotland-Waverley-Route-Cinerail/dp/B000ZJYAZM
I think you have to blame the Victorians for not building more of the Highland Line double tracked in the first place
Well they did build it after all!
However they were building for relatively non-intensive and slow-speed use through very difficult terrain in some of the most lightly populated parts of the country, by a company (the Highland Railway) with fairly limited financial means - so I think they can be forgiven for engineering it in this way.
The passing loops and single track sections were perfectly acceptable for the days of steam where line speeds weren't high and timetables were generous. The difficulty comes when you try and run a modern, high(ish) speed, high(ish) frequency intercity service along these same lines.
There used to be many more passing loops as the stations were generally built as 2 tracks allowing trains to cross at each station, but many of the lightly served rural stations have closed and with them the loops. BR lifted/shortened quite a few of the remaining loops in the 1960s to try and cut maintenance costs, but pretty sharpish had to reinstate them when pipe traffic for the north picked up in the 1970s north sea oil boom.
Incidentally, the line never even originally ran to Inverness at all - it ran up the Spey Valley from Aviemore to Forres, via Grantown and Dava (part of the route is being slowly re-laid as the Strathspey Railway). That was sensible at the time as that is where the traffic was in the whisky glen (coal and casks in, whisky out). It was only in the 1890s that the inconveinience for passengers heading north to Inverness and beyond was remedied by building a direct route from Aviemore, which is the current route.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/borders-railway-tatty-carriages-draw-criticism-1-3794859
"
IT HAS cost £350 million and will have brand new tracks and stations – but trains that are 25 years old and still awaiting refurbishment.
"
David Spaven: "If I were ScotRail, I would be seeking the brief indulgence of Highland rail travellers – who never lost their regional rail network – and temporarily switch a few of the refurbished Inverness-based trains to the Borders"
“It’s vital that Borderers who are unfamiliar with train travel
I trust that a full public information campaign is underway to educate "Borderes" on the presence of these metal beasts and that whilst they can be harmful there attack is easily avoided.
It said improvements would include carriage interiors, seat covers, carpets and toilets, along with an “interior and exterior rebrand”.
But nothing to address the reilability issues, narrow doors and distinct lack of bicycle capacity...
It's bad enough that the line isn't getting brand new fast trains, but this -
"
ScotRail has admitted that only one of its fleet on the Borders Railway will be upgraded in time for Britain’s longest line re-opening.
"
Suggests a degree of incompetence.
Or (maybe) just highlights some of the problems when the rolling stock is owned by companies other than the train operator?
Really the fault should lie with First rather than Abellio - First knew for the duration of its stewardship when the line was due to open and should have had a programme of refurbishing the stock so that it could be completing on schedule for line opening. But why would they do that? They knew they were coming to the end of their franchise so why spend extra money on something that would only benefit their replacement.
So Abellio has inherited a bunch of un-refurbished trains and not nearly enough time to get them ready in time.
This sighted yesterday....
Newtongrange station.
Test Train on new Borders Railway by LaidBackBikes, on Flickr
That's a 170 - and by looks of the green wrap-around it's the one in the promotional livery.
@k
I understand about the 'end of franchise' aspect (did previous holder expect to lose or is this the sort of thing that caused a change??), but are these trains owned by ScotRail or a RoSCo?
"
Unadvertised Ordinary Passenger
"
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/GAL?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt
but are these trains owned by ScotRail or a RoSCo
They're all owned by Roscos.
Or did you mean were they previously with another operator or already part of Scotrail allocations?
RoSCo?
Rolling Stock Company?
(I typed Rolling "Sock" to start with)
Pass!
I suppose I'm wondering whether franchise and leasing run in tandem so that RoSCos might have an interest in refurbished trains, whoever the operator.
Or do they have no financial involvement in any refurbs?
Rolling socks are good.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_stock_operating_company
The trains are owned by a ROSCO. First wouldn't have done anything about refurbing the trains because that would have cost them money.
Conceivably, Transport Scotland could have told First to do it (and paid for it), but they would have then had to specify those trains for the Borders Railway service in the new franchise. This is "bad" as it ties the hands of the bidders for the franchise and does not give them an opportunity to come up with a rolling stock proposal for Borders (it also limits what they can do with their overall rolling stock plan).
Plus the new franchisee wouldn't have been able to design the interiors in the way that they wanted - it remains to be seen what Abellio have planned for these “Great Scenic Railway Journeys of Scotland” trains, but they made a big play about it in their launch material.
Or do they have no financial involvement in any refurbs?
Depends on the nature of the lease, but ROSCOs tend to have an involvement in anything chunky that happens to their assets.
From the Borders Railway business case;
"[Transport Scotland] will secure the appropriate rolling stock to meet the needs of the Client Requirements and will appraise NR of any changes to train service specification, assumptions and planned timescales for delivery. TS will procure funds and manage changes to franchise agreements to accommodate the Borders Railway outputs and to accommodate rolling stock deployment."
Also, the units being allocated to Borders service are 6 x Class 158, displaced from the electrification of the Wifflet and Cumbernauld services, so were already allocated to Scotrail anyway.
Oh those class 158s have rubbish flattened seats, always loose and hard after all the cushining has been crushed by a million users rears!
Oh those class 158s have rubbish flattened seats, always loose and hard after all the cushining has been crushed by a million users rears!
I'd expect the refurb to involve ripping out the seats and putting new ones in.
Related (well perhaps belated! - should have been part of Borders Rail project).
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/bid-to-reopen-portobello-rail-station-1-3796587
Should also have included reopening of South Sub - but this is (Transport) Scotland.
but this is (Transport) Scotland.
I believe Network Rail are pretty resistant to the idea as well.
There's been slow but tangible progress in re-opening closed stations, e.g. Laurencekirk and East Linton and Reston should be opening soon(ish).
Rail Future Scotland's projected minimum annual passenger figures for a Portobello station (200k) are 6x those it had for East Linton and 10x for Reston.
The only other Edinburgh station on their "Top 50" list to re-open is Abbeyhill, with 170k per year minimum forecast.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts