[neil_s_wood]

The Scottish Executive aim to shave off 35 minutes from the travel time between Edinburgh and Inverness.

Alex Salmond, who is heading a cabinet meeting in Inverness, said the Scottish Government was committed to having the work done.

The government's aim was to make train journeys faster and move more freight on railways.

Read the full article below.

BBC News

The journey is fairly long although quite scenic outside. Taking 35 minutes of the time would make this a more popular journey.

 

[john woodall]

Or they could build new stations that are 35 minutes closer together which would achieve the same result. However, the taxi ride might take longer than 35 minutes.

No one said it had to be easy or logical.

John

Long day at work!

 

[Brian Considine]

QUOTE (john woodall @ 6 Aug 2008, 07:47) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Or they could build new stations that are 35 minutes closer together which would achieve the same result. However, the taxi ride might take longer than 35 minutes.

No one said it had to be easy or logical.

John

Long day at work!
Well, I was thinking that way too but you beat me to it (long day at work too).

Seriously though, anything that makes train travel faster has just got to be better for all of us. (All they will have to do now will be to make the fares "wallet friendly".

 

[Purley Oaks]

QUOTE (neil_s_wood @ 6 Aug 2008, 02:25) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The Scottish Executive aim to shave off 35 minutes from the travel time between Edinburgh and Inverness.

The journey is fairly long although quite scenic outside. Taking 35 minutes of the time would make this a more popular journey.

35 minutes off a 150 mile trip shows how slow it is now. Here are a couple of pics of Aviemore station on the Inverness line, taken in 2005, both looking north. The Strathspey steam trains leave from the platform on the far right. It's a comfortable station, long enough to take IC125s, but usually it's the 158s. Btw, anyone else find the 158s incredibly uncomfortable to sit in if you're over 6 foot tall? (Not 1st class, naturally.)

Apologies if these pics are too big.
mal

 

[7113]

Yup the pix were a tadge on the large side but hey.

Regards

 

[neil_s_wood]

Nice pic's of Aviemore station. I passed through that way lasy year but didn't think to get any photos. Oh well I guess I will have to go back again.

 

[andrew]

This is good. Any attempt to get traffic off the A9 is worth trying, but they have to do something about the seating standards and capacity of the trains to make the rail option more attractive. I'm not a frequent traveller on the route, but whenever I use it, the trains are packed, and they seem outmoded and uncomfortable - for short people too! It's a lovely train ride, and has always been one of my favourites. I'll switch on the nostalgia for a moment and remember when you could ride right behind the driver in the Metro Cam DMUs on the Blair Atholl locals in the early 6os. I'm sure the passengers have never had such a great view of the line since then - that's when I fell in love with it.

 

[TimP]

Well I often make the trip from Inverness to London, last time I looked the fastest train was just over 8hours. So whilst 35 mins is to be welcomed it's hardly going to make a pile of difference.

It does seem to me that too often there is focus on trip time rather than carrying capacity - which is why we end up spending ca. £11bn on the west coast speed improvements (give or take a billion) but for another another train I often take - Leeds to Oxford is often only a four car unit resulting in standing for vritually the entire journey - taking half of the WCML imporvement money and spending on rolling stock across the country would seem like better use, although not better headlines!

Making trains go faster and increasing capacity often do not go hand in hand - though on this particular section, unusually, they may go together.

This is also why I believe motorways carry most traffic at ca. 18 miles per hour.

As our rail network seems to be at pretty much capacity - lengthing trains and stations and improving signalling and braking acceleration would I guess seem to be the best ways of improving capacity. No doubt someone on here will actually know what they are talking about though rather than me - who just spends too long stuck on crowded trains grumbling about it!

TimP

 

[dwb]

QUOTE This is also why I believe motorways carry most traffic at ca. 18 miles per hour.

You must be using the wrong motorways; on my long trips I can rely on a 60 mph average (excluding the M25).

Gerry Fiennes calculated in the '50s that average passenger rail journeys needed to be close to a 70mph average to compete with car travel. That's why the ECML got Deltics. The reason why rail travel falls down for me is that the cost of two tickets invariably out weighs the cost of a car journey by a considerable margin.

As for 8 hours from Inverness to London, I think that's a pretty good time which I couldn't beat in a car. Of course most of the train's gain happens between Durham and London if it's an ECML route. Our sons have regularly achieved journey times from home in central southern England to St. Andrews in less time than we can drive them there. With a student rail card, the return fare is less than the cost of petrol one way!

David

 

[TimP]

no i wasn't saying that most traffic travels at 18mph, but that if you plot cars past a point in the road against speed, I recall from lectures long ago that the maximum cars past a point is 18mph. like trains the faster they go the further apart they have to be spaced.

 

[dwb]

QUOTE no i wasn't saying that most traffic travels at 18mph, but that if you plot cars past a point in the road against speed, I recall from lectures long ago that the maximum cars past a point is 18mph. like trains the faster they go the further apart they have to be spaced.

I've spent some time trying to work out what you're getting at and I've come up with an explanation with a constant 18 in it, but it's not miles per hour.

If cars maintain the recommended separation time of 2 seconds, in one hour (3600 seconds), 1800 cars will pass a single point in the road. Since the separation is defined in terms of time, the speed of the cars is not relevant. At 30 miles per hour for example there will be 60 cars per mile (5280 / (2 * 44)) and in the hour, 30 "miles of cars" will pass the measuring point. At 60 miles per hour, there will be only 30 cars per mile (5280 / (2 * 88)) but 60 miles of cars will pass the measuring point.

I don't want to get into discussions about what separation distances are maintained in reality or whether they are realistic for all circumstances, but I think I have shown that 1800 vehicles per hour is the number you were thinking of.

David

 

[TimP]

yep i see what you are saying, but the curve must presumably cross the origin - Nil speed = nil flow.

but anyway the main point i was making is that we need capacity not speed. Making trains go faster won't necessarily take any traffic off the A9 (but will make good headlines for Alex) but increasing capacity will.

TimP

 

[dwb]

QUOTE the main point i was making is that we need capacity not speed. Making trains go faster won't necessarily take any traffic off the A9 (but will make good headlines for Alex) but increasing capacity will.

Whilst travelling on the A4 motorway just east of Reims in France last month on two occasions we saw two TGVs travelling in multiple. I don't know exactly how many carriages make up a TGV but I'd guess at 8, so that was 16 making use of the block at that time. I'm guessing that they split at Metz to get to Strassbourg and Mulhouse respectively.

So it's entirely possible to double capacity on the highest speed lines if you have the will (and money) to do so.

David