Proposal to rebuild the line to Ballater

[och aye]

Surely this has got to be a non-starter and is just some electioneering by this SNP candidate. Reopening the former line to Peterhead and Fraserburgh would make more sense than this and even then, I question if reopening that line would be value for money compared to other potential rail projects around Scotland.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Its striking that there is a very limited understanding of the effect this would have on the surrounding communities.

Its striking that the best use of even 100 million pounds that could be used, would be to give (say if there are 10000 people on the route) £10,000 each to every man woman and child along the route. I dare say that would have a far greater impact on the surrounding communities than opening this railway line.

Why does Ballater deserve a heavy rail line to a distant city anymore than any other village deserve a direct line to the nearest city, when the city is 40 miles away?

Give a good reason why.

 

[Journeyman]

Its striking that the best use of even 100 million pounds that could be used, would be to give (say if there are 10000 people on the route) £10,000 each to every man woman and child along the route. I dare say that would have a far greater impact on the surrounding communities than opening this railway line.

Why does Ballater deserve a heavy rail line to a distant city anymore than any other village deserve a direct line to the nearest city, when the city is 40 miles away?

Give a good reason why.

The best argument anyone seems able to come up with is "there was a railway here before, we must put it back".

 

[Tobbes]

The real question to our SNP candidate is "how many houses do you want to build in the Dee valley to make this viable?"; it certainly could be made viable if Ballater had a permanent population of 25,000 and Banchory 50,000 with another 25,000 in three clumps between the two. But somehow I don't see many politicians talking about adding 15,000 houses in the Banchory-Ballater corridor for Aberdeen commuters.

That said, if it was built, I'd use it: bike on train at Euston, one change to Ballater - thanks, that'd be fine!

 

[Bald Rick]

That said, if it was built, I'd use it: bike on train at Euston, one change to Ballater - thanks, that'd be fine!

Why would you do that? Much better to cycle in from Dunkeld or Pitlochry. Go over Glenshee.

 

[Tobbes]

Why would you do that? Much better to cycle in from Dunkeld or Pitlochry. Go over Glenshee.

Because I'd be heading out over Glenshee, and I'm much happier getting my bike and stuff off the train at its destination.... though I appreciate this alone may not be a sufficiently compelling reason for reconstructing 40 miles of railway.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Because I'd be heading out over Glenshee, and I'm much happier getting my bike and stuff off the train at its destination.... though I appreciate this alone may not be a sufficiently compelling reason for reconstructing 40 miles of railway.

Especially when apparently a lot of that 40 miles is a cycle path!

 

[AlastairFraser]

Now we are getting somewhere, I wondered when this would be suggested. This is the proposal that I have made reference to already.

So, pick...sorry, scrutinize a joined up proposal to have a cross rail type service between Banchory and Peterhead Fraserburgh.

F&B would be on new alignments north of Ellon, per thread already referenced and would start initially at Banchory.

There's nothing actually stopping you from reinstating it on the old trackbed, except longer journey time to Peterhead and the displacement of pedestrians/cyclists between Dyce and Maud (should be single north/east of Maud anyway with room for a path at the side).

Not a bad idea, 2tph Montrose to Fraserburgh/Peterhead, stopping at :Laurencekirk, Stonehaven, Porthlethen, Cove Bay, Aberdeen (Central), Kittybrewster (for Aberdeen Uni), Dyce, Newmachar, Ellon, Maud, then Mintlaw to Peterhead or Strichen to Fraserburgh (2tph to Maud, 1tph to each terminus).
Then 2tph from Inverurie to Banchory, stopping at: Kintore, Dyce, Kittybrewster, Aberdeen, Ruthrieston, Cults, Milltimber Parkway, Peterculter, Drumoak and Banchory. Add peak extras and you have an attractive service there.
You could run the Aberdeen to Edinburgh/Glasgow/Inverness and vice versa fast to Stonehaven/Inverurie respectively to speed up journey times for those passengers, now these services are available.
Apart from the cost of rebuilding the Banchory line/ F and B and redoubling between Dyce and Aberdeen, the cost of the project is relatively affordable.

17 miles to Banchory + 57 miles to Peterhead is 74 miles. 74 * 20 (lower end of Bald Rick's estimations, given the mostly or entirely preserved trackbed on both lines) is 1.48 billion. Try the upper end of his estimate and it turns out as 2.2 billion.
As for Dyce to Aberdeen, the tunnels add complication, however the North Cotswold Redoubling project in South East England cost 67 million in 2009 for 20 million. Inflation using the Bank of England's calculator would make that approx 91 million (/ 20 = 4.5 million). Allowing for resignalling and tunnel complication, a conservative estimate would be 15 million.

Additionally, it may be sensible to redouble the remaining part of Aberdeen to Inverness to allow those trains skipping stops to Inverurie to lower the overall journey time to an hour and a half.
Using that Cotswold estimate , updated to 2021 figures, it would cost approx 400 million for roughly 88 miles of redoubling (91 million * 4.4 = 400.4 million (20 miles * 4.4 = 88 miles).
400.4 million + 15 million ( for redoubling Aberdeen to Dyce) + 1.48 to 2.2 billion = approx 1.9 to 2.61 billion.

Given TS are spending 3 billion on upgrading only 6 more miles of A9 to dual carriageway in another region, it's certainly a decent proposal to adopt and campaign for. In the current climate, it could be the environmentally-friendly alternative to dualling from Nairn to Inverness, to build this project and redouble the remaining single part of Aberdeen to Inverness at the same time, cutting journey times to an hour and a half between the 2 cities(much quicker than driving) as a 1.9 to 2.61 bn project (at least 390 million cheaper than the proposed A96 dualling from Nairn to Inverurie alone) in total.

The Greens would greatly prefer the railway redoubling to the A96 and they may still be supporting a minority SNP government, depending on how this year's Scottish Parliament election goes for the SNP.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given TS are spending 3 billion on upgrading only 8 more miles of A9 to dual carriageway in another region, it's certainly a decent proposal to adopt and campaign for.

Think you’ve got your maths wrong there. It’s £3bn for 80 miles of dualling.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Think you’ve got your maths wrong there. It’s £3bn for 80 miles of dualling.

Nah, I meant 74 miles is 80 - 6, so I did get it wrong, but not in the way you said

The real question to our SNP candidate is "how many houses do you want to build in the Dee valley to make this viable?"; it certainly could be made viable if Ballater had a permanent population of 25,000 and Banchory 50,000 with another 25,000 in three clumps between the two. But somehow I don't see many politicians talking about adding 15,000 houses in the Banchory-Ballater corridor for Aberdeen commuters.

That said, if it was built, I'd use it: bike on train at Euston, one change to Ballater - thanks, that'd be fine!

I assume you mean King's Cross, wasn't aware of any Euston to Aberdeen services.

 

[Wynd]

A Fraser, why do you propose splitting the services like that instead of running them through from Banchory-F&B? Pretty good idea to connect through to Montrose, but I'm not following why you wouldn't have trains that traverse the route as described but instead have the Inverurie or Arbroath services effectively serve the line as two distinct entities?

 

[Tobbes]

Nah, I meant 74 miles is 80 - 6, so I did get it wrong, but not in the way you said


I assume you mean King's Cross, wasn't aware of any Euston to Aberdeen services.

Highland sleeper!

 

[Wynd]

The sleeper is perhaps what is being referred to. Edit, beat me to it.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Highland sleeper!

Ah, makes sense!

A Fraser, why do you propose splitting the services like that instead of running them through from Banchory-F&B? Pretty good idea to connect through to Montrose, but I'm not following why you wouldn't have trains that traverse the route as described but instead have the Inverurie or Arbroath services effectively serve the line as two distinct entities?

You could mix and match it if you wanted e.g Banchory to the F and B line or Inverurie to Montrose, but I put the Banchory service through to Inverurie, so that it could be served with 4 units with a decent turnaround, because, once it is built, operating costs are going to be a major part of determining the line's success.
Banchory to Aberdeen should be around 28 mins with a Class 158, then Aberdeen to Inverurie is around 22 mins on current timings (I'm adding additional stations to the current timings, so perhaps add 1 min for each station minus the 1 min engineering allowance at Dyce on the WTT). That leaves you with around 7/8 mins of turnaround, which should be just about workable.

The F and B could do with being linked with longer services south, for a range of reasons:
1) Increases the range of destinations that can be reached within one change of the new line - Banchory to Aberdeen/Inverurie will be more of a commuter service with frequent stops along the length of the line, instead of a through service connecting a large area along the Aberdeenshire cost quite distant to Aberdeen to other areas of Scotland.

2) Outside Aberdeen, it has longer distances between stops anyway, so it's not going to be able to operate with an hourly turnaround, it's the perfect profile for a regional service that covers the longer gaps.

3) The F and B reopening is a bigger financial risk because of the size of the system, it would be sensible to link it to some more financially established stations south of Aberdeen, so the service can be supported by (passenger) traffic at those stations until it creates its own loyal passenger base.

I just have remembered I forgot to account for the 2 station reopenings on the to-be-upgraded sections. Kintore nearby was 20m to build, so we can reasonably assume about £40m for stations on that section (Kittybrewster and Cove Bay).
That puts the range up to 1.94 - 2.65 billion, still a good 335 million below the A96 complete dualling cost.

 

[daodao]

The countryside beyond the immediate environs of Aberdeen has a relatively low population density, and IMO most of the towns are too small or too distant (Peterhead/Fraserburgh). to generate sufficient traffic to justify re-openings of the F&B line or most of the Deeside line. Some rail development might be appropriate within 10 miles of Aberdeen, in particular:

• re-opening of Newtonhill and Cove Bay stations to be served by the existing local service south from Aberdeen.
• re-opening of the Deeside line as far as Peterculter for a local suburban service, possibly as light rail; it would need to be at least half-hourly. A park-and-ride facility might be useful at Peterculter for places further west.

Others who have local knowledge might wish to comment on the feasibility and likely viability of these suggestions.

 

[Wynd]

Ah, makes sense!

You could mix and match it if you wanted e.g Banchory to the F and B line or Inverurie to Montrose, but I put the Banchory service through to Inverurie, so that it could be served with 4 units with a decent turnaround, because, once it is built, operating costs are going to be a major part of determining the line's success.
Banchory to Aberdeen should be around 28 mins with a Class 158, then Aberdeen to Inverurie is around 22 mins on current timings (I'm adding additional stations to the current timings, so perhaps add 1 min for each station minus the 1 min engineering allowance at Dyce on the WTT). That leaves you with around 7/8 mins of turnaround, which should be just about workable.

The F and B could do with being linked with longer services south, for a range of reasons:
1) Increases the range of destinations that can be reached within one change of the new line - Banchory to Aberdeen/Inverurie will be more of a commuter service with frequent stops along the length of the line, instead of a through service connecting a large area along the Aberdeenshire cost quite distant to Aberdeen to other areas of Scotland.

2) Outside Aberdeen, it has longer distances between stops anyway, so it's not going to be able to operate with an hourly turnaround, it's the perfect profile for a regional service that covers the longer gaps.

3) The F and B reopening is a bigger financial risk because of the size of the system, it would be sensible to link it to some more financially established stations south of Aberdeen, so the service can be supported by (passenger) traffic at those stations until it creates its own loyal passenger base.

I just have remembered I forgot to account for the 2 station reopenings on the to-be-upgraded sections. Kintore nearby was 20m to build, so we can reasonably assume about £40m for stations on that section (Kittybrewster and Cove Bay).
That puts the range up to 1.94 - 2.65 billion, still a good 335 million below the A96 complete dualling cost.

Ah I see, this makes sense. The mix and match approach is wise I feel as you rightly point out there is a level of custom that must be encouraged. Both to southern markets but also between the North-East and Western boundaries of the Shire.

Kitty would be very useful as a second station in Aberdeen, it would go some way to helping to develop the north part of Aberdeen which is one of the most deprived
bits. Is it going to happen? The council have a lot of the land but the track layout has been changed quite a bit there with the southbound platform now demolished...

The problem with light rail is that it limits the options going forward. Future expansion, freight, tourist charters, all compromised completely by a half hearted light rail system that doesn't even integrate with existing infrastrucutre.

As pointed out above, the option to use Montrose, Inverurie units plays well in terms of controlling operating cost. A separate light rail system is a non starter for a joined up integrated network. Success will depend heavily on the need to only change once, not multiple times as has been shown reduces uptake drastically.

 

[37424]

So what's the population of Ballater about 1500, just love all these crackpot schemes that are coming out of the woodwork at the mention of restoring your railway.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Ah I see, this makes sense. The mix and match approach is wise I feel as you rightly point out there is a level of custom that must be encouraged. Both to southern markets but also between the North-East and Western boundaries of the Shire.

Kitty would be very useful as a second station in Aberdeen, it would go some way to helping to develop the north part of Aberdeen which is one of the most deprived
bits. Is it going to happen? The council have a lot of the land but the track layout has been changed quite a bit there with the southbound platform now demolished...

The problem with light rail is that it limits the options going forward. Future expansion, freight, tourist charters, all compromised completely by a half hearted light rail system that doesn't even integrate with existing infrastrucutre.

As pointed out above, the option to use Montrose, Inverurie units plays well in terms of controlling operating cost. A separate light rail system is a non starter for a joined up integrated network. Success will depend heavily on the need to only change once, not multiple times as has been shown reduces uptake drastically.

I don't think light rail will work either, they don't really have the cash to implement a segregated light rail system.
Kittybrewster as you insinuate is up to the relevant authorities, but it would make sense to do it at the same time as reinstating the 2nd track through the tunnels to central Aberdeen.
I wondered if they're going to propose a Edinburgh Tram style mixed tram/light rail line to the airport up Berryden and Great Northern Road with an interchange at Dyce, but that's going to be decades away.
First Bus got grants from the City Council and I believe a slice of an older EU fund for some brand new hydrogen double deckers, which have been introduced recently and I think that shows that ACC are still interested in the bus network over light rail/trams of any type for the meantime.
My personal preference is for Dyce to have a cut and cover subway built under the runway with a travellator, much cheaper than a light rail link to the city centre and faster too.
The Banchory branch in any case would be built to branch line heavy rail standards, if you thought it would ever be LR.

So what's the population of Ballater about 1500, just love all these crackpot schemes that are coming out of the woodwork at the mention of restoring your railway.

Not neccesarily all the way to Ballater, Banchory would be a decent interchange for a large unserved and untapped area - Banchory itself is like 7 times the size of Ballater.
The Deeside communities are not fertile territory for public transport at the moment, because beyond Peterculter (just outside Aberdeen's new Western Bypass), it's only one an hour and it takes ages (1hr12 by bus Banchory to Aberdeen, would be approx 28 mins by train).
Every two hours beyond Banchory and there's at least 10k on the upper reaches of the Dee, some not served by any public transport at all (Tarland, for example).

 

[37424]

I don't think light rail will work either, they don't really have the cash to implement a segregated light rail system.
Kittybrewster as you insinuate is up to the relevant authorities, but it would make sense to do it at the same time as reinstating the 2nd track through the tunnels to central Aberdeen.
I wondered if they're going to propose a Edinburgh Tram style mixed tram/light rail line to the airport up Berryden and Great Northern Road with an interchange at Dyce, but that's going to be decades away.
First Bus got grants from the City Council and I believe a slice of an older EU fund for some brand new hydrogen double deckers, which have been introduced recently and I think that shows that ACC are still interested in the bus network over light rail/trams of any type for the meantime.
My personal preference is for Dyce to have a cut and cover subway built under the runway with a travellator, much cheaper than a light rail link to the city centre and faster too.
The Banchory branch in any case would be built to branch line heavy rail standards, if you thought it would ever be LR.


Not neccesarily all the way to Ballater, Banchory would be a decent interchange for a large unserved and untapped area - Banchory itself is like 7 times the size of Ballater.
The Deeside communities are not fertile territory for public transport at the moment, because beyond Peterculter (just outside Aberdeen's new Western Bypass), it's only one an hour and it takes ages (1hr12 by bus Banchory to Aberdeen, would be approx 28 mins by train).
Every two hours beyond Banchory and there's at least 10k on the upper reaches of the Dee, some not served by any public transport at all (Tarland, for example).

But schemes like this are likely to be at least in the hundreds of millions, and terms of the population they serve don't strike me as good value for money

 

[AlastairFraser]

The countryside beyond the immediate environs of Aberdeen has a relatively low population density, and IMO most of the towns are too small or too distant (Peterhead/Fraserburgh). to generate sufficient traffic to justify re-openings of the F&B line or most of the Deeside line. Some rail development might be appropriate within 10 miles of Aberdeen, in particular:

• re-opening of Newtonhill and Cove Bay stations to be served by the existing local service south from Aberdeen.
• re-opening of the Deeside line as far as Peterculter for a local suburban service, possibly as light rail; it would need to be at least half-hourly. A park-and-ride facility might be useful at Peterculter for places further west.

Others who have local knowledge might wish to comment on the feasibility and likely viability of these suggestions.

If you call 76,813 a low number (about 30 percent of Aberdeenshire's population) a low number, then you're mistaken. Remember Peterhead and Fraserburgh also have potential freight traffic from the fishing industry.
Cove Bay is a decent shout, but won't work with the existing timetable.
I don't think many people here are proposing reopening it all the way to Ballater now, Banchory is the 8th biggest town in Aberdeenshire and the only one bigger than it without a station is Westhill, which is a completely new suburban community and never had one.
Peterculter already has a frequent bus service into Aberdeen, why would it want a slightly quicker way in when the bus can get you anywhere in the City after getting into the centre? A P and R at Milltimber wouldn't be a bad idea, but it needs Banchory on there to act a hub for the rest of Deeside, otherwise the business case is too marginal.
The P and R is really for Westhill and similar places near/along the bypass to park at and get the train in.
Dyce is roughly equidistant from Westhill, but Dyce doesn't have much parking.

But schemes like this are likely to be at least in the hundreds of millions, and terms of the population they serve don't strike me as good value for money

The alternative for a lot of the area for is dualling the rest of the A96, costing £3bn, you can redual the entirety of Aberdeen to Inverness, rebuild both the Deeside to Banchory and both branches of the Formartine and Buchan and a few stations on the existing double near Aberdeen and it's still £350m cheaper.

 

[HSTEd]

Well isn't the alternative to do nothing, not spend billions on road upgrades?

Ultimately I think Aberdeen would be better off investing in an urban tramway, that would provide a basis for surburban or interurban extensions later, once the system is up and running.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

This must surely be another part of the country where it will almost certainly be cheaper to lay on chauffeur-driven door-to-door limousines for intending passengers rather than build/rebuild/operate a railway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Remember Peterhead and Fraserburgh also have potential freight traffic from the fishing industry.

Oh come on. How much freight from the fishing industry currently ends up on the Rail Network?

 

[Wynd]

Are we going to end up mired back in the chicken and egg rail-freight argument again? May i ask that we do not?

If there are no lines then there can be no rail freight.

 

[Journeyman]

Are we going to end up mired back in the chicken and egg rail-freight argument again? May i ask that we do not?

If there are no lines then there can be no rail freight.

I think you've got that the wrong way around. If there's no freight there can be no lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

Are we going to end up mired back in the chicken and egg rail-freight argument again? May i ask that we do not?

If there are no lines then there can be no rail freight.

There’s no chicken or eggs on rail freight trains either.

 

[ainsworth74]

There’s no chicken or eggs on rail freight trains either.

Surely there's some on those Tesco trains?

 

[DelW]

If you call 76,813 a low number (about 30 percent of Aberdeenshire's population) a low number, then you're mistaken. Remember Peterhead and Fraserburgh also have potential freight traffic from the fishing industry.

If 76,813 is the population who might benefit, and taking £2.3 billion as the mid point of your earlier cost range (post #74), then the cost per potential beneficiary is approx £30,000 each. Since quite a few of the 76,813 won't want to use the railway, the cost per actual beneficiary will be rather higher. I suspect even local residents would rather spend that on something different.

 

[Bald Rick]

Surely there's some on those Tesco trains?

Ha. No. Non perishables, I think. Besides I wouldn’t trust the track quality to carry eggs.

 

[HSTEd]

Ha. No. Non perishables, I think. Besides I wouldn’t trust the track quality to carry eggs.

Well there are probably chicken and egg containing products!

Is a chicken curry a chicken for these purposes?