Here's a solution that will please everyone.

I wonder if it will put an end to the plan for the very grandiose and expensive bridge at Inverness?

There are no plans for an expensive and grandoise bridge, that was just an option in the consultation which has no likelihood of happening.

There are public meetings this week

Public meetings set to discuss A890 closure

They still seem to be considering using the railway track

I am *so* up for driving up to do that, but I'm away for much of Febraury so it might not be possible. That would mean me waiting ANOTHER 20 years for the next landslude

Rob

Could one of the long term solutions mean making the road run along the railway permanently?

Considering the traffic volumes and train frequencies it could be doable?

A lot of the A890 has been upgraded to S2 in recent times. Making the prolonged railway crossing a permanent solution would be a bit of backwards step on that front.

I doubt Network Rail would like it though as they are supposed to be reducing the number of level crossing though. And ASLEF would probably go on a permanent strike.

But realistically it would require a complete change to the signalling system. A crossing like that would need to be manually controlled barriers (as all new crossings are supposed to be), all existing crossings on the Far North/Kyle are AOCL, ABCL and AHB. A MCB crossing needs actual signals for that section which wouldn't work with RETB.

I agree with this, except the last bit. There's no technical reason why you couldn't have a simple distant and stop signal in each direction, interlocked with the crossing barriers and purely for crossing purposes, without affecting the block working at all. No different in concept to the situation we had until recently at, say, Caersws - which was RETB (although in that case it was a manually operated crossing with a real person and semaphores!).

But that said, it would be hard to justify the expenditure. Plus finding a failsafe method of detecting that the "crossing" (i.e. hundreds of yards of road) was clear of traffic and safe to run a train over would be problematical.

Rob

The canal bridge in Inverness has a two aspect protecting signal, but a recent report into the crossings on the FN/Kyle lines (it's an ongoing point of contention) said that the ideal solution for the busiest roads (eg Dingwall) would be MCB but said this wasn't compatible with RETB.

As a long-suffering commissioner of signalling upgrades I'm entirely used to reports telling me why something can't be done! Of course, people once said RETB would never work, but BR boffins went ahead and invented it anway - and saved a number of rural railways in the process

I can see why they'd say that at Dingwall, though, where RETB block posts are proximate to the crossings. And it's true that MCB crossings aren't directly compatible with RETB, but that's not the same thing as saying you couldn't have a separate crossing panel in Inverness box working MCBs remotely.

Here's a solution: approach distant and stop board in each direction, not interlocked with the block sections. Driver or treadle activated barrier sequence. CCTV cameras and lighting fitted along the route with a DOO-style monitor-bank by each signal. When barriers are down and enough time passed for vehicles to clear, a white light shows authorising driver to move if all monitors are clear. Driver then drives on sight under "tramway" rules. Simples!

But the expense would be huge. I guess I'm saying what's *technically* possible, which isn't to say they are affordable solutions!

Rob

How expensive? Especially when compared with a new road or bridge?

Expensive is all relative, but complete finger in the air I reckon my solution above would be around £2m +/- 50% for the signalling and crossing system. Don't quote me on it!

Rob

Right, so that would be cheap compared with the cost of a new bridge.

I was under the impression that the idea of running along the railway was only being considered as a temporary solution, so a lot of money for that. For a long-term one could it make sense? It would have some impact on the railway of course but we're not exactly talking a heavily-used high-speed line here.

If a new road is to be built then this route is relatively cheap because it utilises existing roads/tracks. I dont know how the cost compares to a bridge though.
EDIT: Added an alternative route(purple) with less steep gradients.

I expect that ORR would be very unhappy at running road traffic along the railway becoming anything other than a very temporary solution to the problem. As it is, the design work and method statement for this was prepared last week by one of my managers, has been forwarded to London and disappeared into the safety verification black hole..

That's a very long steep incline out of Attadale Glen.

I doubt that following a forest track would really make much difference to the cost compared to a a completely new route. Either way would need massive amounts of earthworks to get an alignment that is of a modern road standard. It's not just a case of slapping a layer of bitmac on a forest track and declaring it the A890.

ROGS!! CIP!!! SSV!! Urrgh!!

Rob