Laurencekirk GSJ

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Sulzer:1999
Member
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 21:34
Location: Kincardine O' Neil, Aboyne, Aberdeenshire

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by Sulzer:1999 »

Nwallace wrote:Although a separate topic altogether, also mentioned in the funding is improvements to the railway in the Montrose Basin area.
Hoping that means either a re-opening of the line from Kinaber to Perth or at least doubling the bridge...

Doubling the bridge would have a knock on capacity effect right into Fife.
By-passing Montrose by re-building the railway from Kinnaber to Bridge of Dun to Arbroath has been spoken about since the early 90's, I believe BR had engineers out doing a route survey.
I can't see any mention of Montrose railway improvements on the Transport Scotland site, can I ask where this has been announced?
Murray Duncan.
User avatar
novaecosse
Member
Posts: 4722
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 23:35
Location: Dundee, Scotland

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by novaecosse »

Sulzer:1999 wrote:
Nwallace wrote:Although a separate topic altogether, also mentioned in the funding is improvements to the railway in the Montrose Basin area.
Hoping that means either a re-opening of the line from Kinaber to Perth or at least doubling the bridge...

Doubling the bridge would have a knock on capacity effect right into Fife.
By-passing Montrose by re-building the railway from Kinnaber to Bridge of Dun to Arbroath has been spoken about since the early 90's, I believe BR had engineers out doing a route survey.
I can't see any mention of Montrose railway improvements on the Transport Scotland site, can I ask where this has been announced?
Murray Duncan.
It was identified in the Strategic Transport Projects Review
It's no. 23 — Rail Service Enhancements between Aberdeen and the Central Belt.
A.234 Phase 1 would include line speed improvements, additional loops to allow passing of freight trains, and upgraded signalling along the entire length of the line to reduce headway times. The intervention would also require more powerful rolling stock. Phase 2 would involve the removal of the single track at Usan, including a new bridge over Montrose Basin.

A.242 The deliverability of the intervention is considered technically and operationally feasible. The crossing over the Montrose Basin at Usan would potentially impact negatively on the local environment, and will need to be planned with care. However, this component if constructed would provide operational efficiencies and remove the only single track section of the East Coast Main Line. The physical works do not use any untried construction, although localised issues requiring increased technical capabilities to overcome might arise as the design process progresses. There are a large number of structures along the route for improvement, including under and over-bridges, viaducts and tunnels. All will need to be checked to determine the need for suitable upgrade to allow envisaged line speed and freight gauge enhancements. Additional loops will also be needed to allow freight trains to be passed.

A.243 During implementation of the proposed improvements the line might be closed for a period of time which would affect current users. Enhanced service frequencies would require additional rolling stock, train crew and timetable amendments. The sourcing of more powerful rolling stock would further enhance the benefits of this intervention.

A.244 The environmental impacts this intervention has on biodiversity and water quality have been identified at the strategic level as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Appropriate Assessment. Appropriate mitigation and avoidance measures have been identified and will be further refined should this intervention be taken forward.
Altnabreac
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 11:50

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by Altnabreac »

Sulzer:1999 wrote:
Nwallace wrote:Although a separate topic altogether, also mentioned in the funding is improvements to the railway in the Montrose Basin area.
Hoping that means either a re-opening of the line from Kinaber to Perth or at least doubling the bridge...

Doubling the bridge would have a knock on capacity effect right into Fife.
By-passing Montrose by re-building the railway from Kinnaber to Bridge of Dun to Arbroath has been spoken about since the early 90's, I believe BR had engineers out doing a route survey.
I can't see any mention of Montrose railway improvements on the Transport Scotland site, can I ask where this has been announced?
Murray Duncan.
There were four options for Montrose analysed in the 2011 Scotland RUS:
RUS wrote:Three options were considered to remove the constraint at Montrose – Usan:
a) double the current single section and viaducts
b) build new line of route from Montrose keeping as straight an alignment as possible to Boddin
c) divert the railway via the old solum through Frockheim Option c) was discounted as it had the highest cost and would bypass Montrose. Option b) was the preferred option as it would produce a greater reduction in journey times for a similar cost to option a) although a Transport and Works Scotland Act Order would be required.
RUS wrote:Since the publication of the Draft for Consultation, two alternative options have been considered as possible infrastructure solutions to provide improved journey times between Aberdeen and Perth.

The options were:
1. Reopening of the closed route from Kinnaber Jn (near Montrose) to Stanley Jn (near Perth).
2. Improved alignment at the northern end of the route where line speeds are lower.

The alignment for the first option would require 44.5 miles of new track at an estimated £15 million per mile which would total c£700m in costs, which is substantially higher than the option to double Montrose to Usan.
So basically you've got a long diversion from Perth at £700m, a short diversion via Friockheim at more than £200m and two schemes across Montrose basin at slightly less than £200m.

Looks to me like the Montrose basin with new alignment to Boddin is likely to be the chosen scheme but presumably a new GRIP analysis will be undertaken first to confirm this.
Sulzer:1999
Member
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 21:34
Location: Kincardine O' Neil, Aboyne, Aberdeenshire

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by Sulzer:1999 »

Thanks Gents, most interesting!

Murray Duncan
User avatar
Bertiebus
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 15:12
Location: The land of haggis bothering, NE division

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by Bertiebus »

Nwallace wrote:Doubling the bridge would have a knock on capacity effect right into Fife.
Doubling the bridge would have no effect whatsoever. Completely rebuilding the line between Montrose and Usan, easing the very steep curves and making it double track would be the minimum requirement, but there is still the issue of it being a hell of a climb.

There is absolutely no chance of the Kinnaber Junction to Perth line ever being rebuilt. The reason it closed in the first place is that it duplicated the Perth-Dundee-Montrose route, it bypasses Dundee, Arbroath, Montrose and the only centre of any significant population it served was Forfar, which is only 15 minutes or so from Dundee via the A90.

If it was reopened, the closure of the Glenfarg main line (in order to build the M90) means trains between Edinburgh (and points south) and Aberdeen would be considerably slower, having to travel via Thornton Jct and Bridge of Earn. The Friockheim option is equally implausible in terms of timing and bypasses Montrose.

It might be the stuff of railway enthusiast dreams and vote-winning noises, but in the real world when it comes to splashing the cash, spending millions to provid a worse level of service makes no sense at all!

My feeling is that improvements will be made elsewhere, where they will be cheaper and more practical, and the Montrose - Usan section will stay exactly as it is. Given that its only a tiny section, its hardly a bottleneck in reality.
User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8986
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by wrinkly »

User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by Bryn666 »

Good news. Some of the at grade junctions on the A90 hark back to the dark days of the A74...
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
paully
Member
Posts: 1196
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:48
Location: Perth

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by paully »

Some (long overdue) good news, but this is just one of many junctions that need action. There are another 2 junctions at Laurencekirk (though not nearly as busy) plus plenty near Portlethen where the road is extremely busy at peak times.
User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8986
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by wrinkly »

paully wrote:plus plenty near Portlethen where the road is extremely busy at peak times.
Though soon to be bypassed.
User avatar
orudge
Site Manager
Posts: 8261
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 12:23
Location: Banchory
Contact:

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by orudge »

paully wrote:Some (long overdue) good news, but this is just one of many junctions that need action. There are another 2 junctions at Laurencekirk (though not nearly as busy) plus plenty near Portlethen where the road is extremely busy at peak times.
I believe the studies for Laurencekirk have been considering the possibility of 2 GSJs - although I don't know if that was an older document (can't find it just now). Certainly, getting the A937 junction fixed would be good; closing the gaps on the others at least would help with safety. It's certainly pretty scary when you're driving along and there's a tractor and trailer sticking out into lane 2 trying to turn right...
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by Bryn666 »

The southbound right turn at Bridge of Muchalls in the middle of the sharp left bend is a design classic...

I can see that length being reduced to 50 when the Fastlink opens? Or even made D1??? :shock:
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
paully
Member
Posts: 1196
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:48
Location: Perth

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by paully »

I wonder if they will close some of the central gaps around Portlethen like they did between Perth and Dundee. Yes this section is due to be bypassed but I reckon a significant proportion of the communter traffic from Stonehaven/Montrose is heading to Altens or along Wellington Road, so I don't think the traffic levels will drop significantly. Also take into account all the housing being thrown up around the Newtonhill/Portlethen area!
User avatar
orudge
Site Manager
Posts: 8261
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 12:23
Location: Banchory
Contact:

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by orudge »

With the various new GSJs that have sprung up over the years around there, you would think there could be some justification for closing some of the gaps. It looks like this gap further north near the AWPR/Wellington Road interchange will be closed and replaced with a new link road, and looking at the map, I would guess that this one is to go too, with traffic being directed down to the Marywell GSJ.

It looks like a couple of gaps around Balmedie will also be closed as part of the B-T works (Balmedie will be gaining a GSJ instead).

My preference would be for as many of the gaps on the A90 between Aberdeen and Dundee to be closed as possible - there are certainly a lot of them though, many of them just to random properties or fields, so I don't see it happening any time soon. At least the A9 and A96 dualling works appear to be avoiding this kind of "dualling on the cheap".
User avatar
Bertiebus
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 15:12
Location: The land of haggis bothering, NE division

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by Bertiebus »

I was thinking the other day that the staggered flat junction at Northwaterbridge would surely have been better as a simple overbridge for traffic between Fettercairn/Edzell Woods and Hillside/Montrose, as the GSJ at Keithock and B974 flat junction are not far north/south of it to allow access to and from the A90 for local traffic.
User avatar
orudge
Site Manager
Posts: 8261
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 12:23
Location: Banchory
Contact:

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by orudge »

I usually use the Northwaterbridge junction when heading over the Cairn o'Mount to/from Banchory; indeed it often seems fairly busy when I'm heading south (usually 2 or 3 cars waiting to turn right onto the A90). The unclassified road appears to be of better quality than the actual B974 (wider - it's proper S2!). It would be nice to have the junction grade separated one way or another, but can't see it being a priority any time soon. I guess grade separating the B974 junction and then turning the Northwaterbridge junction into a LILO would probably make the most sense, although an associated widening of the B974 would be nice too!

More realistically, any chance we could get a northbound A90 -> A957 connection at Stonehaven? There's already an overbridge, it would just be nice to have an offslip! An onslip from A957 to A90 southbound would be nice, but it's not too big a detour to head along Farrochie Road then down to the Auchenblae Road junction. It maybe wouldn't be the busiest junction ever but it's surely better to allow Banchory-bound traffic to avoid Stonehaven, which is busy enough as it is?

I suppose I should really turn off when heading northbound at the Fetteresso junction then head along Broomhill Road, Auchenblae Road and to the A957 that way, but it never seems to occur to me to do so, instead always heading along the A92/A957 route.
User avatar
orudge
Site Manager
Posts: 8261
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 12:23
Location: Banchory
Contact:

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by orudge »

REVEALED: When work could start on A90 flyover

"Transport Minister Humza Yousaf told MSPs that he hoped designs for the A90 Laurencekirk interchange would be published in the next three years."

Target is draft orders to be published in 2019 apparently, so presumably we won't see anything on the ground until 2020 at least.
User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8986
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by wrinkly »

Mairi Evans (Angus North and Mearns) (Scottish National Party):
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S5O-00420 by Humza Yousaf on 1 December 2016 (Official Report, c. 8), what processes will be required to deliver the grade separated junction at Laurencekirk, and what the timescales of these will be.
(S5W-5287)

Humza Yousaf:
Transport Scotland is currently taking forward the options assessment process with a preferred option expected to be identified in 2018. This will be followed by the development and assessment of the preferred junction option leading to publication of draft Orders in 2019 for formal comment.

Progress thereafter is dependent on the level and nature of representation received in response to the published draft Orders. If objections are received and are unable to be resolved an approach may be required to the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division to appoint an independent Reporter to conduct a Public Local Inquiry. Following Inquiry and consideration of the Reporter’s recommendations the Scottish Minister’s would thereafter decide whether the Scheme should proceed.
User avatar
wrinkly
Member
Posts: 8986
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:17
Location: Leeds

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by wrinkly »

Proposals go on show on 30 Oct:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/news/pub ... k-options/
Public display for A90 Laurencekirk options

Locals and road users will get the opportunity on 30 October 2017 to view and comment on the options under consideration for the much-needed Laurencekirk Junction Improvement scheme.

Transport Minister Humza Yousaf said:

“Since we appointed design consultants last September, we have been working hard to identify and undertake an initial assessment of options for the planned improvements at Laurencekirk.

“We are now able to let the public see and comment on the options that are under consideration for this much-needed upgrade.

“I would encourage as many people as possible to attend the exhibition on 30 October or view the material online and give us their views.

“All comments received will be considered as we look to identify a preferred option next year.”

Details of the options exhibition:

Monday 30 October 2017 - 12 noon – 7 pm

St Laurence Hall, 7 Conveth Place, Laurencekirk AB30 1AD

The exhibition material showing the options for the Laurencekirk Junction Improvement scheme will be available to view from 12:00 noon 30 October 2017.
User avatar
Halmyre
Member
Posts: 1997
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 07:47
Location: Fifeshire

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by Halmyre »

Not going to be avaialable on line? :confused:
Nwallace
Member
Posts: 4239
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 22:42
Location: Dundee

Re: Laurencekirk GSJ

Post by Nwallace »

Halmyre wrote:Not going to be avaialable on line? :confused:
Cid be tae save translatyon costs? Thir's nae point gien the info in Inglis whan the loons an Quines aw spik doric.
Post Reply