Preliminary Appraisal Summary Table - Linespeed Passenger and Freight Capacity Improvements

Preliminary Appraisal Summary

Option Description

Linespeed, Passenger and Freight Capacity Improvements on the Aberdeen to Inverness Rail Line

The Aberdeen to Inverness rail line runs close by the A96 Trunk Road for sections of its length and has stations in towns including Nairn, Forres, Elgin, Keith, Huntly, Inverurie and Kintore that the A96 interacts with. The rail line is approximately 108 miles long and is primarily single track with passing loops. The current end-to-end passenger journey times are typically around 2 hours 25 minutes, with services operating at irregular intervals following an approximately two-hourly frequency. The service therefore does not currently offer an attractive alternative to road travel.

In addition, there are existing intermodal freight facilities within the A96 corridor at Inverness Needlefield Yard and Raith’s Farm near Dyce. A daily intermodal service operates between Eurocentral (near Glasgow) and the Inverness site, but the Raith’s Farm site is seldom used with all intermodal traffic terminating south of Aberdeen at the Craiginches Yard.

This option considers three distinct improvements to the route:

• Linespeed improvements to reduce journey times
• The provision of passing loops to enable a more frequent passenger service
• The provision of enhanced freight facilities to enable intermodal freight growth.

Improvements to the rail line and freight facilities aim to encourage modal shift for both passengers and freight, respectively, reducing the number of private vehicles and HGVs on the corridor.

Item 1 – Linespeed Improvements

The passenger service between Aberdeen and Inverness currently operates at an average speed of typically 50 to 60mph when operating between stations (assuming a time penalty of two minutes per station stop) giving an end-to-end journey time of approximately 2 hours and 25 minutes. To operate this service with a two-hour journey time this average speed has to increase to around 65mph between stations.

Many factors affect linespeed on a railway including track condition and components, curve radii, gradient, signalling, structural capacity and indeed the performance characteristics of the rolling stock utilised on a line, but it can be assumed that in order to improve the average linespeed by around 15mph then significant works will be required to one or more of these factors. It is anticipated that investment would be required in new rolling stock as a minimum; however, there are also known sections of severe gradient and curvature on the line (5 Mile Diagrams ) which may be contributing to the limitations on the existing linespeed.

It is also recommended that the limiting factor on the existing linespeed between Insch and Keith be further investigated to determine whether the linespeed can be easily increased in this section to be at least 65mph.

Item 2 – Passenger Capacity Improvements

In order to implement Transport Scotland’s stated aim of an hourly passenger service with a two-hour end-to-end journey time it will be necessary to construct additional sections of double track ( Aberdeen to Inverness rail improvements ) . High level pathing analysis indicates that whilst there are many options depending on the stagger of the services starting from Aberdeen and Inverness, all options require approximately the same level of intervention, namely two new sections of double track. One option would be to lengthen the passing loop at Keith, through Keith station including a new north platform to serve eastbound trains with an access-for-all bridge, and construct a new dynamic loop between Forres and Elgin, approximately 7km long. Another option would be to increase the linespeed to enable a two-hour end-to-end journey time, and then only the improvements at Keith would be required. Finally, a capacity analysis of Aberdeen station would be required and it is likely that some measures to increase platform capacity for northbound services would be necessary.

Item 3 – Freight Capacity Improvements

It is assumed that freight paths are available along the existing rail line and therefore the current major barrier to their use is a lack of intermodal facilities between Dyce and Inverness. There are, however, several suitable sites where a new intermodal facility could be delivered, with disused yards located on sidings at both Huntly and Keith stations and a large yard at Elgin that is used for track maintenance activities. Of these yards, Huntly is deemed the most appropriate as it is suitably sized for conversion to an intermodal facility and well placed in an industrial estate away from the urban areas of the town with easy access onto the A96 adjacent to the site.

Whilst the yards at Huntly may offer a suitable location, an alternative would be a greenfield site in the vicinity of Elgin that could have potential for development as an intermodal facility but, due to the construction of a potential Elgin bypass, it is not possible to indicate a preferred site at this time as a new intermodal terminal at Elgin would likely interface with any bypass proposal.

Work on the enabling infrastructure to provide a freight connection to the Norbord timber mill site as part of the project to construct Dalcross station has been completed, but the private siding connection is still to be constructed (20/04746/FUL: Network Rail - Land 685M South of Inverness Airport, Dalcross ). This will allow timber to be delivered directly to the site by rail.

Relevance

Relevant to the Aberdeen – Inverness rail corridor

Transport Scotland’s programme of incremental improvements of the Aberdeen to Inverness rail line focuses on service improvements and increased opportunities for freight. Further improvement of these services to make them a more attractive and flexible alternative to private vehicle use has the potential to encourage modal shift while reducing the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions in support of the Scottish Government’s target of reducing the number of kilometres travelled by car by 20% by 2030 ( Securing a green recovery on a path to net zero: climate change plan 2018–2032 - update ) .

The passenger service improvements listed within this option are loosely defined in Transport Scotland’s objectives for the “Aberdeen to Inverness Rail Improvements” scheme of which Phase 1 was completed in 2019 and included re-doubling of the line to Inverurie, platform extensions at Insch and Elgin and new stations at Kintore and Forres. A further station was delivered at Dalcross to serve Inverness Airport in February 2023, and future phases of the project have the stated aim to provide an hourly frequency service between Aberdeen and Inverness with a two-hour journey time, but this work is not committed and no timescales are given so it is therefore within the scope of this A96 Corridor Review.

Delivering faster journey times, enhanced reliability, network resilience, and increased frequency for passenger services, together with enhanced freight facilities to enable intermodal freight growth, offers economic, social and environmental benefits and would address problems identified with the current rail line.

Estimated Cost

£101m - £250m Capital

Each proposed infrastructure listed above is approximately priced as follows:

Item 1 – Linespeed Improvements

It is anticipated that six new decarbonised trains would be required to replace the existing rolling stock, and these are anticipated to cost between £25m - £50m.

Item 2 – Passenger Capacity Improvements

Providing passenger capacity improvements may include the extension of Keith passing loop and the provision of a new platform at Keith, the addition of 7km of dynamic loop between Forres and Elgin and/or the provision of additional capacity at Aberdeen station. It is anticipated that these elements would cost between £51m - £100m.

Item 3 – Freight Capacity Improvements

The addition of a simple two siding intermodal yard at one of the locations is anticipated to cost <£25m. The net impact on revenue/subsidy for services on this line would depend on the specific impact that improvements have on patronage and any additional applicable operational costs.

It should be noted that the identified cost banding of the overall option has been determined based upon the assumption that all of the improvements listed in the three items above are delivered.

Position in Sustainable Hierarchies

Sustainable Investment Hierarchy / Sustainable Travel Hierarchy

Within the Sustainable Investment Hierarchy, this option sits within ‘targeted infrastructure improvements’. However, with the potential to increase the use of the existing railway infrastructure for medium to long distance corridor travel, this option also contributes towards ‘making better use of existing capacity’. This option would also sit within the ‘public transport’ tier of the Sustainable Travel Hierarchy.

This option would also contribute to seven of the 12 NTS2 outcomes, as follows:

• Help deliver our net zero target
• Provide fair access to services we need
• Promote greener, cleaner choices
• Get people and goods where they need to get to
• Be reliable, efficient and high quality
• Use beneficial innovation
• Be safe and secure for all.

Summary Rationale

Summary of Appraisal

This option makes a largely positive contribution to the A96 Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs), Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) criteria, and Statutory Impact Assessment (SIA) criteria, with the exception of the STAG Environment criterion, in both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

This option sets out a broad range of proposals to increase both the passenger and freight capacity on the Aberdeen to Inverness rail line in order to make it a more attractive service and encourage modal shift. Doing so would remove a potential barrier towards using the rail network for medium to long distance travel across the corridor and therefore reduce the inequality of access to the public transport network. As a result, the option is anticipated to have moderate positive impact for contributing to Scottish Government’s net zero targets (TPO1), and minor positive impacts for improving accessibility to public transport (TPO2), enhancing communities as places to support health, wellbeing and the environment (TP03), contributing to sustainable inclusive growth (TPO4) and providing a transport system that is safe, reliable and resilient (TPO5). The option would support the Scottish Government’s target of achieving a 20% reduction in car kilometres by 2030, as well as contributing to delivering the net zero emissions target.

The construction of new track and freight yards can have a negative impact on other aspects of the environment including visual amenity, cultural heritage and biodiversity, though these negative impacts are anticipated to be minor and could be mitigated as part of the detailed design development process. However, it could deliver moderate positive impacts for the STAG Economy criterion, and minor positive impacts for Climate Change, Health, Safety and Wellbeing and Equality and Accessibility criteria.

The problems and opportunities on the route are complex and interwoven, so it is recommended that a full study be undertaken subsequent to this initial high level analysis to ascertain the precise nature of the interventions required.

Delivery is considered to be feasible at this stage; however, a detailed assessment would require to be undertaken to fully establish the details of the option and impacts of construction. The option is considered to be affordable at this stage, though it is noted that there are some risks with respect to ongoing revenue funding. Support in improving capacity and reliability of the rail network is anticipated by the public and businesses throughout the corridor.

It is recommended that this option is taken forward to the Detailed Appraisal stage.

Details behind this summary are discussed in Section 3.

Context

Problems and Opportunities

This option could help to address the following problem and opportunity themes. Further detail on the identified problems and opportunities is provided in the published A96 Corridor Review Case for Change ( A96 Corridor Review Case for Change ) .

Relevant Problem and Opportunity Themes Identified in the A96 Corridor Review Case for Change

Safety and Resilience: From the analysis of accident data, the rural sections of the A96 Trunk Road have overall Personal Injury Accidents (PIA) rates lower than or similar to the national average based on all trunk A-roads of the equivalent type. There are, however, selected urban sections of the A96 Trunk Road that show an accident rate higher than the national average, with specific locations in Forres and Keith. The rate of Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) accidents is also significantly higher in these two towns than the national average, nearly five times the national average in Keith and just above three times the national average in Forres. A number of rural sections of the A96 Trunk Road also have a rate of KSIs higher than the national average these being between Hardmuir and Forres, between Fochabers and Keith, between Keith and East of Huntly and between Kintore and Craibstone.

The A96 Trunk Road is affected by closures and delays due to accidents, maintenance and weather events. Recommended diversion routes can be lengthy throughout the corridor, up to approximately 65km depending on where the closure occurs. The economic impact of closures can be significant for HGVs and the movement of goods.

The rail network demonstrates a certain level of unreliability. Services at Aberdeen, Inverness and Inverurie all have a Public Performance Measure (PPM) percentage worse than the national average pre-COVID. This is likely to contribute to the relatively low levels of rail mode share.

Public Transport Accessibility: Evidence across the transport appraisal study area suggests that outside of Aberdeen, the level of public transport use is low in comparison to the rest of the country. Outside of Aberdeen City, the use of rail for commuting to work is generally lower than the national average, with only the settlement of Insch having a mode share above national average.

Large sections of the population in the transport appraisal study area cannot access key services such as hospitals with emergency departments, or higher education within two hours by public transport. Moray and Aberdeenshire both have low accessibility to these services which are often centralised in more urban areas such as Elgin, Inverness or Aberdeen. As such, public transport is not an option for many trip purposes within the transport appraisal study area.

Health and Environment: Transport is a major contributor to CO ₂ emissions along the A96 corridor, particularly in the Aberdeenshire and Highland Council areas. Transport contributes over 35% of the total emissions in both Aberdeenshire and Highland Council areas and between 25% and 30% in Aberdeen City and Moray. This is potentially an outcome of the high dependence on cars for travel, long travel distances and the levels of road-based freight movements.

The route of the A96 travels through the centre of towns along the corridor such as Elgin and Keith, which puts a relatively large proportion of the population in close proximity to potential noise pollution and pollutants from transport emissions that affect local air quality.

Sustainable Economic Growth: There is an opportunity to support and enhance sustainable economic growth across the transport appraisal study area. The key industries in the region, including food and drink production and agriculture, forestry and fishing have a high proportion of goods movement, as evidenced through the relatively high proportion of HGVs on the A96. A shift to alternative sustainable transport modes could improve journey time reliability, resulting in economic and environmental benefits, with trials being undertaken in recent years to increase the proportion of rail freight movements.

The transport appraisal study area has shown growth in tourism spend in recent years with the rise of whisky tourism and the Speyside Whisky Trail a major component of the economy in this sector. There are opportunities to change the way in which visitors travel to and from the region, and around it. Walking and cycling tourism is one such opportunity and has the potential to create further economic growth by attracting new visitors to the region. Improving linespeed between Aberdeen and Inverness has the potential to make rail a more attractive choice for travel, allowing tourists to travel by a more sustainable mode than car.

Improving Safety: There is the opportunity to reduce the number and severity of accidents on the A96 Trunk Road on those sections where the PIA and/or KSI accident rates are high when compared to the national average for equivalent urban or rural trunk A-roads. Improving safety for road users would contribute to meeting the targets set out in Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030 to achieve the 50% reduction in people killed or seriously injured (60% reduction for children). Reducing the level of car-based kilometres travelled would also contribute to a reduction in accident numbers.

Health and Environment Impacts of Travel: Reducing the use of car travel throughout the transport appraisal study area, particularly for short trips that could be made without motorised transport at all, would help reduce the transport contribution to CO ₂ emissions, an important requirement of the Scottish Government’s net zero target. Fewer vehicle kilometres travelled would also improve the local air quality, with associated health benefits in communities along the A96.

Interdependencies

This option has potential overlap with other A96 Corridor Review options and would also complement other areas of Scottish Government activity.

Other A96 Corridor Review Options

• Improved Public Transport Passenger Interchange Facilities
• Introduce Rail Freight Terminals
• Improved Parking at Railway Stations
• Development of the A96 Electric Corridor.

Other areas of Scottish Government activity

• Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 ( Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 )
• Climate Change Plan 2018-32 Update ( Securing a green recovery on a path to net zero: climate change plan 2018–2032 – update )
• Decarbonising the Scottish Transport Sector (2021) ( Decarbonising the Scottish Transport Sector )
• High Level Output Specification for Control Period 6 ( The Scottish Ministers’ High Level Output Specification for Control Period 6 )
• Infrastructure Investment Plan 2021/22 – 2025/26 (IIP) ( A National Mission with Local Impact: Infrastructure Investment Plan for Scotland 2021-22 to 2025-26 )
• National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) ( Draft Fourth National Planning Framework 4 )
• National Transport Strategy (NTS2) ( National Transport Strategy 2 )
• Rail Enhancements and Capital Investment Strategy ( Rail Enhancements and Capital Investment Strategy )
• Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation ( Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation )
• Scotland’s Rail Freight Strategy ( Scotland’s Rail Freight Strategy )
• Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030 ( Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030 )
• Strategic Road Safety Plan (2016) ( Strategy Road Safety Plan (2016) ) .

Appraisal

Appraisal Overview

This section provides an assessment of the option against:

• A96 Corridor Review Transport Planning Objectives
• STAG criteria
• Deliverability criteria
• Statutory Impact Assessment criteria.

The seven-point assessment scale has been used to indicate the impact of the option when considered under the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ Travel Behaviour scenarios (which are described in Appendix A of the Appraisal Report).

Transport Planning Objectives

1. A sustainable strategic transport corridor that contributes to the Scottish Government’s net zero emissions target.

For passenger services, the provision of enhanced frequency rail services together with a significant reduction in end-to-end journey time is supportive of this objective by providing enhanced opportunities to travel by rail, encouraging mode shift and therefore contributing to the target for a 20% reduction in car kilometres. The rolling stock replacement in this option is consistent with the aims of the rail decarbonisation strategy and the option demonstrates how replacement of rolling stock is able to provide additional benefits over and above decarbonisation by providing the basis for reduced journey times.

Enhanced freight facilities, combined with a faster linespeed, would help make transporting freight by rail a more attractive option compared to road. Any modal shift resulting from improved rail infrastructure would help to reduce emissions associated with freight transport, contributing toward the net zero emissions target.

Overall, the option is likely to have a moderate positive impact against this objective under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

2. An inclusive strategic transport corridor that improves the accessibility of public transport in rural areas for access to healthcare, employment and education.

The option enhances the frequency of passenger services and aims to reduce journey times, providing enhanced accessibility to key services such as healthcare, employment and education throughout the corridor. Whilst this option only provides benefits to those with access to the rail network, it would also provide benefit to those without access to a car but with local access to rail, providing a more inclusive transport system for a proportion of the population. Improved connections can also complement, and be complemented by, other transport interventions as part of an inclusive transport network. This opens up new opportunities for young people to access further and higher education, and for elderly people to have access to public services. A more competitive rail system for inter-city travel can also encourage travel by a wide range of users, including leisure, tourist and business travellers. The benefits of this option in relation to this objective are clear; however, this needs to be viewed in the context of the likely scale of impact as benefits rely on impacting journeys that are heavily orientated to facilities in the major centres of population in the corridor that have direct access to railway stations.

Overall, the option is likely to have a minor positive impact against this objective under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

3. A coherent strategic transport corridor that enhances communities as places, supporting health, wellbeing and the environment.

The option may serve to reduce the number of medium to long distance trips on the trunk road network as it encourages mode shift away from car. The freight enhancements are also anticipated to reduce the number of HGVs travelling on the route. Both of these elements could enhance the sense of place within communities along the corridor, due to improved local air quality and ambience as a result of fewer vehicle movements. This in turn would make communities more attractive for walking and cycling, encouraging a mode shift to active modes for shorter, everyday trips, which would enhance health and wellbeing and benefit the environment by reducing emissions related to road-based transport.

Overall, the option is likely to have a minor positive impact against this objective under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

4. An integrated strategic transport system that contributes towards sustainable inclusive growth throughout the corridor and beyond.

Enhancements that increase capacity and speed of services on the Aberdeen to Inverness rail corridor would contribute to sustainable economic growth by improving connectivity, access to labour markets, and accessibility to employment, education and training.

Enhanced capacity for freight routes would improve the competitiveness of businesses in key markets, by providing more low carbon avenues of trade. Overall, journey time reliability for freight would be improved, due to modal shift from road freight to rail freight. Freight journeys which shift to rail would benefit from the better reliability afforded by rail relative to road, while journeys which remain on road would benefit from reduced congestion on the road network.

This would be anticipated to both support and enhance economic growth.

Overall, the option is likely to have a minor positive impact against this objective under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

5. A reliable and resilient strategic transport system that is safe for users.

The provision of modern decarbonised rolling stock on the line is likely to increase the reliability of services, for example by reducing the number of train failures. Similarly, the provision of additional passing loops would serve to increase the reliability and resilience of the rail infrastructure to mitigate the impacts of trains running not-to-time and other incidents, therefore helping to create a network that passengers can rely on. The increase in service frequency would provide a positive impact on resilience by significantly limiting the time delay impact on travel of individual service cancellation.

As this option could also encourage a mode shift from private car and transfer freight from the road network to rail, there may also be a reduction in the number of vehicles using the corridor. Reducing the overall traffic volume would reduce the risk of accidents occurring, improving the reliability of the route. Furthermore, reducing the number of HGVs would also reduce the potential for platooning, and driver frustration, which could also reduce the number of accidents on the route, further improving reliability. The provision of reliable, consistent services is key to encouraging behavioural change, and therefore long term modal shift, for both passenger and freight.

As rail is considered to be one of the safest modes of transport with just under three fatalities per billion passenger miles in 2020-2021 ( Department for Transport, Rail Factsheet ) , any mode shift to rail would reduce the number of fatalities by reducing the dependence on other, more dangerous modes of transport.

Overall, the option is likely to have a minor positive impact against this objective under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

STAG Criteria

1. Environment

This option is likely to result in positive effects in terms of reducing greenhouse gases and air pollution as it could lead to a modal shift towards sustainable modes of transport for passengers and freight. The number of longer distance HGV movements on the corridor is therefore likely to decrease, leading to a positive effect in terms of noise reduction and a slight improvement in air quality in localised areas, particularly where the A96 is located within settlements. This would have some positive effects on amenity and placemaking by reducing some of the HGV trips through settlements. Noise and vibration may increase along the rail line as a consequence of greater freight movements which might have a minor negative effect. Furthermore, there may be localised increases in noise levels and slightly reduced air quality around the freight terminals as the number of short distance HGV trips may increase. In terms of passenger movements, the decrease in travel time on the railway may be more attractive as a mode of travel for individuals travelling to work or reaching the larger settlements, creating benefit for the general population.

The option is likely to have a moderate negative effect in terms of natural resource requirements due to the construction of new freight facilities and dualling of the tracks in certain locations.

A new freight terminal at Huntly and dualling of the existing tracks at Keith has the potential for negative environmental effects during construction and operation in relation to biodiversity, natural resources, cultural heritage, and landscape and visual amenity, for example. The locations chosen are likely to result in a low environmental impact given the locations are adjacent to existing or historic rail facilities and have no significant environmental designations. The extent of the impact would be dependent on the scope of works and precise location of the terminal and the extent of dualling. There are some rows of trees and wooded areas in and around the Huntly and Keith railway stations which may be affected.

Overall, at this preliminary stage in the appraisal process, the potential environmental effects of constructing a rail freight terminal and dualling of targeted sections of the track within the corridor is expected to be minor negative, although this would be subject to final site selection and associated design. This is on the basis that although there are positive environmental effects associated with this option, these would potentially be outweighed by effects from constructing a new rail freight terminal and the dualling of sections of track. Such impacts could either be direct (such as demolition/land loss/habitat loss) or indirect (such as impacts on setting or views).

Mitigation measures may be possible to offset the negative impacts through, for example, tree planting; however, the extent of impacts and efficacy of mitigation would only be known through the detailed design development process. If environmental constraints, such as designated sites, can be avoided, then adverse environmental effects can be reduced.

Overall, this option is likely to have a minor negative impact against this criterion under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

2. Climate Change

The provision of enhanced frequency rail services, together with a significant reduction in end-to-end journey time, would increase the attractiveness of rail as a mode of transport for passenger journeys between Aberdeen and Inverness and could help generate modal transfer from car to rail. This option also seeks to improve the use of sustainable modes of transport through modal shift of freight from road to rail, reducing the number of road freight vehicles on the corridor. This would result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions associated with road freight transport in the long term. However, in the short term greenhouse gas emissions would arise from construction activities undertaken to deliver the infrastructure, including indirect emissions from the manufacture and transportation of materials and emissions from the fuel combusted by construction plant and vehicles. The combined extent of overall impact on greenhouse gas emissions would only be known through the detailed design development process. The option has the potential to be vulnerable to the effects of climate change impacting the existing railway, for example damage to railway and drainage systems from periods of heavy rainfall with the potential for increased runoff from adjacent land. However, new infrastructure would be designed in such a way to minimise the potential effects of climate change, to reduce the vulnerability.

Further environmental assessment would be undertaken if this option is progressed through the design and development process.

Overall, at this preliminary stage in the appraisal process, the potential impacts of the option are considered to be minor positive on the Climate Change criterion under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

3. Health, Safety and Wellbeing

Through both increased frequency of service, reduction in journey times for passenger journeys and improved journey quality through the provision of new rolling stock, it is likely that this option would result in modal shift from road to rail freight traffic, replacing longer distance HGV movements in the corridor and beyond. This is expected to reduce the overall number of vehicle kilometres travelled by goods vehicles which, in turn, is likely to improve the overall safety performance of highway networks through a reduction in the frequency of collisions and associated casualties. Additionally, the movement of freight by rail is more secure than by road as rail freight terminals are typically well fenced off with CCTV protection.

However, the level of impact of this modal shift in both cases is likely to be modest given the distributed nature of both trip origins and destinations for journeys impacting on the corridor.

There is potential for negative environmental effects on visual amenity during construction and operation of this option; however, this would need to be assessed in more detail during the development of the option.

It is anticipated that this option will have no impact on the personal security of travellers and their property.

Access to health and wellbeing infrastructure may improve due to improved rail journey times and frequency.

There may be some health benefits from improved air quality due to reduced emissions attributed to modal shift from car to rail and road freight to rail. A reduction in HGVs and LGVs may also improve community ambience as a result of fewer vehicle movements, which can in turn make a community more attractive for walking and cycling, with associated benefits on health and wellbeing. Overall rail is considered a safe mode of travel. In 2020/21xviii, the Department for Transport reported under 3 fatalities per billion passenger miles. Encouraging modal shift to rail for passenger journeys would therefore be anticipated to support a reduction in accidents. There may be some health benefits from improved air quality due to reduced emissions attributed to modal shift from car to rail and road freight to rail. A reduction in HGVs and LGVs may also improve community ambience as a result of fewer vehicle movements, which can in turn make a community more attractive for walking and cycling, with associated benefits on health and wellbeing.

Overall, this option is forecast to have a minor positive impact on this criterion under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

4. Economy

An economic assessment to calculate the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) of this option has not been undertaken at this stage of appraisal as the standard of the infrastructure proposed is currently unknown.

The Aberdeen/Inverness rail line provides an important economic link between the two cities, within the corridor, and beyond through interchange with other rail services. As well as providing linkages for passenger services, the line is used by freight services.

Increasing the frequency of passenger services coupled with a significant reduction in end-to-end journey time is likely to have a positive impact on this criterion by reducing non-productive time and improving the linkage between economic activity in the two cities. It is also likely to assist in bolstering the local economies of settlements in the corridor that have railway stations, by making them attractive places to live, work and visit, and will improve access to both cities for opportunities for work, education and access to other key services.

In addition to the benefits to rail passengers, this option seeks to facilitate the movement of goods via rail freight. The key user groups that could benefit in this regard are businesses and enterprises that currently transport goods over medium to long distances via road. Over longer distances, it is expected that the movement of goods via this option could be more economically competitive than road and therefore the increased attractiveness of this option may encourage further usage and overall investment.

If sufficient volumes of freight transfer from road to rail there are likely to be benefits for general road users through the reduction of goods vehicles using the highway network.

Additionally, rail terminals can act as a catalyst for additional private sector investment in warehousing and other related industries, leading to industrial agglomerations with recent examples being the private sector investment at Mossend International Railfreight Park ( Mossend International Railfreight Park ) , Port of Grangemouth ( Grangemouth is Scotland’s Newest Rail Hub ) (operated by Forth Ports) and Highland Spring at Blackford ( Freight flows for highland spring water ) . While it applies to most sectors of the economy, consumer goods, manufacturing, building and construction and forestry are expected to be particularly strong.

Overall, this option is forecast to have a moderate positive impact on this criterion under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

5. Equality and Accessibility

The option enhances the frequency of passenger services and aims to reduce journey times, providing enhanced accessibility to key services such as healthcare, employment and education throughout the corridor, promoting social inclusion and improving comparative access by geographical location. Whilst this option only provides benefits to those with access to the rail network, it will provide benefit to those without access to a car, providing a more inclusive transport system. This option does not impact on the network coverage of public transport nor active transport.

This option also has the potential to encourage freight mode shift from road to rail and there may be examples of some minimal reduction in community severance due to a reduction in the number of goods vehicles on the road.

This option is not expected to impact on affordability.

Reference should also be made to the SIAs in Section 3.5.

Overall, this option is forecast to have a minor positive impact on this criterion under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

Deliverability

1. Feasibility

The primary method of delivering linespeed improvements is through the provision of new decarbonised rolling stock, with improved power and acceleration/deceleration characteristics relative to current units. For costing purposes, the option has identified a market-available hydrogen unit, which is considered to be a feasible option for future rolling stock. It is noted that further investigation of the potential to raise linespeed between Insch and Keith be undertaken, and that the feasibility of this is not known at this time.

The provision of a dynamic loop between Forres and Elgin and a passing loop at Keith, alongside a second platform is considered likely to be feasible as the one major structure over the railway between Forres and Elgin is already capable of taking dual track. In addition, the land between Forres and Elgin is relatively flat with a low level of adjoining development. It is considered that this would have a high degree of feasibility. The railway and station at Keith are located on the northern edge of the settlement, with works impacting open and wooded ground between the railway and the River Isla. It is considered that there is sufficient space to accommodate both the lengthening of the existing loop, and the provision of a second platform at Keith Station.

The northern approaches to Aberdeen appear to have some degree of latent capacity, as does the station overall looking at the movements versus the platform availability. Notwithstanding this, a full detailed timetabling study would need to be undertaken to assure this in conjunction with any upgrading works. If required, additional capacity is likely to be feasible through one or more of the following:

• Full or partial re-doubling of northern approaches (subject to gauge clearance)
• Altering trackwork in the through platforms to increase operational flexibility and/or
• Reinstating redundant through platforms on the west side.

The technical assessment of freight capacity improvements identifies an opportunity at Huntly to make use of the yard adjacent to the station, which is located close to the A96 and on the outskirts of the town and is considered to be a feasible location for an intermodal freight facility. A second option for the facility, located on the outskirts of Elgin, is also considered to be feasible given the proximity of the railway to the A96, and the availability of relatively flat open land.

Overall this option is considered to be feasible, with proposed enhancements representing tried and tested approaches to improving the rail network, with a number of similar schemes implemented across the Scottish rail network in previous years.

As with all rail enhancements, a number of risks require consideration. Risks may include strategic (relating to the rail infrastructure, wider transport network and trends with the transport industry for example increased freight traffic), regulatory/legal (alteration of planning legislation) and financial (unforeseen environmental conditions, asset condition, land assembly and acquisition). These would need to be considered alongside any cost, timescale or deliverability risks associated with the construction and operation of the option.

In terms of the rail engineering and construction aspects required, there may be negative impacts on the local area and communities associated with construction that would require to be considered, such as increased noise, train movements and dust. Furthermore, there may be unforeseen technical challenges onsite that would make the implementation more complex and expensive, particularly given the age of some structures along the route.

Technologies and construction techniques are generally proven and present no significant risks to delivery, albeit a more thorough, detailed assessment would be required considering local issues and constraints, therefore identifying potential challenges that could lead to increased timescales and costs. However, line upgrades for passenger and rail freight are near continuous within the UK, with Network Rail having expertise of the Scottish railway network, and the necessary work required to deliver upgrades.

In terms of the operational aspects it is considered that implementation of this option would allow Train Operating Companies (TOCs) and Freight Operating Companies (FOCs) more flexibility within the working timetable (due, for example, to more paths and improved linespeeds).

2. Affordability

New rolling stock is already anticipated to occur due to both periodic replacement of older stock and the extant decarbonisation programme, and is therefore deemed to be affordable. Other costs are related to the infrastructure elements and are considered to be of a magnitude that is affordable in the context of rail system interventions.

There are, however, risks with respect to potential ongoing revenue costs, due to uncertainty about future passenger rail demand. There is some early evidence that leisure journeys are recovering more quickly following the pandemic, and whilst there is expected to be a continued reduction in commuting and in-work travel, there is evidence that this may increase willingness to travel further, potentially increasing demand for longer inter-city trips.

Development of freight terminals or facilities would likely be led by the private sector and based on commercial decisions. The Scottish Government could support these developments with grant funding subject to the application satisfying the criteria and budget availability. The ongoing use/maintenance of private freight facilities is subject to commercial viability for the operator, and this may fluctuate over time.

While there is inevitably some uncertainty around the uptake of new freight paths, overall at the UK level, rail freight has recovered to pre-pandemic levels with the two growth areas being in Intermodal and Aggregates.

3. Public Acceptability

Investment in rail generally is anticipated to have a high level of public acceptability. Passenger rail improvements are typically seen as positive by the public, as they can increase the frequency of services, reduce journey times, improve network resilience (fewer delays and cancellations) and increase accessibility of key locations (for example, employment) by rail.

Rail freight improvements would also be expected to generate support from the public, due to the potential reduction in the number of goods vehicles on the road network, resulting in reduced congestion and environmental benefits. However, some localised increases in HGVs near to freight yards to enable multimodal connections may create some level of discontent from residents close to the proposed yards due to increased emissions and noise.

The option would seek to deliver the longer term aims for the Aberdeen and Inverness line as have been set out in the public domain for some time, and as such is likely to generate support from a variety of business and community groups as well as the general public.

Public consultation undertaken as part of this review indicated mixed levels of support for improvements to linespeed, passenger and freight capacity and improvements on the Aberdeen to Inverness line. In relation to available space and capacity on trains, 30% of respondents stated that they were “very dissatisfied” or “dissatisfied” and 24% of respondents selected “very satisfied” or "satisfied". A total of 30% of respondents considered improving rail services, including train connections, cost, and comfort of travel, as a priority. Furthermore, 14% of respondents suggested more capacity on trains. Other suggestions included increased bike capacity. This suggests that there is demand for improvements to linespeed and passenger capacity.

Statutory Impact Assessment Criteria

1. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

An SEA has been prepared and has helped inform the Environment criterion of the STAG appraisal. There is also considerable overlap between the SEA and the Climate Change criterion. The SEA utilises a set of SEA objectives that covers a wide range of environmental topics including Climatic Factors, Air Quality, Noise, Population and Human Health, Material Assets, Water Environment, Biodiversity, Geology and Soils, Cultural Heritage, Landscape and Visual Amenity. The full SEA, including scoring and narrative for each of the Preliminary Appraisal interventions and Detailed Appraisal packages is presented in the SEA Draft Environmental Report ( Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Draft Environmental Report - A96 Corridor Review ) .

2. Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA)

Increased capacity and frequency on the passenger network between Aberdeen and Inverness would likely benefit those who do not have access to a private car and are more dependent on public transport to make journeys along the corridor. However, the extent to which groups will benefit will depend on the accessibility of rail services, affordability of fares and connectivity to important services for protected groups such as healthcare, education, employment and shopping.

Rail freight enhancements on the Aberdeen to Inverness line are likely to provide a minor positive impact to individuals in terms of equalities. Encouraging modal shift from road freight to rail may contribute to a reduction in harmful transport emissions and improve local air quality. This would benefit public health, particularly for vulnerable groups such as children, disabled people, older people and pregnant women.

However, this option could lead to increased traffic in the vicinity of the new freight yard and as such the impact on protected characteristic groups living in the area should be considered when siting.

This option is expected to have a minor positive impact on addressing this criterion under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

3. Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA)

This option could improve connectivity to key services such as education for children and young people living near to rail stations along the corridor. Children and young people tend to be more reliant on public transport services in general, so are more likely to benefit from rail improvements. However, the extent to which groups will benefit will depend on the accessibility of rail services, affordability of fares, and connectivity to services required.

By encouraging modal shift from road to rail for both passenger and freight movements, this option could contribute to an improved local air quality, which would benefit children and young people as they are particularly vulnerable to the effects of poor air quality.

By reducing the volume of road traffic, safety could also be improved which would benefit children as they are more vulnerable to fear of road danger.

However, it should be noted that a new freight yard could lead to increased localised traffic, which could negatively impact air quality and road safety for children depending on where the freight yard is located.

This option is expected to have an overall minor positive impact on this criterion under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.

4. Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment (FSDA)

Increased capacity and frequency on the rail network between Aberdeen and Inverness would likely benefit those who do not have access to a private car and are more dependent on public transport to make journeys along the corridor. However, the extent to which socio-economically disadvantaged groups will benefit will depend on wider factors such as affordability of fares and connectivity to important services such as healthcare, education, employment and shopping.

Encouraging modal shift from road freight to rail may contribute to a reduction in harmful transport emissions which in turn could result in a reduction in inequalities of health in disadvantaged and deprived communities through improved air quality.

The provision of a rail freight yard could provide local employment opportunities both through construction and operation.

This option is expected to have a minor positive impact on addressing this criterion under both the ‘With Policy’ and ‘Without Policy’ scenarios.