High Speed Rail Scotland

[Altnabreac]

Scotland On Sunday is reporting that a deal has been done to get Scotland-London journey times down to 3 hours:

http://www.scotsman.com/regions/edi...d-london-train-times-to-three-hours-1-4077092

Also worth reading the accompanying piece from Keith Brown that sums up the difficulties that have been overcome just to get to this point.

Looks like we're finally moving in the right direction!
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transp...ment-ends-long-and-tortuous-process-1-4077090

 

[WatcherZero]

Yeah, illuminating that they had the report 2 years ago but have spent all this time rewriting it to get the right answers.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Beware statements from politicians - especially just before an election...
Points to a west coast upgrade via Carstairs, I think, and that means spending as much in north west England as in Scotland.

 

[Haydn1971]

Part of the advantage of HS2 is that it doesn't use the existing route, mapping a route that is more friendly to high speed trains.

Is it silly season on here... That's what I'm suggesting
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Scotland On Sunday is reporting that a deal has been done to get Scotland-London journey times down to 3 hours:

http://www.scotsman.com/regions/edi...d-london-train-times-to-three-hours-1-4077092

He current plan for post HS2 journey times are 3:38, so I wonder just how much line would be needed to get times down to 3:00hrs - perhaps extending Hs2 from Preston to join the existing WCML near Kendal, then perhaps some new 300-400kph tracks from Penrith to Moffatt then link into a Edinburgh-Glasgow line somewhere near Carnforth - so not a full HS line, but enough to get the economics working at this stage.

 

[Altnabreac]

Yeah, illuminating that they had the report 2 years ago but have spent all this time rewriting it to get the right answers.

The Edinburgh to Glasgow report has been complete for 2 years but the HS2 report was only completed before Christmas.

 

[HSTEd]

How much would you get for a 320km/h bypass track at Carlisle?

 

[Chris125]

Three-hour Scotland to London rail journeys on track

The DfT have released the long awaited report into extending HS2 and/or cutting journey times between London and Glasgow/Edinburgh down to three hours.

Work with the ultimate aim to deliver a 3-hour rail journey time between Scotland and London will get underway next year. The UK and Scottish governments have agreed to further work that will:

- aim to bring train journeys between London and the Central Belt down to 3 hours or less
- ease the severe congestion on cross-Border routes
- create jobs, investment opportunities and economic and environmental benefits for the whole of Scotland

This comes alongside publication of the HS2 Ltd report Broad options for upgraded and high speed railways to the North of England and Scotland

Conventional Upgrade

Achieving a 3-hour journey time to Glasgow and Edinburgh through upgrades to existing lines would
require around 137 miles (220km) of new high speed bypasses on the West Coast Main Line: £17 - £19 billion

Upgrades on the East Coast Main Line, with 150-220km of bypasses, could deliver a 3-hour journey time to
Edinburgh, but not Glasgow: £11 - £13 billion (addressing capacity issues up to £20 billion)

High speed options

A 3-hour high speed route using a route to the west following the topography and existing transport infrastructure corridors: £22 - £25 billion (excluding the cost of an Edinburgh to Glasgow high speed line).

A full high speed route to the west could have a potential journey time between London and both Glasgow and Edinburgh of 2 hours 30 minutes: £32 - £34 billion.

A full high speed route to the east could serve markets in the North East and Edinburgh in between 2 hours and 30 minutes and 3 hours. However, serving both Edinburgh and Glasgow within 3 hours would require significantly more infrastructure, with the associated cost and sustainability impacts: £27 billion - £43 billion.

-----
Edit: I didn't notice this but Transport Scotland have their own report - though consistent with the DfT's it also concerns HSR within Scotland:

http://www.transport.gov.scot/report/high-speed-scotland-summary-report-9041

 

[HSTEd]

The East Coast routes comes out surprisingly well in that study.

Be interesting to see BCRs for those.
The East Coast route (full high speed) costs more but serves a much larger population en-route.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The East Coast routes comes out surprisingly well in that study.

Be interesting to see BCRs for those.
The East Coast route (full high speed) costs more but serves a much larger population en-route.

However, as outlined in the report, the East Coast routes could not deliver a 3 hour journey time to Glasgow without major improvements.

Nothing in this report seems that surprising, other than the continued comment that Preston would be best served by a city centre station even if there were a full high speed line. The idea of a full high speed line isn't discounted in this report, as the difference in cost would not be enormous. What is discounted is the idea of a standard WCML upgrade, as it would cost a huge amount of money, be extremely disruptive and only cut 15 minutes off the journey time. The only realistic option is to build relatively large bypass sections (2/3rs of the entire route) and it is said that these could be built in such a way that they could later be joined up to build a full high speed route.

The terms of reference for stations is that classic compatibles would be used, as TS only plan to run them into the existing stations in Glasgow and Edinburgh. As such, there is no need to consider captive stations further south. If the plan were to incrementally build a full TSI-compliant high speed rail route from Euston to Central and Waverley over the long term, then there would need to be some consideration of building captive platforms further south. A tunnel under Carlisle is suggested as a solution to the flood plains and historically important sites on either side, so it may well be possible to add in captive platforms later on on the surface without needing to worry about a high speed alignment. I don't know how they would manage with Preston though, given that there is no space available for classic platforms let alone captive ones.

Also, the Transport Scotland report is now available too.

http://www.transport.gov.scot/system/files/RAIL%20-%20High%20Speed%20Rail%20Scotland%20-%20Summary%20Report%20-%20Web%20Version%20March%202016.pdf

 

[HSTEd]

That report is also interesting.

Looks like the East Coast option (with a high speed line between Edinburgh and Glasgow) could actually be competitive.

 

[NotATrainspott]

That report is also interesting.

Looks like the East Coast option (with a high speed line between Edinburgh and Glasgow) could actually be competitive.

Where are you getting this idea that the East Coast route is being favoured? The clear recommendation of these reports is that an incremental upgrade along the WCML corridor, designed in such a way that it would be possible to later join up the bypasses to create a single continuous high speed rail line, would be the best/least-worst option. Getting journey times to Edinburgh to 3 hours isn't very useful if it'll take another half an hour to get to Glasgow, so no faster than the existing plans for Phase 2.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Where are you getting this idea that the East Coast route is being favoured? The clear recommendation of these reports is that an incremental upgrade along the WCML corridor, designed in such a way that it would be possible to later join up the bypasses to create a single continuous high speed rail line, would be the best/least-worst option. Getting journey times to Edinburgh to 3 hours isn't very useful if it'll take another half an hour to get to Glasgow, so no faster than the existing plans for Phase 2.

I agree.
There is also a remark that there are fewer urban areas to avoid on the WCML route, so cheaper to build.
The fact that the western route is also the principal Anglo-Scots transport corridor is also in its favour (ie already a "despoiled" route, though it's still magnificent in many places).
But no route or particular upgrade package has been selected.
The WCML also has the greater need for an upgrade, because it carries far more freight than the ECML, which needs looping out of the way of passenger trains.

The Leamside route makes a comeback on the ECML options (to take freight/regional trains while the ECML takes high-speed trains).

 

[HSTEd]

Where are you getting this idea that the East Coast route is being favoured? The clear recommendation of these reports is that an incremental upgrade along the WCML corridor, designed in such a way that it would be possible to later join up the bypasses to create a single continuous high speed rail line, would be the best/least-worst option. Getting journey times to Edinburgh to 3 hours isn't very useful if it'll take another half an hour to get to Glasgow, so no faster than the existing plans for Phase 2.

I didn't say anything about it being favoured.

Just that the difference in prices between the options is much smaller, even for the continuous high speed routes, than it is often made out to be.

And journey time to Scotland is not the be all and end all.
After all the North East of England has a population equal to half of that of the entirity of Scotland, and is drastically greater than that north of Preston on the West Coast.

EDIT:
After all it would only cost ~£1.5bn [NPV] to build a high speed track between Edinburgh and Glasgow according to option C3. Which would significantly reduce the journey time on the final leg.
It has lower benefits to Scotland, to be sure, but it is improvements to a line that actually travels through population density.
And we get a far more useful route once the later phases turn it into a full high speed line.

 

[TBY-Paul]

I've been mentioning the possibility of an East Coast option for sometime now, and it would appear that it hasn't been ruled out.

An East Coast route would tie-in with the aspirations of HS3 to connect up to Newcastle. To continue from Newcastle to Scotland isn't a great leap forward in thinking. Far too many on here dismiss the North-east as an inconvenience.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I've been mentioning the possibility of an East Coast option for sometime now, and it would appear that it hasn't been ruled out.

An East Coast route would tie-in with the aspirations of HS3 to connect up to Newcastle. To continue from Newcastle to Scotland isn't a great leap forward in thinking. Far too many on here dismiss the North-east as an inconvenience.

I didn't say anything about it being favoured.

Just that the difference in prices between the options is much smaller, even for the continuous high speed routes, than it is often made out to be.

And journey time to Scotland is not the be all and end all.
After all the North East of England has a population equal to half of that of the entirity of Scotland, and is drastically greater than that north of Preston on the West Coast.

EDIT:
After all it would only cost ~£1.5bn [NPV] to build a high speed track between Edinburgh and Glasgow according to option C3. Which would significantly reduce the journey time on the final leg.
It has lower benefits to Scotland, to be sure, but it is improvements to a line that actually travels through population density.
And we get a far more useful route once the later phases turn it into a full high speed line.

The focus of this work is a speeding up journeys between London and Scotland. With the current ECML upgrades and then HS2 Phase 2, all Newcastle-London passengers who could ever switch to rail will have done so. Upgrades between Leeds and Newcastle may be warranted but they're not really essential for the HS2 business case. Some of the ideas identified in this report will probably end up being part of Transport for the North's purview, such as the reconstruction of Northallerton station or the reopening of the Leamside line to segregate passenger and freight flows.

 

[clc]

The BCRs for the E2G HSR options are lower than I was expecting:-

HS2 not extended into Scotland Scenarios:
A - HS2 Phase 1&2 only - 0.36
B - No HS2 - 0.32

Advanced Build of an HS2 extension into Scotland Scenarios:
C1 - HS2 extends to Scotland via west coast - 0.75
C2 - HS2 extended into Scotland via east coast - 0.17
C3 - HS2 extended into Scotland via east coast, no Carstairs Link - 0.52

Integral Part of HS2 extension into Scotland Scenarios:
D1 - HS2 extended into Scotland via west coast - 1.14
D2 HS2 extended into Scotland via east coast - 0.10

 

[WatcherZero]

Those are all well below investment grade ratios, chimes with them saying two years ago that it wasnt value for money and in this report that more work would need to be done on the options in this report to make them viable.

As to routes itself in this, I favour the West Coast gradual upgrade option with progressive bypasses built rather than full new route. Need to campaign to keep Wigan directly served this report says that going dirctly through Wigan rather than around it would incur a time penalty but save £300m that would then be available to tackle the Wigan bottleneck for the benefit of regular West Coast as well. Several advantages going for keeping it though, firstly its the only major population centre other than Preston on the route, secondly its already an interchange and I dont think the public would want to change at Wigan to get a train to Preston only to change again, thirdly according to this report Wigan generates twice the number of passengers for Scotland as Sheffield.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Those are all well below investment grade ratios, chimes with them saying two years ago that it wasnt value for money and in this report that more work would need to be done on the options in this report to make them viable.

As to routes itself in this, I favour the West Coast gradual upgrade option with progressive bypasses built rather than full new route. Need to campaign to keep Wigan directly served this report says that going dirctly through Wigan rather than around it would incur a time penalty but save £300m that would then be available to tackle the Wigan bottleneck for the benefit of regular West Coast as well. Several advantages going for keeping it though, firstly its the only major population centre other than Preston on the route, secondly its already an interchange and I dont think the public would want to change at Wigan to get a train to Preston only to change again, thirdly according to this report Wigan generates twice the number of passengers for Scotland as Sheffield.

I'm not surprised that the BCRs are low, but I don't think this is enough to sink the idea completely. What matters is whether there is some other alternative that would deliver similar benefits with lower costs, and given the number of problems to be solved I seriously doubt there would be such a scheme. A bypass line from Rutherglen to Carstairs would be the most effective way of increasing capacity for long distance and suburban services, given that there are so much flat junctions in the way and they would all need solved at the same time to get much of a benefit from doing it.

Similarly, the report outlines, and Keith Brown is even quoted saying, that something major will need to be done to tackle capacity issues north of Carlisle even in a do-nothing scenario. A major WCRM-style upgrade was one of the options considered by the HS2 Ltd study and it came out as a particularly bad option given the minimal benefits it would deliver and the enormous costs involved. I expect that it would be a similar tale on the E&G once the low-hanging fruit of the Dalmeny/Almond Chord and Greenhill Junction remodelling have been completed. 'EGIP Phase 2' was suggested as an alternative to E&G HSR but if it's going to be needed simply to keep up with things as they are, rather than trying boldly to do anything new, then that changes the dynamic quite a bit.

I also think the report is missing that the infrastructure wouldn't be used solely by London trains. Links from Scotland to the North West can be maintained by converting the TPE Scotland services to HS2. Given the surplus of capacity that would be available on the new lines, it would be easy to run a Manchester and a Liverpool service every hour as well as services to Birmingham. These would do a much better job of connecting Scotland to the North West than any London services ever could, since they would end up serving the largest conurbations in the region.

 

[edwin_m]

The report does talk about non-high-speed trains using parts of the route to overtake slower trains.

The HS2 service specs have never shown the London-Scotland trains stopping at Wigan. In the latest Phase 2 service spec Wigan gets an hourly HS2 train from London to Preston or Carlisle plus an hourly from Birmingham to Scotland.

 

[WatcherZero]

That's because originally the Golborne depot branch was supposed to only be used for depot traffic and for engineering trains, a few classic compatible sets could rejoin the West Coast at an earlier point (Originally Birmingham, later Crewe) and become normal services to Scotland but as they would be slower than Pendolino only a couple would do it.

So the proposed pattern Phase One was 2 fast London-Preston via HS2, 1 fast London-Glasgow via HS2. And for Wigan two fast to London would become one slow via WCML and one Fast via HS2.

And for Phase two 1 Preston-London joining at Crewe and 1 Birmingham-Glasgow/Edinburgh alternating. (So calls on two of the four northern WCML HS2 services) Other two which didn't have calls were one running non stop from Carstairs to London and one non stop Carstairs to London except Preston and Birmingham Interchange.

As to released paths for Wigan in the indicative timetable it proposed the Virgin Glasgow Central-London would be rerouted via Chat Moss and Manchester while the existing TPE Scotland services would be cancelled. A brand new Edinburgh-London slow again via Manchester, Birmingham-Scotland slow services would become semi-fast and curtailed at Preston with extra services in Peak.


To repeat they never modelled any services using the Golborne depot spur which they are now proposing using which avoids the issue of them being slower to Scotland than Virgin services and increases the paths available.

 

[Altnabreac]

I didn't notice this but Transport Scotland have their own report - though consistent with the DfT's it also concerns HSR within Scotland:

http://www.transport.gov.scot/report/high-speed-scotland-summary-report-9041

One of the most interesting things from the 2 reports is that both reports looked at the same issues independently and came up with the same 4 cross border route corridors. This is really good as it suggests that both studies are looking in the right places.

The East Coast routes comes out surprisingly well in that study.

Be interesting to see BCRs for those.
The East Coast route (full high speed) costs more but serves a much larger population en-route.

Worth bearing in mind neither of the East Coast route options include costs for any provision between Edinburgh and Glasgow so you need to add another few billion on for that and take into account the disbenefits from longer Glasgow journey times.

I've been mentioning the possibility of an East Coast option for sometime now, and it would appear that it hasn't been ruled out.

An East Coast route would tie-in with the aspirations of HS3 to connect up to Newcastle. To continue from Newcastle to Scotland isn't a great leap forward in thinking. Far too many on here dismiss the North-east as an inconvenience.

I think the key thing here will be the Northern Powerhouse Rail aspirations for Leeds - Newcastle. If a full High Speed new line is the favoured option then it could tip the balance to an East Coast route. If it's small bypasses and Leamside for freight then an WEst Coast route is likely to work better for Scotland.

The BCRs for the E2G HSR options are lower than I was expecting:-

HS2 not extended into Scotland Scenarios:
A - HS2 Phase 1&2 only - 0.36
B - No HS2 - 0.32

Advanced Build of an HS2 extension into Scotland Scenarios:
C1 - HS2 extends to Scotland via west coast - 0.75
C2 - HS2 extended into Scotland via east coast - 0.17
C3 - HS2 extended into Scotland via east coast, no Carstairs Link - 0.52

Integral Part of HS2 extension into Scotland Scenarios:
D1 - HS2 extended into Scotland via west coast - 1.14
D2 HS2 extended into Scotland via east coast - 0.10

Essentially what this shows is the importance of the cross border element. There just isn't enough requirement from pure Edinburgh - Glasgow traffic to justify the investment without the cross border element. And until you know the preferred cross border route you can't invest in the Edinburgh - Glasgow section without the risk of carrying out work in the wrong area.

After all it would only cost ~£1.5bn [NPV] to build a high speed track between Edinburgh and Glasgow according to option C3. Which would significantly reduce the journey time on the final leg.
It has lower benefits to Scotland, to be sure, but it is improvements to a line that actually travels through population density.
And we get a far more useful route once the later phases turn it into a full high speed line.

Essentially that C3 option is illustrating the additional cost of building the east - west section of a delta junction along with 2 additional grade separated junctions. It assumes that High Speed Rail is being built from Carstairs to Edinburgh and Glasgow anyway and the £1.5Bn is the cost of linking those 2 lines to each other, not the cost of an Edinburgh - Glasgow line in full!

Those are all well below investment grade ratios, chimes with them saying two years ago that it wasnt value for money and in this report that more work would need to be done on the options in this report to make them viable.

As to routes itself in this, I favour the West Coast gradual upgrade option with progressive bypasses built rather than full new route. Need to campaign to keep Wigan directly served this report says that going dirctly through Wigan rather than around it would incur a time penalty but save £300m that would then be available to tackle the Wigan bottleneck for the benefit of regular West Coast as well. Several advantages going for keeping it though, firstly its the only major population centre other than Preston on the route, secondly its already an interchange and I dont think the public would want to change at Wigan to get a train to Preston only to change again, thirdly according to this report Wigan generates twice the number of passengers for Scotland as Sheffield.

Wigan is not intended to be served by Scotland - London trains and whether or not a new bypass line runs to north of Wigan makes little difference on this. High Speed Scotland trains will only be stopping at Preston whether or not more line is built beyond Golborne.

That's because originally the Golborne depot branch was supposed to only be used for depot traffic and for engineering trains, a few classic compatible sets could rejoin the West Coast at an earlier point (Originally Birmingham, later Crewe) and become normal services to Scotland but as they would be slower than Pendolino only a couple would do it.

So the proposed pattern Phase One was 2 fast London-Preston via HS2, 1 fast London-Glasgow via HS2. And for Wigan two fast to London would become one slow via WCML and one Fast via HS2.

And for Phase two 1 Preston-London joining at Crewe and 1 Birmingham-Glasgow/Edinburgh alternating. (So calls on two of the four northern WCML HS2 services) Other two which didn't have calls were one running non stop from Carstairs to London and one non stop Carstairs to London except Preston and Birmingham Interchange.

As to released paths for Wigan in the indicative timetable it proposed the Virgin Glasgow Central-London would be rerouted via Chat Moss and Manchester while the existing TPE Scotland services would be cancelled. A brand new Edinburgh-London slow again via Manchester, Birmingham-Scotland slow services would become semi-fast and curtailed at Preston with extra services in Peak.


To repeat they never modelled any services using the Golborne depot spur which they are now proposing using which avoids the issue of them being slower to Scotland than Virgin services and increases the paths available.

The Scotland - London trains were always planned to use Golborne Spur after Phase 2 opened and I don't see anything here which changes that.

 

[clc]

.Essentially what this shows is the importance of the cross border element. There just isn't enough requirement from pure Edinburgh - Glasgow traffic to justify the investment without the cross border element. And until you know the preferred cross border route you can't invest in the Edinburgh - Glasgow section without the risk of carrying out work in the wrong area.
.

Do the BCRs for the C and D options take account of the 10 minute time saving for cross border passengers which is attributable to the Central Belt infrastructure?

 

[Altnabreac]

So having had a chance to read through the 2 reports here are my thoughts:

There are still 4 options on the table. Given the costs involved I suspect a staged solution is going to have to be the one implemented so the Peebles (Route D) and Coldstream (Route B) routes are going to fall at that hurdle.

The time penalty for Glasgow is also likely to scupper the ECML route, leaving WCML as the hot favourite to be chosen.

To make the Benefit Cost Ratio work and fit in with overall policy for rail the new route will need to provide additional capacity, particularly on those areas most constrained by freight movements. This means the priorities for investment will be bypassing Lanarkshire, Haymarket East Junction, Beattock, Shap and Golborne - Wigan - Euxton Junction.

The first stage to be built in CP6 is likely to be the Glasgow - Edinburgh section which can be taken forward by the Scottish Government and provide wider benefits in Scotland beyond the cross border element. The HS2 report identifies Lockerbie - Beattock - Abington as one of the priorities for the WCML route because of both the freight constraints over Beattock summit and the speed constraints through the Crawford Curve. I would expect this to be taken forward by Transport Scotland as well. Abington - Thankerton is identified in the HS2 report as a lower priority, due to its existing high speeds, but I wonder how the cost of 2 new grade separated high speed junctions here (£0.5-£1bn each?) compares with 20km or so of plain high speed line (about the same price I reckon). So for me the logical thing for the Scottish Government to pursue is a high speed line from just north of Lockerbie directly to the outskirts of Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Another unnecessary junction looks to be Golborne. As the WCML capacity shortage is identified as far north as Euxton Junction it seems logical that HS2 Phase 2b could be extended northwards bypassing Wigan and joining the WCML as close to Preston as possible. If not possible in Phase 2B perhaps this could become Phase 2C with a separate parliamentary process but with construction alongside Phase 2B for 2033. By dropping Golborne junction 2 grade separated junctions can be saved and the work can be aligned with Network Rail plans to improve Euxton Junction and extend 4-6 tracking south of Preston.

The Lune Gorge is a big obstacle for any scheme and I suspect the most difficult issue to resolve on the whole section north of Wigan. What I hadn't really appreciated until reading this report is that the worst freight bottleneck at Shap can be bypassed by starting immediately north of the Lune Gorge and something along the lines of a new Tebay - Southwaite bypass line would provide the speed and capacity benefits required without tackling the most difficult terrain and avoiding encroachment on the recent Lake District and Yorkshire Dales national park extensions.

In terms of where the 400m services should split / join I think the obvious choice is Carlisle.

• Given the slow speeds through Carlisle the journey time penalty for stopping and splitting services there is relatively low.
• There is also a high level of difficulty bypassing Carlisle, with the flood plain and Hadrian's Wall World Heritage site making alternative routes difficult and expensive.
• There are good benefits to Cumbria and Dumfries and Galloway from having a connection to High Speed Rail at Carlisle that help spread the benefits to more local areas (and constituencies).
• Less mileage operated by 2 x 200m long trainsets reduces capacity loss and has lower operating costs with fewer drivers and guards to pay.

So for me the priorities (in order) should be:

1. 400m long platform island at Carlisle for Splitting / Joining with some linespeed improvements.
2. Edinburgh - Glasgow - Lockerbie High Speed Triangle
3. Golborne / Wigan - Euxton Junction route change / Phase 2C.
4. Tebay - Southwaite High Speed Bypass.
5. Preston - South of Lancaster High Speed extra tracks.

I reckon together that delivers something in the region of 30-35 minutes time saving made up of:

• Glasgow - Edinburgh - Carstairs 10 mins
• Carstairs - Abington - 2 mins
• Abington - Lockerbie 6 mins
• Tebay - Southwaite 9 mins
• Wigan - Euxton 3 mins
• Preston - Lancaster 3 mins

So it won't quite deliver a 3 hour journey time but it will get very close, and deliver the majority of the additional capacity benefits.

To get down to the 3 hour journey time I'd look next to a Gretna - Lockerbie section that would provide an additional 8 minute time saving and get journeys down below the 3 hour mark.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do the BCRs for the C and D options take account of the 10 minute time saving for cross border passengers which is attributable to the Central Belt infrastructure?

As I understand it D1 won't take into account any cross border benefit as it doesn't deliver any cross border infrastructure. C1-3 and D2 should do so.

However they don't necessarily properly capture the benefits as the assumptions are either that no more High Speed Infrastructure is built beyond HS2 Phase 2 (so the journey time reduction is from 3.40 to 3.30) or that a full line is built from Wigan to Carstairs (so the reduction is from 2.40 to 2.30).

My assumption would be that as part of a staged investment where say C1 provided a reduction from 3.10 to 3.00 it would generate a higher BCR.

Worth remembering that all the BCRs in the Transport Scotland report were done by AECOM before any of the work by HS2 Ltd was even underway.

 

[najaB]

In terms of where the 400m services should split / join I think the obvious choice is Carlisle.

• Given the slow speeds through Carlisle the journey time penalty for stopping and splitting services there is relatively low.
• There is also a high level of difficulty bypassing Carlisle, with the flood plain and Hadrian's Wall World Heritage site making alternative routes difficult and expensive.
• There are good benefits to Cumbria and Dumfries and Galloway from having a connection to High Speed Rail at Carlisle that help spread the benefits to more local areas (and constituencies).
• Less mileage operated by 2 x 200m long trainsets reduces capacity loss and has lower operating costs with fewer drivers and guards to pay.

But compared to Preston, connection options at Carlisle are limited, and trains are going to be stopping at Preston anyway.

 

[Altnabreac]

But compared to Preston, connection options at Carlisle are limited, and trains are going to be stopping at Preston anyway.

That's the downside but I think the 2 stops will be justified. Either is much better than Carstairs!

Another alternative would be to have 1tph split at Preston and 1tph split at Carlisle.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The future of the Preston calls is going to have to be decided before we can say what infrastructure might be needed around it. Extending some of the platforms to be 400m long would not be difficult or expensive so will go ahead regardless of what else happens. One issue that I can see in the report is that they don't assume there will be additional services on the new infrastructure above and beyond what is already planned. Why is it essential for London services to provide the link between Scotland and Preston if there can be Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham services which call there instead? The more services than can be run on the infrastructure further north, the better the business case and the wider the benefits of HS2. If both Glasgow and Edinburgh had a Birmingham service and alternated between a Liverpool and Birmingham service each hour there would be 2tph from each of them to Preston each hour. There would be plenty more seats available too as demand would be much lower initially than the London services.

If the need for a Preston call on the London services is diminished, the case for building a Preston bypass improves. Assuming that the MSG Phase 2 route is still valid, the bypass would have to run via the west and would have to cross the WCML at approximately a 45 degree angle halfway between Standish and Copull. Between Euxton Balshaw Lane and this point the WCML has only two tracks on what used to be a four track alignment. If a HS2-WCML link were added here it could be done alongside the four-tracking of this part of the line and the grade-separation of Euxton Junction.

Interestingly enough, I had just typed out this paragraph when I went to check the HS2 Ltd report again and hey presto, the WCML Representative Package 1 includes precisely this idea! HS2 Phase 2 to Coppull would be 18.8km and save about two and a half minutes, while completely removing the need for a Wigan connection. Then there would be 3.5km of four-tracking from Balshaw Lane plus the grade-separation of Euxton Junction.

And going back even further, the option of connecting to the WCML between Wigan and Preston was investigated back in 2012 in the Phase 2 route options report:

10.1 Golborne to Preston Infrastructure Options
During the development of the route options in the short listing stage a study of the existing West Coast Main Line railway (WCML) between Golborne and Preston was undertaken. This considered a number of infrastructure options for capacity enhancements and speed increases to facilitate the introduction of classic compatible trains between Golborne and Preston.
The options included:

• Remodelling and speed improvements in the Lowton/Golborne/Bamfurlong area including relocation of the ladder crossovers at Bamfurlong.
• Reconfiguration of track layout between Golborne and Spring’s Branch to place the fast lines in the middle of the four tracks and the slow lines on the outside.
• Platform extensions at Wigan North Western station to accommodate 400m long trains
• Four tracking of the current two track main line between Wigan and Balshaw Lane
• Four tracking of the current two track main line railway between Standish and Balshaw Lane
• Speed increases at Euxton Junction
• Reconfiguration at Euxton Junction to minimise fast line occupation for diverging services
• Platform extensions at Preston station to accommodate 400m trains.

In addition to the connection from HS2 to the WCML at Golborne, two alternative connections were also investigated. These options are shown in Figure 10.1. The HS2 routes are shown in red and the existing WCML in black.

• At Balshaw Lane Junction from three of the HS2 routes. These options would have required landtake and demolitions in the urban area and in one case a long tunnel. These options were parked.
• At Euxton Junction from three of the HS2 routes. In all cases extensive demolitions would have been required and major skew crossings of the M6. These options were parked.

This study has informed the ongoing work being undertaken by HS2 Ltd and Network Rail on the introduction of classic compatible trains onto the WCML between Golborne and Scotland.

Moving the WCML connection from Wigan to Coppull seems to me to be a dead cert now. There's no point confirming Wigan in the Phase 2 consultation response if there's now serious consideration of it being moved further north as part of the Scotland works.

 

[Altnabreac]

The future of the Preston calls is going to have to be decided before we can say what infrastructure might be needed around it. Extending some of the platforms to be 400m long would not be difficult or expensive so will go ahead regardless of what else happens. One issue that I can see in the report is that they don't assume there will be additional services on the new infrastructure above and beyond what is already planned. Why is it essential for London services to provide the link between Scotland and Preston if there can be Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham services which call there instead? The more services than can be run on the infrastructure further north, the better the business case and the wider the benefits of HS2. If both Glasgow and Edinburgh had a Birmingham service and alternated between a Liverpool and Birmingham service each hour there would be 2tph from each of them to Preston each hour. There would be plenty more seats available too as demand would be much lower initially than the London services.

If the need for a Preston call on the London services is diminished, the case for building a Preston bypass improves. Assuming that the MSG Phase 2 route is still valid, the bypass would have to run via the west and would have to cross the WCML at approximately a 45 degree angle halfway between Standish and Copull. Between Euxton Balshaw Lane and this point the WCML has only two tracks on what used to be a four track alignment. If a HS2-WCML link were added here it could be done alongside the four-tracking of this part of the line and the grade-separation of Euxton Junction.

Interestingly enough, I had just typed out this paragraph when I went to check the HS2 Ltd report again and hey presto, the WCML Representative Package 1 includes precisely this idea! HS2 Phase 2 to Coppull would be 18.8km and save about two and a half minutes, while completely removing the need for a Wigan connection. Then there would be 3.5km of four-tracking from Balshaw Lane plus the grade-separation of Euxton Junction.

And going back even further, the option of connecting to the WCML between Wigan and Preston was investigated back in 2012 in the Phase 2 route options report:

Moving the WCML connection from Wigan to Coppull seems to me to be a dead cert now. There's no point confirming Wigan in the Phase 2 consultation response if there's now serious consideration of it being moved further north as part of the Scotland works.

Good find. I agree entirely. Coppull seems a much better option than Golborne and could be implemented in Phase 2.

Also agreed on service patterns. Something along the lines of this looks reasonable:
2tph 400m Glasgow/Edinburgh to London.
1tph 400m Glasgow/Edinburgh to Birmingham.
1tp2h 200m Glasgow to Manchester.
1tp2h 200m Edinburgh to Manchester.
1tp2h 200m Glasgow to Liverpool.
1tp2h 200m Edinburgh to Liverpool.
1tph Pendolino Glasgow/Edinburgh WCML legacy service to Euston.

By the time you have 6tph running there is no need for all of them to call at Preston. That's why I think flexibility of 400m platforms at both Preston and Carlisle is valuable.

 

[clc]

Much as I'd like the Edinburgh-Glasgow HSR line to be built as soon as possible my pragmatic head steers me towards option D1 - HS2 extended into Scotland via west coast, which would open 2033. It has the best BCR and the Scottish Government would only have to fund a short section of track, perhaps 10 miles long, rather than the entire Central Belt infrastructure which I assume it would have to do under the advance build options. Also, being able to delay it's financial contribution to the project for 8 years would allow the Scottish Government to accelerate the Glasgow Terminal Stations project, whichever form that takes (hopefully a tunnel linking the north and south networks).

Both projects are worthy but can't be done simultaneously due to their enormous capital costs. Personally I would give the Glasgow scheme priority in view of the importance of the city to the Scottish economy. Glasgow's economic output grew 7% in 2014, the fastest growth of any major city in the Uk including London. I think the Terminal Stations project would do more to help sustain that momentum than the HSR line to Edinburgh.

 

[HSTEd]

The BCRs here are all godawful in the extreme.

So we just have to go for the most politically palatable scheme.
And the East Coast one allows you to trumpet the benefits to English voters who will otherwise balk at money being thrown at a Scotland that is drifting towards independence. And the Scottish government could never afford to fund it itself.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Much as I'd like the Edinburgh-Glasgow HSR line to be built as soon as possible my pragmatic head steers me towards option D1 - HS2 extended into Scotland via west coast, which would open 2033. It has the best BCR and the Scottish Government would only have to fund a short section of track, perhaps 10 miles long, rather than the entire Central Belt infrastructure which I assume it would have to do under the advance build options. Also, being able to delay it's financial contribution to the project for 8 years would allow the Scottish Government to accelerate the Glasgow Terminal Stations project, whichever form that takes (hopefully a tunnel linking the north and south networks).

Both projects are worthy but can't be done simultaneously due to their enormous capital costs. Personally I would give the Glasgow scheme priority in view of the importance of the city to the Scottish economy. Glasgow's economic output grew 7% in 2014, the fastest growth of any major city in the Uk including London. I think the Terminal Stations project would do more to help sustain that momentum than the HSR line to Edinburgh.

I very much doubt that the planning and funding of the E&G HSR and the north-south improvements would be as detached as that. HS2 Ltd and the DfT have proved very amenable to speeding up construction of important sections, even if that means the yearly upfront expenditure may be greater. Their argument is that delivering some benefits many years early more than pays back the extra upfront cost. For instance, the journey time savings from Birmingham-Crewe will now apply from 2027, so there will be six more years of increased ticket revenues, reduced operational costs and improved economic performance. If the Edinburgh and Glasgow spurs to the south can be expressed in similar terms then they could be funded by the Treasury well ahead of the rest of the route opening up.

The BCRs here are all godawful in the extreme.

So we just have to go for the most politically palatable scheme.
And the East Coast one allows you to trumpet the benefits to English voters who will otherwise balk at money being thrown at a Scotland that is drifting towards independence. And the Scottish government could never afford to fund it itself.

The east coast scheme is still worse enough to counteract any political gain there may be from doing it. Nothing else on HS2 has been designed for political gain above all else - all that matters is the cold hard facts of BCRs and those don't favour a route via Newcastle since no affordable Newcastle scheme could ever benefit Glasgow as much as Edinburgh. If you don't benefit Glasgow as well as Edinburgh, the total benefit of the scheme to Scotland is roughly halved.