matacaster
On Moderation
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,602
If Scots get vote and go for independence, will hs2 ever get north of Preston?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Will HS2 north of Preston happen if Scotland becomes independent?
- Thread starter matacaster
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Doubt it ever will either way, the case is very weak.
Trog
Established Member
Unless the Scots pay for it there would not be much reason for the rUK government to spend its money on it. The same goes for subsidising express services on the classic lines north of the northern cities. Diverting the Anglo - Scottish expresses would be an easy way of improving services to Liverpool and Manchester etc.
Lots of ifs there. Let's first see if it a) gets built at all, or b) stops dead at Birmingham
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,933
You really need to get over this, it will get to Crewe at least.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Most benefit will come from the southern section so I think Crewe is where it should stop (if not Brum). But I think anything is game at the moment.
Nobody can guarantee it going further than Birmingham. Legislation does not yet exist for it to do so.
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,264
Technically, no one can guarantee that a particular future event will actually happen. However, we can judge from evidence presented to us whether something has a high probability of occurring or not. Compared to Phase 1, Phases 2a and 2b:
- have a higher BCR
- are cheaper mile for mile
- have much greater support from local authorities
- have smaller, less organised and more factional opposition groups
- are politically important for the current government to be seen to invest more in the North.
On this basis I would conclude that Phase 2 has a high probability of being built. Can I ask what basis you have for your scepticism?
Predominantly financial. Also knowing politics as I do. Once London has its new railway, would politicians really want to do anything more?
You mention things like higher BCR etc. From a politician's perspective, all that is meaningless. They want to be seen to support big ticket items for London, not small add ons for the regions.
TheDavibob
Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2016
- Messages
- 407
I think you're being a little harsh on politicians, to be honest. The reason for most transport investment going to London is because of better BCRs and the like (eg Crossrail will be a success, expensive as it is). Hs2-2 gives them a beautiful opportunity to invest in the North with something that definitely makes financial sense, which as far as politics goes is win-win. There are quite a few Northern MPs, you know.
Whether Crossrail 2 or HS3 is preferred is a more interesting question -- Crossrail 2 has managed to manoeuvre itself to be essential, despite HS3 benefitting a wider region. Politicians supporting Crossrail 2 over HS3 will make them look bad to more people than it will make them look good to.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,710
Almost all non London projects have worse BCRs than london associated projects.
Do you really want them to squander public money on something that will not generate any kind of societal return, simply to tick boxes about 'investing in the north'?
For example the ELR Metrolink proposal came in with a BCR of about 0.8
matacaster
On Moderation
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,602
Actually, I have my doubts about it getting any farther north than Birmingham. Just a high speed commuter route between there and London.
Nope. Assuming that you're suggesting *everything* north of Birmingham gets dropped (including the WCML connection at Lichfield, which is part of the Phase 1 Bill), anyone in charge of making such a decision could easily see that you'd be left with a complete basket case of a High Speed line - billions get spent for a total of 3tph to Birmingham.
No-one would take such a ridiculous decision - at the very least, a through running connection to the northern WCML will be built with Phase 1, enabling the current Pendolino service to be diverted onto HS2 into Euston, with freeing up of commuter capacity on the WCML south of Rugby.
So worst case scenario is still a railway that is far more than just a high speed London to Birmingham commuter railway as you seem to believe.
Building north of Preston (assuming HS2 makes it that far) would probably be the most challenging part of the route to build due to it going through mountainous Cumbria and southern Scotland, plus the fact they're undensely populated and hardly struggling for capacity doesn't justify a new line at all.
Could the line speeds be upgraded, namely by having digital signalling to get it to 140mph speeds? There was talk of upgrading the Scottish portion to 135mph a while back.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/virgin-propose-non-stop-rail-link-to-london-1-2947160
Could the line speeds be upgraded, namely by having digital signalling to get it to 140mph speeds? There was talk of upgrading the Scottish portion to 135mph a while back.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/virgin-propose-non-stop-rail-link-to-london-1-2947160
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,264
Looking at the number of trains per hour there doesn't appear to be a capacity problem. However, the mix of freight and passenger trains significantly reduces available paths. Aren't passenger trains flighted to fit both them and the freight trains in? As a result, line speed improvements won't speed up journeys unless more loops are put in to separate passenger and freight trains. It wouldn't take that much of an increase in train frequency for the mix of freight and passenger to be unworkable, even with loops, at which point you'd be looking a four-tracking. This may be difficult or even impossible on the existing alignment, so you'd be looking at a new alignment.
An even more interesting question is - what exactly is HS3?
As in where does it go, what is the service pattern, what are the benefits, what are the costs, and who is contributing to the funding?* Then Government can decide whether it wants it or not. And that is a seperate decision to whether it wants Crossrail 2.
* Crossrail 2 has answered all of those questions.
Last edited:
Not at all easily. Much of it is already at maximum speed for the curvature of the line allowing for tilt. Essentially, to raise speeds beyond 125mph you are looking at building new bits of railway.
But even if it could be done, the difference between 125 and 140 is 3 seconds a mile, therefore you need 100 miles at 140 vice 125 to save just 5 minutes. Alternatively, you can save the same time by not stopping at Wigan. (Apologies to Ianno87)
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
HS3 was a name given to a TransPennine upgrade programme, not a third high speed line.
No, HS3 (now better titled as "Northern Powerhouse Rail" - which will no doubt change again next week) is a programme to reduce journey times and increase service frequencies between all major centres in the North of England.
How it intends to actually acheive this is not at all clear to me. It appears to me that it could range from anything between a new high speed (or "intercity" speed) railway all the way across the Pennines right down to just a line speed improvement at Batley. And how the solution gives something to *all* the major centres (whilst staying within reasonable bounds of affordability) is going to be a huge sticking point politically in the North.
Obviously, comparing outputs for the wide range of solutions that could be on the table will be a bit like comparing an apple with a banana with a mango with a strawberry with a....<ad fruit infunitum>
Oi! I heard that! (But I take your point)
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,223
The DfT have actually produced an options report which set out how a sub-3hr journey time to Scotland could be achieved. The most important part of its findings is that traditional route upgrades would be terrible value for money in terms of minutes saved. After the low-hanging fruit of speeding up non-stop times through stations and junctions, there's precious little that can realistically be done without totally rebuilding the line. Even then, totally rebuilding it can only reduce journey times by a relatively small amount. What it found is that it would more useful to build bypass sections and then rejoin a minimally-upgraded WCML for the remaining parts. The only clear upgrade that it said would be useful is four-tracking between Wigan and Preston plus grade-separation of Euxton Junction.
Joseph_Locke
Established Member
Surely all that is eaten up by the lack of tilt capability of the HS2 "compatible" stock? That means that they are stuck to PS (80-110 mph) all the way?
Euxton grade separation and three-tracking Boar's head to Balshaw Lane Jn were abandoned WCRM schemes (we did Wigan NW DS to P6 link and Euxton UF- Up Bolton link instead).
route:oxford
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 4,949
Maybe
I do get the feeling that even if HS2 (HS1 in an independent Scotland) were to reach aross the border, the trains would still creep through level crossings in Edinburgh and sit for 10 minutes outside dilapidated garages at Haymarket due to congestion.
I do get the feeling that even if HS2 (HS1 in an independent Scotland) were to reach aross the border, the trains would still creep through level crossings in Edinburgh and sit for 10 minutes outside dilapidated garages at Haymarket due to congestion.
If Scotland went independent, would it want so many services from England? If not, then we only need the current London-Birmingham-Scotland services to stop at Carlisle, becoming London-Birmingham-Carlisle trains and then cull the London-Scotland directs,focusing international trains on the ECML, then we don't need HS2 because the paths could be replaced in the South by making Liverpool have more trains, like Manchester? they are similar-sized cities, so I've never really guessed why Manchester has three trains per hour to London and Liverpool has one....
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,933
Why would people suddenly stop travelling to/from Scotland? They wouldn't rebuild Hadrian's wall....
Nobody can guarantee that either of us will wake in the morning.
But it's likely.
As is HS2 to Manchester.
He does. He does.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The issue is perhaps more that there may cease to be a will to subsidise cross-border intercity traffic. Indeed, were Brexit not to happen and Scotland and rUK to be separate countries under the EU, AIUI it would be illegal to subsidise - that's what has killed so many of the European night trains.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the aspirational fantasists who believe that the Borders Railway will be extended to Carlisle, once they read some of the comments made on this particular thread...
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Do you think that giving this programme an "HS" prefix was meant to be a deliberate source of confusion?
- Status