Greengauge 21: Beyond HS2

[TheDavibob]

Jim Steer's thinktank Greengauge 21 has published its latest thoughts on what to do with HS2 and what to do next, article release can be found here.

It's quite a large document, so I haven't done much more than skim. Take home points, as per the press release:

• Fully integrating HS2 into the national network and adding an upgraded fast route from Birmingham to Bristol Parkway to carry HS2 trains, which would continue to the South West and South Wales, bringing those parts of the country into the HSR network.
• A major upgrade of the East Coast mainline for the first time since the 80s, so passengers in the North East are not dependent on indirect HS2 services via Birmingham to reach London.
• New high speed lines in:
  • Scotland – achieving a 3h 15m journey time from Scotland to London and shortening rail journeys from Edinburgh northwards dramatically
  • Essex & East Anglia – with a new high speed line from London to Stansted and beyond towards Cambridge/Colchester, alleviating the West Anglia and Great Eastern Mainlines, both of which are at capacity, and delivering a 15 minute London-Stansted journey time, transforming Stansted airport’s attractiveness
• Transformed East West connections in the North of England, bringing together the major cities of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, Newcastle and Hull to work as an effective and powerful economic unit
• A new rail connection from Kent to Essex, uniting two regional economies to work more effectively together and provide a rail freight M25 bypass to London
• A series of new and improved city region rail networks to support city-based growth strategies
• New direct rail services for Heathrow Airport from across the country to support its national hub airport status using the planned new western rail link, and for Manchester Airport new services from Sheffield and Chester/North Wales using a new rail connection and unlocking a rail network capacity bottleneck in the process
• Plugging in places “left behind”:
  • With new rail connections including for townss in the East & West Midlands, North East England, South West England, Yorkshire and the North West, Scotland and Wales
  • By Providing missing network resilience through building an alterantive route to the problem Dawlish sea wall, achieved by re-constructing the line via Okehampton and linking it directly from north of Exeter to match so that existing journey times to Plymouth and Cornwall cane be achieved
  • A new national network of linked high-quality fully accessible interurban buses, connected to rail at a series of economic mini-hubs.

Main points, as I see them [beyond the expected/reasonably expected enhancements]: a link from the eastern spur of HS2 to Birmingham-Derby line would allow cross country to utilise the NE spur (via New Street). The lack of this connection is something that's been bugging me for some time, so is sensible.

The other heavily pushed suggestion is a short HS line from Stratford to Stansted and Colchester and Cambridge, promising very short journey times (as well as allowing direct Cambridge-Colchester services and beyond). Whilst this would have WAML relieving benefits, I can't quite say I'm sold on the idea from any sensible basis (though I personally wouldn't complain about a Cambridge - London high speed line...).

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Jim Steer's thinktank Greengauge 21 has published its latest thoughts on what to do with HS2 and what to do next, article release can be found here.

It's quite a large document, so I haven't done much more than skim. Take home points, as per the press release:



Main points, as I see them [beyond the expected/reasonably expected enhancements]: a link from the eastern spur of HS2 to Birmingham-Derby line would allow cross country to utilise the NE spur (via New Street). The lack of this connection is something that's been bugging me for some time, so is sensible.

Haven't had chance to read the report but fully agree with the above. National Rail Enquiries app shows the current journey time for Bristol to Newcastle as 5 hours. What type of journey time could be achieved via an electrified Bristol-Birmingham (extending electrification from Bromsgrove to Bristol Parkway plus finishing off the GW electrification) then on to the Eastern arm of HS2 and an upgraded ECML north of York?

The other heavily pushed suggestion is a short HS line from Stratford to Stansted and Colchester and Cambridge, promising very short journey times (as well as allowing direct Cambridge-Colchester services and beyond). Whilst this would have WAML relieving benefits, I can't quite say I'm sold on the idea from any sensible basis (though I personally wouldn't complain about a Cambridge - London high speed line...).

Wouldn't such a line have to swing back West and link back up worth the ECML near Peterborough or even continue and link back to HS2 near Doncaster then it could be used to divert the Newcastle and Leeds services avoiding the detour via Birmingham and reliving Phase 1 route?

 

[tbtc]

Main points, as I see them [beyond the expected/reasonably expected enhancements]: a link from the eastern spur of HS2 to Birmingham-Derby line would allow cross country to utilise the NE spur (via New Street). The lack of this connection is something that's been bugging me for some time, so is sensible

Just my personal opinion, but I see the lack of this link (in current HS2 plans) as being an example of something that would be A Good Thing but that HS2 don't want added to *their* costs - the HS2 budget is intended for getting the basic line built and some of that involves piggy-backing upon other projects - what they don't want is for various other Nice To Have improvements to be dumped onto the HS2 costs (i.e. other schemes piggy-backing upon HS2).

A bit like the "who will blink first" approach to Crossrail's logical extension to Reading - it made sense for Crossrail to run west of Maidenhead but they wanted the cost of Reading electrification to be paid for by the overall "electrifying the GWML budget" - once you've got someone else to pay for these things then it becomes much easier to justify your scheme.

I think that there will (eventually) be a link at Birmingham to permit a West Country - Yorkshire service to run but I can understand HS2's reticence to pay for everything - their budget is high enough as it is without people lumping things like a HS1-HS2 link, providing the infrastructure and stock for an EMU shuttle from Toton into central Derby/Nottingham etc... much as these things would be good. Hence the proposals for separate platforms at places like Leeds (otherwise people would try to dump other Leeds-based infrastructure improvements on the HS2 Credit Card).

 

[JamesT]

Haven't had chance to read the report but fully agree with the above. National Rail Enquiries app shows the current journey time for Bristol to Newcastle as 5 hours. What type of journey time could be achieved via an electrified Bristol-Birmingham (extending electrification from Bromsgrove to Bristol Parkway plus finishing off the GW electrification) then on to the Eastern arm of HS2 and an upgraded ECML north of York?

Would electrification by itself make much difference? XC are already using 125mph-capable units on the route.

 

[TheDavibob]

Wouldn't such a line have to swing back West and link back up worth the ECML near Peterborough or even continue and link back to HS2 near Doncaster then it could be used to divert the Newcastle and Leeds services avoiding the detour via Birmingham and reliving Phase 1 route?

I would have thought so. The document suggests using the existing infrastructure from Cambridge to Peterborough as part of the HS network, which would then feed back into the ECML. However this route is slow due to a combination of freight demands, awkward junctions, a roundabout route, and fens, none of which can easily be overcome (and hence it would never be a viable south ECML bypass from a speed point of view). A HS line from Cambridge to the ECML (either Huntingdon area or direct to Peterborough) would have more legs in that department, though I don't know the feasibility of high speeds across the fens. The document mainly markets it as a way of relieving the WAML.

 

[edwin_m]

Just my personal opinion, but I see the lack of this link (in current HS2 plans) as being an example of something that would be A Good Thing but that HS2 don't want added to *their* costs - the HS2 budget is intended for getting the basic line built and some of that involves piggy-backing upon other projects - what they don't want is for various other Nice To Have improvements to be dumped onto the HS2 costs (i.e. other schemes piggy-backing upon HS2).

A bit like the "who will blink first" approach to Crossrail's logical extension to Reading - it made sense for Crossrail to run west of Maidenhead but they wanted the cost of Reading electrification to be paid for by the overall "electrifying the GWML budget" - once you've got someone else to pay for these things then it becomes much easier to justify your scheme.

I think that there will (eventually) be a link at Birmingham to permit a West Country - Yorkshire service to run but I can understand HS2's reticence to pay for everything - their budget is high enough as it is without people lumping things like a HS1-HS2 link, providing the infrastructure and stock for an EMU shuttle from Toton into central Derby/Nottingham etc... much as these things would be good. Hence the proposals for separate platforms at places like Leeds (otherwise people would try to dump other Leeds-based infrastructure improvements on the HS2 Credit Card).

I think you're absolutely right on this. But I also hope HS2 are making passive provision for that junction near Birmingham (basically a straight bit of track somewhere a flying junction can be added) as inserting a high-speed junction later would be painful.

Would electrification by itself make much difference? XC are already using 125mph-capable units on the route.

Birmingham-Bristol isn't a 125mph route at present so there are some parts that could be upgraded to make a difference for 125mph diesel trains. Electrification would increase this benefit but we don't know by how much. The real benefit would be if it allowed trains from the north via HS2 to continue to Bristol and maybe beyond, so through passengers would avoid a change of train and station in Birmingham. As presently proposed the change at Birmingham would cancel out much of the benefit of HS2 for a journey like Leeds-Bristol, and through trains would probably still have to run via the classic network for people who didn't want to make that change.

 

[Ianno87]

I would have thought so. The document suggests using the existing infrastructure from Cambridge to Peterborough as part of the HS network, which would then feed back into the ECML. However this route is slow due to a combination of freight demands, awkward junctions, a roundabout route, and fens, none of which can easily be overcome (and hence it would never be a viable south ECML bypass from a speed point of view). A HS line from Cambridge to the ECML (either Huntingdon area or direct to Peterborough) would have more legs in that department, though I don't know the feasibility of high speeds across the fens. The document mainly markets it as a way of relieving the WAML.

Does seem like an odd definition of "High Speed". Cambridge in 25-30 minutes....then 50+ minutes pottering across the fens via Ely to Peterborough (first 15 miles in the wrong direction). Net result: half an hour slower than the current King's Cross-Peterborough non-stop timing.

Build an alignment on roughly the A14 alignment from Cambridge to Huntingdon/Peterborough then you might be onto something... In half decent traffic the A14/A1 currently leaves the train standing in journey time terms - moreso once the upgrade is complete in 2020.

 

[The Planner]

Originally there was passive provision around Water Orton/Castle Bromwich for a link but Im fairly sure it got binned off early on.

 

[Bald Rick]

Ahem, back on topic.

The report doesn’t add much in the way of new knowledge. Also the proposal for a ‘HS-Stansted’ doesn’t explain where in London the trains will go, other than a vague idea of Stratford.

All in all, rather a lot of words to not say very much. Still, it got front page news today.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

All in all, rather a lot of words to not say very much. Still, it got front page news today.

And I rather suspect Grayling's copy has already filed neatly somewhere out of sight...

 

[jyte]

Back on topic: wasn't the Crossrail/GWEP thing that the DFT/NR wanted Crossrail to pay as far as Reading (they'd already paid as far as Maidenhead) and Crossrail's proposals were to only electrify the slow lines as a result or am I making this up? I swear there was an LR article on this...

 

[tbtc]

I think you're absolutely right on this. But I also hope HS2 are making passive provision for that junction near Birmingham (basically a straight bit of track somewhere a flying junction can be added) as inserting a high-speed junction later would be painful

Agreed

Back on topic: wasn't the Crossrail/GWEP thing that the DFT/NR wanted Crossrail to pay as far as Reading (they'd already paid as far as Maidenhead) and Crossrail's proposals were to only electrify the slow lines as a result or am I making this up? I swear there was an LR article on this...

I can't remember the exact details (though I was the one who brought it up!) - it was just an example of the kind of gamesmanship that goes on with projects, where you try to keep the scope of your one as small as possible so that other things get done by other projects (under other cost centres), so that you can piggy-back on the benefits that someone else has paid for.

It can be a bane of modern project planning but it's something that BR were good at, like getting most of the ground work for ECML electrification done under other projects so that the "cost" of wiring the route up appeared cheap (since they'd raised bridges and amended junctions over the years in anticipation of electrification).

 

[jyte]

It can be a bane of modern project planning but it's something that BR were good at, like getting most of the ground work for ECML electrification done under other projects so that the "cost" of wiring the route up appeared cheap (since they'd raised bridges and amended junctions over the years in anticipation of electrification).

With any hope, something similar will happen with the MML north of Kettering/Baybrook because of all the work NR did around 2014-2015....

 

[B&I]

Not a lot of thought seems to have been given to the Cambridge 'loop'. It's more like a stub end pointing out of London, without much idea what to do afterwards.

Surely the best way to develop a high speed network would be to have a series of lines, doing double duty where possible. In the Cambridge case, one possibility would be a link from, or eastward continuation of the Birmingham spur, with connections to the main trunk, via Leicester and Peterborough to somewhere north of Cambridge, with an onward link towards Norwich for trains from both Peterborough and Cambridge.

If future demand justified a high speed line bypassing the ECML below York, via Doncaster and Lincoln (or some sort of East Notts / Lincs Parkway around Newark), this could connect around Peterborough and continue south to London via Cambridge.

 

[edwin_m]

HS2 floated the idea of a second route north from London joining the Phase 2 eastern leg to give a more direct route from London to the North East. However they never did any work on alignments - it was mentioned as a reason not to make provision for four-tracking on the Phase 1 route. I agree a route via the M11 corridor is a good idea if this is ever built, particularly as East Anglia's links northward are fairly poor. If it joined the Phase 2 route somewhere around the Trent, then a triangular junction here would give a much quicker route for Birmingham-Cambridge trains.

 

[B&I]

HS2 floated the idea of a second route north from London joining the Phase 2 eastern leg to give a more direct route from London to the North East. However they never did any work on alignments - it was mentioned as a reason not to make provision for four-tracking on the Phase 1 route. I agree a route via the M11 corridor is a good idea if this is ever built, particularly as East Anglia's links northward are fairly poor. If it joined the Phase 2 route somewhere around the Trent, then a triangular junction here would give a much quicker route for Birmingham-Cambridge trains.

It would, but a direct West Midlands-East Anglia line would I think be justified by the potential for additional journey time savings, particularly from points north and west of Birmingham, and the possibility of serving Leicester, one of the bigger of the many cities that HS2 misses by 'this much'

 

[edwin_m]

The route I outlined would pass close to Leicester on its way from Cambridge to join the HS2 Phase 2 eastern leg near the Trent. It wouldn't be a straight line between Birmingham and either of those places, but there would be a good time saving anyway given how slow the existing route is.

 

[HSTEd]

Wouldn't a phase one of London-Cambridge-Peterborough enable classic compatibles to Norwich in a competitive time with the current alignment?

It releaves the ECML, WAML and GEML at a stroke

 

[Bald Rick]

Wouldn't a phase one of London-Cambridge-Peterborough enable classic compatibles to Norwich in a competitive time with the current alignment?

It releaves the ECML, WAML and GEML at a stroke

It wouldn’t relieve the GEML. Ipswich, Stowmarket and Diss would still need the same level of service as today, as would Colchester - Norwich.

 

[HSTEd]

It wouldn’t relieve the GEML. Ipswich, Stowmarket and Diss would still need the same level of service as today, as would Colchester - Norwich.

Well reducing traffic to Norwich via the GEML will reduce crowding on the existing GEML services.

 

[33Hz]

This report is in danger of undermining the case for Phase 2b. For example:

Upgrading the East Coast Main Line to 140 mph operation as a high priority alongside HS2 and to be delivered without delay. Newcastle London timings across a shorter route could closely match those achievable by HS2.

It follows that for the eastern limb of the Y-shaped network, at least, the question will arise of whether to commit to the use of UK-gauge trains from the outset and whether a useful saving could be made on construction costs.

It strikes me that if you start letting politicians see that, they might ask why bother?

 

[Loki]

A useful saving by constructing a section of a new highspeed railway to an outdated standard? What? Why even bother electrifying it then? Save more.

 

[Ianno87]

Well reducing traffic to Norwich via the GEML will reduce crowding on the existing GEML services.

I wonder what percentage of GEML London demand is from Norwich, compared to the combined demand of Chelmsford, Colchester, Ipswich, etc?

 

[Bald Rick]

I wonder what percentage of GEML London demand is from Norwich, compared to the combined demand of Chelmsford, Colchester, Ipswich, etc?

No need to wonder old boy, as I’m sure you know. But of all passengers who use the GEML south of Trowse for at least part of their journey, London-Norwich traffic is a fraction of 1% of passenger numbers.

(Source unpublishable)

 

[HSTEd]

Well with upgrades there is always the Cambridge to Ipswich line as well.... But no matter, the ECML, GAML and probably bits of the rump MML is enough relief work for the route I think.

 

[Tobbes]

I don't see the point of an HSR from London to Stansted/Cambridge - Stansted services could be speeded up by four tracking parts of the WAML, and if Stansted's owners really want a 30 min STN-LST timing, then 125mph clearance and tilt could help. But it's a lot of money for questionable benefits given the budget airlines (and therefore passengers prioritising cost over speed/convenience) which use STN.

HS2 phase 3 should be to Scotland, with a target EUS-Glas/Edinburgh time of 2hrs. As well as reducing pollution, the abstraction of air passengers would reduce the demand for runway space in the SE, too.

 

[HSTEd]

HS2 phase 3 should be to Scotland, with a target EUS-Glas/Edinburgh time of 2hrs. As well as reducing pollution, the abstraction of air passengers would reduce the demand for runway space in the SE, too.

Getting even close a 2hr time would require a complete set of high speed track all the way, and that is several hundred kilometres and two new city entrances. (Once you include an Edinburgh and a Glasgow branch you will be looking at 400km or something like that)
That is a much bigger project than a London station coupled to a ~200km or so, joining up with HS2 near Toton.

And air passengers are really a rounding error on the flows a line near London will serve though.

I don't see the point of an HSR from London to Stansted/Cambridge - Stansted services could be speeded up by four tracking parts of the WAML, and if Stansted's owners really want a 30 min STN-LST timing, then 125mph clearance and tilt could help. But it's a lot of money for questionable benefits given the budget airlines (and therefore passengers prioritising cost over speed/convenience) which use STN.

20 minutes London-Cambridge is probably achievable, and classic compatibles joining the ECML at Peterborough would eliminate all the ECML capacity issues by taking all fast line trains out of the Welwyn bottleneck, a relatively short additional stretch of track to Nottingham permits HS2-E to be taken off the core and free yet more capacity out of Euston.

WAML four tracking would likely turn into a giant quagmire comparable to the GWRM or WCRM - the risks of a high speed line construction programme is comparatively smaller.
And given the Thameslink programme will largely empty KGX..... reconstruction with 400m platforms is not totally unrealistic..... (would have to dig out the tunnels north of the station and put the canal on a bridge)

 

[Tobbes]

Getting even close a 2hr time would require a complete set of high speed track all the way, and that is several hundred kilometres and two new city entrances. (Once you include an Edinburgh and a Glasgow branch you will be looking at 400km or something like that)

Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind - a new Border Union Railway, if you will. And the politics of the Union as well as the economic benefits would be the reason to do it.

And air passengers are really a rounding error on the flows a line near London will serve though.

It's not the number of passengers, it's the number of flights from London airports - and specifically LHR and LGW - to the Central Belt. If you can remove these because you've got a an HSR that is quicker city centre to city centre, then you actually make a meaningful gain in the number of slots, as well as reducing pollution.

20 minutes London-Cambridge is probably achievable, and classic compatibles joining the ECML at Peterborough would eliminate all the ECML capacity issues by taking all fast line trains out of the Welwyn bottleneck, a relatively short additional stretch of track to Nottingham permits HS2-E to be taken off the core and free yet more capacity out of Euston.

That's an interesting idea, but what would it look like in practice? KGX - Cambs - ?

WAML four tracking would likely turn into a giant quagmire comparable to the GWRM or WCRM - the risks of a high speed line construction programme is comparatively smaller.

Well the seeds of it are being sowed already, and let's see what the BCR looks like. I'm actually likely to be Cambs based in a couple of years time, so 20 mins to KGX would be excellent, but it doesn't feel like maximised vfm given that it is only 45 mins now.

And given the Thameslink programme will largely empty KGX..... reconstruction with 400m platforms is not totally unrealistic..... (would have to dig out the tunnels north of the station and put the canal on a bridge)

Again, an interesting idea. It would be a shame not to maximise the knock on benefits of Thameslink on KGX.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind - a new Border Union Railway, if you will. And the politics of the Union as well as the economic benefits would be the reason to do it.

2 hours is still too slow for the kind of political integration we need to save the Union - and to generate the kinds of traffic that would justify the construction of the route.
Unless its short enough for it to be commutable you are not going to get substantial traffic on the route.

Maglev is the only solution to that transport need if I'm honest.

It's not the number of passengers, it's the number of flights from London airports - and specifically LHR and LGW - to the Central Belt. If you can remove these because you've got a an HSR that is quicker city centre to city centre, then you actually make a meaningful gain in the number of slots, as well as reducing pollution.

There aren't actually a substantial number of flights to the central belt from those airports though, I make it 9 to Edinburgh and 6 to Glasgow tomorrow (from Heathrow).
Even if you ran hourly trains to each destination you are still going to swamp the market and your benefit-cost ratio is going to be terrible.
(2 trains per hour, plus maybe another couple to Birmingham and the like is not going to justify a high speed line!)

That's an interesting idea, but what would it look like in practice? KGX - Cambs - ?

Well the obvious solution would be KGX - Cambs - Peterborough - ECML destinations or KGX - Cambs - Peterborough - Nottingham/HS2E

 

[Tobbes]

Many thanks, an interesting discussion.

2 hours is still too slow for the kind of political integration we need to save the Union - and to generate the kinds of traffic that would justify the construction of the route.
Unless its short enough for it to be commutable you are not going to get substantial traffic on the route.

Fair enough. Be interesting to see what impact it would have on Central Belt to Manchester/Liverpool if it were an hour; I suspect not a lot.

There aren't actually a substantial number of flights to the central belt from those airports though, I make it 9 to Edinburgh and 6 to Glasgow tomorrow (from Heathrow).

I looked at EDI - LON (all) next Tuesday, and that's 45 flights, albeit spread around LHR, LGW, LCY, STN and LTN. If you were to combine the HSR with a higher APD for routes that had an HSR alternative, then the modal shift could be quite high. Ideally, the only reason to fly to London would be to hub out somewhere else (and even that could've been dealt with an HS2 spur to LHR). (https://www.skyscanner.net/transpor...lse&inboundaltsenabled=false&ref=home#results)

Even if you ran hourly trains to each destination you are still going to swamp the market and your benefit-cost ratio is going to be terrible.
(2 trains per hour, plus maybe another couple to Birmingham and the like is not going to justify a high speed line!)

Fair, but this one is on broader grounds than BCR alone. When will WCML north of Carlisle be full?

Well the obvious solution would be KGX - Cambs - Peterborough - ECML destinations or KGX - Cambs - Peterborough - Nottingham/HS2E

Ah, tyvm. So in the KGX - Cambs - Peterborough - ECML destinations where does the HSR stop? Peterborough?

All the best.