• 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!

High Speed Rail Scotland

Status
Not open for further replies.

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
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.
If the BCRs are all that matter then we might as well go home because the scheme won't get built. ;)
And the HS2-to-Scotland document does not enumerate BCRs for the East Coast option that I can see.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
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.

As I understand it the position is that there will be public consultation on the broad route corridors over 2016 and then engagement with Network Rail and stakeholders on the preferred corridor in 2017 with statutory procedures and construction to follow in CP6.

Once the preferred corridor is chosen there is no reason why work should not proceed on the Scottish element of it relatively quickly and certainly ahead of HS2 Phase 2.

If the statutory permissions can be granted by Holyrood then it avoids clashing with the Phase 2A and B Bills at Westminster. Legal opinion varies but certainly north of Lockerbie station any route planned would be reasonable for Holyrood to authorise under current legislative framework.

HS2 Ltd and Westminster also have an incentive to progress a Scottish section relatively early on. So far design works on HS2 have been adjudged to generate Barnett Consequentials for Scotland so it's possible HS2 construction costs would as well.

But if the UK government commits HS2 Ltd to delivering 3 hour journeys to Scotland then these consequentials may no longer apply as it would be a national scheme. So advance funding some of the delivery in Scotland could actually save Westminster Barnett consequentials money in the short term, albeit committing them to spending more on new lines post 2033. I'd expect some sort of joint UK/Scottish government funding deal to be announced where say UK government paid 100% of Lockerbie - Delta junction, Scottish Government paid 100% of the E-W delta section and the Delta - Edinburgh and Glasgow sections were funded 50/50 by UK and Scottish Governments.

So I think a Lockerbie - Edinburgh and Glasgow line could be under construction by the mid 2020s.
 

clc

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2011
Messages
1,301
So I think a Lockerbie - Edinburgh and Glasgow line could be under construction by the mid 2020s.

I thought I saw a quote from Keith Brown about construction starting in 2019? Maybe it was just design work.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
It is a bit optimistic, depending on who was going to deliver it, HS2 or NR, then the Hybrid bill/transport powers would need to be started now. Note also that the prices are at 2011, not 2015. I couldn't find any note of whether a risk bias was put it, I am assuming it is. There is also talk of HS2 trains tilting, a big ask and highly unlikely. The Beattock and Shap crawler lanes are not new ideas either, they have long been mooted.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
It is a bit optimistic, depending on who was going to deliver it, HS2 or NR, then the Hybrid bill/transport powers would need to be started now. Note also that the prices are at 2011, not 2015. I couldn't find any note of whether a risk bias was put it, I am assuming it is. There is also talk of HS2 trains tilting, a big ask and highly unlikely. The Beattock and Shap crawler lanes are not new ideas either, they have long been mooted.

The bigger issue is persuading the treasury to fund billions of work in England that will mainly benefit Scotland. I think the best that is realitstic in the current climate would be an upgrade of existing line in Scotland only funded through treasury loans to the Scottish Government. Combined the HS2 to Crewe in 2027 and Wigan 2033, it would reduce journey times to maybe 3 hours 30 minutes. Well above the target of 3 hours but much quicker than the current journey time of at least 4 hours 30 minutes.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The bigger issue is persuading the treasury to fund billions of work in England that will mainly benefit Scotland. I think the best that is realitstic in the current climate would be an upgrade of existing line in Scotland only funded through treasury loans to the Scottish Government. Combined the HS2 to Crewe in 2027 and Wigan 2033, it would reduce journey times to maybe 3 hours 30 minutes. Well above the target of 3 hours but much quicker than the current journey time of at least 4 hours 30 minutes.

London to Glasgow or Edinburgh with HS2 phases 1 and 2 only is supposed to be 3hr 37 or 38min.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
London to Glasgow or Edinburgh with HS2 phases 1 and 2 only is supposed to be 3hr 37 or 38min.

Yes your right, for some reason I thought it was about 3 hours 47 minutes. Works in Scotland would probably get it to under 3 hours 20 minutes. That would probably be just good enough to take most traffic away from the airlines. I just can't imagine the UK government agreeing to upgrade Wigan to Carlisle.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
Something needs to be done to that section though and the report mentions the facts that we are already looking at it anyway.
 

GCR

Member
Joined
12 Jun 2016
Messages
17
Location
East Midlands not near HS2
That would probably be just good enough to take most traffic away from the airlines.
I don't think so. In October 2015 there were 71 flights on a weekday from Edinburgh to English airports with 45 to the five London airports (London City 16, Heathrow 12, Gatwick 8, Stansted 6 and Luton 3). Glasgow had 59 flights to England on a weekday. 34 to the London airports (Heathrow 9, Gatwick 8, London City 7, Stansted 7 and Luton 3). Glasgow and Edinburgh both had 7 flights to Birmingham and 4 to Manchester. It obviously depends on where passengers are going to as to whether they might choose to go by train but it seems unlikely that more than half might switch to trains. Most of the time saving being claimed from high speed trains is achieved by reducing the number of stops. HS2 Phase One only has one train per hour going from London to Glasgow and it only stops at Preston. The WCML RUS shows 510k passengers per year going to Glasgow from Euston. If all of these switched to the high speed train (unlikely) it would equate to under 150 passengers on each train. That doesn't seem viable at the sort of fares that would be needed to compete with airlines or the slower trains, which will still be required to serve all the other stations.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
I don't think so. In October 2015 there were 71 flights on a weekday from Edinburgh to English airports with 45 to the five London airports (London City 16, Heathrow 12, Gatwick 8, Stansted 6 and Luton 3). Glasgow had 59 flights to England on a weekday. 34 to the London airports (Heathrow 9, Gatwick 8, London City 7, Stansted 7 and Luton 3). Glasgow and Edinburgh both had 7 flights to Birmingham and 4 to Manchester. It obviously depends on where passengers are going to as to whether they might choose to go by train but it seems unlikely that more than half might switch to trains. Most of the time saving being claimed from high speed trains is achieved by reducing the number of stops. HS2 8 One only has one train per hour going from London to Glasgow and it only stops at Preston. The WCML RUS shows 510k passengers per year going to Glasgow from Euston. If all of these switched to the high speed train (unlikely) it would equate to under 150 passengers on each train. That doesn't seem viable at the sort of fares that would be needed to compete with airlines or the slower trains, which will still be required to serve all the other stations.

I meant in terms of journey times, whether it could compete on cost or whether is enolugh capacity is a different matter.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I don't think so. In October 2015 there were 71 flights on a weekday from Edinburgh to English airports with 45 to the five London airports (London City 16, Heathrow 12, Gatwick 8, Stansted 6 and Luton 3). Glasgow had 59 flights to England on a weekday. 34 to the London airports (Heathrow 9, Gatwick 8, London City 7, Stansted 7 and Luton 3). Glasgow and Edinburgh both had 7 flights to Birmingham and 4 to Manchester. It obviously depends on where passengers are going to as to whether they might choose to go by train but it seems unlikely that more than half might switch to trains. Most of the time saving being claimed from high speed trains is achieved by reducing the number of stops. HS2 Phase One only has one train per hour going from London to Glasgow and it only stops at Preston. The WCML RUS shows 510k passengers per year going to Glasgow from Euston. If all of these switched to the high speed train (unlikely) it would equate to under 150 passengers on each train. That doesn't seem viable at the sort of fares that would be needed to compete with airlines or the slower trains, which will still be required to serve all the other stations.

Taking just Glasgow for convenience, 34 London flights at say 150 passengers each would be the same as the seating capacity of about ten HS2 units. This should be plenty as a unit is proposed to run London to Glasgow every 30min (coupled to one to Edinburgh) and some air passenger will still fly because of interlining, origin/destination near airport etc.

I don't know why you suggest that existing London-Glasgow train passengers will not transfer to a faster train, especially as the existing "classic" through train service would not run any more. There would however still have to be trains serving the intermediate stations.

The above is based on the service proposed in HS2 publications, which may of course not be the same as what eventually happens but is the best we know at present.
 

GCR

Member
Joined
12 Jun 2016
Messages
17
Location
East Midlands not near HS2
I don't know why you suggest that existing London-Glasgow train passengers will not transfer to a faster train, especially as the existing "classic" through train service would not run any more. There would however still have to be trains serving the intermediate stations.
A far as I am aware there is no information in the public domain about flows between all station pairs on the WCML (or ECML). The WCML RUS Table 3.18 does shows how intermediate stations contribute greatly to the flows between Birmingham and Scotland. Is there any reason to suppose that Euston-Glasgow would not show a similar pattern? It seems more than likely that intermediate stops help to justify the current frequent London<>Scotland services. It is surely premature to assume that the existing trains would not run. Passengers using these intermediate stations will make a big fuss if they are expected to change trains at Preston or end up with a worse service than today. Will the WCML franchise holder be barred from offering something customers might want?
 

Attachments

  • WCML RUS Table3.18 Demand between New Street and Glasgow.png
    WCML RUS Table3.18 Demand between New Street and Glasgow.png
    69.2 KB · Views: 27

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
A far as I am aware there is no information in the public domain about flows between all station pairs on the WCML (or ECML). The WCML RUS Table 3.18 does shows how intermediate stations contribute greatly to the flows between Birmingham and Scotland. Is there any reason to suppose that Euston-Glasgow would not show a similar pattern? It seems more than likely that intermediate stops help to justify the current frequent London<>Scotland services. It is surely premature to assume that the existing trains would not run. Passengers using these intermediate stations will make a big fuss if they are expected to change trains at Preston or end up with a worse service than today. Will the WCML franchise holder be barred from offering something customers might want?

You posted previously:

The WCML RUS shows 510k passengers per year going to Glasgow from Euston.

As written, this clearly excludes any passengers only making part of the journey between Glasgow and Euston. Perhaps you should check to see if the figure in the RUS is just end to end (and whether it includes the other direction too). If the RUS figure includes intermediate journeys then it would be pretty meaningless without giving more information about which ones it included.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
A far as I am aware there is no information in the public domain about flows between all station pairs on the WCML (or ECML). The WCML RUS Table 3.18 does shows how intermediate stations contribute greatly to the flows between Birmingham and Scotland. Is there any reason to suppose that Euston-Glasgow would not show a similar pattern? It seems more than likely that intermediate stops help to justify the current frequent London<>Scotland services. It is surely premature to assume that the existing trains would not run. Passengers using these intermediate stations will make a big fuss if they are expected to change trains at Preston or end up with a worse service than today. Will the WCML franchise holder be barred from offering something customers might want?

Well the bulk of the Birmingham New Street passengers to Edinburgh/Glasgow would be far better off it they took a train out of Curzon Street along HS2, or even travelled to Birmingham International and boarded the London Train in the situation where we have extensive HS2 trackage to Scotland. (Ultimately concluding in a complete line).
Ditto passengers from Crewe, who would likely board the HS2 train out of Crewe station.

If you alter that chart to account for that you note a very significant changeover in passengers at Wigan North Western/Preston.
With the bulk of the long distance passengers eliminated (Birmingham/Crewe-Edinburgh/Glasgow) breaking the service at Preston/Wigan (assume the former for operational reasons more than anything) then relatively few passengers would have to change trains.
The optimum solution is probably a Birmingham-Preston service - perhaps as an extension of an existing London-West Midlands LM diagram, and a Crewe-Scotland service.
That would cover most of the existing journey opportunities.
 

clc

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2011
Messages
1,301
If Edinburgh-Glasgow HSR doesn't appear in the Scottish HLOS this summer does that mean it can't start construction in CP6?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
If Edinburgh-Glasgow HSR doesn't appear in the Scottish HLOS this summer does that mean it can't start construction in CP6?
Not necessarily. It may be funded by alternative means so not have to appear in the HLOS. At least that's my understanding of things.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
If Edinburgh-Glasgow HSR doesn't appear in the Scottish HLOS this summer does that mean it can't start construction in CP6?

Given it is unlikely to be delivered by Network Rail it is also unlikely to appear in the HLOS.

I'd expect their to be references to it in the new STPR though.

Given the funding is likely to depend on Barnett decisions regarding HS2 any announcements are more likely to be inked to the HS2 timetable than to the HLOS timetable.
 

clc

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2011
Messages
1,301
Given the funding is likely to depend on Barnett decisions regarding HS2 any announcements are more likely to be inked to the HS2 timetable than to the HLOS timetable.

The difficulty with that is HS2 Barnett consequentials will be spread over the next 16 years but the Scottish Government will probably need all of it over the next 10 years.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
The difficulty with that is HS2 Barnett consequentials will be spread over the next 16 years but the Scottish Government will probably need all of it over the next 10 years.

I believe the thinking is more that there won't be any conseauentials so direct DfT funding would be more likey instead.
 

clc

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2011
Messages
1,301
I believe the thinking is more that there won't be any conseauentials so direct DfT funding would be more likey instead.

That gives the Scottish Govt less control, which isn't a good thing.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
Route corridors announced by Scottish Government for cross border High Speed Rail:

Cross-border rail improvements planned

Major step towards three-hour journeys between Scotland and London.

The next stage in plans for reducing train journey times between Scotland and England have been announced by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.

Addressing an audience of business leaders in Newcastle, the First Minister confirmed that feasibility studies were being commissioned to identify options to help improve train journey times, capacity, resilience and reliability on services between Scotland and England.

In 2016 the UK and Scottish governments jointly commissioned work to identify options for improvement, on the east and west coast rail corridors, with a focus on delivering three hour journeys between Scotland and London.

The first phase of this has now been completed. A short list of options to enhance the rail network has been identified and analysis will now be commissioned to understand cost, benefits, environmental impacts and technical considerations for work in Scotland.

The studies will focus on the east coast line south of Dunbar towards Newcastle and on the west coast line between Glasgow and Carstairs. This feasibility study will also consider the potential for new cross-border stations within the Eurocentral business park and on the existing rail network near Livingston.

The First Minister said:

“I am determined for us to take the necessary steps to secure Scotland’s future and improve our connectivity with England.

“This work will provide us with the knowledge to make informed investments in the next ten years and move us towards our goal of a three hour journey time to London and substantially reduced journey times to the cities in between.

“It is fitting that I am able to make this announcement while speaking to the North East England Chambers of Commerce. This work could have significant benefits for people and businesses on both sides of the border.

“For example, it is expected that these studies will confirm we will be able to reduce the journey time between Edinburgh and Newcastle by a third, down to only one hour, and also reduce journey times between Glasgow and Edinburgh and Carlisle. This will further enhance the opportunities for trade and leisure travel between these great cities, as well as the surrounding area.”
https://news.gov.scot/news/cross-border-rail-improvements-planned

Looks interesting and seems to imply a combination of ECML and WCML routes being looked at to connect with HS2.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,674
Location
Leeds
If Edinburgh-Glasgow HSR doesn't appear in the Scottish HLOS this summer does that mean it can't start construction in CP6?
Given that we're presumably at least a year away from the publication of even an outline route, getting to a start of construction in CP6 would probably be quite difficult regardless of the HLOS.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Route corridors announced by Scottish Government for cross border High Speed Rail:


https://news.gov.scot/news/cross-border-rail-improvements-planned

Looks interesting and seems to imply a combination of ECML and WCML routes being looked at to connect with HS2.

Scottish politicians have always favoured East Coast because of the potential benefit to Scotland of increased trade and tourism with the North East while the industry has favoured West Coast for fastest London services. We are likely to see a compromise of services on the West Coast with faster cross border services on the East Coast interlinking with NPR network.
 

UrbanWorld

Member
Joined
26 Dec 2014
Messages
106
A Scottish study a few years back preferred the west route. This makes sense as HS2 may only be a line from London to Crewe and no more - they look at these possibilities. The legs from Birmingham to Leeds and from Crewe to Manchester (phase 2b) look like they may be shelved once construction starts in earnest on HS2. Why would phase 2b be shelved? Well the eastern leg will have London to Leeds time similar to the ECML having bottlenecks removed using the latest fast trains. The ECML has half the traffic of the WCML, so capacity issues there. Sheffield can be reach in just under the HS2 if the MML was electrified and uprated and also using the latest fast trains. It looks like the eastern leg of phase 2b will be the 1st to be dropped. Manchester has a line directly to Crewe (WCML spur). Again, with uprating this line and shelving the western leg of phase 2b, London to Manchester time will only be a few minutes slower than a full direct HS2 link.

The Scots study concluded that a mixture of: HS2 to Crewe, WCML with bottlenecks removed and some high-speed line in Scotland, will give a London to Glasgow/Edinburgh time of under the magic 3 hours.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
How on earth do you propose to match 1hr30 to Leeds out of KGX without massive HSL construction?

That is close to hour faster than the existing journey, never mind the capacity limitations inherent in mixed stopping patterns on twin track main line.

Ditto Sheffield, only in the absurd fever dreams of MML boosters would it be able to match HS2 timings.

Additionally what does 'uprating' even mean?
There will never be extensive >125mph running on conventional UK rail infrastructure, that ship sailed with the GWML debacle
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top