High Speed Rail Scotland

[Tobbes]

Euston - Glasgow is 403 miles, by a rather twisty route. HS2, despite the routeing via Birmingham Interchange, is a little shorter to the end of the Ph 2b route at Bamfurlong Junction. Were there to be an extension all the way to Glasgow, it would unquestionably knock out many more curved sections (otherwise it wouldn’t be a High Speed railway), therefore the route would be in the region of 380-390 miles. Assuming calls at OOC, Birmingham Interchange, and perhaps somewhere around Preston, then 2h30 is doable.

Having said that, even getting it to 3h30 (as with Ph 2) will make a big dent in air traffic - it will probably take about half the existing Glasgow / Edinburgh to London air market. So that extra 200 miles of high speed route is going to buy about 30% of the current air market (about 2 million passengers), given that about 20% is interlining at Heathrow / Gatwick.

All very rough figures.

Many thanks @Bald Rick - this rings true; 3h 30m will certainly make a big dent. Personally, I expect a full HSR sooner rather than later even if it is only on political grounds; 2h 30m would be outstanding, and makes a day trip much more credible, given that you can work on the train.

 

[edwin_m]

Having said that, even getting it to 3h30 (as with Ph 2) will make a big dent in air traffic - it will probably take about half the existing Glasgow / Edinburgh to London air market. So that extra 200 miles of high speed route is going to buy about 30% of the current air market (about 2 million passengers), given that about 20% is interlining at Heathrow / Gatwick.

All very rough figures.

It's arguable that the journey time at which the train grabs most of the non-interlining passengers has crept up a bit from the classic 3hr rule of thumb, due to increased security and general hassle at airports. So it may be that the 3hr30 is "good enough" and getting to 3hr or less doesn't achieve much more mode shift.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's arguable that the journey time at which the train grabs most of the non-interlining passengers has crept up a bit from the classic 3hr rule of thumb, due to increased security and general hassle at airports. So it may be that the 3hr30 is "good enough" and getting to 3hr or less doesn't achieve much more mode shift.

Yep, that’s my point. You only have to look at London - Edinburgh traffic to see that: Rail market share has more or less doubled in the last 15 years, and rail journey times are essentially the same. Air journey times have, effectively, increased though because of security. 3h30 will make a huge difference.

 

[edwin_m]

Yep, that’s my point. You only have to look at London - Edinburgh traffic to see that: Rail market share has more or less doubled in the last 15 years, and rail journey times are essentially the same. Air journey times have, effectively, increased though because of security. 3h30 will make a huge difference.

Interesting you are quoting 3hr30 for London-Edinburgh/Glasgow. It was about 3hr 45min last time I looked, so I presume someone has quantified the benefit of increasing speeds for non-tilting trains north of Golborne.

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting you are quoting 3hr30 for London-Edinburgh/Glasgow. It was about 3hr 45min last time I looked, so I presume someone has quantified the benefit of increasing speeds for non-tilting trains north of Golborne.

I was flying a kite there, as I’ve seen various times quoted. 3h30 would be possible, but it would mean cutting out almost all the stops, other than OOC, Preston and possibly Carlisle.

 

[Altnabreac]

I don't think they will. For one, the nature of Phase 2b to Leeds/York is now being reviewed again in light of NPR stuff. It's possible the mainline route will be slowed down to make it serve intermediate communities east of the Pennines slightly better. Newcastle-London journey times on fast classic rail services are already 'good enough' for most purposes and it's mostly capacity and connectivity to non-London places that are needed. I can definitely see the end-to-end journey time goal (at least for 2b) being relaxed and once that happens, the idea of using the route to serve Edinburgh-London flows would fall away. Sure, you might extend a London service past Newcastle and Edinburgh would be a natural place to go, but it'd be a slower option for connectivity like the Avanti Euston to Edinburgh service.

I know that there are lots of journeys between the Central Belt and the North East of England and that they're fairly important. I don't think they're sufficiently important for long stretches of new track saving 45 minutes to be justified. If you're not sending London trains that way I think the scope of any changes would be much reduced. We'd still probably see some big interventions in East Lothian to allow fast trains to fly past slow stoppers serving commuter stations, and we might see some tweaks at other slow points along the route like Morpeth. It is entirely permitted to build new line sections which aren't part of a wider high speed project.

It may well never happen but I was just pointing out that you were commenting on the published plans saying:

I'm still very much unconvinced it's a good idea for HSR trains to come up to Haymarket via Slateford.

When the plans don't include any line coming up towards Slateford and do explicitly include a new HSR line between Edinburgh and Newcastle.

 

[nick.c]

Interesting you are quoting 3hr30 for London-Edinburgh/Glasgow. It was about 3hr 45min last time I looked, so I presume someone has quantified the benefit of increasing speeds for non-tilting trains north of Golborne.

I think the London to Glasgow timing following completion of Phase 2b (as currently proposed) is 3hr 40min. The newly mentioned Lancaster / Oxenholm bypass along with the new Carstairs to Glasgow link - both around 30 miles long - will both save around 12mins each - hence the final journey time of 3hr 15mins.

 

[LOL The Irony]

London to Edinburgh is 400 miles so the dogleg to Birmingham you’re looking at 450 route miles probably and HS2 operating speed is planned to be 205mph. Take into account acceleration, breaking and intermittent stops and you’re looking at 2hr 30mins minimum.

Isn't it 230mph?

 

[507021]

Isn't it 230mph?

205 routinely, 225 maximum.

 

[Noddy]

Are there any straight sections of the WCML that could be upgraded for higher speed running with non tilt stock? Penrith-Gretna is pretty straight if you could sort out getting through Carlisle (remodelling the southern throat to allow through train to pass to the west of the station) and Carstairs-Edinburgh likewise. Reinstating the old direct line from the WCML to Edinburgh at Carstairs would also allow much faster running through the junction easily shaving off a minute or two. Any of these types of upgrades would also be useful for TPE too allow their (non-tilting) stock to run at higher speeds.

 

[Bald Rick]

Are there any straight sections of the WCML that could be upgraded for higher speed running with non tilt stock? Penrith-Gretna is pretty straight if you could sort out getting through Carlisle (remodelling the southern throat to allow through train to pass to the west of the station) and Carstairs-Edinburgh likewise. Reinstating the old direct line from the WCML to Edinburgh at Carstairs would also allow much faster running through the junction easily shaving off a minute or two. Any of these types of upgrades would also be useful for TPE too allow their (non-tilting) stock to run at higher speeds.

It will be looked at, but the broad objective is to try to get as close to current ‘tilt’ journey times with non tilt stock. It is actually very curved from Southwaite to Carlisle though.

 

[edwin_m]

Are there any straight sections of the WCML that could be upgraded for higher speed running with non tilt stock? Penrith-Gretna is pretty straight if you could sort out getting through Carlisle (remodelling the southern throat to allow through train to pass to the west of the station) and Carstairs-Edinburgh likewise. Reinstating the old direct line from the WCML to Edinburgh at Carstairs would also allow much faster running through the junction easily shaving off a minute or two. Any of these types of upgrades would also be useful for TPE too allow their (non-tilting) stock to run at higher speeds.

I believe Network Rail was/is looking at this.

I wouldn't describe the line around Penrith as straight by any means, but I'd say there are some candidates for higher speed south of Preston and around Lockerbie.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It may well never happen but I was just pointing out that you were commenting on the published plans saying:



When the plans don't include any line coming up towards Slateford and do explicitly include a new HSR line between Edinburgh and Newcastle.

The plans seem to include the idea of a new station for long distance trains on the existing line at Livingston. I think the open line section between Carstairs and Midcalder Junction is pretty hard to justify bypassing given that it's already ~125mph and there are no intermediate stations of any kind. It's the bit between Waverley and Midcalder Junction which is the problem, but solving it doesn't really decrease Scotland-London journey times. That's why I think it'll be solved as part of a wider look at the rail network.

In any case, all of these ideas are still fairly high level. I think we're still at the 2009 NR New Lines Study level of development, which is a little sad given that we've not moved on in almost a decade.

 

[The Ham]

It will be looked at, but the broad objective is to try to get as close to current ‘tilt’ journey times with non tilt stock. It is actually very curved from Southwaite to Carlisle though.

Am I correct thinking that there's generally more time to be saved by speeding up the very slowest speeds on a line (say 30 to 50) rather than increasing the higher speeds (say 100 to 125)

 

[class26]

I believe Network Rail was/is looking at this.

I wouldn't describe the line around Penrith as straight by any means, but I'd say there are some candidates for higher speed south of Preston and around Lockerbie.

Let`s remember Virgin wanted to increase speeds around Lockerbie as apparently there is a lengthy straight section that could be upgraded. Branson put forward the idea of 135 mph so as to not require in cab signalling (that`s needed at 140 mph upwards) .

 

[Peter Kelford]

Am I correct thinking that there's generally more time to be saved by speeding up the very slowest speeds on a line (say 30 to 50) rather than increasing the higher speeds (say 100 to 125)

Yes, that would seem right.

 

[Altnabreac]

The plans seem to include the idea of a new station for long distance trains on the existing line at Livingston. I think the open line section between Carstairs and Midcalder Junction is pretty hard to justify bypassing given that it's already ~125mph and there are no intermediate stations of any kind. It's the bit between Waverley and Midcalder Junction which is the problem, but solving it doesn't really decrease Scotland-London journey times. That's why I think it'll be solved as part of a wider look at the rail network.

In any case, all of these ideas are still fairly high level. I think we're still at the 2009 NR New Lines Study level of development, which is a little sad given that we've not moved on in almost a decade.

Yes one option is to basically use the planned new line starting just out of Carstairs to provide a grade separated bypass of Carstairs East Junction. This would be for the use of Edinburgh - Manchester trains rather than HSR to further south.

The Livingston High Speed Station is primarily about trains on the Glasgow - Eurocentral - Livingston - Edinburgh - Newcastle axis. Idea being these would use the new high speed line from Glasgow then join the Shotts line to head on to Edinburgh and then back onto new High Speed Line east of Edinburgh.

 

[Bald Rick]

Am I correct thinking that there's generally more time to be saved by speeding up the very slowest speeds on a line (say 30 to 50) rather than increasing the higher speeds (say 100 to 125)

Correct, as the speed / time equation is proportional.

 

[Bald Rick]

Let`s remember Virgin wanted to increase speeds around Lockerbie as apparently there is a lengthy straight section that could be upgraded. Branson put forward the idea of 135 mph so as to not require in cab signalling (that`s needed at 140 mph upwards) .

Can signalling is needed from 126mph upwards.

 

[edwin_m]

Correct, as the speed / time equation is proportional.

Also time is lost braking down to the low speed and accelerating back again, on track before and after that would otherwise be taken much faster, and accelerating from a mid-speed t to a high speed takes longer than same gain the same number of mph from a lower starting speed. So the best return is often to eliminate a low-speed section in the middle of a high-speed section.

Can signalling is needed from 126mph upwards.

Ah, the new economy CBTC system finally surfaces. Baked bean tins and bits of string are far cheaper than all this balise rubbish.

 

[Domh245]

CBTC

I can never remember what CBTC stands for, was it Corned Beef Train Control?

 

[Bald Rick]

Ah, the new economy CBTC system finally surfaces. Baked bean tins and bits of string are far cheaper than all this balise rubbish.

They are gold plated tins. Tremendously expensive.

 

[class26]

Can signalling is needed from 126mph upwards.

Out of interest has that always been the case as I always thought it was needed for 140 mph which is why Branson went for 135 mph to avoid it ?

 

[Bald Rick]

Out of interest has that always been the case as I always thought it was needed for 140 mph which is why Branson went for 135 mph to avoid it ?

Always since the trials of flashing greens on the ECML raised issues about signal sighting.

 

[class26]

Always since the trials of flashing greens on the ECML raised issues about signal sighting.

Ok, many thanks

 

[themiller]

Out of interest has that always been the case as I always thought it was needed for 140 mph which is why Branson went for 135 mph to avoid it ?

I think that Virgin justified their proposal for 135mph by comparing the accuracy of the class 390/221 speed displays which use doppler radar with the conventional ones on the HST power cars and electric locomotives.

 

[miami]

Am I correct thinking that there's generally more time to be saved by speeding up the very slowest speeds on a line (say 30 to 50) rather than increasing the higher speeds (say 100 to 125)

Even setting aside things like breaking and acceleration, yes

10 miles at 30mph is 20 minutes
10 miles at 50mph is 12 minutes
10 miles at 80mph is 7.5 minutes
10 miles at 100mph is 6 minutes
10 miles at 125mph is 4.8 minutes
10 miles at 140mph is 4.3 minutes
10 miles at 160mph is 3.75 minutes
10 miles at 200mph is 3 minutes
10 miles at 220mph is 2.7 minutes

Moving from 100mph to 125mph saves 72 seconds per 10 miles
Moving from 30mph to 50mph saves 480 seconds per 10 miles


Upgrading 50 miles of track from 125 to 140mph would save 154 seconds

To save 154 seconds you'd have to upgrade 3.2 miles of track from 30mph to 50mph, or 1.8 miles from 30mph to 100mph

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I don't understand how there is not enough demand for a complete HSR from London to the Central Belt. Endinbugh to Heathrow air passengers is 1,000,000 alone, and to Glasgow its just under a million. Combine that with all the other London airports, plus air movements from Southampton, Bristol and Birmingham, you would have thought a complete Anglo-Scot HSR was a low hanging fruit.

 

[waverley47]

you would have thought a complete Anglo-Scot HSR was a low hanging fruit.

Absolutely, it seems a bit obvious doesn't it. Unfortunately the political reality is a bit different.

There is still theoretical space on the LDHS services (WCML and ECML) from the Central Belt to London, and increasing frequencies would be difficult but still doable in the next five years. There are power supply problems on the ECML, and flighting issues over the northern summits on the ECML, however the interventions currently going on should address these.

Any new high speed rail needs to solve capacity issues south of Manchester and Leeds before it can tackle the journey time issues to the central belt. There is only one pot of money, and for the time being, at least until 2040 we will be solving these problems. After that yes I'd agree, an extension seems likely.

Additionally, Scotland is increasingly likely to vote to leave the UK at some point, and it wouldn't be prudent for the UK government to invest in new high speed track north of the border. Additionally, post HS2 phase 2b and potentially NPR, it might end up that investment west to Bristol and Cardiff will take priority. In short, it will be a very long time before we see another HS2 phase 3, all the way up to Scotland.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't understand how there is not enough demand for a complete HSR from London to the Central Belt. Endinbugh to Heathrow air passengers is 1,000,000 alone, and to Glasgow its just under a million. Combine that with all the other London airports, plus air movements from Southampton, Bristol and Birmingham, you would have thought a complete Anglo-Scot HSR was a low hanging fruit.

Total London - Central Belt air travel is (was!) about 6m a year. Some of it is connecting traffic, and some wouldn’t swap to rail - Eg someone travelling Cambridge to Fife Would always find it quicker by air from Stansted. Realistically, there’s about 4-5m journeys up for grabs (and that number hasn’t changed much for more than a decade, as rail has taken almost all the growth in the market over that time). HS 2 as planned will get about half of that, which means that there’s at the very most 3m passengers a year that might swap from air with an extension of the line to the central belt. That’s around 4000 passengers each way a day, or enough for 7 return Azumas.

Even if they all paid £100 for a single ticket (rather more than the average fare now), that’s £300m/year, which even at low interest rates would buy you about £15bn of capital investment, which clearly isn’t going to be enough. And that assumes that it costs nothing to operate and maintain the service and infrastructure, which it clearly would. (HS1 costs £1m a mile to operate and maintain, let alone the costs of providing a train service).

So, financially, it doesn’t come close to stacking up.

The only chance it has is if there is significant growth on the corridor for passengers and freight, which requires more capacity.