High Speed Rail Scotland

[nick.c]

..... 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.

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.

I think that you might be pleasantly surprised. The 35 mile HS2 Phase 2a section is expected to cost in the region of £4.5bn. I would imagine that the newly proposed 30 mile Lancaster to Oxenholm bypass would come in around the same. Don't know how much the Carstairs to Glasgow link would cost as some of it runs in an urban environment which is clearly more expensive - but then it would partly be shared by Glasgow to Edinburgh regional expresses.

My guess is that £15 billion would buy a lot of new high speed railway plus greatly increased capacity.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think that you might be pleasantly surprised. The 35 mile HS2 Phase 2a section is expected to cost in the region of £4.5bn. I would imagine that the newly proposed 30 mile Lancaster to Oxenholm bypass would come in around the same. Don't know how much the Carstairs to Glasgow link would cost as some of it runs in an urban environment which is clearly more expensive - but then it would partly be shared by Glasgow to Edinburgh regional expresses.

My guess is that £15 billion would buy a lot of new high speed railway plus greatly increased capacity.

But 60 odd miles of High Speed line doesn’t buy an hour, it buys (apparently) 24 minutes, and some of that is not calling at Lancaster / Oxenholme, which you could do tomorrow for no capital cost.

To get the hour reduction (to get ‘all’ of the air passengers) you’d need 200 miles of high speed line. That’s going to cost at least £30bn, plus £200m a year to maintain / operate, before a train turns a wheel.

 

[nick.c]

To get the hour reduction (to get ‘all’ of the air passengers) you’d need 200 miles of high speed line. That’s going to cost at least £30bn, plus £200m a year to maintain / operate, before a train turns a wheel.

I understand your scepticism but I don't think that it is vital to get "all" of the air passengers. An HSR all the way from London to Scotland could well deliver journey times of 2hr 30mins - but would probably be prohibitively expensive. However, sufficient new infrastructure to get the timing reliably down to 3hrs flat and which would enable major model shift would be much less expensive.

Agree that any HSR proposals will be dependent on future passenger and freight growth on the corridor. As always - capacity is the main driving point.

 

[Bald Rick]

I understand your scepticism but I don't think that it is vital to get "all" of the air passengers. An HSR all the way from London to Scotland could well deliver journey times of 2hr 30mins - but would probably be prohibitively expensive. However, sufficient new infrastructure to get the timing reliably down to 3hrs flat and which would enable major model shift would be much less expensive.

Agree that any HSR proposals will be dependent on future passenger and freight growth on the corridor. As always - capacity is the main driving point.

My point is that with Phase 2 complete it will be quite realistic to have a 3h30 journey time, and that will capture a significant portion of the air traffic, by taking an hour off current times. Spending another £10b or so to reduce journey times by say 20 minutes isn’t going to capture that much more. Perhaps the main issue is that such a high speed line would see, at the very most, 4 trains an hour, which seems to me to be a lot of expensive infrastructure for not much service.

 

[Grumpy]

It doesn't stand a chance of political support. It would be pointed out that for £10bn you might get 10000 km of track electrified which would be much more popular. The press in England would also present it as tearing up English countryside, communities etc. just so a few Scottish businessmen could get to London quicker. The activities of Nicola Sturgeon and her colleagues have consequences

 

[Bald Rick]

It doesn't stand a chance of political support. It would be pointed out that for £10bn you might get 10000 km of track electrified which would be much more popular. The press in England would also present it as tearing up English countryside, communities etc. just so a few Scottish businessmen could get to London quicker. The activities of Nicola Sturgeon and her colleagues have consequences

4000km of electrification at most, but the point is sound.

 

[NotATrainspott]

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.

The country has barely put shovels in the ground for Phase 1 of HS2. Even if it were explicit that the government were aiming for a full high speed line all the way it would still take decades to deliver. It wouldn't make much of a difference whether the government planned it now, or waited a few more years until the design and construction pipelines are cleared up a little.

In any case the benefit of decreased journey times is possible with incremental improvements. Most high speed networks around the world are built section-by-section with high speed trains running to traditional classic destinations beyond the end of the high speed lines. Sometimes it has made sense to build more peripheral sections of the high speed network first - e.g. the AVE line from Ourense to Santiago de Compostela has been built before Ourense had a high speed line to the rest of the AVE network at Zamora.

The main benefit of going to a full dedicated line is that you have the better reliability and capacity all the way. That could mean, for instance, that the rest of the HS2 network could run at maximum theoretical capacity without as much need for timetable slack in case a train is delayed on the classic network. In some areas, the investment in a new line of any kind may be useful as a defence against increasingly unpredictable weather, as any new line would be designed to be more resilient to flooding or landslips.

 

[Peter Kelford]

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.

One does wonder however if HS2 would help win an electoral campaign? Doing so on the eve of the election so to speak probably would anger people further by contrast.

 

[Royston Vasey]

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.

Hear hear. If the Scots they want to go it alone, with all the economic realities that brings, they will have to negotiate with the (rest of the) UK Government to pay for it. Without Barnett there will be a lot to pay for from the tartan purse.

 

[waverley47]

The independece debate is difficult, but lets not get into that here. But the reality of that is Westminster seems increasingly unwilling to invest in big infrastructure north of the border. I can realistically forsee two futures.

1. Post 2024 Tory government is unwilling to spend big in Scotland, and will instead continue to focus on HS2 in the North for the time being.

2. Post 2024 Lab-SNP-Green coalition, focusing on HS2 to improve connectivity in the North. Gives a lump sum to the Scotgov, which is spent on stuff north of the border, but this is likely to be further electrification more than anything else. (If 1bn bought Theresa May the votes of eight DUP MPs, than how much would the going rate be for 45 votes I wonder)

Either way, full high speed to Scotland is unlikely. We will be building HS2 for decades, as pointed out, and any further interventions seem decades away at least.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

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.

Although there is already a thread on the matter, couldn't an end to end Edinburgh to London high-speed railway actually decrease support for succession?

 

[Grumpy]

4000km of electrification at most

So even with a £10bn programme no reduction on £2.5m/single track Km?

 

[Bald Rick]

So even with a £10bn programme no reduction on £2.5m/single track Km?

That would be cheap!

 

[HSTEd]

So even with a £10bn programme no reduction on £2.5m/single track Km?

And this is why the electrification programme is dead.

 

[class26]

And this is why the electrification programme is dead.

But it can`t be, the government are going to eliminate diesel and what about CO2 ? Do we burn bionic Duckweed to quote Roger Ford?
Batteries and Hydrogen will not fill in except for a few special cases i would think. It just hasd to be elej

 

[HSTEd]

But it can`t be, the government are going to eliminate diesel and what about CO2 ? Do we burn bionic Duckweed to quote Roger Ford?
Batteries and Hydrogen will not fill in except for a few special cases i would think. It just hasd to be elej

The simple answer is that they won't eliminate diesel.
Given the ORR position on third rail installations and the shear cost of 25kV installations, they are hoping batteries become the panacea but in reality the truth is that diesel operation will continue indefinitely.

They might try to dress it up with a programme for making biodiesel, but nothing serious will come of it.

 

[gsnedders]

There a couple reasons why even with the comparatively low BCR I think there's a decent chance of HSR reaching Scotland: one is simply being seen to do something to reduce internal aviation (regardless of what percentage of emissions are from domestic aviation), which is an increasing political imperative and continuing construction of new railway infrastructure (if we want to bring down the cost this is surely a necessity).

Especially if the the western route is taken further north, it's worthwhile remembering that there would be comparatively little work in Scotland: any new infrastructure north of Carstairs would be built on its own merits, because you can get a similar time-saving to both Edinburgh and Glasgow further south with half the distance. Segregation of long-distance services into both Edinburgh and Glasgow is fairly likely to be necessary at some point regardless of whether HSR reaches all the way north or not.

And I think as with many, refusing to build infrastructure in Scotland because of the potential of Scottish independence merely furthers most of the arguments for Scottish independence: if the UK government isn't investing in Scotland (and explicitly avoiding doing so), there's even less lost by independence.

 

[Noddy]

There a couple reasons why even with the comparatively low BCR I think there's a decent chance of HSR reaching Scotland: one is simply being seen to do something to reduce internal aviation (regardless of what percentage of emissions are from domestic aviation), which is an increasing political imperative and continuing construction of new railway infrastructure (if we want to bring down the cost this is surely a necessity).

It’s only internal if Scotland remains in the U.K.

And I think as with many, refusing to build infrastructure in Scotland because of the potential of Scottish independence merely furthers most of the arguments for Scottish independence: if the UK government isn't investing in Scotland (and explicitly avoiding doing so), there's even less lost by independence.

I entirely agree. However in 10 years, when HS2 is actually reality and we know whether Phase 2B is happening and what the route is, Scotland may have already left and in that case there will be zero chance of it happening. The issue is what happens if Scotland is still in the U.K. in 10 years time, and what the political trajectory looks like then (you only need to look at Quebec to see how much things can change, equally the SNP only need 50%+1 vote to win).

As I understand the recent proposals seem to be suggesting a new Newcastle-Edinburgh line with a 45min journey time. While I just can’t see this ever being economically viable, this would be extremely attractive to both governments if Scotland is still in the U.K.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I'm not sure that the Scottish constitutional question really affects HS2 plans to any great degree. Whatever the constitutional settlement, it won't affect geography or most of the non-political factors which you use to decide infrastructure investment. People would still be travelling from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London, a lot, just as Dublin to London is one of the busiest air corridors in the world. HS2 has managed to survive 10 years of political opposition because the non-political fundamentals are largely sound. We can expect the same soundness to apply to any plans to build more dedicated line sections up to Scotland. The only real circumstance I can see where the constitutional settlement would impact it is if plans were drawn up on a largely political basis in the first place. If, for some reason, the UK government decided to invest specially in HS2 simply for political reasons while accepting a BCR (even a generously calculated one) of below 1, then a major change would be a reason to stop investment. I think it's more likely that a grand scheme won't happen at all, or slower or more piecemeal, whatever the constitutional settlement than a magic one which would stop if the settlement changed.

There aren't many examples of cross-border HSR but countries in Europe can see the value of schemes like Thalys to provide fast and air-competitive rail services on upgraded and new infrastructure even though the destinations are in four separate countries. Eurostar is sadly hamstrung by UK border rules but it has expanded out to places like Amsterdam. When the Dutch government planned its HSR networks it will have considered the benefit of high speed track for not only its domestic services but also those international ones.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I'm not sure that the Scottish constitutional question really affects HS2 plans to any great degree. Whatever the constitutional settlement, it won't affect geography or most of the non-political factors which you use to decide infrastructure investment. People would still be travelling from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London, a lot, just as Dublin to London is one of the busiest air corridors in the world. HS2 has managed to survive 10 years of political opposition because the non-political fundamentals are largely sound. We can expect the same soundness to apply to any plans to build more dedicated line sections up to Scotland. The only real circumstance I can see where the constitutional settlement would impact it is if plans were drawn up on a largely political basis in the first place. If, for some reason, the UK government decided to invest specially in HS2 simply for political reasons while accepting a BCR (even a generously calculated one) of below 1, then a major change would be a reason to stop investment. I think it's more likely that a grand scheme won't happen at all, or slower or more piecemeal, whatever the constitutional settlement than a magic one which would stop if the settlement changed.

There aren't many examples of cross-border HSR but countries in Europe can see the value of schemes like Thalys to provide fast and air-competitive rail services on upgraded and new infrastructure even though the destinations are in four separate countries. Eurostar is sadly hamstrung by UK border rules but it has expanded out to places like Amsterdam. When the Dutch government planned its HSR networks it will have considered the benefit of high speed track for not only its domestic services but also those international ones.

It depends though, seeing as we're having a hard Brexit i.e not in the single market or customs union, Scotland if it rejoins the EU would face a hard border with England which could reduce travel demand.

 

[EllieAquitrain]

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.

Although, once a large part of the direct London-CB traffic switched to HSR, the reduced remaining demand may not support very much air traffic on that axis. In that case, the hypothetical Cambridge <-> Fife traveller may find themselves being forced onto a slightly longer journey by rail whether they like it or not...

 

[Bald Rick]

Although, once a large part of the direct London-CB traffic switched to HSR, the reduced remaining demand may not support very much air traffic on that axis. In that case, the hypothetical Cambridge <-> Fife traveller may find themselves being forced onto a slightly longer journey by rail whether they like it or not...

Look at London - Leeds / Manchester / Newcastle flights for what happens in that situation. People still fly when there’s only a few flights a day.

 

[edwin_m]

Look at London - Leeds / Manchester / Newcastle flights for what happens in that situation. People still fly when there’s only a few flights a day.

Many Leeds Manchester and Newcastle air passengers are interlining at Heathrow. This will probably continue after HS2 unless policy or economics change dramatically, as the time saving from the faster train journey and the interchange at Old Oak probably doesn't make it time-competitive with a domestic flight and airside transfer at Heathrow.

At Stansted there's probably no interlining to speak of, so Edinburgh-Stansted will rely to a large degree on domestic journeys for which HS2 could offer an attractive alternative. So it's more likely those flights will disappear.

 

[Noddy]

I'm not sure that the Scottish constitutional question really affects HS2 plans to any great degree. Whatever the constitutional settlement, it won't affect geography or most of the non-political factors which you use to decide infrastructure investment. People would still be travelling from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London, a lot, just as Dublin to London is one of the busiest air corridors in the world. HS2 has managed to survive 10 years of political opposition because the non-political fundamentals are largely sound. We can expect the same soundness to apply to any plans to build more dedicated line sections up to Scotland. The only real circumstance I can see where the constitutional settlement would impact it is if plans were drawn up on a largely political basis in the first place. If, for some reason, the UK government decided to invest specially in HS2 simply for political reasons while accepting a BCR (even a generously calculated one) of below 1, then a major change would be a reason to stop investment. I think it's more likely that a grand scheme won't happen at all, or slower or more piecemeal, whatever the constitutional settlement than a magic one which would stop if the settlement changed.

But it changes everything (assuming we are talking about cross border HS lines north of either Manchester or Newcastle). Under the current arrangement the cost and benefits will largely be bourn and recouped by the U.K. as a whole so Scotland is likely to contribute a proportion relative to it economic size within the U.K. It may pay slightly more depending Barnett Formulas, direct Scottish Government contributions etc (maybe 20%), but it is also getting the greatest benefit. If Scotland is independent by that time how would government funding work? 50:50? I’m not sure the Independent Scottish Government would want/be able to contribute that much? Even if they were willing to pay for half that doesn’t mean the cost/benefit ratio for the rUK is still positive, because the calculations for the benefits completely change.

The closest parallel to this situation would be the Channel Tunnel. That was privately financed though, which certainly doesn’t seem to be what is happening with current national or (in this hypothetical case) international infrastructure projects.

 

[Bald Rick]

Reply to @edwin_m: For Leeds and Newcastle, the majority of them are interlining, or have home / businesss very near to one of the airports.

 

[The Ham]

Although, once a large part of the direct London-CB traffic switched to HSR, the reduced remaining demand may not support very much air traffic on that axis. In that case, the hypothetical Cambridge <-> Fife traveller may find themselves being forced onto a slightly longer journey by rail whether they like it or not...

Look at London - Leeds / Manchester / Newcastle flights for what happens in that situation. People still fly when there’s only a few flights a day.

Whilst it's very likely that there'll be a lot of air travel with HSR, the shorter the journey time then fewer people will opt for air travel.

That in turns results in fewer flights over the day, which in turn reduces the overall number of flights.

That then means that air travel becomes less attractive.

If you've got a longer gap between flights that means that if the flight you want is full then it means that your journey time increases quite a lot proportionally. It also means that you may have to get a flight which gets you in (say) an hour or two before you actually wish to. Especially if you are giving yourself a bit of a buffer between advertised arrival times and when you actually wish to arrive.

Of course there going to be those who will almost fly regardless of what the situation is.

However given there's around 2.5 million journeys between London and Scotland by rail and 6 million air, then a doubling of rail/halving of air passengers would be entirely possible.

 

[route101]

Reply to @edwin_m: For Leeds and Newcastle, the majority of them are interlining, or have home / businesss very near to one of the airports.

Interlining ? Thats a new for me

 

[edwin_m]

Interlining ? Thats a new for me

Changing onto a longer-distance flight.

 

[Bald Rick]

Whilst it's very likely that there'll be a lot of air travel with HSR, the shorter the journey time then fewer people will opt for air travel.

That in turns results in fewer flights over the day, which in turn reduces the overall number of flights.

That then means that air travel becomes less attractive.

If you've got a longer gap between flights that means that if the flight you want is full then it means that your journey time increases quite a lot proportionally. It also means that you may have to get a flight which gets you in (say) an hour or two before you actually wish to. Especially if you are giving yourself a bit of a buffer between advertised arrival times and when you actually wish to arrive.

Of course there going to be those who will almost fly regardless of what the situation is.

However given there's around 2.5 million journeys between London and Scotland by rail and 6 million air, then a doubling of rail/halving of air passengers would be entirely possible.

Yep, a 3h30(ish) London - Central belt time will roughly halve air passengers and double rail.

It is instructive to see what happened to Manchester -London Air traffic following completion of the West Coast upgrade. I can’t access the data now, but ISTR that There were around 30 flights a day each way (some were 767s!) and around 2.5m passengers pa. Some of that will have been due to the prolonged disruption at weekends, but mostly it was because of an hourly service and 2h40+ journey times by rail.

Now, with a train every 20 minutes and approx 2h journey times there’s 8 flights a day and just over half a million passengers. I suspect HS2 Ph2 will wipe out all the remaining flights, especially with Manchester Airport to Heathrow being about the same journey time by train as plane (pushback to docking).

 

[Class 170101]

At Stansted there's probably no interlining to speak of, so Edinburgh-Stansted will rely to a large degree on domestic journeys for which HS2 could offer an attractive alternative. So it's more likely those flights will disappear.

Some of the catchment area served by Stansted Airport means it will still be quicker to travel by air to Central Scotland than by Rail because you have to factor travelling to / from London to reach HS2. The same for Norwich to Central Scotland.