High Speed Rail Scotland

[The Ham]

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.

No one is suggesting that HS2 would wipe out air travel, however it's likely to make a significant dent.

One thing that's worth noting is that the business case for HS2 assumes that 1% of passengers have switched from air. Given that the assumption is that there'll be about 100 million passengers using HS2, that means a switch of 1 million passengers.

Therefore, just on the London/Central Belt flow of ~6 million air passengers it would need a reduction in passengers of 17% to meet that target.

However other flows would also see a reduction, such as the 200,000 between Southampton and Manchester who fly because the current rail journey time is 4:10, after Phase 1 that falls to ~3:15 and it would fall to sub 3 hours after Phase 2 is built.

Whilst that's not enough to wipe out all the air passengers, it could be enough that the route becomes unviable (it had been 1 flight in each direction morning and evening, so not much chance to reduce frequency). If airlines did try to reduce frequencies then it would inconvenience quite a lot of people pushing more people to rail than otherwise be the case.

However, that's likely to be some of those 1 million passengers who are expected to switch from air to rail, that's going mean that that even fewer people would have to swap from the London/Central Belt flights to rail to meet that target.

However, based on the above, there's a good chance that the swap from air to rail would be more than the 1% expected. However even the most optimistic amongst us would expect it to reach >6% to wipe out all London/Central Belt flights.

 

[Tobbes]

@Bald Rick 's points are, as ever, well taken. But if you're a committed Unionist politician with a weakness for Grand Projects, then the case for taking a ruler (if not the Tsar's metaphorical sword) and drawing a straight line from the end of Phase 2b to Carstairs is pretty compelling, not least beuase you're unlikely to have to pay for it anytime soon.

On the interlining point. I wonder what difference it would have made for the Heathrow loop to have been built? Shades of the Lufthansa ET403s between Frankfurt and Dussledorf, if I were BA and the infrastructure permitted it, I'd look at a BA-branded HS2 train every 30 mins from LHR to either Edinburgh/Glasgow replacing an hourly flight. How would you run from LHR onto HS2?

 

[Class 170101]

On the interlining point. I wonder what difference it would have made for the Heathrow loop to have been built? Shades of the Lufthansa ET403s between Frankfurt and Dussledorf, if I were BA and the infrastructure permitted it, I'd look at a BA-branded HS2 train every 30 mins from LHR to either Edinburgh/Glasgow replacing an hourly flight. How would you run from LHR onto HS2?

Still got to find capacity on HS2 from 'Heathrow Junction' to Scotland though. I doubt the government would have left and spare capacity in order to accommodate such a service on the main trunk of HS2.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The thing is, a Heathrow spur seems to make sense-for cross country trains. You've got all those Scotland/Leeds/Newcastle trains terminating at Birmingham, but why not terminate them at a station next to Termainal 5?

Of course, you'd really need a line from the East Midlands to London for that to be done-possibly via Stansted.

 

[NotATrainspott]

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.

I don't think that's the closest parallel, because the Channel Tunnel was a fundamental novelty while HS2 is effectively an incremental improvement on the rail network. That's because it's still very much possible to run classic-compatible services, and the basic service patterns for HS2 already exist on the WCML and ECML. These patterns would continue regardless of any likely constitutional and border settlement.

The implicit point I was making was really that it's less likely a big HS2 to Scotland project will happen inside a single UK than we'd get such a project cancelled because of the constitutional settlement. The sorts of projects we will see will be probably justifiable on their own merits.

For instance, that Lancaster bypass line neatly separates LDHS services from an area of the rail network where we may want to make major improvements to local and regional services. This area of Lancashire and Cumbria gets a rail service partly encumbered by the need to provide fast paths for London-Glasgow expresses. Sure, you might end up with a very fast and direct service to London, but you'll have a less than optimal regional service to the places where most people will go on a daily or weekly basis. Why shouldn't there be a rail service from Carlisle that stops at Carnforth (no WCML platforms!) and gives interchange to Morecambe? Why can't Kendal have something better than a shuttle to Oxenholme?

The proposed Glasgow end is useful in itself for similar reasons, since it clears up LDHS services from the various flat junctions around Lanarkshire. Part of its benefit will be in reducing journey times (which are then what causes the nebulous Wider Economic Benefits and tax collection increases which may be more harmed by a constitutional change) but most of it will be in other things more local and tangible.

There's nothing wrong about going about building a line to Scotland this way, so long as there's enough planning to ensure that the ends of each line can be joined up in future should the need arise. It's easy to see, for instance, that the Figueres-Peripgnan cross-border line ends at a grade-separated junction. This neatly matches the one built at the end of the new Montpellier bypass. As luck would have it, SNCF have plans to join these up with another full LGV, creating a wonderful full-spec HSR route all the way from Madrid to Paris.

 

[Bald Rick]

On the interlining point. I wonder what difference it would have made for the Heathrow loop to have been built? Shades of the Lufthansa ET403s between Frankfurt and Dussledorf, if I were BA and the infrastructure permitted it, I'd look at a BA-branded HS2 train every 30 mins from LHR to either Edinburgh/Glasgow replacing an hourly flight. How would you run from LHR onto HS2?

But an HS2 train every 30 mins from ‘Heathrow’ to Scotland would provide roughly 8 times the capacity of existing flights, and would Run almost empty, and thus a poor use of capacity.

Whilst Heathrow has more people interlining to Scotland than any other U.K. airport, in rail capacity terms it’s not that many, around a thousand a day each way. With a half hourly service it would be around 30-40 people per train.

 

[Noddy]

The implicit point I was making was really that it's less likely a big HS2 to Scotland project will happen inside a single UK than we'd get such a project cancelled because of the constitutional settlement. The sorts of projects we will see will be probably justifiable on their own merits.

Even through you’ve made it explicit I’m still not entirely sure I understand your first sentence. But I disagree with your second (assuming Scotland is independent is 10/15 years-which given the current trajectory looks likely). The BCR would need to be positive for whoever pays for it (ie both governments) and I just can’t see the case for being true for the rUK government.

For instance, that Lancaster bypass line neatly separates LDHS services from an area of the rail network where we may want to make major improvements to local and regional services. This area of Lancashire and Cumbria gets a rail service partly encumbered by the need to provide fast paths for London-Glasgow expresses. Sure, you might end up with a very fast and direct service to London, but you'll have a less than optimal regional service to the places where most people will go on a daily or weekly basis. Why shouldn't there be a rail service from Carlisle that stops at Carnforth (no WCML platforms!) and gives interchange to Morecambe? Why can't Kendal have something better than a shuttle to Oxenholme?

It would be great for all those things to happen. But again would they be economically viable for a rUK government to do on its own? You’re no longer factoring in economic growth in the central belt because that’s no longer your jurisdiction. So you’re paying the same amount of money but taking out a major chunk of the benefits. Would the benefits to the NW of England (and the rest of the rUK) alone be enough to justify them? Would a newly Independent Scottish Government be willing to contribute to an infrastructure project outside its borders?

The proposed Glasgow end is useful in itself for similar reasons, since it clears up LDHS services from the various flat junctions around Lanarkshire. Part of its benefit will be in reducing journey times (which are then what causes the nebulous Wider Economic Benefits and tax collection increases which may be more harmed by a constitutional change) but most of it will be in other things more local and tangible.

I’ve no doubt an Independent Scottish Government would continue this part of any such project as they could also use it as one half of a Glasgow-Endinburgh HSL.

There's nothing wrong about going about building a line to Scotland this way, so long as there's enough planning to ensure that the ends of each line can be joined up in future should the need arise. It's easy to see, for instance, that the Figueres-Peripgnan cross-border line ends at a grade-separated junction. This neatly matches the one built at the end of the new Montpellier bypass. As luck would have it, SNCF have plans to join these up with another full LGV, creating a wonderful full-spec HSR route all the way from Madrid to Paris.

Agreed-nothing wrong at all. Even though these proposals include a High Speed Newcastle-Edinburgh line, I suspect all future projects (after Phase 2B) will be more piecemeal and as I understand it that has worked well on the continent. However Paris-Madrid is also not comparable given the sizes, distances, number of intermediate cities, and EU contributions of that route.

BTW I’m not sure you could describe the Channel Tunnel as ‘fundamentally novelty’!

 

[Bald Rick]

There's nothing wrong about going about building a line to Scotland this way, so long as there's enough planning to ensure that the ends of each line can be joined up in future should the need arise. It's easy to see, for instance, that the Figueres-Peripgnan cross-border line ends at a grade-separated junction. This neatly matches the one built at the end of the new Montpellier bypass. As luck would have it, SNCF have plans to join these up with another full LGV, creating a wonderful full-spec HSR route all the way from Madrid to Paris.

Indeed, similarly the first Phase of HS1 was built with grade separation at Ebbsfleet.

Although the French weren’t always so far sighted. For example the end of the LGV Méditerranée at Nîmes didn’t have grade separation built in, and notably still doesn’t even after the bypass was built. TGVs for Nîmes cross the line on the flat.

 

[BantamMenace]

A point not yet mentioned on this thread is that if you want to catch a certain flight from Heathrow, let’s say LHR to LAX, it’s often cheaper to do Manchester/Leeds/Newcastle - LHR - LAX where the shuttle from a regional airport prevents the need to do security at LHR which is busy and expensive for airlines. HS2 is going to stop this ‘outsourcing’ of security checks to regional airports and instead funnel a million passengers straight into Heathrow’s already crowded check in/security infrastructure.

Worth noting I agree about the modal shift, I just wanted to raise this currently unmentioned point.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Even through you’ve made it explicit I’m still not entirely sure I understand your first sentence. But I disagree with your second (assuming Scotland is independent is 10/15 years-which given the current trajectory looks likely). The BCR would need to be positive for whoever pays for it (ie both governments) and I just can’t see the case for being true for the rUK government.

It would be great for all those things to happen. But again would they be economically viable for a rUK government to do on its own? You’re no longer factoring in economic growth in the central belt because that’s no longer your jurisdiction. So you’re paying the same amount of money but taking out a major chunk of the benefits. Would the benefits to the NW of England (and the rest of the rUK) alone be enough to justify them? Would a newly Independent Scottish Government be willing to contribute to an infrastructure project outside its borders?

I’ve no doubt an Independent Scottish Government would continue this part of any such project as they could also use it as one half of a Glasgow-Endinburgh HSL.

There seems to be this idea that a magical full spec HSR to Scotland project is on the cards, possibly driven by hard Unionist politicians. This project would immediately bring end-to-end journey times down below the point where rail is faster than air and then some, for a variety of demand-inducing and connectivity reasons.

I would love this. The idea of a train speeding up to 330 or 360km/h after the Glasgow and Edinburgh spurs link up somewhere in south Lanarkshire, then staying at that speed by darting through tunnels to bypass the narrow passes at Beattock and Shap and the track/station complexes of Carlisle, Preston and Crewe, only slowing down once it reaches the Chiltern tunnels is definitely appealing. However, with my realism hat on, it's not likely to happen that way for a while. The demands on the rail network north of Wigan/Preston can be dealt with in a different way to what HS2 have done so far. Incremental projects to build the most beneficial bypass sections for the benefit of both long distance (and possibly international) and local trains seems to be the way to go. I think these more realistic projects are all going to be a lot more resilient to any constitutional changes.

Countries can and do make investments in their infrastructure for the sake of connectivity with neighbouring countries. The benefits that make up the B of a BCR don't magically disappear every time a border becomes involved. It's possible and in many cases probable that the cost and benefit balance will be different, in isolation, for the different project parts in different countries. Continuing to go ahead when there's an imbalance is an effective cross-border subsidy. These can and do happen for sensible reasons, when it's in the interests of the subsidising country. Germany and other manufacturing-heavy states have benefited hugely from investing in motorway and rail networks across the EU and its neighbouring countries. International projects happen because when everything gets added up (including to the level of whether countries support each others' political decisions in the international arena) a mutually beneficial balance is still achieved.

These balances that exist between countries also end up happening inside countries too. That's because any imbalances create unstable situations, and these situations remain unstable until a new balance is formed. If it were the case that Scotland could only afford to connect itself by high speed rail to the rest of England through the generous largesse of English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers, then that would also mean the economic value England would get from such an investment would be fairly low. That's easily understood for the idea of building a new high speed line to the middle of Wales. A lovely technical feat but something that could never wash its face. Yes, you could well still make it happen inside a single country, but even a single unitary state isn't totally unified.

A silly project like an HSR line to mid Wales would end up costing the entire country a lot of money that could be better spent on all of the other pet projects of individual areas. MPs love talking about these things - I think Peter Bone justifies his dislike of EU spending just because he wants to spend it on a hospital in his constituency instead. Even with a strident Unionist government, it would be unlikely that all the 590-ish MPs from the rUK would be happy building a special line to Scotland for no good economic reason.

That is, unless it's then in return for other strategic things. These strategic things are not necessarily things that would be made impossible in the event of a different constitutional settlement. Even a matter like continued use of Faslane and Coulport and other military bases would be up for negotiation in the event of constitutional change. If the UK was going to splurge and invest in an uneconomic high speed line in order to preserve Scotland's part in the UK for self-interested reasons of national defence, then it stands to reason that the rUK would also splurge and invest in an uneconomic high speed line in order to curry favour with Scotland to preserve treaty access to these bases after becoming independent.

The big overarching point is that things happen inside a world of a huge number of distinct ideas and pressures. Even what appear to be fairly drastic changes in one area aren't going to fundamentally change all of the variables. That's why the world is a largely stable place at all different levels - local, subnational, national, continent-wide and global. Big changes can happen quickly but that's normally just because there was meant to be gradual change and it has pent up until it bursts in one big go. The Soviet Union didn't collapse overnight as much as its collapse over the previous decades was finally realised in a matter of days. Countries are made up of people and people's individual dreams, dislikes and desires do not change much even if the legal structures around them appear to.

Anyway, back to trains.

Agreed-nothing wrong at all. Even though these proposals include a High Speed Newcastle-Edinburgh line, I suspect all future projects (after Phase 2B) will be more piecemeal and as I understand it that has worked well on the continent. However Paris-Madrid is also not comparable given the sizes, distances, number of intermediate cities, and EU contributions of that route.

BTW I’m not sure you could describe the Channel Tunnel as ‘fundamentally novelty’!

We're fairly lucky in the UK since we can scope out an entire high speed rail network and know that it would be able to completely destroy domestic aviation. Plausibly the only need for planes left would be to the north of Scotland and the islands. On the continent though that won't be the case, but it also doesn't need to be. A route like Paris to Madrid will probably still be mostly done by flying. Once electric easyJet-style aircraft become available, the general environmental benefit of rail vs air will diminish and we'll be able to look more clearly at what rail and air actually do better than one another.

Paris to Barcelona via mostly LGV/AVE but also some classic line and takes six and a half hours. I'm not entirely sure what time saving the new Montpellier-Perpignan line will make but I'll guess it's on the order of 30 minutes to 1 hour. It'll still be faster to fly from Barcelona to Paris than take the train. Madrid to Barcelona is around two and a half hours, so the total Madrid to Paris time would be just under eight hours. People will take the train for some reasons, but most people will fly, even when we have flygskam.

For that reason this line isn't being justified for the sake of Paris to Madrid journeys. That would be a clear waste of time. The line between Madrid and Barcelona was about competing with air, and it has been successful. The same is true for the line from Paris to the south coast of France. The connection between these networks is about linking up cities closer to one another around the Mediterranean region. People in Barcelona are going to be going to Nice, or even the north of Italy. The lines being built are also more often mixed-traffic lines capable of enhancing cross-Europe freight flows.

The Channel Tunnel was a fundamental novelty. There was nothing structurally wrong with the ferry and air operation in place at the time. Train ferries did exist but they were going to die out anyway. A specific problem faced by the Channel Tunnel is that it was an extremely expensive way of re-inventing but not actually fundamentally changing transport links. To make use of it, you need to either make a way to a special international terminal for a security-cleared journey of around two and a half hours, or you need to drive off the motorway and into a special complex where you'll wait for your car to be batched up into a special shuttle vehicle. Thought about it that way, it's not that different to flying or taking the ferry. Yes, it might be more resilient to weather conditions, but that's something you could also seek to solve by rebuilding the harbour for better protection against mother nature.

The rail-based design of the Channel Tunnel means the only really technically viable option to change this would be to enable better integration into the rest of the rail network. However, that's also not that operationally viable given that the Kent rail network is geared towards commuter services to London. The lack of major through stations in London means it's not easy to extend existing LDHS services through the city and towards the Channel Tunnel. The best you could hope for really would be something like a Javelin service extended to Calais. Even that is unlikely given that cross-border cosmopolitan commuting and border smudging is the antithesis of Brexit.

You'd need a motorway bridge/tunnel to really shake things up. That might happen some day (EVs + AVs make it easier).

The main thing for Scottish HSR plans is that they aren't faced with the same problems, since they are just building on what is already established. Incrementally building new stretches of HSR and switching the existing LDHS services to make use of them is an incremental improvement. The equivalent of the Channel Tunnel would be something like a Transrapid Maglev system. It'd possibly make it a bit easier to bring journey times down to 2 hours, but it'd mean a whole new system would be needed for fairly minimal extra benefit compared to more technically standard improvements (including HSR lines) to the existing rail network. The place for radically expensive and incompatible options is when they start to really change what's possible. An evacuated tube Maglev/Hyperloop system that could bring journey times down to fractions of an hour really would be a massive change and be worth the cost. It's the capabilities that matter, not the technology.

Indeed, similarly the first Phase of HS1 was built with grade separation at Ebbsfleet.

Although the French weren’t always so far sighted. For example the end of the LGV Méditerranée at Nîmes didn’t have grade separation built in, and notably still doesn’t even after the bypass was built. TGVs for Nîmes cross the line on the flat.

Yep, although my understanding of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link was that they were always going to authorise and plan for the two phases together. It wasn't like they designed Phase 1 without a fairly good idea about what Phase 2 would look like. I think the LGV planning has been more incremental. It's easy to pick out the rough trajectory of a high speed line and design a junction for it without needing to know the exact nature of the route all the way.

I'm not sure what's going on at Nimes. I wonder if they did the sums and realise a grade-separated junction wasn't worth it. The way it goes from a full-speed mainline route to a relatively sharp turn suggests they did always know the mainline would continue straight from there. If the mainline had gradually become curvier over a distance (as all trains were expected to be slowing down) then it would look more like a deliberate omission.

I was about to compare that to the HS2 links at Wigan and York but I notice they've been tweaked since 2012. The Phase 2b west link now slows down to 230km/h (the standard turnout speed) by the point where the Preston Bypass proposal would have continued. However that's only down from the 300km/h originally planned through the chicane near Leigh and the Manchester Ship Canal (which is explained as the reason for the speed drop, probably due to vertical curve radii and wanting to keep the viaduct small).

 

[Noddy]

There seems to be this idea that a magical full spec HSR to Scotland project is on the cards, possibly driven by hard Unionist politicians.

I’m pretty sure the Scottish Government (and SNP) are just as enthusiastic about a (viable) HSL line south as they recognise the economic benefits/potential, As, I’m sure you’re aware, they are a partner in the working group that has outlined the current proposals.

Countries can and do make investments in their infrastructure for the sake of connectivity with neighbouring countries. The benefits that make up the B of a BCR don't magically disappear every time a border becomes involved. It's possible and in many cases probable that the cost and benefit balance will be different, in isolation, for the different project parts in different countries. Continuing to go ahead when there's an imbalance is an effective cross-border subsidy. These can and do happen for sensible reasons, when it's in the interests of the subsidising country. Germany and other manufacturing-heavy states have benefited hugely from investing in motorway and rail networks across the EU and its neighbouring countries. International projects happen because when everything gets added up (including to the level of whether countries support each others' political decisions in the international arena) a mutually beneficial balance is still achieved.

Agreed. But I still don’t see how this makes economic sense in the case of an Independent Scotland/rUK situation when you are talking about the astronomical cost of new rail lines.

EDIT: I’d also add here that European infrastructure investment is not perhaps the panacea we might imagine. To quote the EU/EC:

‘The decision to build high-speed lines is often based on political considerations, and cost-benefit analyses are not used generally as a tool to support cost-efficient decision-making’

And

‘As a result, there is only a patchwork of national high-speed lines, planned and built by the Member States in isolation. This patchwork system has been constructed without proper coordination across borders: high-speed lines crossing national borders are not amongst the national priorities for construction, even though international agreements have been signed and provisions have been included in the TEN-T Regulation requiring core network corridors to be built by 2030’.

Special report: A European high-speed rail network

The auditors assessed the cost-efficiency and effectiveness of EU co-funding for high-speed rail infrastructure investments since 2000.

op.europa.eu

If it were the case that Scotland could only afford to connect itself by high speed rail to the rest of England through the generous largesse of English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers, then that would also mean the economic value England would get from such an investment would be fairly low.

But that’s the point. It’s not about the ‘generosity’ of English taxpayers. The U.K. government will be looking at the CBR from the perspective of the entire U.K. A gross over simplification but if the cost is £1 and the benefit is £0.75 to ‘Scotland’ and £0.75 to ‘England’ to the U.K. government that gives a total benefit of £1.50 to the ‘U.K.’ which is a positive CBR figure. In an Independent Scotland scenario it’s negative figure for the ‘rUK’.


I would add that I’m politically neutral about the constitutional arrangement. All my points are made from a purely economic argument about what would happen to future investment in HS rail north of Manchester/Newcastle if Scotland was an independent country. Hence why I haven’t discussed things like Faslane (as you do), which are purely a political issue and not related to the economics of HS rail to in any significant way. If Scotland becomes an independent country there will be positive impacts and negative impacts. From our perspective (as folk with an interest in ‘High Speed Rail Scotland’) the impact on the likelihood for investment of new HSR is likely to be negative between the Manchester/Newcastle and the central belt. For other High Speed Rail (eg Inter-Scotland or Inter-rUK) it may be positive as focus changes.

To quote your earlier post (229):

‘Whatever the constitutional settlement, it won't affect geography or most of the non-political factors which you use to decide infrastructure investment‘.

It absolutely won’t change geography but it does explicitly change how an rUK (not to mention an Independent Scottish Government) chooses how to spend on infrastructure investment even just from an economic perspective.

 

[NotATrainspott]

EDIT: I’d also add here that European infrastructure investment is not perhaps the panacea we might imagine. To quote the EU/EC:

‘The decision to build high-speed lines is often based on political considerations, and cost-benefit analyses are not used generally as a tool to support cost-efficient decision-making’

And

‘As a result, there is only a patchwork of national high-speed lines, planned and built by the Member States in isolation. This patchwork system has been constructed without proper coordination across borders: high-speed lines crossing national borders are not amongst the national priorities for construction, even though international agreements have been signed and provisions have been included in the TEN-T Regulation requiring core network corridors to be built by 2030’.

Special report: A European high-speed rail network

The auditors assessed the cost-efficiency and effectiveness of EU co-funding for high-speed rail infrastructure investments since 2000.

op.europa.eu

This isn't helped by the chicken-and-egg problem where entirely domestic routes will already have a lot of demand, so they'll be first in line for expensive new high speed infrastructure. The other problem is that many countries build their networks radiating from their capitals, and that normally means they have to build quite a lot of line before it even gets close to their own border. When routes have been well established we've seen HSR investment happen. The Thalys PBKA network was able to happen fairly soon in HSR terms. There was plenty of long-established demand for Paris to Brussels, Brussels to Amsterdam and from the Benelux into western German cities like Cologne.

The case in Great Britain is that the Anglo-Scottish routes are some of the most well-established in the world. The total air passenger demand between the cities is enormous, but masked by the splitting of demand across two Scottish and five London airports. That really wouldn't change with a different constitutional settlement.

But that’s the point. It’s not about the ‘generosity’ of English taxpayers. The U.K. government will be looking at the CBR from the perspective of the entire U.K. A gross over simplification but if the cost is £1 and the benefit is £0.75 to ‘Scotland’ and £0.75 to ‘England’ to the U.K. government that gives a total benefit of £1.50 to the ‘U.K.’ which is a positive CBR figure. In an Independent Scotland scenario it’s negative figure for the ‘rUK’.

In your example the Scottish government would give the rUK government 50p. Both sides would then be paying 50p and getting 75p in benefit, leaving the BCR unchanged for both sides.

What I think you're trying to explain is that splitting the project responsibilities may mean that the BCR on either side will change. If the works went ahead in full, paid for on either side of the border by each country on its own, then one side could see a higher BCR than the other. That total benefit-cost difference could be worked out as a monetary sum. If the works were done, that would mean the country with the lower BCR project had effectively subsidised the other country by that amount.

My argument is that enormous imbalances in funding and benefit aren't a stable outcome either between sovereign states or within a single sovereign state. There are too many independent pressures to make these happen normally. If MPs in England knew it were subsidising the construction of the line in Scotland, they would need to find some way to justify that. That same calculation happens at every level. MPs in richer constituencies end up supporting spending in poorer constituencies because they see it as the less bad option for the people they represent, as not doing it would start to cause even greater economic problems.

The same underlying reasons why individual voters in England would accept their MPs and government heavily subsidising a line to Scotland would apply regardless of the constitutional outcome, so long as other major factors are also not changed. Of course if an independent Scotland went full Cuba and became an output of Russia or China in Europe the calculus would be different, but all signs point to a desire for a settlement which leaves the boat not rocked much at all.

I would add that I’m politically neutral about the constitutional arrangement. All my points are made from a purely economic argument about what would happen to future investment in HS rail north of Manchester/Newcastle if Scotland was an independent country. Hence why I haven’t discussed things like Faslane (as you do), which are purely a political issue and not related to the economics of HS rail to in any significant way. If Scotland becomes an independent country there will be positive impacts and negative impacts. From our perspective (as folk with an interest in ‘High Speed Rail Scotland’) the impact on the likelihood for investment of new HSR is likely to be negative between the Manchester/Newcastle and the central belt. For other High Speed Rail (eg Inter-Scotland or Inter-rUK) it may be positive as focus changes.

To quote your earlier post (229):

‘Whatever the constitutional settlement, it won't affect geography or most of the non-political factors which you use to decide infrastructure investment‘.

It absolutely won’t change geography but it does explicitly change how an rUK (not to mention an Independent Scottish Government) chooses how to spend on infrastructure investment even just from an economic perspective.

I don't think it will. Scotland being independent wouldn't magically change the geography and rail network of England. We're not planning to build a full HSR line to Newcastle because it isn't actually required. Smaller interventions like a Durham bypass and improving the fast ECML sections would be more than enough for most purposes. Any project worth doing in the NE of England after Scotland left the UK would very likely be a project worth doing while Scotland was still in it, and vice-versa.

I think it's a mistake to put things in boxes and assume that one issue cannot affect the other when there's no obvious link. Countries have to deal with each other in a huge number of distinct ways and if a country feels hard done by because of one lever being pulled against it, it will easily find a very different lever to pull against its opponent in response. We've seen that with tariff tit-for-tat actions each side target specific export sectors of the other even without a clear link - e.g. how the 'Chicken Tax' on light truck imports into the USA was imposed in response to European tariffs on US chicken exports. The UK is currently facing losing out on some very useful aspects of European integration disconnected from the EU because the other EU countries know it's a weak spot.

 

[Noddy]

In your example the Scottish government would give the rUK government 50p. Both sides would then be paying 50p and getting 75p in benefit, leaving the BCR unchanged for both sides.

What I think you're trying to explain is that splitting the project responsibilities may mean that the BCR on either side will change. If the works went ahead in full, paid for on either side of the border by each country on its own, then one side could see a higher BCR than the other. That total benefit-cost difference could be worked out as a monetary sum. If the works were done, that would mean the country with the lower BCR project had effectively subsidised the other country by that amount.

Yes that is exactly what I’m saying. In what you’ve just outlined it appears to assume some sort of cross-border project but I thought we agreed that incremental upgrades are more likely? To take my poor example one step further to try and make it clearer:

An incremental project is in the pipeline called Preston High speed by-pass. Its cost is 1 and the BCR is exactly the same (0.75 to Scotland and rUK giving an overall of 1.5).

In an united U.K. scenario it’s regarded a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (to both the U.K. and Scottish Governments) and gets built. It doesn’t actually matter the fine detail of who paid for exactly how much as it delivers significant benefit (versus cost) to the U.K. as a whole.

In a independent Scotland scenario the financial decision becomes more of an issue. Looking at it from a financial perspective the BCR for the rUK government is negative. You suggest that the Scottish Government simply contributes .50? While that make economic sense (for this project) it then moves it on to being a political decision about spending (large amounts of) money in a foreign state. I don’t want to get into the potential future politics of that other than to say I’m not aware of it happening in Western Europe and certainly the EU auditors report into European High Speed rail link was pretty scathing in terms of joined up thinking and national priorities taking priority over cross border initiatives. However as I said in my previous post this isn’t necessarily all bad - this money could be spent elsewhere on other (internal) Scottish or rUK projects.

I think we both agree that incremental projects are more likely (easier?) going forward, though I think these are actually the ones that are less likely to happen in an independent Scotland scenario, (certainly north of Preston to the border). In the event of an independent Scotland I actually suspect (and as you appear to suggest in a latter section of your post I’ve quoted) it is more likely that in effect a ‘Big Bang’ project happens where both the CBR and territorial division of the project is fairly even and allow the project to be split on a 50:50 basis.

EDIT: Finally I think it’s unrealistic to compare the geography of the Britain to the that of the low counties and France/Germany. In this area you have major cities such as Lille, Antwerp, Eindhoven, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Strasbourg, Stuttgart, Bonn (capital of W Germany) etc etc right along the borders. Even in the Paris-Madrid context you outlined earlier you have San Sebastián, Bilbao, Pamplona, and Perpignan, Girona depending on the route. In Britain there are no major cities between Newcastle-Edinburgh, or Preston-Glasgow.

 

[route:oxford]

A point not yet mentioned on this thread is that if you want to catch a certain flight from Heathrow, let’s say LHR to LAX, it’s often cheaper to do Manchester/Leeds/Newcastle - LHR - LAX where the shuttle from a regional airport prevents the need to do security at LHR which is busy and expensive for airlines. HS2 is going to stop this ‘outsourcing’ of security checks to regional airports and instead funnel a million passengers straight into Heathrow’s already crowded check in/security infrastructure.

Worth noting I agree about the modal shift, I just wanted to raise this currently unmentioned point.

It's not really a good point though.

I often end up going through security twice. Once at Edinburgh or Glasgow airport on a Friday evening, and again at Heathrow or Gatwick on the Saturday morning.

Once you've experienced EDI security, you, never complain about Heathrow. (Imagine how bad BHX is, then add on LCY on a Friday night - and that's EDI on a good day. Service with a Saughton Snarl.)

 

[miami]

HS2 is going to stop this ‘outsourcing’ of security checks to regional airports and instead funnel a million passengers straight into Heathrow’s already crowded check in/security infrastructure.

That only applies for people flying via Heathrow and onto a BA flight from Terminal 5. Fly on American or Delta and you have to transfer to Terminal 3.

It changes nothing on the way back, when all passengers from LA (T3 or T5) have to clear Heathrow security.

T5 handles 32 million passengers a year. Approximatly 50% are transfers, so that would be 24 million security clearences. Even if every EDI-LHR and GLA-LHR flight was connecting to a T5 flight (rather than terminating at T5 or connecting via T2/3/4), and they all resulted in a moved to train, it would be an extra 1.1 million outbound journeys, a mere 4% increase.

 

[Mordac]

It's not really a good point though.

I often end up going through security twice. Once at Edinburgh or Glasgow airport on a Friday evening, and again at Heathrow or Gatwick on the Saturday morning.

Once you've experienced EDI security, you, never complain about Heathrow. (Imagine how bad BHX is, then add on LCY on a Friday night - and that's EDI on a good day. Service with a Saughton Snarl.)

None of that is as bad as the MAN Stasi though, especially at T3.

 

[cle]

The more important part is what % of EDI/GLA/ABZ flights (which are the majority) are connecting passengers, versus going to London itself. For that purpose, you can add in the many Easyjet flights from across the M25 region airports, all O/D. Plus Ryanair. It dwarfs the HS2/Heathrow need.

Noteworthy is that Manchester Airport especially offers far more than Lyon or Marseille (or Lille, pathetic airport) - in terms of long haul and overall flights. Plus has a pretty great rail service, all things considered. HS2 will improve that also. CDG and Orly are way more all-consuming, whereas the UK regions have more direct options (plus AF/KL/LH/EL etc etc). Glasgow, Edinburgh and Birmingham have reasonable direct long-hauls too. So there is less regional need to connect into the prime airport, versus France.

Slight tangent, but raising Heathrow's rail share is way more contingent on the South (East) - on taxis, parking own cars and 'kiss and fly' - direct routes to Reading/GWML, the Windsors and down onto the SWML via Basingstoke or Weybridge. OOC will move the needle a lot too, not just through Crossrail itself, but through connectivity via the Overground also (London traffic vs Home Counties traffic on the Access projects)

 

[gsnedders]

The proposed Glasgow end is useful in itself for similar reasons, since it clears up LDHS services from the various flat junctions around Lanarkshire. Part of its benefit will be in reducing journey times (which are then what causes the nebulous Wider Economic Benefits and tax collection increases which may be more harmed by a constitutional change) but most of it will be in other things more local and tangible.

And I think it's quite clear that some bypass will happen in Strathclyde: grade separation of the local and the long-distance services is necessary to increase capacity and reliance of the network. How far that bypass goes (Abington or Carstairs are the primary options) and what line speed it'll be built for are all up for question (and it's worthwhile remembering either way it'll largely be built through an urban area).

Whilst Heathrow has more people interlining to Scotland than any other U.K. airport, in rail capacity terms it’s not that many, around a thousand a day each way. With a half hourly service it would be around 30-40 people per train.

It's a few thousand each day, I believe. But yes, still little in terms of rail capacity.

 

[Bald Rick]

And I think it's quite clear that some bypass will happen in Strathclyde: grade separation of the local and the long-distance services is necessary to increase capacity and reliance of the network. How far that bypass goes (Abington or Carstairs are the primary options) and what line speed it'll be built for are all up for question (and it's worthwhile remembering either way it'll largely be built through an urban area).


It's a few thousand each day, I believe. But yes, still little in terms of rail capacity.

Given that the total number of passengers between Heathrow and Scotland averages less than 4000/ day each way I’d expect the total interlining to be between 20-40% of that.

 

[miami]

The more important part is what % of EDI/GLA/ABZ flights (which are the majority) are connecting passengers, versus going to London itself.

Looking at routes with more than 7,000 passengers a week.

Heavy connections (Heathrow) - 3m/year - 57k/week, 8000 a day
LHR-EDI 1.4m
LHR-GLA 900k
LHR-ABZ 727k (Aberdeen point-to-point passengers aren't going to switch to HS2)

Medium connections (Gatwick) - 1.3m
LGW-EDI 670k
LGW-GLA 610k

Limited connections (City) - 500k
LCY-EDI 530k

No connections - 700k
STN-EDI 670k

There's possbily a million a year, or 3k a day, who will transfer to train, but only if it's cheaper than easyjet.

Half of those will transfer without a high speed link from Wigan to Glasgow-Edinburgh, so you're looking at a HS2 extension generating 1500 journeys a day, 750 each way. That's 1 train a day.

 

[Bald Rick]

Looking at routes with more than 7,000 passengers a week.

Heavy connections (Heathrow) - 3m/year - 57k/week, 8000 a day
LHR-EDI 1.4m
LHR-GLA 900k
LHR-ABZ 727k (Aberdeen point-to-point passengers aren't going to switch to HS2)

Medium connections (Gatwick) - 1.3m
LGW-EDI 670k
LGW-GLA 610k

Limited connections (City) - 500k
LCY-EDI 530k

No connections - 700k
STN-EDI 670k

There's possbily a million a year, or 3k a day, who will transfer to train, but only if it's cheaper than easyjet.

Half of those will transfer without a high speed link from Wigan to Glasgow-Edinburgh, so you're looking at a HS2 extension generating 1500 journeys a day, 750 each way. That's 1 train a day.

Those numbers are a bit high. 2019:

LHR-ABZ 692,289
LHR-GLA 865,008
LHR-EDI 1,196,921


Also you missed off Luton and Southend, and the LCY routes to Glasgow etc.

But your premise is well founded.

 

[miami]

They were 2015 figures which I think I posted a couple of pages back (https://www.anna.aero/2016/09/14/uk-domestic-market-sees-fastest-growth-for-a-decade/), couldn't find any more recent ones, a link would be great

 

[Noddy]

And I think it's quite clear that some bypass will happen in Strathclyde: grade separation of the local and the long-distance services is necessary to increase capacity and reliance of the network. How far that bypass goes (Abington or Carstairs are the primary options) and what line speed it'll be built for are all up for question (and it's worthwhile remembering either way it'll largely be built through an urban area).

Similar to the Birmingham branch I'd imagine it would follow the existing route for a mile or two, probably towards towards Rutherglen, before going into a tunnel somewhere suitable and being buried through the built up areas. So speed issues caused by building constraints wouldn’t be an issue.

 

[Bald Rick]

They were 2015 figures which I think I posted a couple of pages back (https://www.anna.aero/2016/09/14/uk-domestic-market-sees-fastest-growth-for-a-decade/), couldn't find any more recent ones, a link would be great

All U.K. airport data here:

Data and analysis | Civil Aviation Authority

Aviation data, statistics and reports

www.caa.co.uk

2019 airport specific domestic route analysis here:

https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CAA/Content/Standard_Content/Data_and_analysis/Datasets/Airport_stats/Airport_data_2019_annual/Table_12_3_Dom_Air_Pax_Route_Analysis_by_Each_Reporting_Airport.pdf

Finally, the Wikipedia page of most major U.K. airports has a ‘top 10 most popular routes’ with up to date numbers.

 

[cle]

There are EZ flights from Stansted to Glasgow, as well as the Luton ones to all three (and Inverness, but that's def out of scope!)

If we take 1/3 connecting, and 2/3 of Heathrow folks not connecting, studies have shown that the 3.5 hour mark shows 50% modal shift to HSR. That would be a million alone. The budget airlines and Gatwick routes (if BA leave Gatwick, this rises further) - are more point to point, but more price sensitive.

Don't forget though that business people fly Easyjet, and live in Home Counties - and hen do's fly BA, even from City. It's not super cut and dry.

I'd expect business travellers to flock to the service, as 3 solid hours' work can be done, vs faffing around with flights - even with Crossrail to the City and Canary Wharf as a new consideration.

 

[si404]

The preferred option for a Heathrow HS2 station was as far from the CTA than Old Oak Common time-wise. The modelling showed that more passengers at the station were more likely to board trains to Central London than a plane.

So it wasn't barely an improvement over the current plan for Heathrow of connecting at OOC and more passengers on those trains would want Central London than the airport.

Basingstoke, Luton, Milton Keynes, Watford, Wycombe, Guildford etc are far better places to connect to Heathrow with rail than Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Wigan, Warrington, Glasgow, etc.

 

[miami]

Currently it's 4h20 from Edinburgh, 4h30 from Glasgow. HS2 will be 3h40 from both.

Flight's about 1h30. City is a little nearer to docklands than Old Oak Common, but OOC is nearer to the majority of London than Heathrow T5, and will have more trains. Deplaning to getting to OOC ready to board a crossrail into London from Heathrow Domestic would likely be 25-30 minutes (5 minutes from plane to platform, 7 minutes to wait for an Express, 18 minutes to OOC), making it 2h from Glasgow Airport wheels up, or 2h40 from getting out of the taxi at Glasgow Airport, that's an hour faster than the HS2 train.

For flying to City you're talking 2h10 to deplaning, so 2h40 to Docklands, 90 minutes faster than HS2.

If you live West of Glasgow you'll likely still choose Glasgow Airport for time reasons for your day trip as it will be quicker than getting to Glasgow Central. If you live East or North it's likely a closer thing.

Planes would still fly from Glasgow for Heathrow connections, and I suspect that City will survive.

For budget point-to-points (Stansted and Southend especially) then it will come down to price. Maybe whatever replaces BMI will operate an East Anglia-Glasgow service for people heading to places like Cambridge, but I can't see filling a 737 or A319 with passengers at a high enough price.

Knocking an extra hour would certainly shift those timings to make it better to take HS2 (and the flexibility it can provide if we get proper train tickets rather than non-flexible advances), but those connecting to long haul at Heathrow will still fly (or if there is no LHR-GLA flight, they'll connect via Amsterdam)

 

[Bald Rick]

Currently it's 4h20 from Edinburgh, 4h30 from Glasgow. HS2 will be 3h40 from both.

Flight's about 1h30. City is a little nearer to docklands than Old Oak Common, but OOC is nearer to the majority of London than Heathrow T5, and will have more trains. Deplaning to getting to OOC ready to board a crossrail into London from Heathrow Domestic would likely be 25-30 minutes (5 minutes from plane to platform, 7 minutes to wait for an Express, 18 minutes to OOC), making it 2h from Glasgow Airport wheels up, or 2h40 from getting out of the taxi at Glasgow Airport, that's an hour faster than the HS2 train.

For flying to City you're talking 2h10 to deplaning, so 2h40 to Docklands, 90 minutes faster than HS2.

If you live West of Glasgow you'll likely still choose Glasgow Airport for time reasons for your day trip as it will be quicker than getting to Glasgow Central. If you live East or North it's likely a closer thing.

Planes would still fly from Glasgow for Heathrow connections, and I suspect that City will survive.

For budget point-to-points (Stansted and Southend especially) then it will come down to price. Maybe whatever replaces BMI will operate an East Anglia-Glasgow service for people heading to places like Cambridge, but I can't see filling a 737 or A319 with passengers at a high enough price.

Knocking an extra hour would certainly shift those timings to make it better to take HS2 (and the flexibility it can provide if we get proper train tickets rather than non-flexible advances), but those connecting to long haul at Heathrow will still fly (or if there is no LHR-GLA flight, they'll connect via Amsterdam)

As ever, each individual traveller will ave their own balance of price, speed, convenience and comfort. If one of your origin / destination points is close to an airport / station then that will clearly influence your choice. Taking 40-50 minutes out of the current train journey will shift a lot fo people from air to rail, no doubt.

 

[miami]

HS2 gives 40-50 minutes for free

How many extra would shift with an extra 30 minutes? How much would that cost?

 

[Bald Rick]

HS2 gives 40-50 minutes for free

How many extra would shift with an extra 30 minutes? How much would that cost?

I think we’re saying the same thing, ie that HS2 will win a significant proportion of the air traffic, such that it is unlikely to be viable to try to get the remainder through the construction of high speed rail to Scotland. (Although I wouldn’t say HS2 was ‘free’)