HS2 future northern extensions

[Altnabreac]

I assume you would simply continue north from Wigan to save thirty minutes.
Reconstruction of the spur to be 200mph instead of 140 would save a few minutes.

That is unlikely as any extension north of Golborne would bypass Preston. See the long list, short list and preferred option in figures 4.18, 4.19 and 4.20 pages 77-81 of this document:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...-phase-two-of-the-high-speed-rail-network.pdf

The business case for Scottish services assumes a stop somewhere in northern England for interchange purposes, to generate extra custom and to allow benefits to English cities (important for both the financial and political business case especially from a DfT perspective).

The Preston stop could at a push be replaced with a Crewe call but Preston is very likely to remain an important stop for Scottish services, thus the first phase of any new high speed track is less likely to be a Preston bypass.

Equally the need to split services for Edinburgh and Glasgow (and the daftness of the current proposals to do this at Carstairs) are likely to mean that a stop at Carlisle where trains could divide instead is also very likely, and new track bypassing Carlisle very unlikely.

Thirdly there would be complications around a cross border section likely to require a hybrid bill at Westminster with Sewell consent at Holyrood meaning a new section crossing the border would be more difficult than stand alone sections in England or Scotland.

Therefore my best guess is that the proposals are likely to be:

Phase 1
Edinburgh - Glasgow High Speed Rail with a south facing spur to around Carstairs.
Opening mid 2020s, can be consented and developed purely in Scotland. Some (pseudo?) Barnett Consequentials from HS2 agreed to fund it?

Phase 2
Scottish section of High Speed track somewhere between Carstairs and Gretna.
Most likely north of Lockerbie.
Opening late 2020s, can be consented and developed purely in Scotland. Some (pseudo?) Barnett Consequentials from HS2 agreed to fund it?

Phase 3
English section of High Speed track somewhere between Carlisle and Preston.
Most likely between Carnforth and Penrith.
Opening 2030s, requires Westminster consent and funding.

Sections least likely to be built as new, full TSI specification:

1. Edinburgh City Centre Station
2. Preston (& Wigan) bypass
3. Carlisle bypass
4. Glasgow City Centre Station
5. Scottish Border Crossing (Gretna - Carlisle)
6. Lancaster bypass

These sections would either be more difficult to construct financially, physically or politically or would bypass likely traffic generating stops. If you know you only need a fixed amount of new track to hit the 3 hour journey time you would avoid constructing the 6 sections above to keep costs and difficulties down.

 

[po8crg]

IIRC, the Preston bypass proposal includes a parkway station where the line crosses the M55.

It's a shame that there isn't a location where a station could be located on a motorway with rail connections to Lancaster, Blackpool and Preston.

Given a magic money tree, there are things you could do about this, but they'd be super-expensive.

Here's an example:

Four-track the WCML coming out of Preston to the north.
Move the line further west, so it can be routed via the HS2 station.
At the station, insert a junction, running a two-track line north to rejoin the current route of WCML.
Run a new two-track line from there alongside the motorway until it connects to the line to Poulton-le-Fylde, somewhere near Weeton.
Disconnect the line between Poulton and Kirkham and Wesham stations so that line runs only to Blackpool South.

Preston HS2 would then be a stop between Preston and Lancaster on the WCML mainline and would also be served by Preston-Blackpool trains; this would also separate express Preston-Blackpool (North) services from stopping Preston-Blackpool (South) services, allowing both to be more frequent if required.

 

[HSTEd]

That is unlikely as any extension north of Golborne would bypass Preston. See the long list, short list and preferred option in figures 4.18, 4.19 and 4.20 pages 77-81 of this document:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...-phase-two-of-the-high-speed-rail-network.pdf

So many routes.
Is this just every person at HS2 has a favourite route and they threw them all in?

The business case for Scottish services assumes a stop somewhere in northern England for interchange purposes, to generate extra custom and to allow benefits to English cities (important for both the financial and political business case especially from a DfT perspective).

The Preston stop could at a push be replaced with a Crewe call but Preston is very likely to remain an important stop for Scottish services, thus the first phase of any new high speed track is less likely to be a Preston bypass.

I'm rather confused about the actual proposed layout of the Manchester approach tracks - but couldn't they always wrangle it so the Airport could serve as the interchange?
It seems to be being set up as the centre of all North Western transport systems or something so it might work relatively well.
Additional stops at a new station outside Preston would also pick up private transport interchange - after all Preston is probably less well placed than Manchester Airport for railway interchange.

Equally the need to split services for Edinburgh and Glasgow (and the daftness of the current proposals to do this at Carstairs) are likely to mean that a stop at Carlisle where trains could divide instead is also very likely, and new track bypassing Carlisle very unlikely.

You can split the trains anywhere as it is very unlikely that the line between Manchester and the border would be full.
Splitting at the Airport would allow trains to make different stops, allowing more intermediate stops with fewer stops on each service.

Carlisle is also a mess though as I believe it is a capacity constraint on the line and it is very slow.
A Carlisle bypass would remove that constraint and allow the rest of the WCML to carry more trains than otherwise.

Thirdly there would be complications around a cross border section likely to require a hybrid bill at Westminster with Sewell consent at Holyrood meaning a new section crossing the border would be more difficult than stand alone sections in England or Scotland.

I'm thinking a single continuous track, entirely in England, with a couple of connections to allow trains to loop into Carlisle/Preston city centre if they want to.
That keeps the trains up to speed and reduces the amount of track that needs to be built.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The problem with ditching the Wigan bypass/Golbourne Spur is that it puts you back to a four hour journey time, plus the Scottish services then have to interact with more residual WCML classic and HS2 classic compatible services. We haven't heard any more about dropping the spur, and I do remember a comment on some forum saying that they may have had to change their mind due the extra WCML capacity it would need, so I don't really know at all.

The Preston Bypass line has a troublesome business case because the speed benefits have to be weighed against the disbenefits of serving Preston with a parkway station. However, if you want fast journey times all the way to Scotland, it's something you're going to have to build eventually. One of the reasons the Golbourne Spur was controversial is that it would put a lot of HS2 infrastructure in the greenbelt between various towns like Leigh without benefiting them a vast amount. Moving the rolling stock depot to Crewe seems like a given now, but that leaves the question of what else to leave at Golbourne. Scotland-London services aren't going to call at Wigan as well as Preston, and they would be the only services using the classic-compatible connection there. Ditching the classic-compatible connection there would save the cost of a grade-separated junction and would make it possible to put the entire HS2 infrastructure in there in a simple green tunnel to mitigate the environmental effects, but then you have the problem of deciding where Scotland services would switch from HS2 to the WCML. If the Crewe option isn't feasible due to the capacity constraints and the need for 3 hour timings, the only other option is to put the connection north of Wigan, but if the connection is north of Preston then you lose that market.

Maybe there's a possibility of a third option, an intermediate connection between Wigan and Preston? The HS2 tracks cross the WCML at an approximately 45 degree angle basically at the border between Chorley/Lancashire and Wigan/Greater Manchester (according to OpenStreetMap). Maybe they could build a temporary grade-separated junction onto the WCML there, taking advantage of HS2 being over the tracks already. The Up Chord line would just branch off the WCML and curve around to form the Up HS2, while the Down HS2 would continue across the WCML crossing as planned before slewing over and curving around to meet the WCML on the west. If the Preston Bypass is then built at a later stage, the WCML connection there would be severed as it would never be used again, or made available only for use by maintenance trains at night.

There's no point building a Carlisle bypass since the railway alignment is wide and straight enough for HS2 trains to pass through at reasonable speed. There's enough space at the station for dedicated HS2 platforms as well. Yes, the tracks would need sorted out but most of the land is already owned by Network Rail.

 

[Altnabreac]

IIRC, the Preston bypass proposal includes a parkway station where the line crosses the M55.

It did, but as you say it only provided road connections and the report advised a location with rail connections as well was difficult to achieve.

As you point out with unlimited funds a solution could be found but we are dealing with reality here.

The problem with ditching the Wigan bypass/Golbourne Spur is that it puts you back to a four hour journey time, plus the Scottish services then have to interact with more residual WCML classic and HS2 classic compatible services. We haven't heard any more about dropping the spur, and I do remember a comment on some forum saying that they may have had to change their mind due the extra WCML capacity it would need, so I don't really know at all.

I don't think Golborne will be ditched but remember it isn't planned to bypass Wigan at the moment, only Warrington. I am sure Transport Scotland would be very opposed to dropping of Golborne as you would need additional track furhter north to achieve the 3 hour journey times.

I'm rather confused about the actual proposed layout of the Manchester approach tracks - but couldn't they always wrangle it so the Airport could serve as the interchange?
It seems to be being set up as the centre of all North Western transport systems or something so it might work relatively well.
Additional stops at a new station outside Preston would also pick up private transport interchange - after all Preston is probably less well placed than Manchester Airport for railway interchange.

The Airport station is on the spur line to Manchester so no good for splitting. Only 2 splitting options are really likely - Preston or Carlisle.

You can split the trains anywhere as it is very unlikely that the line between Manchester and the border would be full.

I think you might be surprised. Carstairs - Carlisle is quite busy with slow freight and there is a general lack of long freight loops there. The further north you split the better for both capacity and utliisation.

Carlisle is also a mess though as I believe it is a capacity constraint on the line and it is very slow.

A Carlisle bypass would remove that constraint and allow the rest of the WCML to carry more trains than otherwise.

I'm thinking a single continuous track, entirely in England, with a couple of connections to allow trains to loop into Carlisle/Preston city centre if they want to.

That keeps the trains up to speed and reduces the amount of track that needs to be built.

The political will is much stronger to build this in Scotland than in England so a decent chunk of the line is likely to be north of the border. Also the fact that it would not require parliamentary time at Westminster would be a definite benefit as HS2 phase 2 will be consuming all the Hybrid Bill time for some time to come and then HS3 will be on the agenda.

There will need to be some new track in England north of Preston but it will be later than the Scottish track in getting built.

 

[HSTEd]

The Airport station is on the spur line to Manchester so no good for splitting. Only 2 splitting options are really likely - Preston or Carlisle.

Is that absolutely set in stone?
With the HS3 wrangling you could make a case for the "Scotland" spur to be run closer to Manchester to allow you to use the airport - if you put the junction north of Manchester you could keep the 320-360km/h alignment as the route to Scotland and save a couple of minutes like that.
If it was an immediate minimum radius turn to the west north of the station you might not need much tunnelling to get clear of the Manchester conurbation - and it provides buckets of extra connectivity to make up for the cost.

The journey time from Glasgow to Carlisle is only 1hr15 - so if you can get the journey time from London to Carlisle down to 1hr45 then there is no reason to go north of there. That is a big ask but its not totally unreasonable I think. But the train would only be allowed one post-split stop at most.

Bypassing the English section has the advantage that the WCML in those areas is far more useful than spare capacity between Carlisle and the Central Belt.

I think you might be surprised. Carstairs - Carlisle is quite busy with slow freight and there is a general lack of long freight loops there. The further north you split the better for both capacity and utliisation.

A significant fraction of the freight runs from Leeds via the S&C before heading into Scotland via Carlisle - this freight can largely be transferred to the East Coast once the passenger market north of Newcastle has been gutted by the long distance trains transferring to the west.

EDIT:

I make Manchester Airport to Carlisle roughly 190km - a TGV POS on LGV Est was scheduled to run 168km with an average speed of 280km/h.
That implies a journey time of 41 minutes should be feasibly achievable.
The Manchester bound trains at Manchester Airport will complete the run to London in 1hr03 minutes - which means we could manage 1hr44 with a high speed line to Carlisle. (Trains to Birmingham would stop at any intermediate stations whilst the London trains would run non-stop).

Boom and there is your 3hr journey time.

 

[TrickyHex]

I agree with hsted. The whole Manchester approach could do with a rethink. Whilst the ideal solution would be a through station in Central Manchester, having the Airport station on the through line before the branch to Manchester would open up a lot of connectivity opportunities and fit in well with possible HS3 and be a good alternative option. It could also get rid of the ridiculous Tatton kink.

Routing the line from the south, rather than the west, having the airport station on a North West to South East axis, some tunnelling under Altrincham, the Manchester delta junction on Carrington Moss, an a spur heading NE to central Manchester would do the trick. The sum total of tunnels required would be no greater than the Airport to Piccadilly tunnel. It could still connect to Liverpool via a dedicated line or the existing line at Culcheth and provide a fast link from Liverpool to Manchester Airport.

South of the Airport, the alignment could go back to Crewe, or serve the Potteries instead - another can of worms.

The Potteries does seem to fare badly in terms of its population compared with Crewe and the current station usage figures for Crewe and Stoke are not far apart. The precident to run such a line through a built up area has already been set with HS1 at Ashford, so if they can do such things in the Garden of England, they surely can in Stoke.

The problems are the whole route seems to be a done deal and there appears to be no room for manouvre on this. Also, other potential sites for an HS station the right side of the M56 have been lost to the Airport City development. Unless the review of phase 2 later this year pulls some rabbits out of the hat, it looks as though we are in for a sub optimal solution here.

Moving further North to the Preston area, HS2 ltd propose a parkway station on the M55 offering no other rail connectivity. If Preston has to be bypassed in the northern extension, a better alternative would appear to be to site such a station further south, where it crosses the Preston Blackpool line. There is still pretty good road access but also access to the local rail network, both to the Fylde and NE Lancs.

 

[HSTEd]

The easiest way to have the line to Scotland versus Manchester airport is to have the actual 'junction' south of the current Airport station location, so that two paired by destination tracks enter the station fan from the south - so you essentially have two separate stations side by side.

This allows the terminal fan on the Scotland bound tracks to be part of the curve to the west, saving several hundred metres and removing the need to reroute the line into Manchester.

 

[33Hz]

I make Manchester Airport to Carlisle roughly 190km - a TGV POS on LGV Est was scheduled to run 168km with an average speed of 280km/h.

Boom and there is your 3hr journey time.

Following that logic, we should be putting a high speed line the whole 560 km between London and Glasgow and aiming for a 2hr journey time.

 

[Altnabreac]

Following that logic, we should be putting a high speed line the whole 560 km between London and Glasgow and aiming for a 2hr journey time.

Indeed. While that would be lovely it isn't what is being discussed.

The proposal is for just enough track north of Wigan to achieve the 3 hr journey time.

The track will be positioned to:

• Allow key calls on the way (probably Preston, Carlisle)
• Alleviate the most crowded stretches of line
• Easier to consent & build (more parliamentary time in Scotland)
• Cheapest sections to build

I suspect plans to change the location of Manchester stations and route alignments will not be entering into anyone's plan relating to this part of the project.

 

[TrickyHex]

The easiest way to have the line to Scotland versus Manchester airport is to have the actual 'junction' south of the current Airport station location, so that two paired by destination tracks enter the station fan from the south - so you essentially have two separate stations side by side.

This allows the terminal fan on the Scotland bound tracks to be part of the curve to the west, saving several hundred metres and removing the need to reroute the line into Manchester.

Yes but...

1 you still have the Tatton kink which slows things down and...

2 you will have more tunelling in total as the Airport - Piccadilly tunnel still has to exist in addition to extra tunneling under Altrincham

HS2 ltd had an option for the Manchester Airport station on the through line but more remote from the Airport near Mobberley. This was discounted however. It also assumed a westward access to Manchester to Middlewood Locks rather than Piccadilly. I must admit, I didnt think this too bad an option if it included a people mover from the Hs station to the Airport. Certainly no worse than whats proposed at Birmingham Airport or Manchester, with the station the wrong side of the M56

 

[33Hz]

Indeed. While that would be lovely it isn't what is being discussed.

The proposal is for just enough track north of Wigan to achieve the 3 hr journey time.

I see that, but with significant chunks of new track being discussed anyway and the rest of HS2 south of Manchester being built with a 400 km/h alignment for 360 km/h running, I can't but help think setting a 3 hours journey time is selling ourselves short.

If the French can manage that average speed over a shorter length at 320 km/h then surely at least a 2h30 London - Glasgow time is realistic?

Is 3 hours the target being discussed in official circles?

 

[CdBrux]

The proposal is for just enough track north of Wigan to achieve the 3 hr journey time.

The track will be positioned to:

• Allow key calls on the way (probably Preston, Carlisle)
• Alleviate the most crowded stretches of line
• Easier to consent & build (more parliamentary time in Scotland)
• Cheapest sections to build

Related to the second point how crowded is the WCML on the approaches into Glasgow and Edinburgh, what kind of speeds are achieved there (by WCML trains - i.e. what potential is there to save time by a bypass) and what opportunities for increased local services can be gained by bypassing those sections of the line?


Having had a look at a map then I can see a HS line from Glasgow following the M74 to link with the WCML at Abington would be noticeably shorter than the current route via Carstairs. I realise this does little / nothing to help Edinburgh, which also is stated to be the more important market so is probably rather too crayonistic!

 

[Altnabreac]

I see that, but with significant chunks of new track being discussed anyway and the rest of HS2 south of Manchester being built with a 400 km/h alignment for 360 km/h running, I can't but help think setting a 3 hours journey time is selling ourselves short.

If the French can manage that average speed over a shorter length at 320 km/h then surely at least a 2h30 London - Glasgow time is realistic?

Is 3 hours the target being discussed in official circles?

It seems so. Always worth paying attention to what Jim Steer says. He has his finger on the pulse. This was the quote in the Scotland on Sunday last week:

Jim Steer, founder of high-speed rail pressure group Greengauge 21, said: “The aim has always been a three-hour journey time and it is clear this does not mean building a new high-speed line the whole distance. But neither can it be assumed that upgrading existing lines for higher speed solves the problem – there are slower trains using the same tracks.


“The answer is to target sections of new line, built for higher speed, to provide the extra line capacity where the traffic mix demands it. New tracks through the commuter belt into Glasgow would fit this prescription, and would probably bring more benefits than an expensive new line across the Southern Uplands.”

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Related to the second point how crowded is the WCML on the approaches into Glasgow and Edinburgh, what kind of speeds are achieved there (by WCML trains - i.e. what potential is there to save time by a bypass) and what opportunities for increased local services can be gained by bypassing those sections of the line?


Having had a look at a map then I can see a HS line from Glasgow following the M74 to link with the WCML at Abington would be noticeably shorter than the current route via Carstairs. I realise this does little / nothing to help Edinburgh, which also is stated to be the more important market so is probably rather too crayonistic!

Think the distance is probably less crucial than capacity, speed and segregation from local traffic that a new route would provide, whichever way it went.

One thing that seems certain is that there will be a strong emphasis on ensuring both Edinburgh and Glasgow get near equal journey time benefits. Politically it's a non starter otherwise.

There are certainly opportunities for additional local services if E-G High Speed is built. I'd expect those opportunities to be highlighted politically and form part of the wider business case.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Related to the second point how crowded is the WCML on the approaches into Glasgow and Edinburgh, what kind of speeds are achieved there (by WCML trains - i.e. what potential is there to save time by a bypass) and what opportunities for increased local services can be gained by bypassing those sections of the line?


Having had a look at a map then I can see a HS line from Glasgow following the M74 to link with the WCML at Abington would be noticeably shorter than the current route via Carstairs. I realise this does little / nothing to help Edinburgh, which also is stated to be the more important market so is probably rather too crayonistic!

There isn't a vast amount of scope to increase local services into Edinburgh unless you start spending billions, as there are bottlenecks either side of Waverley/Haymarket. The Dalmeny Chord would allow a handful of trains from the E&G line to switch over to the Fife lines before the WCML/Shotts line merges in, but that's not going to be a magic bullet solution especially if you also want to run more services over the Forth Bridge (e.g. St Andrews, or a local service to Perth via Ladybank).

Much of the traffic on the WCML into Glasgow either already does or can be put through the Argyle Line branching off at Rutherglen, so a new bypass route which links in west of Rutherglen could enable more local services to places like Carstairs or Lanark. Still, it's not going to be a magic bullet either, as there are just so many different lines around the south of Glasgow and WCML LDHS services only interact with a handful of them.

 

[CdBrux]

One thing that seems certain is that there will be a strong emphasis on ensuring both Edinburgh and Glasgow get near equal journey time benefits. Politically it's a non starter otherwise.
.

Surely the emphasis should be getting the best overall deal, not some compromise just to have equal journey times. Unfortunately I can imagine politics getting in the way of doing what's best. Unless the Scottish government wish to fund incremental construction and operating costs from their own pocket such petty politics should be low down the list of influences.

I'll dream on!

 

[Altnabreac]

Surely the emphasis should be getting the best overall deal, not some compromise just to have equal journey times. Unfortunately I can imagine politics getting in the way of doing what's best. Unless the Scottish government wish to fund incremental construction and operating costs from their own pocket such petty politics should be low down the list of influences.

I'll dream on!

To be fair, Edinburgh and Glasgow to London are both very large air markets and from memory Edinburgh is actually a touch busier. So to maximise rail patronage you want to get journey times down below 3 hours for both cities.

I suspect a scheme which delivered 2.45 for one city and 3.15 for the other would actually generate fewer passengers overall.

A south facing spur from an E-G high speed line would also maximise the cost savings by using as much track as possible for 2 purposes - internal Scottish journeys and cross border passengers.

 

[clc]

Related to the second point how crowded is the WCML on the approaches into Glasgow and Edinburgh, what kind of speeds are achieved there (by WCML trains - i.e. what potential is there to save time by a bypass) ?

!

Assuming the route from Carstairs to Glasgow would be around 35 miles long, of which 30 miles would be on new HS track, journey time would be, say, 20 minutes?

Current VT service take around 27 minutes to travel from Carstairs to Glasgow therefore the new line might give you a journey time saving of around 7 minutes.

 

[HSTEd]

A line north of Glasgow does not improve Edinburgh times so does not really fit the description.
We have to build between Manchester/Wigan and Carstairs.

 

[mrmartin]

To be fair, Edinburgh and Glasgow to London are both very large air markets and from memory Edinburgh is actually a touch busier. So to maximise rail patronage you want to get journey times down below 3 hours for both cities.

I suspect a scheme which delivered 2.45 for one city and 3.15 for the other would actually generate fewer passengers overall.

A south facing spur from an E-G high speed line would also maximise the cost savings by using as much track as possible for 2 purposes - internal Scottish journeys and cross border passengers.

Edinburgh is significantly busier for air traffic. 15-31 flights pd for Glasgow and 25-50 flights pd for Edinburgh. Do take into account that some of this will be connecting flights via LHR and I very much doubt people would change to rail when they have a long haul connecting flight.

 

[33Hz]

Edinburgh is significantly busier for air traffic. 15-31 flights pd for Glasgow and 25-50 flights pd for Edinburgh. Do take into account that some of this will be connecting flights via LHR and I very much doubt people would change to rail when they have a long haul connecting flight.

They might if the HSR station was in the airport...

 

[edwin_m]

They might if the HSR station was in the airport...

Even if there was a 3hr journey from Edinburgh/Glasgow to the airport, you would still arrive landside and need at least another hour before departure for an international flight. You could check in for a connecting flight at least an hour after the train departed and still catch the same flight from Heathrow.

 

[33Hz]

That may be, but it seems to work in Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris where they all have major airport stations on high speed lines. In many cases check in can be done at the originating station including baggage drop, with only security to pass at the airport.

 

[Altnabreac]

Edinburgh is significantly busier for air traffic. 15-31 flights pd for Glasgow and 25-50 flights pd for Edinburgh. Do take into account that some of this will be connecting flights via LHR and I very much doubt people would change to rail when they have a long haul connecting flight.

Indeed, although the disparity is slightly smaller in passenger numbers as Edinburgh has a larger number of lower capacity flights than Glasgow.

To illustrate the potential benefit in capturing air passengers from getting rail journey times to the central belt below 3 hours here are the annual (each way) passenger numbers to London Airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, City, Southend) from all mainland GB airports:

Edinburgh 3,164,759 47%
Glasgow 2,270,431 38%
Aberdeen 1,087,626 71%
Manchester 872,081 100%
Newcastle 581,953 82%
Inverness 291,768 0%
Leeds Bradford 131,525 100%
Newquay 110,495 0%
Exeter 10,124 0%

The percentage figure shows the percentage of passengers flying into Heathrow. These will be the more difficult market to capture as there will undoubtedly be interlining / trasfer passengers here who are less like to switch to rail.

What you can see is that HS2 phase 1/2 will in all likelihood capture only a small amount of air passenger traffic. Volumes from Manchester / Leeds / Newcastle are relatively small reflecting the current high market share of rail. The remaining air traffic to these cities is also much more likely to be transfer traffic, with high volumes of Heathrow passengers.

Glasgow / Edinburgh meanwhile offer a very large volume of air passengers that HS2 can capture, a larger proportion of whom are likely to be heading for London rather than transferring.

A 3 hour journey time to Edinburgh / Glasgow is likely to lead to a capture of around 75% of existing air passengers, say 4million passengers per year each way compared to maybe a 50% additional capture of remaining Leeds / Manchester / Newcastle passengers say 800,000 passengers per year each way.

That is around a 5 times greater number of air passengers than HS2 without the northern extension.

 

[clc]

A 3 hour journey time to Edinburgh / Glasgow is likely to lead to a capture of around 75% of existing air passengers, say 4million passengers per year each way compared to maybe a 50% additional capture of remaining Leeds / Manchester / Newcastle passengers say 800,000 passengers per year each way.
.

So for Glasgow that would mean an extra 1.7 million rail passengers each way on classic compatibles. Thinking about capacity constraints at Central, how many additional trains per day would be entering/leaving Central carrying these new passengers do you think?

 

[Ironside]

So for Glasgow that would mean an extra 1.7 million rail passengers each way on classic compatibles. Thinking about capacity constraints at Central, how many additional trains per day would be entering/leaving Central carrying these new passengers do you think?

My guess is one per hour based on 1.7m / 365, then divide that by 16 (for hours in the working railway day) and you get a result of just under 300. Perhaps two trains per hour is wiser as flight don't land at equal times and if there are more regular trains more demand will be stimulated from other potential customers.

 

[Altnabreac]

My guess is one per hour based on 1.7m / 365, then divide that by 16 (for hours in the working railway day) and you get a result of just under 300. Perhaps two trains per hour is wiser as flight don't land at equal times and if there are more regular trains more demand will be stimulated from other potential customers.

Indeed I suspect 2 x 200m trains per hour from each city splitting / joining at Carlisle into a 400m train is the likely option. If that proves insufficient in peak hours you might run an extra service that could join with the Preston semi fast service.

 

[clc]

My guess is one per hour based on 1.7m / 365, then divide that by 16 (for hours in the working railway day) and you get a result of just under 300. Perhaps two trains per hour is wiser as flight don't land at equal times and if there are more regular trains more demand will be stimulated from other potential customers.

Indeed I suspect 2 x 200m trains per hour from each city splitting / joining at Carlisle into a 400m train is the likely option. If that proves insufficient in peak hours you might run an extra service that could join with the Preston semi fast service.

So probably no overall increase in the number of trains to/from London, just that they would be fully loaded for the entire journey whereas the current 2tph I assume must be half empty when arriving/departing Central.

 

[Altnabreac]

So probably no overall increase in the number of trains to/from London, just that they would be fully loaded for the entire journey whereas the current 2tph I assume must be half empty when arriving/departing Central.

Well the overall increase would be actually quite significant both in terms of number of trains and especiually total capacity. Effectively the current service to Preston / Scotland is:
1tph Euston - Glasgow fast
1tph Euston - Glasgow / Edinburgh slow via Birmingham
4-5 Peak extras to Crewe / Preston / Lancaster / Blackpool

The HS2 service might be

2tph Euston - Glasgow fast via HS2 (stop Preston, split Carlisle)
2tph Euston - Edinburgh fast via HS2 (stop Preston, split Carlisle)
1tph Euston - Preston (& Blackpool / Lancaster) via HS2 (picking up the Warrington, Wigan stops)
1tph Birmingham Curzon St - Glasgow / Edinburgh via HS2

1tph Euston - Glasgow via Manchester WCML legacy service
1tph Birmingham New Street - Glasgow / Edinburgh WCML legacy service

So effectively you're looking at an increase in WCML services north of Warrington from 2-3tph to 8tph (albeit 2 sharing a path until Carlisle, and the WCML legacy service replacing TPE Scotland services.)

 

[clc]

Well the overall increase would be actually quite significant both in terms of number of trains and especiually total capacity. Effectively the current service to Preston / Scotland is:
1tph Euston - Glasgow fast
1tph Euston - Glasgow / Edinburgh slow via Birmingham
4-5 Peak extras to Crewe / Preston / Lancaster / Blackpool

The HS2 service might be

2tph Euston - Glasgow fast via HS2 (stop Preston, split Carlisle)
2tph Euston - Edinburgh fast via HS2 (stop Preston, split Carlisle)
1tph Euston - Preston (& Blackpool / Lancaster) via HS2 (picking up the Warrington, Wigan stops)
1tph Birmingham Curzon St - Glasgow / Edinburgh via HS2

1tph Euston - Glasgow via Manchester WCML legacy service
1tph Birmingham New Street - Glasgow / Edinburgh WCML legacy service

So effectively you're looking at an increase in WCML services north of Warrington from 2-3tph to 8tph (albeit 2 sharing a path until Carlisle, and the WCML legacy service replacing TPE Scotland services.)

So, being Glasgow-centric for a moment, Central will be handling an additional 2-3 tph to London/Birmingham/Manchester plus (hopefully) a further 3tph to Edinburgh on the Javelin service. Could this be done without some substantial capacity enhancing expenditure beforehand?