HS2 future northern extensions

[NotATrainspott]

Not strictly a Northern Extension of HS2, but would certainly take advantage of the freed capacity provided by HS2 would be a new highish speed link South of Leicester to Northampton.

You could have a half hourly express from Leicester running to Northampton, Milton Keynes, Bletchley, Leighton and Dunstable to London Euston, providing both extra long distance commuting to London but also linking the M1 towns together properly at last.

it would also help relieve the MML, Though I wonder what scope there would be to extend it further up North, at least to Nottingham/and of Totton, it would provide lots of new one change connections at Leicester or Totton.

As a first step towards this, using the capacity on the WCML and MML, wouldn't it be best to try to reopen the line between Northampton and Market Harborough or Northampton to Wellingborough? I don't see there being much need for completely new lines when there are plenty alignments that could be reopened or partly realigned to do some of the same thing.

For looking at old railway alignments for ideas this is one of my favourite sites:

http://www.itoworld.com/map/26

It's an OpenStreetMap map with all the current and disused railways highlighted in different colours.

 

[Haydn1971]

Face palm - why do you need more lines to relieve the MML & WCML after opening HS2 ??? The whole point of HS2 is to open up capacity ECML/MML/WCML for more commuter, regional and new intercity services south of the M62 that wouldn't otherwise be possible without HS2

 

[NotATrainspott]

Face palm - why do you need more lines to relieve the MML & WCML after opening HS2 ??? The whole point of HS2 is to open up capacity ECML/MML/WCML for more commuter, regional and new intercity services south of the M62 that wouldn't otherwise be possible without HS2

I think the idea was to use the released capacity on the WCML to provide additional connectivity between towns that are on different main lines. East-West rail should prove that these kinds of connections are worthwhile investments especially to get people out of cars for local and regional journeys.

 

[Haydn1971]

But certainly not to generate a need for reopening old lines

 

[NotATrainspott]

But certainly not to generate a need for reopening old lines

I don't personally see this specific intervention happening for a long time and my post was more to say that a suitable regional alignment already exists that could be reopened rather than building an entirely new line from scratch.

It is an advantage of HS2 that the freed-up capacity could be used in conjunction with reopened and enhanced lines like East-West. Places on the existing mainlines like Milton Keynes or Northampton are going to go from strength to strength with the extra capacity and connectivity enabled by HS2 and if Milton Keynes becomes a major commuting target in itself as a result it would not be a bad thing to provide additional capability for the MML and connections thereof to have direct services. East-West will prove the demand for regional lines like these, especially after electrification, and it is lines like these where real gains can be made in attracting people out of cars and onto public transport for journeys of all sorts. Then it goes without saying that having additional lines connecting the various mainlines does wonders for the overall reliability of the rail network.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Out of sheer boredom I've taken the example platform design for Manchester from the Phase 2 route options report and overlaid it over maps of Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley. I am almost certain that the scale is correct and it really does show just how enormous an HS2 terminus really is at 440m long by ~44m wide for four platforms.

Glasgow Central:

The platforms would take over the unused bridge piers but there would need to cantilever over them or more piers would have to be constructed to take the load. Unfortunately there is a Grade A listed four-storey building in the way on the corner of Jamaica and Midland streets. I have no idea what powers are available to deal with this little problem, especially when it's in the same legal category as the Forth Bridge or Holyrood Palace. Central Station itself is also Grade A listed but the extension works could be designed to be complementary to the rest of the building. As there would be a need to demolish everything from the station to the pavement on Jamaica Street in any case, the four platforms can be constructed without major operational changes being needed to the rest of the station (aside possibly from a closure of platform 1).

Edinburgh Waverley:

It's likely that the full extent of the curvature and tapering provisions would have to be used here, as they are at Euston. Unless there could be significant intrusion into the station concourse area, the buildings on Market Street would be very unlikely to survive unless it were possible to prop them up from beneath - I've never been in the Edinburgh Dungeons and so I'm not sure whether it would be able to survive the works in this location, or even survive a relocation. If the standard HS2 practices could be loosened for this case it might be possible to narrow the platforms from the 14m specified. Alternatively the option could be for the platforms to be in a bored tunnel underneath the classic station at considerable cost.

EDIT: And another:
Carlisle:

Carlisle has the advantage that for all intents and purposes there is no constraint on the land available next to Citadel station for complete rebuilding. When there is this much land available I believe that they would provide the city with a four-platform station rather than a standard two-platform one, especially when there will be many splitting and joining services. Non stop tracks, if required, might be able to pass through the station on the surface or alternatively they could be dropped into a bored tunnel.

 

[snowball]

Carlisle has the advantage that for all intents and purposes there is no constraint on the land available next to Citadel station for complete rebuilding. When there is this much land available I believe that they would provide the city with a four-platform station rather than a standard two-platform one, especially when there will be many splitting and joining services. Non stop tracks, if required, might be able to pass through the station on the surface or alternatively they could be dropped into a bored tunnel.

The location you've drawn for the Carlisle HS station would seem to have a problem with the curve in the existing line at the south end.

 

[HowardGWR]

The location you've drawn for the Carlisle HS station would seem to have a problem with the curve in the existing line at the south end.

I couldn't see that problem, examining the maps. There's not much there in the way, west of the station, to shout home about, is there?

 

[snowball]

You couldn't have a sharp curve in the HS line, so I think you'd have to either

1) realign the HS station so that its south end is further west than NotaTrainspotter has drawn it

2) make it high or low enough for its south approach line to pass over or under the WCML

or 3) realign the WCML, south of the station, to be further east.

 

[NotATrainspott]

My map of Carlisle is more to show the scale of a new station rather than its exact location. In reality there are no constraints on the positioning if non-stop tracks are not present on the surface. It might be possible to send these through the middle of the city on the surface, as the rail alignment is mostly straight. On the other hand, that might incur other problems of noise pollution and the like that make it easier just to drop them into a short bored tunnel (or maybe it could be cut-and-cover if there is nothing that needs kept on the surface) under the city centre with ramps in cuttings either side.

 

[dalmahoyhill]

I don't personally see this specific intervention happening for a long time and my post was more to say that a suitable regional alignment already exists that could be reopened rather than building an entirely new line from scratch.....

Interesting, I had a quick look at this on cad with OS data and I thought through line through Edinburgh was impossible and even fitting 400m terminus was too difficult.

Glasgow I thought the end of the platforms would have to be over the Clyde with the station stretching into the Gorbals. The alternative is to come off at Uddingston, follow m74 and then follow the Argyle (Airdrie/Bathgate) into Glasgow with a terminus on the old yards at high street station. This could be developed along with Glasgow cross rail.

Carlisle station is feasible with 200mph (5000m radii) through lines as well but has to be sited to west of citadel station not next to it.

It will post plans when I get a chance

 

[po8crg]

A possibly stupid question about Glasgow: Could Queen Street be used instead?

If you're combining the Anglo-Scottish line with a Glasgow-Edinburgh line then it's better to come into Glasgow from the east than from the south, and Queen Street is easier to approach from Edinburgh.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Interesting,I had a quick look at this on cad with OS data and I thought through line through Edinburgh was impossible and even fitting 400m terminus was too difficult.n

Glasgow I thought the end of the platforms would have to be over the Clyde with the station stretching into the gorbals. The alternative is to come off at uddingston, follow m74 and then follow the argyle (Airdrie/bathgate) into Glasgow with a terminus on the old yards at high street station. This could be developed along with Glasgow cross rail.

Carlisle station is feasible with 200mph (5000m radii) through lines as well but has to be sited to west of citadel station not next to it.

It will post plans when I get a chance

My Edinburgh platforms would (at least start out to) be a terminus connecting to the HS2 network at their western end. There would have to be considerable changes to the rest of the station to make this idea feasible though. In particular, I would redirect the southern Haymarket tunnel to continue underneath Waverley with platforms provided there and then surfacing around Abbeyhill. After quite a bit of work to the west of Haymarket it would be possible for these southern lines to be used only by electric local/regional services that would continue through to the eastern side of Edinburgh as an expanded Crossrail service. My thinking behind this is that it would be cheaper for the necessary underground platforms to be for classic services as you might only need one in each direction at ~265m long (total platform length ~530m) whereas the captive terminus would require a total underground platform length of ~1760m, increasing costs dramatically. There are a limited number of through-Waverley paths right now and I can see a great future for them as Edinburgh's rail network grows and grows.

A possibly stupid question about Glasgow: Could Queen Street be used instead?

If you're combining the Anglo-Scottish line with a Glasgow-Edinburgh line then it's better to come into Glasgow from the east than from the south, and Queen Street is easier to approach from Edinburgh.

A station at High Street or Bellgrove is technically possible but you lose out on the considerable benefits of integrating modes of transport together. With the Crossrail scheme it might be possible for some services from the wider Glasgow area to serve the station directly but there will still be a lot of services that would head for Central or Queen Street instead that wouldn't be able to connect. If you keep all the rail services together in as tight a bundle as possible you get the most possible connectivity for the least amount of additional expense and that's why I really believe that the Central option would be built. This reason was a key factor in the choice of Piccadilly for Manchester's HS2 platforms, even when the Salford Central option would still be served by Ordsall Chord trains.

 

[clc]

I notice Transport Scotland's new HSR web page states that a 3 hour journey time to London would capture 67% of the overall Scotland-London travel market (see link). Assuming 80% is the maximum potential share, would it be cost effective to spend the extra billions required for a full HSR line/new city centre stations for the sake of that last 13%?

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/project/high-speed-rail

 

[clc]

I notice Transport Scotland's new HSR web page states that a 3 hour journey time to London would capture 67% of the overall Scotland-London travel market (see link). Assuming 80% is the maximum potential share, would it be cost effective to spend the extra billions required for a full HSR line/new city centre stations for the sake of that last 13%?

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/project/high-speed-rail

 

[NotATrainspott]

I notice Transport Scotland's new HSR web page states that a 3 hour journey time to London would capture 67% of the overall Scotland-London travel market (see link). Assuming 80% is the maximum potential share, would it be cost effective to spend the extra billions required for a full HSR line/new city centre stations for the sake of that last 13%?

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/project/high-speed-rail

Probably. Until that time the 3 hour timings to Scotland will still be dependent upon the two-track WCML for much of its length north of Preston. From 3hr38 the 'Preston Bypass' would take off another ten or so minutes off the journey time, a figure that is barely enough to cover the minimum four minute journey time extension that comes from not being able to tilt. With a proper dedicated route all the way the theoretical timings could come down all the way to 2-and-a-bit hours, which would help free up extra trains for other services and would capture all of the passengers to London who aren't using Heathrow as a hub. Also, an extra 13% of the market is still a significant number of people, almost comparable to the 20% that rail currently has on the route. Indeed, the massive modal switch from air might make completion of the route necessary from a capacity perspective as rail will now need to carry four times as many people, with both LDHS WCML and ECML flows transferring to the new line.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed, the massive modal switch from air might make completion of the route necessary from a capacity perspective as rail will now need to carry four times as many people, with both LDHS WCML and ECML flows transferring to the new line.

Under the HS2 phase 2 proposal it would also have four times as many London trains, with two per hour from London to both Edinburgh and Glasgow (combined south of Carstairs) plus Birmingham and Manchester at similar frequencies to today. A single 200m HS2 set is shorter than a Pendolino, but it would probably have a more efficient seating layout and the Pendolinos aren't exactly crowded north of Preston anyway.

 

[clc]

Things seem to have gone quiet re Transport Scotland's HSR plans considering the business case was submitted to Scottish Government Ministers in the Spring; I thought there would have been an announcement by now.

The referendum Purdah starts on 21 August so hopefully we'll hear something before then.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Things seem to have gone quiet re Transport Scotland's HSR plans considering the business case was submitted to Scottish Government Ministers in the Spring; I thought there would have been an announcement by now.

The referendum Purdah starts on 21 August so hopefully we'll hear something before then.

It's all very intriguing. If the consensus between TS, the DfT and HS2 Ltd is that construction on full HS2 in Scotland should happen simultaneously with Phase 1 then that would benefit Better Together and TS would be loathe to release it. If the converse is true, that the UK Government had no interest in providing the necessary upfront funding for the captive line in Scotland (and one down to the Border at that) then it would benefit the Yes and TS would be delighted to use it as a campaigning tool before September 18.

 

[Altnabreac]

My guess is we'll hear nothing until after the referendum.

I think it's a nuanced issue that's difficult for either side to spin as a Yes/No vote gainer before a referendum but that will make a good post referendum announcement (whichever way the vote goes).

Looking forward to seeing the final business case and supporting information. Hopefully some interesting stuff in there

 

[NotATrainspott]

My guess is we'll hear nothing until after the referendum.

I think it's a nuanced issue that's difficult for either side to spin as a Yes/No vote gainer before a referendum but that will make a good post referendum announcement (whichever way the vote goes).

Looking forward to seeing the final business case and supporting information. Hopefully some interesting stuff in there

Indeed. We're not going to get a full Environmental Statement or an alignment but we would probably be told about the route corridor and what station works, if any, would be required in the first phase.

There are several major dates coming up for high speed rail coming to the end of this year. Firstly there's this Scottish announcement but the revised plan for Euston and the HS1-HS2 link (HS2 Ltd were asked to produce plans for a better link that could be implemented 'once the initial stages of HS2 are complete', meaning that passive provision will have to be included') need to be made public because they want to put in the amendment to the Hybrid Bill and ES in December. On top of that you've got the response to the Phase 2 consultation including Crewe Hub and any extra classic-compatible connections for other connections. Beyond that we're likely to hear at least something about any plans for what to do going east-west from Liverpool to Hull, even if were just to say that it would be done in another Hybrid Bill in future. It's all very exciting, isn't it?

 

[clc]

Presumably HS2 Ltd would want to build a V shaped line from Carstairs to the outskirts of Glasgow and Edinburgh in order to achieve the fastest possible journey times to both cities from the south. Obviously it wouldn't be in HS2's remit to provide a high speed link between Glasgow and Edinburgh. The Scottish Government could bridge the gap as far down the 'V' as was practical in order to create the Glasgow-Edinburgh link.

IF a sensible collaborative approach could be agreed between the governments we could get a reasonably good outcome.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Presumably HS2 Ltd would want to build a V shaped line from Carstairs to the outskirts of Glasgow and Edinburgh in order to achieve the fastest possible journey times to both cities from the south. Obviously it wouldn't be in HS2's remit to provide a high speed link between Glasgow and Edinburgh. The Scottish Government could bridge the gap as far down the 'V' as was practical in order to create the Glasgow-Edinburgh link.

IF a sensible collaborative approach could be agreed between the governments we could get a reasonably good outcome.

The exact location of the split is one that will be rather interesting. In effect it would be the 400km/h mainline from London splitting into two 230km/h spurs, and any E&G HSR services would be limited to that 230km/h speed. If the delta location was put quite far south it would provide minimal benefit to the trains going south but would increase the track length of the E&G services, making them slower. As a result I would hope that the line was biased in favour of the shuttle services, even if the solution weren't perfectly mathematically optimal (track-length-wise) overall. Unlike Manchester-Liverpool there's no chance of a second line optimised for the east-west services ever being built.

 

[HSTEd]

Only one fork would have to be set for 230km/h.
The other can have the full line speed.

Presumably the diverging route would be Edinburgh and the full speed route would be to Glasgow.

 

[Altnabreac]

Only one fork would have to be set for 230km/h.
The other can have the full line speed.

Presumably the diverging route would be Edinburgh and the full speed route would be to Glasgow.

This fits with my understanding. The time benefit for running Edinburgh - Glasgow trains at speeds faster than 230km/h is so marginal that even with some of the line designed for higher speeds it wouldn't be worth running higher speed trains.

Route length of the initial E-G HSR is likely to be in the region of 60km with 10km on classic lines at each end for a total route of 80km.

A reasonable assumption for HS acceleration is 5km to 230km/h and 10km to 360km/h. Another 5km is needed for deceleration. This gives us around 45km of potential 360km/h running on an Edinburgh - Glasgow journey. This translates to a 7.5 minute journey time. At 230km/h this would give instead an 11.5 minute journey time.

You can check out the acceleration curves in Appendix 1 of this document:
http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/hs2 arup journey time analysis report.pdf

A 4 minute journey time improvement (from say circa 29 mins to 25 mins) is almost certainly not worth the extra build cost and particularly would not be worth the time penalty to north - south HSR slowing down sooner than required by having the 400km/h alignment running east - west instead of north south.

If only one leg (probably Glasgow*) is built as 400km/h the marginal time benefit of running trains at 360km/h on only that leg is even less. If we assume a 30km distance from Glasgow end of HSR to the delta junction the opportunity for full speed running is only 15km or so and the time saving is only going to be around 2 minutes.

So its likely that Edinburgh - Glasgow trains will be 230km/h "Javelin" type trains with only north - south services running as full 360km/h "AGV" style services.

* Glasgow is likely to be in the region of 10km further from the delta junction than Edinburgh assuming a junction somewhere north of Carstairs. At 230km/h on both branches this would translate to a 3 minute time penalty for Glasgow compared to Edinburgh.

An extra 40km of 360km/h running for Glasgow services would equalise this 3 minute penalty leading to broadly equal times from both cities (which is the desired remit of the HS2 cross border specification).

 

[po8crg]

I'd be tempted to have a through-line option at the junction, with a line continuing north to a classic-line connection somewhere south of Stirling. I can't imagine there would be much demand for direct services from England to Stirling-Perth-Aberdeen-Dundee or Stirling-Perth-Inverness (though you'd probably run one of each a day just because you can), but it would allow CC services from Glasgow to those destinations to be removed from the Glasgow suburban tracks, freeing up capacity for improved local services to Glasgow, while using some of the (otherwise spare) capacity on the HSL. It should save 10-20 minutes on those services by using the faster speed on the HSL.

Services from Edinburgh normally go over the Forth Bridge and through Fife to Perth-Inverness or Dundee-Aberdeen so wouldn't be able to use the HSL in the same way. Services from London could run via either Edinburgh or Glasgow (with a reversal) as well as direct.

This all, of course, assumes that the lines to Aberdeen and Inverness have been electrified by the time HSR reaches Scotland, but that has to be the way to bet, given the extent of electrification going on, and the length of time before completion. It would add about 20km of reasonably straightforward twin-track HSL (say £200m), add a complication to the delta junction (£100m) and require a new classic junction (£150m). Say half a billion quid, not an outrageous amount given the benefits.

 

[Altnabreac]

I'd be tempted to have a through-line option at the junction, with a line continuing north to a classic-line connection somewhere south of Stirling. I can't imagine there would be much demand for direct services from England to Stirling-Perth-Aberdeen-Dundee or Stirling-Perth-Inverness (though you'd probably run one of each a day just because you can), but it would allow CC services from Glasgow to those destinations to be removed from the Glasgow suburban tracks, freeing up capacity for improved local services to Glasgow, while using some of the (otherwise spare) capacity on the HSL. It should save 10-20 minutes on those services by using the faster speed on the HSL.

Services from Edinburgh normally go over the Forth Bridge and through Fife to Perth-Inverness or Dundee-Aberdeen so wouldn't be able to use the HSL in the same way. Services from London could run via either Edinburgh or Glasgow (with a reversal) as well as direct.

This all, of course, assumes that the lines to Aberdeen and Inverness have been electrified by the time HSR reaches Scotland, but that has to be the way to bet, given the extent of electrification going on, and the length of time before completion. It would add about 20km of reasonably straightforward twin-track HSL (say £200m), add a complication to the delta junction (£100m) and require a new classic junction (£150m). Say half a billion quid, not an outrageous amount given the benefits.

It's extremely unlikely any northbound connection would be in the west or head towards Stirling. Any potential HS line connection to the north of Scotland would be around connecting the HS line at the west of Edinburgh to the Forth Bridge but even this is unlikely to stack up as demand for north of Scotland - London services that don't stop at Edinburgh / Glasgow is very difficult to justify even a 200m train a couple of times a day.

See the Intercity Express campaign for more information about what a new north - south rail connection in Scotland might look like building on the Inverkeithing - Halbeath route proposed in the STPR and extending it to Perth.
http://transformscotland.org.uk/intercityexpress/

If something like this was built then you could potentially see a justification in running Glasgow - Inverness / Aberdeen services via the HS line and then over the Forth Bridge to connect to this new line. If you had a west of Edinburgh Interchange station around the Airport you could run some direct London trains too while still partially connecting to Edinburgh.

Running Glasgow - Stirling via delta junction services would be complete madness as the route would be significantly longer than the existing one so even at high speed the time savings would be very marginal for a huge cost.

 

[clc]

Does anyone know when HS2 will be publishing it's report on extending to Scotland?

 

[clc]

Still no details on the Scottish link then.

 

[Altnabreac]

Still no details on the Scottish link then.

In theory we should be getting the Transport Scotland report to ministers on the Edinburgh - Glasgow high speed link link first as it was submitted to ministers in Spring 2014:
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/project/high-speed-rail

Spring 2014: Business Case for Glasgow Edinburgh high speed line submitted to Ministers

The HS2 Ltd report on links between North of England and Scotland is due to report to both UK and Scottish ministers at some point this year but may not have been submitted yet and will probably not emerge publically for a few months after ministers receive it:

2014: Report on high speed options to Scotland submitted to Ministers

It may be that publication of the first report has been delayed to allow both to be released together as the business cases of the 2 schemes are strongly interlinked.

All we can do is wait and see...

 

[WatcherZero]

Seems to be several timeframes for further announcements, hs2 saying to expect another goverment announcement before the end of the year, hs2 phase2 final route to be published early next year and now this report on hs3 in march.