Plans for Three Hour London to Scotland

[Jorge Da Silva]

There are plans and have been for a few years for a London to Glasgow and Edinburgh to be done in 3 hours or less. HS2 takes the journey time down to 3 hours 40 minutes but plans to achieve 3-hour journey time by making improvements to the existing WCML and ECML such as upgrades to achieve high speeds or a series of bypasses.
Does anyone have any further information on the plans?

 

[Bald Rick]

There are plans and have been for a few years for a London to Glasgow and Edinburgh to be done in 3 hours or less. HS2 takes the journey time down to 3 hours 40 minutes but plans to achieve 3-hour journey time by making improvements to the existing WCML and ECML such as upgrades to achieve high speeds or a series of bypasses.
Does anyone have any further information on the plans?

There aren’t any plans, short of building more high speed line. The Scottish govenrment flirted with the idea a while ago.

 

[The Planner]

Can't see HS2 doing it in 3 hours 40 either...

 

[yorkie]

There are plans ...

Can we have a link and quote if this is the case, thanks.

 

[JamesT]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/three-hour-scotland-to-london-rail-journeys-on-track looks relevant.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ns-for-three-hour-london-to-scotland-journeys

Plans to reduce train times between Scotland and England have taken a step closer to completion with feasibility studies commissioned on a number of routes.

Starting in 2016, the joint project between the UK and Scottish governments originally looked to identify areas for improvement, particularly on the east and west coast rail corridors.

This included a major focus on the provision of three-hour services between Scottish stations and London.

Phase one of the plans has been completed, leaving a shortlist of options which will be subject to feasibility studies. The east coast line south of Dunbar towards Newcastle and the west coast line between Glasgow and Carstairs are the main focus of these reports.

Proposals are expected to identify plans to improve train journey times, capacity, resilience and reliability of Scotland-England services.

In addition, the study will also consider the potential for new cross-border stations within the Eurocentral business park and on the existing rail network near Livingston.

“I am determined for us to take the necessary steps to secure Scotland’s future and improve our connectivity with England,” said Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon.

“This work will provide us with the knowledge to make informed investments in the next ten years and move us towards our goal of a three-hour journey time to London and substantially reduced journey times to the cities in between.”

The minister confirmed hopes that new plans could reduce journey time between Newcastle and Edinburgh by a third – to just one hour. As well as shortening times between Edinburgh, Glasgow and Carlisle.

Journeys between Edinburgh and Glasgow are already expected to improve in future with the development of the EGIP.

Last week, the project saw the first Class 385 travel the full distance between Edinburgh and Glasgow. It is expected to be the beginning of a new set of services which will speeding up journeys and increasing capacity on the line.

A bit more recent!

 

[LOL The Irony]

Or here's a better idea; extend HS2 to Glasgow so it's actually more worthwhile.

 

[Owen]

Would be a hard task given the distance.

 

[Bald Rick]

Or here's a better idea; extend HS2 to Glasgow so it's actually more worthwhile.

That depends on your definition of worthwhile. It would be a lot of extra cash, and not that much extra benefit (compared to the rest of the line). At least not yet.

And there’s other ways of achieving some of the benefit. So far there has been a clear policy that HS2 trains will not have tilt. A few years ago there was a series of letters in Modern Railways where one of the chief architects of tilt on the WCML made a strong case for including tilt on HS2 trains specifically for the route north of Wigan. Such a tilting HS train running Euston (HS2) - Preston - Glasgow (omitting OOC and all other calls), with a clean path, could do it in around 3h15.

However for what it’s worth, I would say that there is a possibility of building some new line somewhere between Wigan and Glasgow, a long time in the future, to help with capacity on the existing route, particularly freight. To get sub 3h with the proposed, non-tilting, rolling stock, will need around 100 miles of new high speed line somewhere north of Preston. Personally I’d go for a new stretch following the M6 from north of Lancaster to north of Penrith, where the capacity need is greatest, largely because of the time it takes freights to get over the hills. Then another section following the M74 from around Moffat to somewhere near Uddingston (which could be the Scottish Governements contribution). That would be around 100 miles, largely in open country (albeit some of it quite bumpy), and following existing transport corridors. Probably cost in the region of £8-10bn.

 

[kilonewton]

You’d be better off doing say Lockerbie to Carstairs for the Scottish section, so both Edinburgh & Glasgow get equal benefit.
Plus, with 50 flights & 25 trains from Edinburgh to London daily versus 30 flights & 15 trains Glasgow to London, supply, and we can assume demand, seems to be skewed to the east of the Central Belt.

 

[Bald Rick]

You’d be better off doing say Lockerbie to Carstairs for the Scottish section, so both Edinburgh & Glasgow get equal benefit.
Plus, with 50 flights & 25 trains from Edinburgh to London daily versus 30 flights & 15 trains Glasgow to London, supply, and we can assume demand, seems to be skewed to the east of the Central Belt.

Yes fair point re demand, GLA-LON is about 2.4m pax pa, EDI-LON is 3.5m.

Carstairs to Midcalder could be rebuilt for high speed largely on line, (if it was closed for a couple of years to do it), which would make things a little easier, quicker and therefore cheaper. But, still, probably not worth the money for the 4-5 minutes it would save.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ds/attachment_data/file/506022/NES_Report.pdf

Some options have been assessed for a three-hour London to Scotland service. Both via WCML and ECML.

 

[MarkyT]

So far there has been a clear policy that HS2 trains will not have tilt. A few years ago there was a series of letters in Modern Railways where one of the chief architects of tilt on the WCML made a strong case for including tilt on HS2 trains specifically for the route north of Wigan. Such a tilting HS train running Euston (HS2) - Preston - Glasgow (omitting OOC and all other calls), with a clean path, could do it in around 3h15.

Some of the most recent Shinkansen units incorporate a small amount of tilt in their active suspension to squeeze some small speed increases out of the earliest high speed routes in Japan, so although it is not the norm yet for the very highest speed trains, it is certainly a possibility. Bombardier, who incidentally are partnering with Hitachi in their HS2 bid, incorporate a similar concept in their Flexx tronic WAKO bogie range (who makes up these product names!?).

However for what it’s worth, I would say that there is a possibility of building some new line somewhere between Wigan and Glasgow, a long time in the future, to help with capacity on the existing route, particularly freight. To get sub 3h with the proposed, non-tilting, rolling stock, will need around 100 miles of new high speed line somewhere north of Preston. Personally I’d go for a new stretch following the M6 from north of Lancaster to north of Penrith, where the capacity need is greatest, largely because of the time it takes freights to get over the hills. Then another section following the M74 from around Moffat to somewhere near Uddingston (which could be the Scottish Governements contribution). That would be around 100 miles, largely in open country (albeit some of it quite bumpy), and following existing transport corridors. Probably cost in the region of £8-10bn.

Good suggestion, and it could be built in multiple stages as affordable and required. Other high performance electric passenger trains could also use the new infrastructure which, specialised for such traffic, could be more steeply graded than the existing line which would remain for freight that could be dynamically overtaken via the new bypasses as it grinds slowly up the hills.

 

[Bald Rick]

Some of the most recent Shinkansen units incorporate a small amount of tilt in their active suspension to squeeze some small speed increases out of the earliest high speed routes in Japan, so although it is not the norm yet for the very highest speed trains, it is certainly a possibility. Bombardier, who incidentally are partnering with Hitachi in their HS2 bid, incorporate a similar concept in their Flexx tronic WAKO bogie range (who makes up these product names!?).

Good suggestion, and it could be built in multiple stages as affordable and required. Other high performance electric passenger trains could also use the new infrastructure which, specialised for such traffic, could be more steeply graded than the existing line which would remain for freight that could be dynamically overtaken via the new bypasses as it grinds slowly up the hills.

Thanks Mark. It appears my estimates were rather lower than HS2s, but the principles were right. Getting over (or through) some of the hills won’t be cheap or easy, especially due to conservation reasons. I do think that an HSL built, perhaps, to lower speed in some sections to avoid the most expensive civils, on the M6 M74 corridor would become part of the landscape relatively quickly. No doubt a 3h journey time London to Scotland would halve flights on the routes (as evidenced by London - Manchester post WCRM and other European experience). What price 20 slots at Heathrow and 16 at Gatwick?

Also it would kill the sleepers, which would save the Scottish Government the thick end of £20m a year.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Also it would kill the sleepers, which would save the Scottish Government the thick end of £20m a year.

You mean the Sleepers that have just had an entire new fleet ordered and is being delivered as we speak? Also they scream Scotland, something the SNP adore like it's going out of fashion.

 

[Bald Rick]

You mean the Sleepers that have just had an entire new fleet ordered and is being delivered as we speak? Also they scream Scotland, something the SNP adore like it's going out of fashion.

The very same.

 

[tasky]

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ds/attachment_data/file/506022/NES_Report.pdf

Some options have been assessed for a three-hour London to Scotland service. Both via WCML and ECML.

In case anyone doesn't want to read, a summary:

- It's not considered possible to get the London-Scotland journey to under 3 hours by upgrading either the WCML or ECML along the existing alignments

- You can get to under three hours to Edinburgh by building high-speed bypasses to the existing ECML, (150-220km of bypasses, £11bn-£13bn) but the journey time would not meet the target to Glasgow and it doesn't solve capacity issues

- You can get to under three hours to both Edinburgh on Glasgow by building high-speed bypasses on the WCML (220km of bypasses, £17-19bn) but it doesn't solve capacity issue

- A new build high-speed line up the west coast would cut journey times to both Edinburgh and Glasgow to 2 hours 30, solve the capacity issues, and cost between £32bn - £34bn

- A new build high-speed line up the east coast would cut journey times to Edinburgh to about 2 hours 30 and produce significant time savings to the North East, but to get the east coast time to Glasgow under three hours you have to do some serious building - projected cost £27bn - £43bn.

- The biggest chunk of forecast demand is between Scotland and the North East (31,581 daily two-way) with London not that far behind (30,395 daily two-way). But the North West (29,465) and Yorkshire (17,630) aren't that far behind.

- Forecast demand for trips to Scotland is disproportionately focused on journeys between Edinburgh (46%) rather than Glasgow (27%).



It's a difficult one... both east and west coast routes have their advantages. Tempting to say they should a new-build line up the west coast AND then bypasses on the east

 

[Highlandspring]

London to “Scotland”. So are we talking Lockerbie, Campbeltown or Wick?

 

[MarkyT]

Developing the strong demand between Scotland and the North East of England isn't reliant on getting the Scotland - London time via the NE below 3 hours, and indeed the fastest future trains on that axis need not even go on to London to address that market, although any improvements on the particular journeys concerned are clearly welcome.

 

[Peter Kelford]

There are plans and have been for a few years for a London to Glasgow and Edinburgh to be done in 3 hours or less. HS2 takes the journey time down to 3 hours 40 minutes but plans to achieve 3-hour journey time by making improvements to the existing WCML and ECML such as upgrades to achieve high speeds or a series of bypasses.
Does anyone have any further information on the plans?

Or here's a better idea; extend HS2 to Glasgow so it's actually more worthwhile.

That depends on your definition of worthwhile. It would be a lot of extra cash, and not that much extra benefit (compared to the rest of the line). At least not yet.

And there’s other ways of achieving some of the benefit. So far there has been a clear policy that HS2 trains will not have tilt. A few years ago there was a series of letters in Modern Railways where one of the chief architects of tilt on the WCML made a strong case for including tilt on HS2 trains specifically for the route north of Wigan. Such a tilting HS train running Euston (HS2) - Preston - Glasgow (omitting OOC and all other calls), with a clean path, could do it in around 3h15.

However for what it’s worth, I would say that there is a possibility of building some new line somewhere between Wigan and Glasgow, a long time in the future, to help with capacity on the existing route, particularly freight. To get sub 3h with the proposed, non-tilting, rolling stock, will need around 100 miles of new high speed line somewhere north of Preston. Personally I’d go for a new stretch following the M6 from north of Lancaster to north of Penrith, where the capacity need is greatest, largely because of the time it takes freights to get over the hills. Then another section following the M74 from around Moffat to somewhere near Uddingston (which could be the Scottish Governements contribution). That would be around 100 miles, largely in open country (albeit some of it quite bumpy), and following existing transport corridors. Probably cost in the region of £8-10bn.

Ignorant of the arbitrary 180 minute idea, here's some upgrades that I would propose:

1. Introduce some more sections of 4-track north of Grantham, possibly with GW style (Fast and Slow lines paired together - UF-DF-US-DS).
2. Get York-Waverley up to 140mph
3. Cut out the Lockerbie stop on the Glasgow-Edinburgh runs, permitting use of one of the two Falkirk Lines if wanted.
4. Use French-style 1:25 gradients and m-way paralleling for bypasses to save some costs - cargo can still go via the old line.
5. Operate trains: KGX - PBO - DON - YRK - NCL - EDB instead of Berwick, Darlington etc.

 

[Killingworth]

As long as we have to base everything on Victorian infrastruture we're going to be restricted on both speed and capacity.

We can gradually improve and add to what we've got but we won't get the speeds and the capacity needed to materially improve performance to the degree sought here in 50 years.

HS2 type projects have to be part of that. They're very expensive and very disruptive. They take a long time to complete and lots of adverse comment as they nearly always run behind schedule and attempts are made to get them working before fully complete.

Build railways of similar length in open, flat country with good weather and it's a lot easier but still expensive. In the UK we need to cut through hills and burrow under built up areas to make new lines as straight and level as possible with interchanges at places capable of further development.

As an example, the East Midlands HS2 Station could be beside East Midlands Airport, almost alongside the M1 allowing another international hub to be grown outside the South-East and Manchester and quite close to Derby and Nottingham.

The present slow stuttering progress of HS2, with apparently reduced aspirations, doesn't auger well for anything else.

 

[Peter Kelford]

As long as we have to base everything on Victorian infrastruture we're going to be restricted on both speed and capacity.

We can gradually improve and add to what we've got but we won't get the speeds and the capacity needed to materially improve performance to the degree sought here in 50 years.

HS2 type projects have to be part of that. They're very expensive and very disruptive. They take a long time to complete and lots of adverse comment as they nearly always run behind schedule and attempts are made to get them working before fully complete.

Build railways of similar length in open, flat country with good weather and it's a lot easier but still expensive. In the UK we need to cut through hills and burrow under built up areas to make new lines as straight and level as possible with interchanges at places capable of further development.

As an example, the East Midlands HS2 Station could be beside East Midlands Airport, almost alongside the M1 allowing another international hub to be grown outside the South-East and Manchester and quite close to Derby and Nottingham.

The present slow stuttering progress of HS2, with apparently reduced aspirations, doesn't auger well for anything else.

We can try to reduce cost of the hills by choosing flatter routes such as through the fens on the East Coast and by increasing the maximum permitted gradients. After all, if freight finds it too steep, they can stick to the 'classic' network.

 

[randyrippley]

.........................However for what it’s worth, I would say that there is a possibility of building some new line somewhere between Wigan and Glasgow, a long time in the future, to help with capacity on the existing route, particularly freight. To get sub 3h with the proposed, non-tilting, rolling stock, will need around 100 miles of new high speed line somewhere north of Preston. Personally I’d go for a new stretch following the M6 from north of Lancaster to north of Penrith, where the capacity need is greatest, largely because of the time it takes freights to get over the hills. Then another section following the M74 from around Moffat to somewhere near Uddingston (which could be the Scottish Governements contribution). That would be around 100 miles, largely in open country (albeit some of it quite bumpy), and following existing transport corridors. Probably cost in the region of £8-10bn.

Your chances of getting a government to put another transport corridor through the Lune Gorge and over Shap are about nil.

 

[tasky]

Given some people are going with 'it'll never happen' - FWIW Labour's 2017 manifesto did commit to extending HS2 to Scotland and it was part of their capital spend costing, so not completely pie in the sky. Obviously lots of things are in parties' manifestos, especially the ones that don't win.

It was one of only a few specified rail projects (the other mostly new one was BML2)

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/labour-manifesto-2017.pdf

 

[DPWH]

Your chances of getting a government to put another transport corridor through the Lune Gorge and over Shap are about nil.

That's what I thought, but has anyone tried calculating it even roughly? When Locke engineered the line originally he curved the line to fit the hills, minimising earthworks and keeping the gradient down to 1 in 75(!). But high speed lines need to be straight, even if they can be steeper, so that would probably mean a tunnel under Shap, maybe Beattock as well. But how long? And how much?

 

[DanTrain]

Ignorant of the arbitrary 180 minute idea, here's some upgrades that I would propose:
1. Introduce some more sections of 4-track north of Grantham, possibly with GW style (Fast and Slow lines paired together - UF-DF-US-DS).

Where precisely do you mean, what's going to run on theses slows given that almost everything running on that track is 125 capable apart from the 185s running on the 4-track section north of York. Maybe some merit in doing Northallerton - Newcastle but can't see 4-tracking much else being very beneficial at the moment. Possible on the approach to some stations too.

2. Get York-Waverley up to 140mph

Seems sensible although I'm slightly sceptical about how much time that would save vs how much it would cost.

3. Cut out the Lockerbie stop on the Glasgow-Edinburgh runs, permitting use of one of the two Falkirk Lines if wanted.

Which Lockerbie stops? Glasgow to Edinburgh service run via Shotts, Falkirk (High or Grahamston) or Carstairs, they don't go anywhere near Lockerbie!?

5. Operate trains: KGX - PBO - DON - YRK - NCL - EDB instead of Berwick, Darlington etc.

Largely agreed, although I'd cut Peterborough and Doncaster from that too. A 'slow' Edinburgh train could then run Kings X - Peterborough - Doncaster - York - Darlington - Durham - Newcastle - Berwick - Edinbugh (maybe with occasional calls at Morpeth/Alnmouth/Dunbar as well).

 

[VT 390]

Introduce some more sections of 4-track north of Grantham, possibly with GW style (Fast and Slow lines paired together - UF-DF-US-DS).

Where precisely do you mean, what's going to run on theses slows given that almost everything running on that track is 125 capable apart from the 185s running on the 4-track section north of York. Maybe some merit in doing Northallerton - Newcastle but can't see 4-tracking much else being very beneficial at the moment. Possible on the approach to some stations too.

Would it not make sense to 4 track the Peterborough to Grantham section as then the Liverpool to Norwich East Midlands trains services could run on the slow lines.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Lockerbie stops

Apologies, Motherwell stops.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Largely agreed, although I'd cut Peterborough and Doncaster from that too. A 'slow' Edinburgh train could then run Kings X - Peterborough - Doncaster - York - Darlington - Durham - Newcastle - Berwick - Edinbugh (maybe with occasional calls at Morpeth/Alnmouth/Dunbar as well).

Peterborough is a commuter town and the ECML south of it is far too congested. Not stopping the expresses there would mean compromising the fast commuter service into London
Doncaster is the junction for Leeds

 

[Peter Kelford]

Would it not make sense to 4 track the Peterborough to Grantham section as then the Liverpool to Norwich East Midlands trains services could run on the slow lines.

Peterborough Grantham is 4-tracked up to Stoke Tunnel