High Speed 2 should be between newcastle and Edinburgh

[JohnCarlson]

Just a thought but if we were to build a high speed line between Edinbrough and Newcastle this would be much cheaper than in the south but make a huge time saving between these two cities and more importantly between Scotland and London. Air travel between Edinbrough London would be much less attractive and if the present DMU line between Edinbrough and Glasgow were electrified bring in passengers from Glasgow.

Construction of the line would also be offering work in areas of high unemployment.

 

[route:oxford]

Just a thought but if we were to build a high speed line between Edinbrough and Newcastle this would be much cheaper than in the south but make a huge time saving between these two cities and more importantly between Scotland and London. Air travel between Edinbrough London would be much less attractive and if the present DMU line between Edinbrough and Glasgow were electrified bring in passengers from Glasgow.

Construction of the line would also be offering work in areas of high unemployment.

Better to "kill two birds with one stone" and rebuild the Waverley Route between Edinburgh & Carlisle to full HS2 standards.

The electric units shouldn't have much trouble with the gradients.

 

[sprinterguy]

Just a thought but if we were to build a high speed line between Edinbrough and Newcastle this would be much cheaper than in the south but make a huge time saving between these two cities and more importantly between Scotland and London. Air travel between Edinbrough London would be much less attractive and if the present DMU line between Edinbrough and Glasgow were electrified bring in passengers from Glasgow.

Construction of the line would also be offering work in areas of high unemployment.

A high speed line between Edinburgh and Newcastle would only serve a relatively small market compared to the proposed course of HS2 starting from London, and would only benefit a limited number of existing lines in relesing additional capacity. HS2 is set to reduce journey times between London and Scotland anyway, although the greatest time savings could only be realised if HS2 was continued beyond Manchester into Scotland.

Undoubtedly, some work should be done to the Newcastle to Edinburgh section of the ECML in order to eliminate the worst speed restrictions (Such as Morpeth) and capacity pinch points. Virgin had aspirations to do exactly this when they bid for the ECML franchise in 2001, running 200mph trains utlising sections of new alignment. I don't think that an entire new high speed line through Northumberland and the borders is necessary, but work should definitely be done to make that section of route able to sustain 125mph running for much longer periods and create enough capacity to allow such high speed running to take place with the mix of services that ply the route.

 

[bluenoxid]

I would be happier to see them upgrade the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh, which would be better for jobs in the relatively low skilled borders area. The East Coast needs a few upgrades to capacity in this area so that it can gain a local stopping service. There are two station projects that are being seriously looked at in this area (Reston? and Belford) and they will need a local service to realise their full potential.

 

[sprinterguy]

I would be happier to see them upgrade the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh, which would be better for jobs in the relatively low skilled borders area. The East Coast needs a few upgrades to capacity in this area so that it can gain a local stopping service. There are two station projects that are being seriously looked at in this area (Reston? and Belford) and they will need a local service to realise their full potential.

I agree; my views are also that an upgrade of the A1 would be much more beneficial and is more urgently needed. An Edinburgh to Newcastle local service would be an excellent thing to have, but would only really be feasible with the installation of more station loops IMO.

 

[JohnCarlson]

A high speed line between Edinburgh and Newcastle would only serve a relatively small market compared to the proposed course of HS2 starting from London, and would only benefit a limited number of existing lines in relesing additional capacity. HS2 is set to reduce journey times between London and Scotland anyway, although the greatest time savings could only be realised if HS2 was continued beyond Manchester into Scotland.

Undoubtedly, some work should be done to the Newcastle to Edinburgh section of the ECML in order to eliminate the worst speed restrictions (Such as Morpeth) and capacity pinch points. Virgin had aspirations to do exactly this when they bid for the ECML franchise in 2001, running 200mph trains utlising sections of new alignment. I don't think that an entire new high speed line through Northumberland and the borders is necessary, but work should definitely be done to make that section of route able to sustain 125mph running for much longer periods and create enough capacity to allow such high speed running to take place with the mix of services that ply the route.

It would I am sure be much cheaper per mile to build an entirely new line in the North of Britain than down south. Additionally people up north would probably welcome it , unlike much of the South. I believe that the French line to the Channel Tunnel was built through areas of high unemployment which was the reason they got theirs finished far faster than ours.

Anyway as I said it’s just a thought. Not expecting it to happen.

Best

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

I agree; my views are also that an upgrade of the A1 would be much more beneficial and is more urgently needed. An Edinburgh to Newcastle local service would be an excellent thing to have, but would only really be feasible with the installation of more station loops IMO.

There is really no point in the A1 being upgraded as I don't drive.:grin:

John

 

[Zoe]

There is really no point in the A1 being upgraded as I don't drive.

Roads are not just for personal use. I expect you have indirectly benefited from the existence of the A1 many times.

 

[RichW1]

Also, a new line between those city pairs doesn't create any more capacity in the south which what's needed. I just don't get how they're going to take all the main IC traffic from the WCML, Midland and ECML to Leeds down 2 trackes at the southern end!

 

[tbtc]

It would I am sure be much cheaper per mile to build an entirely new line in the North of Britain than down south

True, but of significantly less use (unless you do the London-end at the same time.

There is essentially no spare capacity at the southern end of the ECML/ MML/ WCML (and any spare paths will be filled up in the next couple of years). This is why we need HS2.

There are only two or three trains an hour from Edinburgh to Newcastle, so how many of them would use a new "high speed" line between the two cities?

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think extending HS2 to Scotland would be a colossal waste of money simply because there is not the demand for it. It would be far more economical to raise the line speed on the WCML to 140 mph between the Trent Valley and Glasgow which along with the HS2 link would improve journey times and keep the Scots happy.

 

[yorkie]

Providing it doesn't go via Middlesbrough I'll be happy (anyone who understands why I say that is obviously aware of someone with the initials MB!)

Seriously though, HS2 is mostly about capacity, not speed. Is capacity really a major problem between Newcastle and Edinburgh? I'm not so sure. Between Drem and Edinburgh, yes, and between Morpeth and Newcastle, yes, but for the vast majority of the route I do not think so.

As for a route from Carlisle linking up with the re-instated Waverley route that is being restored between Tweedbank and Newcraighall, I am not so sure about that either, as with stations opening at Eskbank, Newtongrange, Gorebridge, Stow, Galashiels and Tweedbank, you would surely need to have all of these stations on loops to avoid delaying high speed services and causing capacity problems. You'd also need high speed and fast accelerating EMUs that would cost more to run than conventional commuter trains, to avoid delaying the fast trains.

It will be a very long time before HS2 north of Carlisle or Newcastle will be on the agenda.

 

[cuccir]

It will be a very long time before HS2 north of Carlisle or Newcastle will be on the agenda.

Besides, by the time hs2 is built this section of track is likely to be owned by the nationalised railway of the Socialist Republic of Scotland

 

[ObservationCar]

Besides, by the time hs2 is built this section of track is likely to be owned by the nationalised railway of the Socialist Republic of Scotland

Or the "Socialist Republic Peoples Scotland", or "SRPS", with its seat of Parliament in Bo'ness! Expect to see Scotrail Red Stripe 47's and Mk1,2 stock, and an old class 303 being powered by 37025 being run around Scotland.

 

[JohnCarlson]

True, but of significantly less use (unless you do the London-end at the same time.

There is essentially no spare capacity at the southern end of the ECML/ MML/ WCML (and any spare paths will be filled up in the next couple of years). This is why we need HS2.

There are only two or three trains an hour from Edinburgh to Newcastle, so how many of them would use a new "high speed" line between the two cities?

I think there is an argument that if, for example , the journey time between Newcastle and Edinburgh were to be halved and the direct line between Edinburgh and Glasgow electrified a lot of the Scotland to London or the Midlands air passengers would switch to rail and a lot of traffic would be developed by a better service.

As a comparison if you if you improve the road between two thriving cities you probably just end up with a road that is full and more people moving to those cities from elsewhere You will also have paid a fortune to employ the people to build it and to buy the land to build it on. If you improve the road between two cities that are not doing as well you will get the land cheaper get the work done more cheaply and maybe encourage people to live there.

Which is not to say I don’t think HS2 down south is a bad idea. But I find it odd that promoters are talking of high speed services being sold to the public as premium services . If the journey to London from Birmingham is already fairly fast how many more passengers will want to travel and pay more because the journey is however many minutes shorter.

If again for example HS2 between London and Birmingham is double decked trains at 220mph with a turn up and go cheap fares policy I can see it being full but that doesn’t seem to be what they are talking about at the moment.

 

[swt_passenger]

Providing it doesn't go via Middlesbrough I'll be happy (anyone who understands why I say that is obviously aware of someone with the initials MB!)

Double decker trains with 3+3 seating? :roll: Ringby? :roll:

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I'm just reinforcing points that have already been made in this thread, but the population of the HS2 route is just so much bigger than what you are proposing. Greater London is more than 10m people, depending on which boundaries you define. The West Midlands, if you include the metropolitan county, Warwickshire, Staffordshire and Worcestershire is about 4m people. These numbers dwarf Newcastle to Edinburgh. Newcastle/Gateshead/Tyneside is a mid ranked urban area by population size. Edinburgh is rather small in terms of population, even if it is a lovely place and the capital of Scotland.

Yes, there might be a case for upgrading the ECML between Newcastle and Edinburgh and there is certainly a case for upgrading the M1/A1 north of Leeds/Doncaster into Scotland, but these are seperate issues. The real reason for HS2 (in my opinion at least) is to give London a 6th airport. When Birmingham International is just 39 minutes from Euston then it is the same kind of distance from the capital (time wise) as Stansted is, and in the same ball park as Gatwick and Luton. This will attract more business to the UK than an enhanced Newcastle to Edinburgh railway line will and ultimately be good for the economy.

 

[bluenoxid]

I think there is an argument that if, for example , the journey time between Newcastle and Edinburgh were to be halved and the direct line between Edinburgh and Glasgow electrified a lot of the Scotland to London or the Midlands air passengers would switch to rail and a lot of traffic would be developed by a better service.

As a comparison if you if you improve the road between two thriving cities you probably just end up with a road that is full and more people moving to those cities from elsewhere You will also have paid a fortune to employ the people to build it and to buy the land to build it on. If you improve the road between two cities that are not doing as well you will get the land cheaper get the work done more cheaply and maybe encourage people to live there.

So people using the road is a bad idea. Carting round fresh air and lots of spare capacity does not make any sense to me, which is what this route would be. Can you prove that trains at 180 would do the route in half the time and where do they go south of Newcastle?

The A1 is mainly a single carriageway road at this point of the country. It needs a few bypasses and some upgrades to speed traffic up. The East Coast in the area is the same (a few upgrades here and there. Until it can be proven that building a high speed link across this area is going to be busy, then I think you're chasing a white elephant running across River Tweed

The North East is being held back by this poor link to Scotland as traffic and economic activity piles across the country to hit the M74 run over to Scotland. It is surely a sign of how deprived the area is when Glasgow gets a Motorway to London before Newcastle does.

 

[sprinterguy]

I think there is an argument that if, for example , the journey time between Newcastle and Edinburgh were to be halved and the direct line between Edinburgh and Glasgow electrified a lot of the Scotland to London or the Midlands air passengers would switch to rail and a lot of traffic would be developed by a better service.

As a comparison if you if you improve the road between two thriving cities you probably just end up with a road that is full and more people moving to those cities from elsewhere You will also have paid a fortune to employ the people to build it and to buy the land to build it on. If you improve the road between two cities that are not doing as well you will get the land cheaper get the work done more cheaply and maybe encourage people to live there.

Which is not to say I don’t think HS2 down south is a bad idea. But I find it odd that promoters are talking of high speed services being sold to the public as premium services . If the journey to London from Birmingham is already fairly fast how many more passengers will want to travel and pay more because the journey is however many minutes shorter.

If again for example HS2 between London and Birmingham is double decked trains at 220mph with a turn up and go cheap fares policy I can see it being full but that doesn’t seem to be what they are talking about at the moment.

Undoubtedly an upgrade of the A1 between the North East and Scotland would release some latent demand for travel and increase the amount of traffic, but it is a much more urgent upgrade required for maintaining and improving anglo-scottish links than a new Edinburgh to Newcastle high speed line and would benefit a far greater number of individuals and businesses through improved mobility.

I fail to see how upgrading the A1, which would consist of widening the existing alignment and altering the course in small sections as required would "cost a fortune" when compared to the costs of building an entire brand new high speed line on a completely new alignment, when there is a relatively narrow strip of land available to build on, hemmed in between the North Sea and the Cheviots.

HS2 is not just a London to Birmingham shuttle. It is intended to increase capacity and reduce journey times from London to the North of England and Scotland, and building it between the largest cities in Britain ensures the greatest return on investment. It is also the purpose of HS2 to release additional capacity on the southern section of the West and East Coast main lines (and possibly the MML to a lesser extent) where paths are most at a premium.

 

[tbtc]

I think there is an argument that if, for example , the journey time between Newcastle and Edinburgh were to be halved and the direct line between Edinburgh and Glasgow electrified a lot of the Scotland to London or the Midlands air passengers would switch to rail and a lot of traffic would be developed by a better service.

As a comparison if you if you improve the road between two thriving cities you probably just end up with a road that is full and more people moving to those cities from elsewhere You will also have paid a fortune to employ the people to build it and to buy the land to build it on. If you improve the road between two cities that are not doing as well you will get the land cheaper get the work done more cheaply and maybe encourage people to live there.

Which is not to say I don’t think HS2 down south is a bad idea. But I find it odd that promoters are talking of high speed services being sold to the public as premium services . If the journey to London from Birmingham is already fairly fast how many more passengers will want to travel and pay more because the journey is however many minutes shorter.

If again for example HS2 between London and Birmingham is double decked trains at 220mph with a turn up and go cheap fares policy I can see it being full but that doesn’t seem to be what they are talking about at the moment.

If you half the journey time between any two cities then you'll increase the demand - no doubt there.

But, really, is it worth building 100 miles of new line for one train an hour?

There's only two or three an hour from Edinburgh to Newcastle at the moment, and you still need to serve places like Berwick, so you'd only have one (maybe two?) trains an hour via this new expensive route?

Much better to tackle the genuine capacity problems west of Drem (putting loops at stations like Mussleburgh to ensure that Newcastle trains aren't held behind North Berwick stoppers) and to tackle the slow curve at Morpeth.

Plus the remaining 75 miles (or so) of single carriage-way road between Morpeth and Dunbar...

 

[Zoe]

Plus the remaining 75 miles (or so) of single carriage-way road between Morpeth and Dunbar...

One issue with the road is that the Scottish and UK governments are not likely to commit to any upgrade without the other having done so as it would be pointless dualling to the border if there were going to be no improvements the other side.

 

[exile]

Is the current WCML really at capacity? How much fresh air do Pendolinos transport at present - even at so-called peak times (especially in first class)?

I see the "green" case for HS2 as being the reduction of domestic flights - which means it will only pay dividends when London-Scotland journey times can be cut significantly.

 

[Zoe]

Is the current WCML really at capacity? How much fresh air do Pendolinos transport at present - even at so-called peak times (especially in first class)?

Well if the plan is indeed to get people out of cars then extra capacity on rail will be needed but I expect it will need more than HS2 to cope with the extra demand unless the need to travel can be reduced.

 

[tbtc]

One issue with the road is that the Scottish and UK governments are not likely to commit to any upgrade without the other having done so as it would be pointless dualling to the border if there were going to be no improvements the other side.

I see your point, but dualling the A1 in Scotland would improve things for Scottish settlements between Dunbar and the Border (e.g. Eyemouth).

Similarly, dualling the A1 in England would improve things for English settlements between Morpeth and the Border (e.g. Berwick).

Its not like the Channel Tunnel where it'd be pointless doing half a job from one end.

 

[Zoe]

The issue with that though is that if you dual to the border then you will encourage more traffic to use the A1 and when it reaches the border it will then be back onto a single carriageway that won't be able to cope with the extra traffic.

 

[tbtc]

Is the current WCML really at capacity? How much fresh air do Pendolinos transport at present - even at so-called peak times (especially in first class)?

Well, from Euston there's...

• 3x Manchester services
• 3x Birmingham services (one to Wolverhampton)
• 1x Chester service (some to North Wales)
• 1x Liverpool service
• 1x Lancaster service (most to Glasgow)

... on the fast lines, plus half a dozen LM services to Tring/ Milton Keynes/ Northampton/ Birmingham/ Crewe, plus the LO Watford stoppers.

Not a lot of spare paths there...

Whereas, from Edinburgh to Newcastle there are two trains each hour (three some hours).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The issue with that though is that if you dual to the border then you will encourage more traffic to use the A1 and when it reaches the border it will then be back onto a single carriageway that won't be able to cope with the extra traffic.

...but then thats an incentive for the other side to dual their bit

 

[Zoe]

There were actually plans a few years back to dual the Morpeth to Felton section of the A1 but the route was downgraded from national to regional importance in 2005/6 and the North East England regional assembly decided that this upgrade was not a regional priority. The road has now been reclassified as of national importance but due to the economic situation I doubt there will be any upgrades for some time.

 

[RichW1]

If there needs to be an upgraded railway or road from Scotland to the borders then Scotland has a transport budget to pay for it. I think any talk of upgrades to anything on a British basis in the borders northwards will do nothing until we know where our country is going; united or broken up. Why on a national basis spend money exploring options through Scotland if the principality wants to break away as a separate nation? Purely in spending policy it wouldn't make sense. I think if we do stay together then on a national basis I think Scotland needs a high speed link.

 

[Bittern]

Screw your HS2. Go back to the days of cheap labour, numpies in No. 10 and the threat of redundancy hanging over our heads.

Oh wait, we're still there. Forget that!

I would be happier to see them upgrade the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh

Man, imagine upgrading Tornado to be able to reach HS2 speeds.

 

[tbtc]

If there needs to be an upgraded railway or road from Scotland to the borders then Scotland has a transport budget to pay for it. I think any talk of upgrades to anything on a British basis in the borders northwards will do nothing until we know where our country is going; united or broken up. Why on a national basis spend money exploring options through Scotland if the principality wants to break away as a separate nation? Purely in spending policy it wouldn't make sense. I think if we do stay together then on a national basis I think Scotland needs a high speed link.

I take it by "the principality" you are referring to Wales?

Never heard Scotland referred to as such...

 

[RichW1]

It hasn't been referred to as much as Wales but never-the-less I think is, as we all are when talking of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We're in union and one nation State. Personally I prefer Britain to stay together but if Scotland decides they want independence then there's nothing I or anyone can do about that as you can't govern without will of the people imho. On a national British basis.....high speed is needed to go to Scotland and should go to Scotland and I want to see it go from the north of Britain to the south. Financially we can't in the next spending round with tight budgets put any ADDITIONAL funds to such a project until we all know the outcome of our own state of sovereignty as Scotland and England would be divided as seperate countries. If that becomes the case then the revenue streams will be different as will the NPV's of financial calculations etc etc as there will also be exchange rates to sort out etc etc. It would change the maths and investment proposition for private investors. There's nothing worse than uncertainty for investment and that's what we have in the UK right now with anglo-scottish business affairs of national importance. National projects need to be taken in the environment of political stability and of fiscal certainties, neither of which we have with anglo-scottish affairs and purely pragmatically, it becomes unattractive to invest in such a project if you don't know what your finances will look like by the time its finished and some of your currency changes! It could be achieved if Scottish and English transport ministers collaborated more and came to some kind of agreement to reach the borders meeting at that half way point. Realistically it's a lot of money and whether Scotland could pay for their bit I really don't know as I don't have such information to hand but in the meantime the largest and most capacity hungry and desperate areas for HS2 are in the south of Britain. Therefore, it seems to me that's the sensible place to start any new line.