High Speed Rail beyond HS2

[Martin222002]

Out of interest would have be any constraints in running is up to 5tph north of Newcastle to Edinburgh with the infrastructure as it currently is?

Ie, 1-2 HS2 services from Euston, 1 HS2 service for Birmingham, 1 ECML service from Kings Cross, and 1 XC service.

 

[HSTEd]

Could just put the whole line under Newcastle in a deep tunnel with a box station along the lines of the RER ones.

Two central tunnels with platforms and two fast tunnels outside of them (so trains can reverse at Newcastle without having to cross over a fast line).

 

[Waverley125]

to get into Newcastle you could use the old alignment out to Blaydon along the north bank of the Tyne before crossing it west of the MetroCentre and then head up the Derwent valley. No city-centre bridge needed, and you emerge into open countryside. The alignment is basically clear now, and you could easily extend the northern through platforms at Newcastle to accommodate 400m trains and have classic trains use the southern throughs.

 

[LE Greys]

to get into Newcastle you could use the old alignment out to Blaydon along the north bank of the Tyne before crossing it west of the MetroCentre and then head up the Derwent valley. No city-centre bridge needed, and you emerge into open countryside. The alignment is basically clear now, and you could easily extend the northern through platforms at Newcastle to accommodate 400m trains and have classic trains use the southern throughs.

That sounds like a good plan, but that means leaving Teesside off the route altogether. Heading that way, you end up in Consett (hardly likely to support a station) then Barnard's Castle, Richmond and Leyburn (which suggests an interchange with the Wensleydale railway ). That leaves out any possiblilty of calling at Darlington. The route I would use runs east of Durham, following a combination of the Leamside Line and the A1(M) from Ferryhill to just north of Chester-le-Street, somewhere around Pelaw Grange. There would have to be some sort of short-cut to avoid the Aycliffe Curves, but that allows access to Darlo, giving you a decent link to Teesside. I'm currently trying to work out how to make the two ends of the strings meet.

 

[Waverley125]

That sounds like a good plan, but that means leaving Teesside off the route altogether. Heading that way, you end up in Consett (hardly likely to support a station) then Barnard's Castle, Richmond and Leyburn (which suggests an interchange with the Wensleydale railway ). That leaves out any possiblilty of calling at Darlington. The route I would use runs east of Durham, following a combination of the Leamside Line and the A1(M) from Ferryhill to just north of Chester-le-Street, somewhere around Pelaw Grange. There would have to be some sort of short-cut to avoid the Aycliffe Curves, but that allows access to Darlo, giving you a decent link to Teesside. I'm currently trying to work out how to make the two ends of the strings meet.

You'd have to engineer it quite heavily (plenty of tunnels & viaducts) but it would be possible to go up the valley & then swing southeast to Darlington.

 

[tbtc]

Out of interest would have be any constraints in running is up to 5tph north of Newcastle to Edinburgh with the infrastructure as it currently is?

Ie, 1-2 HS2 services from Euston, 1 HS2 service for Birmingham, 1 ECML service from Kings Cross, and 1 XC service.

You could run five trains an hour on a double tracked line no problem.

At the moment you've got the Northern Pacer to Cramlington/ Morpeth every hour, the Scotrail North Berwick EMU stopping at main line stations like Mussleburgh every hour (with no scope to overtake/loop at a platform), you've got the conflicting movement of Scotrail DMUs heading to Newcraighall... and of course freight... it could cope with five services an hour but they'd have to be of the same speed to avoid catching up with each other (which is currently an issue when some trains are non-stop Edinburgh - Newcastle and some stop at a couple of stations - Dunbar/ Berwick/ Alnmouth/ Morpeth).

Whether there is demand for that many trains between the two cities is another story of course.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What I don't want to have to live with is standing at King's Cross looking up at a board showing no destinations north of York

Why does it matter, if the places north of York (Newcastle, Edinburgh etc) have a faster direct link to/from central London?

People in Newcastle/ Edinburgh etc won't be too bothered whether their train runs via the Chilterns or via Welwyn if it means a faster London train.

Ayton*
East Linton*

Pegswood
Widdrington
Acklington
Chathill
Belford*
Beal*

I think you are being a little more ambitious than I would...

 

[Ivo]

Could just put the whole line under Newcastle in a deep tunnel with a box station along the lines of the RER ones.

Two central tunnels with platforms and two fast tunnels outside of them (so trains can reverse at Newcastle without having to cross over a fast line).

Is this supposed to imply that some service would run through a Newcastle tunnel - without serving Newcastle? Surely that would be too disruptive and costly a city the size of Newcastle with no benefit to it?

Also, does it mean that you would have some services skip Newcastle? I can't see Edinburgh to, well, anywhere non-stop being a sufficiently major flow to justify an HS2 service? In that sense, would Newcastle not be a sensible stop?

If HS2 does ever reach Newcastle, and I hope it does, I think I would hope for a six-platform station with services to all of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Edinburgh, as is rather obvious I suppose, of which four are bays; additionally, I would hope for a stop on the Metro.

Realistically though, it will be a long time before we get that far - if anything, I think the much-theorised HS3 to Bristol and Cardiff is more likely owing to their relative proximity to London and their resulting busier flows to and from the capital. I suppose this could even be an extension of the Heathrow branch; rather than link it to Birmingham and Manchester (which already have major airports) why not link it to the west (where the local/regional airports are not as busy and Heathrow itself has more importance)?

 

[Waverley125]

I think HS3 to the west country & Wales is likely to get a go-ahead before an extension to Newcastle, given the line will already exist from Euston to Heathrow. From there it should be easy to drive the line on to Reading, and then to Bristol Temple Meads, before heading south out of Bristol and swinging north to tunnel under the Severn and approach Cardiff from the southeast.

Moreover, such a line, if run to Swansea (which I think likely) would be well-placed for an extension to Fishguard and an Irish Sea Tunnel to Rosslare for lines to Dublin, Waterford & Cork.

 

[LE Greys]

Why does it matter, if the places north of York (Newcastle, Edinburgh etc) have a faster direct link to/from central London?

People in Newcastle/ Edinburgh etc won't be too bothered whether their train runs via the Chilterns or via Welwyn if it means a faster London train.

Because the places south of York have a slower journey to the places north of York. Possibly a more expensive journey if they have to go via London or Leeds and likely a slower journey to London as well because the number of stops will be increased. :-x

 

[Martin222002]

You could run five trains an hour on a double tracked line no problem.

At the moment you've got the Northern Pacer to Cramlington/ Morpeth every hour, the Scotrail North Berwick EMU stopping at main line stations like Mussleburgh every hour (with no scope to overtake/loop at a platform), you've got the conflicting movement of Scotrail DMUs heading to Newcraighall... and of course freight... it could cope with five services an hour but they'd have to be of the same speed to avoid catching up with each other (which is currently an issue when some trains are non-stop Edinburgh - Newcastle and some stop at a couple of stations - Dunbar/ Berwick/ Alnmouth/ Morpeth).

Whether there is demand for that many trains between the two cities is another story of course.

After thinking about I did think would there be the demand for 5tph between Edinburgh and Newcastle, and that 4 tph would be enough, 2 HS2 and 2 conventional. Currently theres between 2-3 tph, so the extra 1 would give room for growth and allow 1-2 tph to all at more places between the two cities.

 

[tbtc]

Because the places south of York have a slower journey to the places north of York. Possibly a more expensive journey if they have to go via London or Leeds and likely a slower journey to London as well because the number of stops will be increased. :-x

If London still has a link to York/ Newcastle/ Edinburgh etc (albeit from Euston, and a faster service), then that improved service is more important than the Grantham - Darlington flow.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

After thinking about I did think would there be the demand for 5tph between Edinburgh and Newcastle, and that 4 tph would be enough, 2 HS2 and 2 conventional. Currently theres between 2-3 tph, so the extra 1 would give room for growth and allow 1-2 tph to all at more places between the two cities.

The difficulty would be that if you have two "high speed" services over the 100+ miles between the two cities then they'll quickly catch up the "conventional" ones (esp if the conventional services serve Dunbar/ Berwick/ Alnwick/ Morpeth)

 

[Nym]

Depending on the shape of the TPE N Network post electrification, one may be looking to extend the Newcastle (or one of the Newcastle) service(s) up to Berwick upon Tweed for local journeys...

 

[Martin222002]

The difficulty would be that if you have two "high speed" services over the 100+ miles between the two cities then they'll quickly catch up the "conventional" ones (esp if the conventional services serve Dunbar/ Berwick/ Alnwick/ Morpeth)

You can sort of understand why HS2/DfT has gone with having the Edinburgh to London HS2 services via the WCML. The capacity on the ECML north of Edimburgh is probably best left for services on the existing network, for XC and ECML services south of York.

 

[LE Greys]

If London still has a link to York/ Newcastle/ Edinburgh etc (albeit from Euston, and a faster service), then that improved service is more important than the Grantham - Darlington flow.

Yes, but we're not just talking about the communities on the lines affected. The whole of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgshire lose their northbound connection through Peterborough. It either adds an extra change at Leeds or Newcastle (to go to extremes) or York (if being a bit more sensible). Lincolnshire loses out if they lose their connections through Doncaster, same's true for half of South Yorkshire while in North Herts people have to divert through London. We're talking 4.5 million people (not including those in North Yorks and East Yorks cut off by the direct Newcastle route)! That's why we need two, possibly three, parallel lines going north. I need passenger figures as to how many people pass through York, but I would say it's at least 75% of those on each train. It could between 20% and 40% of ECML traffic.

 

[Yew]

If hs2 goes to leeds, could they upgrade the ECML between newcastle and leeds (I know leeds isnt quite on the ecml, but im sure they can find something)

 

[tbtc]

You can sort of understand why HS2/DfT has gone with having the Edinburgh to London HS2 services via the WCML. The capacity on the ECML north of Edimburgh is probably best left for services on the existing network, for XC and ECML services south of York.

I think the West Coast probably makes more sense for Edinburgh journeys - there's not a lot of scope to run much faster on the existing alignment north of Newcastle, the fastest "road" way between London and Edinburgh is via Carlisle so it's not that "odd" for the fastest rail service to be that way.

Between Preston and Kirknewton there's not much in the way of "local" traffic to slow HS2 up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, but we're not just talking about the communities on the lines affected. The whole of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgshire lose their northbound connection through Peterborough. It either adds an extra change at Leeds or Newcastle (to go to extremes) or York (if being a bit more sensible). Lincolnshire loses out if they lose their connections through Doncaster, same's true for half of South Yorkshire while in North Herts people have to divert through London. We're talking 4.5 million people (not including those in North Yorks and East Yorks cut off by the direct Newcastle route)! That's why we need two, possibly three, parallel lines going north. I need passenger figures as to how many people pass through York, but I would say it's at least 75% of those on each train. It could between 20% and 40% of ECML traffic.

...but how many of the 4.5 million people (spread over a large area in/around East Anglia) are travelling to Newcastle/Edinburgh on a regular basis? The market for London - Newcastle/Edinburgh is far higher.

I reckon that there will be further High Speed lines built in my lifetime, and an "eastern" version makes a good business case, but we can only build one at a time, and the plan for HS2 hits all the big population centres.

 

[transmanche]

I need passenger figures as to how many people pass through York, but I would say it's at least 75% of those on each train. It could between 20% and 40% of ECML traffic.

FWIW, East coast say that approx 70% of passenger journeys start/finish in London and that more passengers travel between Leeds and than on any other long-distance journey with East Coast.

the fastest "road" way between London and Edinburgh is via Carlisle so it's not that "odd" for the fastest rail service to be that way.

The west 'A702/M6/M1 route' is only a minute quicker than the east 'A68/A1/M1' route (well, according to Google Maps anyway). And with the J49-51 A1(M) upgrade work well underway, (leaving J51-56 as the only non-motorway section between London and Gateshead) the eastern route will only get faster.

 

[tbtc]

The west 'A702/M6/M1 route' is only a minute quicker than the east 'A68/A1/M1' route (well, according to Google Maps anyway). And with the J49-51 A1(M) upgrade work well underway, (leaving J51-56 as the only non-motorway section between London and Gateshead) the eastern route will only get faster.

Having checked Google Maps you are (of course) correct.

However the fact that it is marginally slower doing an additional twenty miles (up the west) will hopefully be an example for the "why would anyone want to go from Yorkshire to London via Birmingham" argumenters to ponder

 

[Zoe]

The west 'A702/M6/M1 route' is only a minute quicker than the east 'A68/A1/M1' route (well, according to Google Maps anyway). And with the J49-51 A1(M) upgrade work well underway, (leaving J51-56 as the only non-motorway section between London and Gateshead) the eastern route will only get faster.

I don't always find Google maps journey times that accurate. I'm not sure they would take into account the possibility of getting stuck behind a truck north of Newcastle. The speed limit for the road may well be 60 mph but I doubt you'd be doing that all the way. I also don't think encouraging extra traffic through the Cheviots is a good idea and this is not even the signed route.

 

[transmanche]

The west 'A702/M6/M1 route' is only a minute quicker than the east 'A68/A1/M1' route (well, according to Google Maps anyway). And with the J49-51 A1(M) upgrade work well underway, (leaving J51-56 as the only non-motorway section between London and Gateshead) the eastern route will only get faster.

I don't always find Google maps journey times that accurate. I'm not sure they would take into account the possibility of getting stuck behind a truck north of Newcastle. The speed limit for the road may well be 60 mph but I doubt you'd be doing that all the way. I also don't think encouraging extra traffic through the Cheviots is a good idea and this is not even the signed route.

I can't speak for the accuracy of Google's time estimate, but can only assume that both routes have a similar margin of error. What I can say is that taking the A68 route (well specifically the A696/A68) from Newcastle to Edinburgh is both shorter and faster than taking the A1 - and you're much less likely to get stuck behind a truck.

Both the A68 and A696 have primary status and form part of the E15.

 

[Zoe]

Both the A68 and A696 have primary status and form part of the E15.

Neither are trunk however in England and the A68 only becomes the A68(T) north of the border. I don't think Euro routes are taken into account by many people when planning journeys. The signed route from Newcastle to Edinburgh is via the A1(T). The other route may be quicker but it is not a trunk road and as I say I don't think sending more traffic through the Cheviots should be encouraged. If any route is to be upgraded from Newcastle to Edinburgh it will be the A1(T) as building a dual carriageway through the Cheviots is not going to be an acceptable option. For through journeys from the South there is also the issue of the Newcastle western bypass which is often congested and can delay journeys. Don't forget that on single carriageways trucks are limited to 40 mph so you wouldn't want to get stuck behind them on either route. I know of some people that go via Glasgow to Edinburgh.

 

[Martin222002]

In terms of rail Wigan North Western (around where HS2 will join the WCML) to Edinburgh 206 miles 45 chains, where as York (around where HS2 is to join the ECML) to Edinburgh is only just under 2 miles shorter at 204 miles 53 chains. So I terms of distance there isn't much in it.

However in terms of journey times things are the other way round.

After doing a few calcuations I've worked out that an extended HS2 Euston to Newcastle service to Edinburgh would have a journey time of about 3 hours 42 minutes (by adding a 2 hour 18 minute Euston-Newcastle journey time with the 22 minute Edinburgh-Newcastle non-stop journey time of the 5:40 to KGX plus a 2 minute dewell at Newcastle). This via ECML jounrye time could be potentially longer given the ECML capacity issues raised by tbtc. The currently quoted Euston to Edinburgh HS2 journey time via the WCML of 3 hours 39 minutes, which is at least 3 minutes faster than the via ECML time I've worked out.

So in both the case of distance and journey time the differences are only small, but via the WCML currently wins as its marginally better journey time and due to the capacity problems on the ECML north of Newcastle.

Also, while looking at Carstairs on Google Maps I noticed what looks to be the remains of a line linking the line from Edinburgh from just north of Carstairs to the WCML just south of Carstairs (see link to map). To me looks like a much faster allignment for trains heading to and from Edinburgh on the WCML than the current junction at Carstairs itself, which could take a few more minutes off the via WCML time for Edinburgh HS2 services.

 

[transmanche]

Both the A68 and A696 have primary status and form part of the E15.

Neither are trunk however in England and the A68 only becomes the A68(T) north of the border. I don't think Euro routes are taken into account by many people when planning journeys.

Being part of a numbered Euro road shows that the route does have some strategic significance.

However; similarly I don't think trunk status (or lack of it) is taken into account when planing journeys - being as it merely indicates who is responsible for maintaing the road. (The A68 is maintained by Transport Scotland in Scotland, hence its 'trunk' status there. But in Northumberland, it's maintained by the county council.)

As I said, both routes (A68/A696 and A1) are primary routes, which is something that is taken into account when planning journeys.

Anyway, we're really off-topic now...

 

[Zoe]

Being part of a numbered Euro road shows that the route does have some strategic significance.

I'm not convinced, some of the Euro routes seem quite arbritary.

However; similarly I don't think trunk status (or lack of it) is taken into account when planing journeys - being as it merely indicates who is responsible for maintaing the road. (The A68 is maintained by Transport Scotland in Scotland, hence its 'trunk' status there. But in Northumberland, it's maintained by the county council.)

As I said, both routes (A68/A696 and A1) are primary routes, which is something that is taken into account when planning journeys.

Roads are detrunked for a reason though. Often this is as they are no longer seen as a strategic route and so no longer justify Highways Agency funding. As for primary routes, I'm not sure how many people would decide to only use primary routes, I expect quite a few road users wouldn't even know what a primary route was. The signed route however is indeed still via the A1(T) and people that don't know much about roads would I think follow the signs and clearly it is still the trunk route between Newcastle and Edinburgh.

 

[transmanche]

As for primary routes, I'm not sure how many people would decide to only use primary routes, I expect quite a few road users wouldn't even know what a primary route was.

They might not know the name, but they'll recognise them easily enough by the green direction signs!

... and clearly it is still the trunk route between Newcastle and Edinburgh.

So what? 'Trunk' status is a meaningless distinction for the road user, one which is not identified on roadsigns or modern maps.

 

[LE Greys]

FWIW, East coast say that approx 70% of passenger journeys start/finish in London and that more passengers travel between Leeds and than on any other long-distance journey with East Coast.

That's an interesting statistic, and I have to admit that it doesn't support my case. I'd like to see a full breakdown of the figures to see precisely what is going on. Also, a bit of nitpickery, they say:

East Coast was the first UK train route to offer wireless internet on a moving rail vehicle. East Coast makes this service available to customers in both First and Standard Class.

Which means that they are taking credit for something GNER did.

 

[Zoe]

They might not know the name, but they'll recognise them easily enough by the green direction signs!

So what? 'Trunk' status is a meaningless distinction for the road user, one which is not identified on roadsigns or modern maps.

If a road is trunk then it is of strategic importance to be maintained by the Highways Agency and this is the way that traffic is routed and the road users will notice this as the signs to Edinburgh will send them via the trunk route. People will notice green signs but they will also notice the signs for Edinburgh. I think through traffic should keep to the trunk routes as that is what they are for.

 

[LE Greys]

...but how many of the 4.5 million people (spread over a large area in/around East Anglia) are travelling to Newcastle/Edinburgh on a regular basis? The market for London - Newcastle/Edinburgh is far higher.

I reckon that there will be further High Speed lines built in my lifetime, and an "eastern" version makes a good business case, but we can only build one at a time, and the plan for HS2 hits all the big population centres.

That's actually a major question, are they trying to do too much with one line? I still think that anything more than 10 tph is going to be very hard to deliver, all of which will end up being needed for western services. Essentially, I don't want to see my line ending up like the Midland, having its top cut off and becoming a second-rate service that scarcely sees any improvement for decades. After all, other than gaining Meridians, has Leicester seen any real improvement since the HSTs arrived? I'm probably overreacting, but I'm seeing so much being promised to every area of the country except the one I live in. Throw us the odd bone occasionally.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If a road is trunk then it is of strategic importance to be maintained by the Highways Agency and this is the way that traffic is routed and the road users will notice this as the signs to Edinburgh will send them via the trunk route. People will notice green signs but they will also notice the signs for Edinburgh. I think through traffic should keep to the trunk routes as that is what they are for.

They'll also notice that it's single-carriageway.

 

[Zoe]

They'll also notice that it's single-carriageway.

Well both the trunk and non-trunk route from Newcastle to Edinburgh are primarily single-carriageway.

 

[LE Greys]

Well both the trunk and non-trunk route from Newcastle to Edinburgh are primarily single-carriageway.

I should have added a :roll: