High Speed Rail for Scotland?

[gordonthemoron]

Whilst not high speed as such, DB are also quadrupling some sections of tracks used by both regional & ICE trains which should allow ICEs to run faster

 

[Mintona]

Were the 373s banned from travelling at higher speed (125mph) because of the amount of juice they used? I know that has been an issue with 91s in the past, and why they aren't allowed up to Skipton still. Maybe running at a higher speed would have cause the 373s to do the same thing, although that is purely speculation, I don't know.

Back on topic, High Speed Rail will need to go to Glasgow and Edinburgh certainly, and maybe one day to Aberdeen as well.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Back on topic, High Speed Rail will need to go to Glasgow and Edinburgh certainly, and maybe one day to Aberdeen as well.

Before tunnelling under the North Sea to Bergen

 

[Waverley125]

they couldn't do more than 110 because the pantographs on the Eurostars are very strongly sprung, as is the OHL on the CTRL. The OHL on the ECML is a lot looser, so doin 125 with two pantrographs would damage it.

And those figures show that rail does need to improve passenger experience, and reduce journey times. High Speed lines do what they say on the tin-deliver high speeds, they are not a capacity-busting enhancement.

We do need to ensure lines in Britain are designed as a network, rather than just as one line, with varying maximum speeds and train types to serve demand. For instance, the 395s are fine, but aren't long or quick enough for anything more than commuter services into london, with journey times not more than 1 hour.

I'd suggest 3 main corridors for long-distance, minimal stop high speed lines, for 250mph, 18 coach trains:

London-Bristol-Cardiff-Swansea

London-Birmingham-Manchester-Glasgow

London-Sheffield-Leeds-Newcastle-Edinburgh

It is these lines that would eventually also see international trains, bypassing central london to run to Paris, Brussels etc.

We could then have adjacent lines for domestic trains, with max speeds of 160-200mph, for shorter trains with better acceleration, on corridors such as:

London-Milton Keynes-Coventry-Birmingham

London-Milton Keynes-Leicester-Derby/Nottingham (using conventional lines)

London-Heathrow-Reading-Swindon-Bristol

London-Ipswich-Norwich

Glasgow-Edinburgh

Reading-Exeter-Plymouth

Reading-Basingstoke-Southampton

Exeter-Bristol-Birmingham-Sheffield

Sheffield-Manchester-Liverpool

Manchester-Leeds

Edinburgh-Dundee-Aberdeen

these could link into existing station infrastructure with minimal changes necessary at the stations themselves.

 

[mackay_hannah]

High Speed Rail – the Scottish opportunity’ - Monday 8 June 2009, The Apex International Hotel, Edinburgh




Speaker addition - Michel Leboeuf, Head of Long Distance Passengers & Major Projects Department, SNCF (Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Français)

The Scottish Government Transport Minister and the Director of Major Projects at SNCF – the National Railway of France and leading provider of high speed train travel to Europe - will lead this discussion on the merits of linking Scotland to a proposed UK high speed rail network and a high speed link between Edinburgh and Glasgow.


Stewart Stevenson MSP, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Scottish Government - Keynote address

Michel Leboeuf, Head of Long Distance Passengers & Major Projects Department, SNCF - International address

Julie Mills, Director, Greengauge 21

Susan Goldsmith, Managing Director, National Express East Coast

Councillor Alistair Watson, Chair, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport

Angus Walker, Partner, Bircham Dyson Bell

Dr Alan James, Chief Executive, UK Ultraspeed

Professor Roger Vickerman, Professor in Economics, University of Kent

Graham Bell, Convenor, High Speed 2 Scotland



LAST CHANCE TO BOOK:

TO BOOK CONTACT Jenna on 0131 556 1500 OR EMAIL TO joneill@mackayhannah.com

 

[gingerheid]

I think capacity is more of a problem than speed.

I would prefer to take the train when I visit Scotland with services the way they are at present.

For me it's a lot quicker overall, and journeys starting from either Milton Keynes or Peterborough are roughly equally convenient options. (Meaning that I'm also convenientish for both Luton and Stansted).

However I can never justify to myself the extra cost of travelling by train. It's usually (taking into account the entire journey from door to door) around double the cost of flying.

Now if there was high capacity then I presume fares wouldn't be so high, and the train could compete against flying on price grounds.

 

[Waverley125]

yes, but capacity increases will generally not increase modal shift significantly over long distances. Though more people may choose to do London-Edinburgh by train it it only cost £30 off peak, more will go by air if the plane journey only takes 1 hour to the train's 4.

 

[Geezertronic]

The physical flight may take 1 hour between London and Edinburgh but the customs, security etc... each side probably makes the train that more competitive.

 

[gordonthemoron]

plus a lot of people compare the ticket costs without taking into consideration getting to/from airport or station

 

[me123]

All true. I've seen a few cases where the train's cheaper than the plane when you take in travel to the airport; airport parking's expensive!

The time argument is strange for the plane. City Centre to London is generally quicker by train as far north as Glasgow and Edinburgh now. Indeed, depending on your public transport and road links, it could even be quicker from home for a lot of people (I know it's quicker for me). But there are a lot of people travelling the likes of Ayr to Cambridge. In this case, it's rather convenient to go Ayr-Prestwick Airport (train), fly to Stansted with Ryanair, and get a train on to Cambridge. And probably a good bit cheaper than the £98.90 Off Peak Return. It's not always as simple as a lot of people make out.

 

[Waverley125]

what i worry is we're going to see a 'high speed' line built for 180 (as we already have the ridiculously low speed 395s) that is actually a high capacity railway, with little increase in journey times.

In an ideal world, I'd like to remodel virtually every junction of any siginificance & resignal, along with quadrupling large stretches of line, and overcoming obstacles such as Welwyn viaduct. In addition, I'd build a goods line from Folkestone to London & the north, with a branch to the southwest, designed to deliver high-speed freight to railheads at strategic locations. Removing the majority of freight from the main lines, this would provide, IMO, as much additional capacity as we could be going on with for the time being.

Problem is, we don't have enough money for both. I think most of the capacity improvements can be bought, over time, within NR's existing budget. But if we're going to be given a lot of money for a big project, it needs to be something than can be justified to people outside the industry. £30bn quid with no improvement in journey times will not wash for most people. There will need to be significant journey time improvements to justify it.

With 250mph high-speed running between London, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh, it would be possible to do the entire journey between London & Edinburgh in under 2 hours, destroying the air market, & taking a serious bite into the Aberdeen-London market, particularly if the line was extended north via Dundee. If we can halve journey times with one project, then surely that's worth doing?

 

[gingerheid]

But there are a lot of people travelling the likes of Ayr to Cambridge. In this case, it's rather convenient to go Ayr-Prestwick Airport (train), fly to Stansted with Ryanair, and get a train on to Cambridge. And probably a good bit cheaper than the £98.90 Off Peak Return. It's not always as simple as a lot of people make out.

You wouldn't believe how close that is to the journey I make (at both ends!).

I'm not as convenient for Prestwick as Ayr, but it's still a not bad fast, direct, frequent and cheap bus journey. Glasgow isn't bad either, though it a bit further. I'm also an easy coach journey from either Luton or Stansted.

Overall however, despite being almost a perfect example of being convenient for both of the departure and destination airports used by both the cheapest airlines, it still takes longer than the train once I allow extra time before and for check in.

A direct train ticket has the advantage that you don't have to allow spare time within the journey. As long as you get that first train, it's their fault if you miss a connection after that.

 

[CosherB]

Forget HS2 in the current economic climate - and for decades yet. Gordon's credit cards were maxed-out months ago, and anything he commits to now will go onto Cameron's card - which he'd immedialtely cancel as a reduction in public spending once in office.

 

[me123]

Overall however, despite being almost a perfect example of being convenient for both of the departure and destination airports used by both the cheapest airlines, it still takes longer than the train once I allow extra time before and for check in.

Even allowing that time, you can still reliably do it quicker. Assuming you turn up just as check in closes and have no hold luggage. However, most people probably wouldn't do that.

Indeed, for Manchester-London and most other within England journeys (South West possibly excluded in cases) flying isn't worth the hassle. The train is the quickest option. It's also often the cheapest, although it depends on the route etc.

 

[tbtc]

the ridiculously low speed 395s)

?

They're fine for what they do - until we have a grade seperated railway with no freight getting in the way then what's the point in having 200mph trains on a 90mph railway?

There's no point getting fixated with top speeds when there's little chance to really use them...

 

[Waverley125]

they're 140mph trains on 185 mph tracks. They may well be fine for SE commuter services, but they're no good as a model for future HS Trains.

And i don't agree with the laissez-faire attitude towards spending on the network. It's vital we keep pushing this projects, and it's vital we ensure the tories don't get in to cut stuff. They are not a party to be trusted with government.

Also, pushing the HS line as just that-a 250mph series of lines linking London to Northern England & Scotland, will make it more difficult to cut. Will cameron have the balls to cut the much-publicised premier public transport project in 50 years? probably no, and there'll be a massive outcry if he did.

Will he have the balls to cut a little-known freight line that will have very little impact on improving journey times? yes.

 

[gingerheid]

Oh nobody will cut it, nobody ever does.

What they will do is ask for more information and delay, and then replan, and then say they're delaying in order to build something better, and then replan to cut costs, and then...

 

[bluemeansgo]

Uhmmm... two words.. Mag. Lev.

 

[jopsuk]

Mag lev is an interesting idea, if you want something like the Shanghai airport line. Conventional high-speed, at the same gauge as the rest of the netowrk, offers so much more operatonal flexibility. We really are better off having a single network- look at the ability of even London Underground units to be hauled over the national network for delivery.


Of course, dieally the entire network would be at least Berne loading gauge, but that's a historical handicap we must live with. Just imagine the capacity we could have if the clearence was large enough everywhere for Eurotunnel shuttle trains!.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

In an ideal world, I'd like to remodel virtually every junction of any siginificance & resignal, along with quadrupling large stretches of line, and overcoming obstacles such as Welwyn viaduct.
....

With 250mph high-speed running between London, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh, it would be possible to do the entire journey between London & Edinburgh in under 2 hours, destroying the air market, & taking a serious bite into the Aberdeen-London market, particularly if the line was extended north via Dundee. If we can halve journey times with one project, then surely that's worth doing?

If we're looking at this from a Scottish point of view, then travel within Scotland can be just as important, or even MORE important, than travel between Scotland & SE England.
Perhaps the Scottish equivalent of the Welwyn viaduct would be the Killiecrankie tunnel. (On the Highalnd mainline linking Inverness with Perth and served by the HST linking Inverness Edinburgh and London - its single track over most of its 118 miles with just a few loops.). Linespeed is only 30mph through the tunnel. Elsewhere in the Highlands which is largely single track, most loops are RETB controlled with a max speed of 15mph entering and exiting a loop.
These are massive infrastructure constraints which limit any growth in rail capacity or speed and unless they are addressed, then neither passengers or freight are going to switch from road or air to rail travel.