High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HSTEd]

And then, remembering that some trains don't actually go to London

Indeed, I do remember that some trains don't go to London, but I am afraid they are really peanuts in terms of demand compared to the London services.

1tph Sheffield-Newcastle (XC)
1tph Leeds-Newcastle (XC)
1tph Leeds-Newcastle (TPE, thought to increase to 2 with additional paths through Huddersfueld)
1tph Manchester-Glasgow*
1tph-Birmingham-Glasgow*

*and consider demand to run both hourly to Edinburgh as well.

Even if we assume the HSLs to Scotland would have stations at all the places served by XC, TPE, ICWC and ICEC, the more rapid acceleration and higher stop-to-stop speeds made possible by high speed trainsets would enable fewer trains to run while still providing the same level of service at most comparitively minor stations.

You could serve all the East Coast secondary stations currently served by TPE and XC with one or two trains per hour.

Most of these services are run by three or four coach multiple units, are you really suggesting that we give them paths on a line designed for 400m double deck trainsets (or coupled pairs of 200m CC sets).

So let's call that a starting out point of 5tph on the NW arm and 5tph on the NE arm.

5tph is ridiculous, since you can't possibly support demand for 5tph of the szize of trains we are talking about to these places.
Class 185 sized trains have no place on a High Speed Line these days.

plus greater demand for both London-Newcastle, London-Glasgow and London-Edinburgh train travel as the train, at 2.5 hours approx, becomes much faster than air travel on centre-to-centre journeys.

Rail already has the lion's share of the modal share on teh London-Newcastle route and all the air passengers to Glasgow and edinburgh pretty much come to one extra 400m train per hour split between the two, as they would be if you simply ran glasgow trains as extensions of Edinburgh ones.

It's not lunacy to accept that the northern and southern halves of an HSL to Scotland are motivated by different objectives and benefits. The southern half is all about capacity, freeing up paths on already well-used journeys. The northern half is about reducing journey times and encouraging modal shift from road and air to rail travel.

You can't practically convert all the listed services to run on the High Speed Line, and most of them add up to a tiny boost in demand for HS services.

You dilute the intercity traffic that makes the route pay by splitting it over two routes and expect tiny secondary flows, most of which could be captured anyway, to make up the difference.

 

[Waverley125]

Ok, first thing.

'class 185 sized trains'.

Excuse Me. EXCUSE ME? You have tried getting on a TPE train at basically any time of day and found it SRO? Because that's basically the situation for the vast majority of the time. The fact important intercity journeys are left in the hands of DMUs quite clearly unfit for purpose is a problem with the w*****s at the DfT, not with the economics of the journey.

Sorry, that annoyed me.

TPE & XC serve Leeds/Sheffield-Newcastle & Edinburgh.

But because they have to stop at many fairly insignificant places along the way (Garforth, Thirsk, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham, Chester le Street, Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick & Dunbar) they do this end-to-end journey time exceptionally poorly. It takes an hour and 40 minutes to do the 96.5 mile journey from Leeds to Newcastle, an average speed of under 60mph. From Sheffield it's worse.

These intermediate stations, as you rightly point out, need serving, and could be served by intercity trains.

....but....wait.....then we've just screwed P2P journey times between the major cities....we didn't want to do that, did we?

Oh, and that's right, the northern ECML has a ton of other places (like Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Scarborough) we'd like to serve, but can't, because there just aren't the paths to do so. And there's then the freight.

By building an HSL, you

a. Move fast trains off classic lines. Journeys between Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield, & Edinburgh, and Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow & Edinburgh, get quicker because places like Darlington or Warrington can be served by slowed-down trains. This means they have better local, regional & national connectivity, and that big cities get faster trains.

b. Increase rails modal share against other forms. Well done for responding to air, but the vast number of people who also drive is competed with better as well.

c. Increase journeys overall. Number of opportunities to travel increasing leads to number of journeys increasing, as proven by that exact trend since the railways were first invented.

Also, you do connect up places people want to go.

I'm going to make the shocking suggestion that when the Lake District can advertise itself as 'only 1.5 hours from London', the number of people going there will increase. Similarly the Scottish Borders & the Cumbrian Coast.

 

[Rational Plan]

If a HSL is ever sent up to Scotland I think it will stick to the West coast. All the planning documents seem to suggest it. I think the problem is Edinburgh and where you would stick a new station. Where ever it will be, it won't be next to Waverly. I've heard people mention the western side of the city centre. The problem with a through line is the vast amount of tunneling you are looking at. At least with a spur from the west all they need is to cross half the city and only have one approach throat.

To imagine the full scale here is Stratford box super imposed on Edinburgh city centre.

or haymarket.

The red box is the lenght of the Stratford platforms and one side where the rails merge.

You can see a terminal station is much easier to fit in and will cost hundreds of millions if not billions less to build.

 

[HSTEd]

If a HSL is ever sent up to Scotland I think it will stick to the West coast. All the planning documents seem to suggest it. I think the problem is Edinburgh and where you would stick a new station. Where ever it will be, it won't be next to Waverly. I've heard people mention the western side of the city centre. The problem with a through line is the vast amount of tunneling you are looking at. At least with a spur from the west all they need is to cross half the city and only have one approach throat.

To imagine the full scale here is Stratford box super imposed on Edinburgh city centre.

or haymarket.

The red box is the lenght of the Stratford platforms and one side where the rails merge.

You can see a terminal station is much easier to fit in and will cost hundreds of millions if not billions less to build.

Tunneling plain track mileage is not really that expensive, and we are only really talking about a few miles of tunnel to reach open countryside to the south east of the city (straight line to Newcastle and not hugging the coast).

Your proposed station position could be integrated with a through line if you just move it a few hundred metres to allow approaches to be put in on both ends.

There are difficulties with Glasgow which would favour, in my opinion, an Approach from the East to a new terminus on the east side of the City centre.


A bigger problem with the East coast route is likely to be Newcastle, the only site I can find that might be even slightly appropriate would be a cut and cover station on the "Town Moor" with tunnels at both ends or a similar station on one side of the "Leazes Park" adjacent to the Sports Direction Arena.

Another question is how many plaforms are actually required.
For domestic only trains 2 with 2 through lines would be feasible, if not ideal, but if we were to seriously deploy international services then 4 platforms with 2 through lines (like at Stratford International) is a neccesity.

Remember that the track layout at Stratford International is complicated by the depot access line that both makes the station wider and adds to the length of the trackwork at each end.
You could probably easily cut 200m from the length of the box without undue difficulty.

 

[Waverley125]

at Newcastle though, the number of local trains incredibly small. It might well be worth an additional tunnel from Gateshead Metro station to Dunston, and conversion of the line out to Prudhoe to Metro operation, with re-opening of the line along the North Bank of the tyne out to Wylam Bridge for heavy rail services.

This would leave only stopping services from Northumberland & the Durham Coast as slow trains into Central High Level, meaning that Central could be adapted to handle HS services, rather than the need for a new station.

 

[HSTEd]

at Newcastle though, the number of local trains incredibly small. It might well be worth an additional tunnel from Gateshead Metro station to Dunston, and conversion of the line out to Prudhoe to Metro operation, with re-opening of the line along the North Bank of the tyne out to Wylam Bridge for heavy rail services.

This would leave only stopping services from Northumberland & the Durham Coast as slow trains into Central High Level, meaning that Central could be adapted to handle HS services, rather than the need for a new station.

Problem with using Newcastle station is that the approaches are just too bendy, youy have to crawl across the bridges and the like far too slowly, it is not really suitable for any through high speed trains to Scotland, any that go there would probably have to terminate.

This is a major issue with regards the number of paths taken up, since you have to provide 2tph to Newcastle and then 2tph extra to Edinburgh/Glasgow, rather than just 4tph to Glasgow which would give us almost turn-up-and-ride frequencies.

 

[Waverley125]

See, maybe I'm more of a Shinkansen sort of guy, but I've never seen the need for avoiding lines for the biggest cities.

There should be through stations in Leeds & Newcastle. If that means trains have to call, so be it. The provision of 'turn up and go' frequency on those kind of journeys is, imo, a much greater benefit than the extra 6 minutes or so made up, particularly given the time savings a dedicated HSL creates over the existing line infrastructure.

 

[HSTEd]

See, maybe I'm more of a Shinkansen sort of guy, but I've never seen the need for avoiding lines for the biggest cities.

There should be through stations in Leeds & Newcastle. If that means trains have to call, so be it. The provision of 'turn up and go' frequency on those kind of journeys is, imo, a much greater benefit than the extra 6 minutes or so made up, particularly given the time savings a dedicated HSL creates over the existing line infrastructure.

I do like Shinkansen myself, I am proposing stations in these places, but positioned so they are "through" stations with either 2 or 4 platforms and a pair of through tracks that are used for transiting the station at 320kph.

The approach to Newcastle is just too convoluted to allow through running on non stop trains at high speed, and it requires trains to slow down far earlier than would be optimal.
A site adjacent to the Sports Direct Arena in Newcastle would enable connection to the Metro and it is not really that far from the existing stations anyway.

A shinkansen style HSL also eliminates almost everything on the fast lines, allowing slow trains to move to the fast trains and allowing places like Newcastle to have LO style services on the existing slow lines, which you can't do if you attempt to reuse the alignment.

 

[JohnB57]

Ok. If I type this quickly enough, I'll be post number 1,600 on this thread and I haven't read every single one, so I may be repeating previous discussion. If so, apologies.

However, the Scottish link seems to me to be fraught with even more potential political issues than we have now if Scotland (or England!) vote for independence.

In the context of that, how would committing billions of Scottish pounds to faster links with the old enemy, from whom they have fought for years to be separate, be met by the Scottish electorate? The links from Glasgow and Edinburgh to the border are at least equal to the first stage of HS2 as, presumably, will be the real terms cost.

And south of the border, how would English voters react to the use of billions in English funds to construct an HSL connecting with the Scottish portion, again at least equal in scope and cost to London/Birmingham? It would seem to me, the balance of benefits would be firmly in favour of Scotland.

I'm not saying there aren't very good reasons to extend north (although I'm not saying there are), but in the context of complete financial separation between Scotland and England, it'd be a political nightmare and I can't see that being overcome.

 

[HSTEd]

Ok. If I type this quickly enough, I'll be post number 1,600 on this thread and I haven't read every single one, so I may be repeating previous discussion. If so, apologies.

However, the Scottish link seems to me to be fraught with even more potential political issues than we have now if Scotland (or England!) vote for independence.

In the context of that, how would committing billions of Scottish pounds to faster links with the old enemy, from whom they have fought for years to be separate, be met by the Scottish electorate? The links from Glasgow and Edinburgh to the border are at least equal to the first stage of HS2 as, presumably, will be the real terms cost.

And south of the border, how would English voters react to the use of billions in English funds to construct an HSL connecting with the Scottish portion, again at least equal in scope and cost to London/Birmingham? It would seem to me, the balance of benefits would be firmly in favour of Scotland.

I'm not saying there aren't very good reasons to extend north (although I'm not saying there are), but in the context of complete financial separation between Scotland and England, it'd be a political nightmare and I can't see that being overcome.

It seems highly unlikely that Scotland will vote for independence, and even if they did, the SNP seems to want all the good things about independence with none of the bad, so they would probably still demand an integrated transport policy or something.

Otherwise the HSL would just terminate at Newcastle and trains would have to be CC sets that would run between Newcastle and Edinburgh/Glasgow on the ECML, there would be paths available because local services would be heavily curtialed by the EU mandated border controls.

 

[Waverley125]

Scotland won't vote for independence. Solid 2 to 1 majority against it, it's why Salmond's fighting tooth and nail to get a second question on Devo max into the ballot.

 

[JohnB57]

Otherwise the HSL would just terminate at Newcastle and trains would have to be CC sets that would run between Newcastle and Edinburgh/Glasgow on the ECML, there would be paths available because local services would be heavily curtialed by the EU mandated border controls.

You mean like the border controls that exist between the UK and Republic of Ireland? There will be no border controls between England and Scotland - that would be a step too far even for Mr Salmond.

Scotland won't vote for independence. Solid 2 to 1 majority against it, it's why Salmond's fighting tooth and nail to get a second question on Devo max into the ballot.

But Devo-Max could have the same effect as full independence, especially where massive projects such as this are involved. It would still be "Scottish money" and "English money" wouldn't it?

All highly conjectural and I agree, when the campaign starts, the true costs and benefits or otherwise of increased devolution or independence will be clearer.

 

[transmanche]

It might well be worth an additional tunnel from Gateshead Metro station to Dunston, and conversion of the line out to Prudhoe to Metro operation, with re-opening of the line along the North Bank of the tyne out to Wylam Bridge for heavy rail services.

The problem there is that the old alignment has been extensively built upon (Newcastle Business Park) and that you'd need to replace the bridge across the river at Scotswood.

One option might be to build a tunnel under the business park. But AFAIUI one of the reasons the Metro ends at St James Park is because tunnelling in that area (along the north bank of the Tyne) would be difficult and expensive, due to all the disused mine workings.

 

[ainsworth74]

You mean like the border controls that exist between the UK and Republic of Ireland? There will be no border controls between England and Scotland - that would be a step too far even for Mr Salmond.

If he want's Scotland to join the Schengen Area then there won't be a choice in the matter.

 

[JohnB57]

If he want's Scotland to join the Schengen Area then there won't be a choice in the matter.

Even Salmond wouldn't be daft enough for that. Border controls on all journeys into England and across the Irish Sea? Don't think so...

 

[HSTEd]

You mean like the border controls that exist between the UK and Republic of Ireland? There will be no border controls between England and Scotland - that would be a step too far even for Mr Salmond.

I am afraid Barosso has scotched that.
Scotland would not be a successor state within the EU and would have to apply for entry as any new member would.

New members are required to a) Join Schengen and b) Join the Euro or commit to do so as soon as economic indicators are at pre-arranged positions.

Joining Schengen means border controls, since we are not in it and never will be.

 

[Metrailway]

I am afraid Barosso has scotched that.
Scotland would not be a successor state within the EU and would have to apply for entry as any new member would.

New members are required to a) Join Schengen and b) Join the Euro or commit to do so as soon as economic indicators are at pre-arranged positions.

Joining Schengen means border controls, since we are not in it and never will be.

Of course an Independent Scotland may not join the EU...

This would allow no (or minimal) border controls between England and Scotland if the Scots join the Common Travel Area

 

[ainsworth74]

Of course an Independent Scotland may not join the EU...

I was under the impression that it was a stated aim of the SNP to join/remain within the EU (though it's looking like join rather than inheriting membership)?

 

[HSTEd]

Of course an Independent Scotland may not join the EU...

This would allow no (or minimal) border controls between England and Scotland if the Scots join the Common Travel Area

But then we need a whole host of border controls and the like for policing VAT and the like, and charging VAT on items imported from Scotland to England.

Either way you need border controls.

 

[stanley T]

But then we need a whole host of border controls and the like for policing VAT and the like, and charging VAT on items imported from Scotland to England.

Either way you need border controls.

Seem to manage without those quite well with the Republic of Ireland.

 

[DXMachina]

Actually, having been involved heavily in Anglo-Irish trade I can assure you that it's a proper problem. Stock moving from EU to IE via UK is charged VAT twice at two different rates on crossing borders, each of which is reclaimed, then charged VAT a third time on sale.

Administering different VAT rates (Ireland has multiple rates for different categories of product, more obviously than the twin-rate UK system where the lower rate is highly restricted) is not much fun either

and its too damn easy to get fined for misreporting if your incoming ship docks in ulster rather than eire and trucks are used to carry stock cross the border, as this leads to completely different tax treatment...

 

[HSTEd]

Seem to manage without those quite well with the Republic of Ireland.

....

You do know that the Republic of Ireland is in the EU right?

The real issue is that items "smuggled" in from a non-EU Scotland would not have paid any VAT at all.

 

[transmanche]

You do know that the Republic of Ireland is in the EU right?

Scotland could choose to remain in the CTA (like the Republic of Ireland) or join the Schengen area. Whether it stays in the EU is immaterial to that choice.

For example: Noway is in the Schengen area, but not in the EU, Ireland is in the CTA and in the EU; Jersey is in the CTA, but not in the EU.

The real issue is that items "smuggled" in from a non-EU Scotland would not have paid any VAT at all.

But an independent Scotland would still need to have VAT (or similar, such as GST) otherwise it'd quickly go bankrupt. And if the VAT/GST rate was the same as south of the border, there'd be no financial incentive to smuggle anything.

The cross-border smuggling between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is (AFAIR) mainly fuel and alcohol - due to the different levels in duty.

Actually, having been involved heavily in Anglo-Irish trade I can assure you that it's a proper problem. Stock moving from EU to IE via UK is charged VAT twice at two different rates on crossing borders, each of which is reclaimed, then charged VAT a third time on sale.

Having been involved in designing accounting system to deal with VAT and cross-border VAT, I know that stock moving from one country to another should normally be zero-rated... sounds like someone isn't operating VAT correctly.

 

[DXMachina]

Having been involved in designing accounting system to deal with VAT and cross-border VAT, I know that stock moving from one country to another should normally be zero-rated... sounds like someone isn't operating VAT correctly.

20% VAT charged to deferment account (if outside EU or if not EU VAT registered) or via VAT Reverse Charge on VAT3 (if within EU) on entry to UK - reclaimed at vAT return submission either way

Sale to IE - zero rated

23% VAT charged to Irish Reverse Charge on two-monthly VAT return on import, reclaimed on same VAT return

23% Sales VAT charged on onward sale

(check it, you'll find I'm right)
As I was saying....

 

[Waverley125]

Under devo max there would still be scottish & english money, but such a link would be hugely beneficial for Scotland. As is, it'd be likely that Scotland would pay for a Glasgow-Edinburgh-Newcastle line.

 

[DXMachina]

They could even get started first, build southwards and hope the gap fills in later

 

[Gareth]

Under devo max there would still be scottish & english money, but such a link would be hugely beneficial for Scotland. As is, it'd be likely that Scotland would pay for a Glasgow-Edinburgh-Newcastle line.

Would be interesting seeing a nationalist administration wanting to link up the Central Belt with England.

 

[HSTEd]

Scotland could choose to remain in the CTA (like the Republic of Ireland) or join the Schengen area. Whether it stays in the EU is immaterial to that choice.

For example: Noway is in the Schengen area, but not in the EU, Ireland is in the CTA and in the EU; Jersey is in the CTA, but not in the EU.

Yes, because Ireland obtained an opt-out, like the UK, at the time the Schengen Area was concieved, a new state joining now would recieve no such opt out.
There are serious problems with regards to VAT and Jersey with regards to play.com which are likely to see that loophole plugged if a significant state like Scotland was to attempt to get into the same position.

But an independent Scotland would still need to have VAT (or similar, such as GST) otherwise it'd quickly go bankrupt. And if the VAT/GST rate was the same as south of the border, there'd be no financial incentive to smuggle anything.

The Scottish government would be free to raise revenue in any way it liked, it could for instance have higher income and other taxes like fuel and have a drastically lower rate of VAT if it liked.

Having been involved in designing accounting system to deal with VAT and cross-border VAT, I know that stock moving from one country to another should normally be zero-rated... sounds like someone isn't operating VAT correctly.

If you attempt to bring items from say, North America, such as ski equipment or whatever purchased there (as one of my friends found out to his cost) you are required to pay VAT at the customs desk when you re-enter the EU with it.

Also a high speed railway line to England would not be in the interest of the scottish nationalists as putting Glasgow somewhere similar to the current position of Newcastle would almost certainly damage the cause of Scottish nationalism as they would be that much closer to "England" and not feel as distant as they are now.

 

[ainsworth74]

There are serious problems with regards to VAT and Jersey with regards to play.com which are likely to see that loophole plugged if a significant state like Scotland was to attempt to get into the same position.

Actually I think that particular loophole is already in the process of being plugged annoyingly (hey I like getting my DVDs cheap ). There was a BBC article, maybe a year ago, that the government were looking at ways to close it down and that the residents of Jersey were none to pleased as companies that take advantage of that loophole are fairly major employers.

 

[transmanche]

There are serious problems with regards to VAT and Jersey with regards to play.com which are likely to see that loophole plugged if a significant state like Scotland was to attempt to get into the same position.

The 'Jersey loophole' was something called Low Value Consignment Relief - and the government has already abolished it.

The Scottish government would be free to raise revenue in any way it liked, it could for instance have higher income and other taxes like fuel and have a drastically lower rate of VAT if it liked.

Of course they could, but most developed economies rely on some form of VAT. At 20%, the UK has one of the lowest standard VAT rates in the EU. But it still brings in about £100billion in revenue to the Treasury each year - about the same amount that's raised from employees' NI contributions. Governments like VAT as (unlike PAYE & NI) it's 'invisible' to most of us. Do you really think a future Scottish government would forgo that amount of 'invisible' revenue and (for example) increase NI contributions from 12% to 24%?

Incidentally, the minimum standard VAT rate in the EU is 15%; so if Scotland decided to stay in the EU, their VAT rate would have to be at least 15% anyway.

If you attempt to bring items from say, North America, such as ski equipment or whatever purchased there (as one of my friends found out to his cost) you are required to pay VAT at the customs desk when you re-enter the EU with it.

Jolly good. But that's got nothing to do with how VAT works for VAT-registered traders receiving goods despatched from other EU countries.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

20% VAT charged to deferment account (if outside EU or if not EU VAT registered) or via VAT Reverse Charge on VAT3 (if within EU) on entry to UK - reclaimed at vAT return submission either way

Sale to IE - zero rated

23% VAT charged to Irish Reverse Charge on two-monthly VAT return on import, reclaimed on same VAT return

23% Sales VAT charged on onward sale

(check it, you'll find I'm right)
As I was saying....

Yes, like I said - it's zero rated. You don't actually pay it to Revenue or HMRC - it's just statistical reporting on the VAT3 or VAT 100.

If the purchaser is VAT registered in another EU country (like Ireland), then the seller in the UK charges no VAT - and the purchaser in Ireland pays no VAT.
Both report it on on their VAT returns and seller reports it on their ECSL so the Irish VAT authorities know about it.
No VAT has actually been paid to anyone

Purchaser in Ireland charges 23% VAT on their sales as normal.

Oh and Reverse Charge VAT is a similar (but different mechanism) which only applies to supplies of services - not goods. (With the exception of the measures brought in to counteract Carousel Fraud).

Check it, you'll find I'm right.

Doing the job I do, I'm a bit of an expert on UK & Irish VAT. I'm quite happy to discuss this further offline - my consultancy rates are very reasonable.