High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[billio]

As the issue of airports alongside HS2 in the North east has been raised, I would just like to point out that the RAF plan to close Church Fenton airfield at the end of this year.

It would make an ideal site for a Yorkshire airport as the airfield is less than a mile from the railway (a mile from the station) and trains can get there from virtually all over Yorkshire and elsewhere.

The A1(M) and M1 are only a couple of miles away giving access to the M62.

For a park and ride station on HS2 it would be ideal. You can't regard York as one, due to the existing serious traffic congestion in York and around the station.

I raise this only in jest, as the residents of Church Fenton are up-in-arms about HS2 anyway, so having a regional airport dumped on them as well would be the last straw.

 

[The Ham]

I raise this only in jest, as the residents of Church Fenton are up-in-arms about HS2 anyway, so having a regional airport dumped on them as well would be the last straw.

..but it may make them realise how small an impact HS2 would really be.

I've often thought that the best way to get something slightly controversial through is to put forward plans for something truly horrendous and then when there is a lot of uproar change the plans (having "listened to local concerns") to the thing that was what was the idea anyway.

 

[LE Greys]

If you are willing to make them change between a local train and the express... does it really matter where this change takes place?

Yes, very much so. If somewhere can both serve a city (singular) and be a hub for local services, then that's ideal (that's why I back city centre stations rather than those in old goods yards). Even better if it requires minimal investment for maximum connectivity. Darlington ticks quite a few boxes, with all its local services, plus passing ECML trains. A station at Durham Tees Valley would mean diverting a lot of trains off their current route, which is technically possible, but a bit pointless. It would also mean either all ECML passenger traffic reversing at Eaglescliffe, or a curve between Yarm and Allens West.

In much of the country this is simply impractical due to the woeful quality of public transport (in my home town the last bus that goes anywhere near the station runs at 1720).

I'm in a similar position myself, returning home any time after 18:40 requires a taxi. That's something we need to sort out.

The problem is that High speed Rail reduces the journey length to the degree that we can't really treat them like traditional InterCity journeys any more.
This tends to mean we are going to need a clock-face timetable for it to work properly, also it has been shown that clock-face timetables are well liked by passengers.

(You might be able to justify it for Inverness or whatnot, but that is rather different than a 2hr hop to Middlesbrough, it becomes more an outer commuter journey than the traditional intercity journey)

To keep the timetable simple to understand this effectively limits us to a minimum of one 200m Classic Compatible set per hour to each destination.

We can certainly run a high speed set to Newcastle that leaves the line at York and then stops at all the "express stations" to Newcastle (Thirsk, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham) but I don't think anything more than hourly is really called for.

Which leaves us with an hourly 200m CC set to dispose of.... is Middlesbrough really the best place to send it? Surely it could be more productively used going to say... Aberdeen (it then provides capacity to Newcastle and Edinburgh).

Either way, running trains to Darlington and the like does not solve the problem of how to provide connectivity with trains that remain on the high speed line, as well as to provide easier access to high speed services for places like Middlesbrough.

I believe a station somewhere on the Darlington-Saltburn line is the best option, and the logical choice if you want to interconnect with that line would be the Tees valley Airport because its the cheapest option and provides reasonable connection times to both Darlington (~7m) and Middlesbrough (~18m).

Southern seem to manage well enough with dividing suburban trains, but it relys on having somewhere to split them. Here, we're partly running into the capacity wall of having everything running through Birmingham. The beauty of a city centre station is that it solves the problem, since people from Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Sunderland, Whitby, Bishop Auckland, Thirsk, Northallerton, Durham, Chester-le-Street or wherever can divide themselves among York, Darlington and Newcastle to catch the high-speed to wherever they want, north or south. You have to treat them as inter-city expresses for this to work, although the distinction does become somewhat blurred. They're closer to the Wessex Line in NSE days, where the trains were used like expresses, but ran to a suburban stopping pattern, although they still carried buffets.

If you think this is a nightmare, at some point we will have to get the line through Edinburgh, and by my model, this means running it into Waverley and out the other side to connect with the Scottish High Speed Link (assuming that happens). That can only mean more tunnels, including one that ducks under Haymarket.

 

[eps200]

Following on from earlier discussion in this thread about the usage of the HS1-HS2 link, for international and inter-regional services.

www.modern-railways.com/view_news.asp?ID=5869
reads:
Greengauge 21 has launched an investigation into the market for train services that would use the planned connection between high-speed railways HS1 and HS2.
‘So far, there appears to have been no examination of the inter-regional demand that could be served by the link. So the case for investment has had to rest on the important, but smaller, international demand flows’, said Greengauge 21 Director, Jim Steer.
The work will look at both inter-regional and international demand levels. Also under examination will be possible ways to address border control issues. Greengauge 21 expects to have initial results by the end of April.
The demand study will be carried out by independent consultants. Guidance on London matters will be provided by Transport for London.
Organisations sponsoring this research by high-speed rail research group, Greengauge 21, are Pteg (the Passenger Transport Executive Group that comprises Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Merseyside, Tyne & Wear and the West Midlands), Kent County Council, Essex County Council, South East Local Economic Partnership and Newham Borough Council.

This really needs some momentum, getting stuff to run through London may help the whole issue of it sucking everything in.

 

[nerd]

I do note that HS2 Ltd came to the conclusion that a dedicated captive line between York/Church Fenton and Newcastle was a better deal than captive clearing the existing line.

Which says something.

Routing trains through Darlington itself without major demolitions is likely to be a far more expensive proposition with major disruptions in railway property.... and what benefit accrues to Darlington accrues at the direct expense of Middlesbrough and the rest of the region.

There will never be sufficient paths available to dedicate sets to Middlesbrough in its own right (any trains will likely be extensions of the York terminators that will be what is left of the ECML timetable).

So do you force people to drive into central Darlington or do you put the station in the open where road improvements are likely to be relatively painless?

The only reasonable alternative to a HS2 station between Middlesbrough and Darlington to serve Teeside is to simply not have a station and run fast between York and Newcastle.

EDIT:

And the fact remains, people who believe that they would be better off without HS2 "sucking away all the economic activity" are hopelessly naive.
They will have an "independent identity" but it will be as a place where everyone who wants to get a decent job with a future will be forced to move elsewhere.
This at-least allows them a chance to live outside of the South East, reducing their cost of living.

And as far as I know, Teeside doesn't have a greenbelt, so it is likely the villages adjacent to the airport site would experience significant development as a result of the location of the station there.

not sure that you are right there HSTEd: where do HS2 Ltd say that they envisage running captive services from York to Newcastle?

As I understood it, if it is decided to build a captive line towards Newcastle - and onwards to Scotland - along the East side of the country; then it will run from Garforth (i.e. missing out the low-speed spur towards Church Fenton), then along roughly the line of the A1 west of Darlington, to cross the Tuyne west of Newcastle (perhaps around Heddon). Through County Durham, I think it is more likely to go west of Durham city than east (the land is hillier to the west, but there isn't as much mining subsidence to deal with).

If the Scots services do go along the east alignment (or if they go west though Scotland, crossing England at Haltwhistle), then I doubt very much there will be any justification for a Teeside stop on the captive line. Much more likely that the classic compatible hourly service to York (using the Church Fenton link) will be extended on to terminate at Darlington.

If the Scots decide to go West through Lancashire; I am doubtful whether a captive line just to Newcaslte will be needed. More liikely some of the tighter twists of the existing ECML will be straightened out, to improve line speeds through County Durham.

 

[HSTEd]

not sure that you are right there HSTEd: where do HS2 Ltd say that they envisage running captive services from York to Newcastle?

I was referring to a study that indicated that attempting gauge improvement on the ECML between York and Newcastle would be a similar price to a brand new line which has obvious ancillary benefits.

As I understood it, if it is decided to build a captive line towards Newcastle - and onwards to Scotland - along the East side of the country; then it will run from Garforth (i.e. missing out the low-speed spur towards Church Fenton), then along roughly the line of the A1 west of Darlington, to cross the Tuyne west of Newcastle (perhaps around Heddon). Through County Durham, I think it is more likely to go west of Durham city than east (the land is hillier to the west, but there isn't as much mining subsidence to deal with).

Why would the line between Church Fenton and Garforth be built as a "low speed" spur?
It is almost straight and on easy terrain, it should be built to the full high speed spec.

If the Scots services do go along the east alignment (or if they go west though Scotland, crossing England at Haltwhistle), then I doubt very much there will be any justification for a Teeside stop on the captive line. Much more likely that the classic compatible hourly service to York (using the Church Fenton link) will be extended on to terminate at Darlington.

Why would the hourly terminator at York be a classic compatible set?
Are you suggesting that they run a classic compatible formation to York for want of clearing six road and one passenger overbridge between Church Fenton and York?

They are already building more than half the Leeds-York link new, not going for a complete high speed alignment seems to be the height of madness.
Especially as at "low speed" you bleed away those much vaunted time benefits to destinations further north, apparently for no good reason.

If the Scots decide to go West through Lancashire; I am doubtful whether a captive line just to Newcaslte will be needed. More liikely some of the tighter twists of the existing ECML will be straightened out, to improve line speeds through County Durham.

Do that and you effectively destroy the competitiveness of the North East and likely the business case for a Scotland link.
There is insufficient loadings to justify the western route, simply because no-one lives there.

With the captive line to Newcastle you can get journey times similar to those to Manchester now, you can't hope to achieve that using classic compatibles restricted to 125mph north of York.

EDIT:

I had another look.... the connection at Church Fenton really is quite low speed.... it goes through a series of curves for apparently no reason.... its another example of penny pinching that is going to render the whole thing pointless.

If you have to slow to 100mph or so at Garforth or something and then sustain that to Church Fenton you lose almost all the time advance you have over the conventional line.

According to the documents its a 2300m curve radius, which would allow for about 140mph through that curve....
Which is annoying.

 

[JohnCarlson]

Why would you need a captive line to go north of Leeds?

Its probably not very complicated in the great scheme of things to get captive stock up to York on the formation of the existing ECML.

Building a captive line to Scotland would effectively mean bypassing much of Tyneside which I dont think many of us Tynsiders would be keen on and even with improved journey times from Glasgow the plane might still ahve the edge on the train.

 

[LE Greys]

Why would you need a captive line to go north of Leeds?

Its probably not very complicated in the great scheme of things to get captive stock up to York on the formation of the existing ECML.

Building a captive line to Scotland would effectively mean bypassing much of Tyneside which I dont think many of us Tynsiders would be keen on and even with improved journey times from Glasgow the plane might still ahve the edge on the train.

South of Newcastle, the main problem is the twisty section between Ferryhill and Chester-le-Street, one of the few bits of ECML where tilt would be very helpful. Being double-track doesn't help much either. North of there, it's horribly twisty in places, Morpeth and the Penmanshiel Diversion being the worst bits. The idea would be to end-on with the Edinburgh-Glasgow link, assuming the Scottish Government build it to GB+ loading gauge.

However, I agree with you that they should not seek to bypass urban areas for the sake of increasing capacity. If the stations are not in city centres, they can build the trains as big as they like and they won't have anyone travelling on them.

 

[nerd]

I was referring to a study that indicated that attempting gauge improvement on the ECML between York and Newcastle would be a similar price to a brand new line which has obvious ancillary benefits.

Why would the line between Church Fenton and Garforth be built as a "low speed" spur?
It is almost straight and on easy terrain, it should be built to the full high speed spec.

Why would the hourly terminator at York be a classic compatible set?
Are you suggesting that they run a classic compatible formation to York for want of clearing six road and one passenger overbridge between Church Fenton and York?

They are already building more than half the Leeds-York link new, not going for a complete high speed alignment seems to be the height of madness.
Especially as at "low speed" you bleed away those much vaunted time benefits to destinations further north, apparently for no good reason.

Do that and you effectively destroy the competitiveness of the North East and likely the business case for a Scotland link.
There is insufficient loadings to justify the western route, simply because no-one lives there.

With the captive line to Newcastle you can get journey times similar to those to Manchester now, you can't hope to achieve that using classic compatibles restricted to 125mph north of York.

EDIT:

I had another look.... the connection at Church Fenton really is quite low speed.... it goes through a series of curves for apparently no reason.... its another example of penny pinching that is going to render the whole thing pointless.

If you have to slow to 100mph or so at Garforth or something and then sustain that to Church Fenton you lose almost all the time advance you have over the conventional line.

According to the documents its a 2300m curve radius, which would allow for about 140mph through that curve....
Which is annoying.

I have found the reference; in an artilce briefed by HS2 in the Feb 6th issue of RAIL.

HS2 then passes west of Swillington to once more meet the M1, which it follows into a sharp right curve as it climbs over the A63 - speed drops to 230kph as it heads east. (it is here, after crossing the A63, that a future HS route towards Newcastle would carry straight on northwards.)

your 140mph estimate was spot-on.

So, the spur to Church Fenton is lower speed; and won't need to be faster, as it will then be dropping down to classic speeds once it hits the ECMl and goes on to York.

It follows too, that there won't be captive services to York.

Transport Scotland make it clear that they consider the business case for a Scots-London service is entirely made without having to pick up passengers along the way. So it won't make any difference to their preference of route, which side of England the Scots-Euston services go through without stopping.

Where I think the choice of route may make a difference, is in the associated HS services from Scotland to English destinations other than London; possibly Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle. I suspect the Scots will come to their choice on the basis of which of these they find to have the greatest value to them.

According to the command paper, all this will be assessed through the medium of a 'joint study' invoving Transport Scotland and DfT (according to the Scots, they will decide the matter themselves). Either way, it appears to be envisaged that Phase 3 will involve a mixture of new capitive lines and upgraded classic lines. I am assuming that whichever side of England does not receive the Scots captive line will have to make do with classic upgrades north of the termination of their branch of the 'Y'.

11.8 The scale and complexity of building Britain’s first high speed rail network means that construction needs to be phased in order to manage costs and delivery. However, it is important that we progress work to develop the network and secure the full benefits of high speed rail for Scotland, whilst making sure the North East benefits too.

11.9 From when HS2 first opens Scotland would benefit from high speed services, although these trains will run for part of their journey on the existing network. The Scottish Government supports taking high speed rail all the way to Edinburgh and Glasgow, and we consider that there is a real case for examining how high speed rail should best serve Scotland in the future.

11.10 The UK Government has been working productively with the Scottish Government over the last two years, and the Department for Transport will now take forward a study in collaboration with Transport Scotland to examine and articulate rail connectivity needs north and south of the border and to consider Scotland’s aspirations for high speed rail. The study will set out the remit for any future work, using as a starting point the completion of the Y network. This work will look at how best to boost capacity and cut journey times to under three hours so that Scotland can gain the most benefit from a High Speed Britain.

11.11 This work could then form a basis for developing the most promising options for additional capacity and journey time improvements on intercity routes between England and Scotland. These options would need to represent value for money for taxpayers, but could include new high speed lines, upgrades to the existing rail network or a combination of these approaches.

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

South of Newcastle, the main problem is the twisty section between Ferryhill and Chester-le-Street, one of the few bits of ECML where tilt would be very helpful. Being double-track doesn't help much either. North of there, it's horribly twisty in places, Morpeth and the Penmanshiel Diversion being the worst bits. The idea would be to end-on with the Edinburgh-Glasgow link, assuming the Scottish Government build it to GB+ loading gauge.

more likely, meet the Edinburgh-Glasgow link half-way around Carstairs, and then split east and west.

Which, if the eastern side is preferred, implies a route that crosses from east to west through Haltwhistle. Alternatively, it is possible that the line towards Scotland west of Newcaslte could cross the border at Coldstream, and then meet up with the Edinburgh-Glasgow line around Gogar. Either way, it's highly unlikely to go through Morpeth.

 

[tbtc]

Given the low frequency of High Speed trains north of York, it'd make more sense to build two hundred miles of High Speed line from London to somewhere (Bristol? Cardiff? Yorkshire via Cambridge?) than two hundred miles of High Speed line from York to Edinburgh (for the sake of a handful of trains an hour).

The further away from London you get, the weaker the case for a dedicated High Speed line, sorry.

 

[LE Greys]

Transport Scotland make it clear that they consider the business case for a Scots-London service is entirely made without having to pick up passengers along the way. So it won't make any difference to their preference of route, which side of England the Scots-Euston services go through without stopping.

Where I think the choice of route may make a difference, is in the associated HS services from Scotland to English destinations other than London; possibly Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle. I suspect the Scots will come to their choice on the basis of which of these they find to have the greatest value to them.

According to the command paper, all this will be assessed through the medium of a 'joint study' invoving Transport Scotland and DfT (according to the Scots, they will decide the matter themselves). Either way, it appears to be envisaged that Phase 3 will involve a mixture of new capitive lines and upgraded classic lines. I am assuming that whichever side of England does not receive the Scots captive line will have to make do with classic upgrades north of the termination of their branch of the 'Y'.

That's completely mad. I can only really speak for the ECML, but in my experience 25-50% of the passengers who were on trains north of Newcastle are no longer on them when they cross the Tyne, no matter what time of day or day of the week. A rough split from memory of people who pass through Calton Tunnel on an EC departure would be 10% Dunbar/Berwick/Alnmouth/Morpeth; 25-50% Newcastle/Durham, 10-25% Darlington/York/Leeds/Doncaster, 10% Retford/Newark/Grantham, 10% Peterborough/Stevenage, remainder (<45%) London. And that's not even counting the proportion travelling on XC. (NB - These are only eyeball estimates). If they're basing this only on the London market, they're excluding more than half their prospective passengers at even the most optimistic estimate.

more likely, meet the Edinburgh-Glasgow link half-way around Carstairs, and then split east and west.

Which, if the eastern side is preferred, implies a route that crosses from east to west through Haltwhistle. Alternatively, it is possible that the line towards Scotland west of Newcaslte could cross the border at Coldstream, and then meet up with the Edinburgh-Glasgow line around Gogar. Either way, it's highly unlikely to go through Morpeth.

I very much doubt it will go anwhere near Morpeth as well, I was merely highlighting it as one of many problems on the ECML. However, I suspect that they will consider Coldstream to Edinburgh as their major route, although what will happen when they get there is anyone's guess. Classic-Compatibles over the Forth and Tay are possible.

 

[nerd]

That's completely mad. I can only really speak for the ECML, but in my experience 25-50% of the passengers who were on trains north of Newcastle are no longer on them when they cross the Tyne, no matter what time of day or day of the week. A rough split from memory of people who pass through Calton Tunnel on an EC departure would be 10% Dunbar/Berwick/Alnmouth/Morpeth; 25-50% Newcastle/Durham, 10-25% Darlington/York/Leeds/Doncaster, 10% Retford/Newark/Grantham, 10% Peterborough/Stevenage, remainder (<45%) London. And that's not even counting the proportion travelling on XC. (NB - These are only eyeball estimates). If they're basing this only on the London market, they're excluding more than half their prospective passengers at even the most optimistic estimate.

I very much doubt it will go anwhere near Morpeth as well, I was merely highlighting it as one of many problems on the ECML. However, I suspect that they will consider Coldstream to Edinburgh as their major route, although what will happen when they get there is anyone's guess. Classic-Compatibles over the Forth and Tay are possible.

Transport Scotland reckon that the bulk of the demand for HSR from Scotland to England will transfer from air - once the Glasgow-Euston timing is reduced below 3 hours.

They appear to have ruled out taking classic-compatibles over the Forth Bridge (largely I suspect, because Holyrood would then have to pay the costs, rather than charging the whole sume against all 'UK' funds. Instead, it is expected that services from the north will connect to HSR services to Engalnd at Gogar. That saves their having to go into Edinburgh Haymarket, and then back out again the way they came.

 

[Haydn1971]

What's the next "full" line after the WCML/ECML/MML triad that HS2 supliments ?

Presumably the GWML ? East of Reading is always talked of as full, how does it actually compare and would a HS line to Cardiff help ?

 

[nerd]

Given the low frequency of High Speed trains north of York, it'd make more sense to build two hundred miles of High Speed line from London to somewhere (Bristol? Cardiff? Yorkshire via Cambridge?) than two hundred miles of High Speed line from York to Edinburgh (for the sake of a handful of trains an hour).

The further away from London you get, the weaker the case for a dedicated High Speed line, sorry.

That only applies if we see HSR as entirely London-centric. The Scots, certainly (once they concede that the UK will continue to exist), will envisage two high speed 'centres'; London and Glasgow/Edinburgh; both eventually connected directly to Europe

So; if we assume that the high speed line goes along the east of England, crosses the Pennines at Haltwhistle, and then past Lockerbie to Carstairs towards either Glasgow or Eindburgh.

Then the line south of Carstairs will carry:

- 1 tph Glasgow-Euston
- 1 tph Edinburgh-Euston
- 1 tph Glasgow - Sheffield - Birmingham
- 1 tph Edinburgh - Sheffield - Birmingham
- 1 tph Edinburgh - Leeds - Manchester CC
- 1 tph Glasgow - Leedsl - Manchester CC
- 1 tph Edinburgh - Newcastle
- 1 pth Glasgow - Newcastle

And eventually;

- 1 tph Glasgow - Stratford - Paris
- 1 tph Edinburgh - Stratford - Brussels.

In addition, there could be Javelin-style CC services through Carstairs

- 4 tph Glasgow - Carstairs - Gogar - Edinburgh
- 2 tph Glasgow - Carstairs - Gogar - Perth - Aberdeen




That is plenty enough business to justify a high speed network for Scotland.

 

[Martin222002]

There is insufficient loadings to justify the western route, simply because no-one lives there.

Well the current VT services along the WCML to Glasgow from Euston and Glasgow and Edinburgh from Birmingham have always been well loaded whenever I've travelled on them. Add to that the current traffic from Edinburgh to Kings Cross and I'm sure you will have plenty enough people using the service to route it via a westerly route.

I also have a slight grip with going via an easterly route, as it would mean that the journey times to get to or from Glasgow would be longer than those to or from Edinburgh, given that the route would have to then travel westwards from Edinburgh to reach Glasgow. Whereas taking a westerly route would give Edingurgh and Glasgow around the same journey times to and from London, with a second Y or delta junction somewhere north of the boarder. This line could then also be used by Glasgow and Edinburgh services to Birmingham and even Manchester (potentially).

As LE Greays has said, city centre station are preferred by passengers, as has been show by the amount of discussion around the Toton and to a lesser extent the Sheffield Meadowhall stations on phase two. So as there are going to be a reasonable amount of classic compatible HSR trains built for phases 1 and 2, why can't existing classic network stations north of York be served with HS lines between them, as there are in France and Germany, and similar to that at Ashford International. This means that the existing rail hubs of York, Darlington and Newcastle can be used without the expensive coasts of guage clearing them for captive trains while still gaining the benefits of HS lines north of York.

 

[JohnCarlson]

That's completely mad. I can only really speak for the ECML, but in my experience 25-50% of the passengers who were on trains north of Newcastle are no longer on them when they cross the Tyne, no matter what time of day or day of the week. A rough split from memory of people who pass through Calton Tunnel on an EC departure would be 10% Dunbar/Berwick/Alnmouth/Morpeth; 25-50% Newcastle/Durham, 10-25% Darlington/York/Leeds/Doncaster, 10% Retford/Newark/Grantham, 10% Peterborough/Stevenage, remainder (<45%) London. And that's not even counting the proportion travelling on XC. (NB - These are only eyeball estimates). If they're basing this only on the London market, they're excluding more than half their prospective passengers at even the most optimistic estimate.



I very much doubt it will go anwhere near Morpeth as well, I was merely highlighting it as one of many problems on the ECML. However, I suspect that they will consider Coldstream to Edinburgh as their major route, although what will happen when they get there is anyone's guess. Classic-Compatibles over the Forth and Tay are possible.

I would broadly back that up. There are lots of people getting off and on at Newcastle in both directions.


While the London market is important for journies such as Newcastle to Birmingham HS2 will be transformational.

I would imagine the big complication for captive stock in Newcastle is the King Edward Bridge and the double bend around it.

 

[HSTEd]

Well the current VT services along the WCML to Glasgow from Euston and Glasgow and Edinburgh from Birmingham have always been well loaded whenever I've travelled on them. Add to that the current traffic from Edinburgh to Kings Cross and I'm sure you will have plenty enough people using the service to route it via a westerly route.

Don't those services amount to one Pendolino and one Voyager per hour?
The traffic density on the Northern ECML is far greater than this (at-least as far as Newcastle).

I also have a slight grip with going via an easterly route, as it would mean that the journey times to get to or from Glasgow would be longer than those to or from Edinburgh, given that the route would have to then travel westwards from Edinburgh to reach Glasgow. Whereas taking a westerly route would give Edingurgh and Glasgow around the same journey times to and from London, with a second Y or delta junction somewhere north of the boarder. This line could then also be used by Glasgow and Edinburgh services to Birmingham and even Manchester (potentially).

The problem with the "Carstairs Split" route is that you end up building a similar amount of track overall, but you don't gain the most intensive flow outside of London services. (Edinburgh-Glasgow)

You can still do Glasgow-Birmingham via Edinburgh in less time than it takes today, especially if there is a bypass line south of Edinburgh.
If a bypass line is in place at Edinburgh then the journey to Glasgow would be only 70km at 320kph longer than the Edinburgh journey.
That translates to a grand total of 13 minutes longer.

Hardly a game breaker.

And if you go up the west you lose the Glasgow-Newcastle-Leeds traffic, which is of comparable or greater size than the Manchester flow, and you might even be able to route Classic Compatibles over the North TPE from Leeds and still beat today's travel time.

As LE Greays has said, city centre station are preferred by passengers, as has been show by the amount of discussion around the Toton and to a lesser extent the Sheffield Meadowhall stations on phase two. So as there are going to be a reasonable amount of classic compatible HSR trains built for phases 1 and 2, why can't existing classic network stations north of York be served with HS lines between them, as there are in France and Germany, and similar to that at Ashford International. This means that the existing rail hubs of York, Darlington and Newcastle can be used without the expensive coasts of guage clearing them for captive trains while still gaining the benefits of HS lines north of York.

The largest benefit of HS lines north of York is probably in the reduced cost of operation per available seat, as large parts of the route are already cleared for relatively high speeds.

Additionally the Phase 1 and 2 Classic Compatible trains will be needed to convert the XC Scotland-NE-SW service to Classic Compatible operation and other emergent non London flows.

 

[tbtc]

That only applies if we see HSR as entirely London-centric. The Scots, certainly (once they concede that the UK will continue to exist), will envisage two high speed 'centres'; London and Glasgow/Edinburgh; both eventually connected directly to Europe

So; if we assume that the high speed line goes along the east of England, crosses the Pennines at Haltwhistle, and then past Lockerbie to Carstairs towards either Glasgow or Eindburgh.

Then the line south of Carstairs will carry:

- 1 tph Glasgow-Euston
- 1 tph Edinburgh-Euston
- 1 tph Glasgow - Sheffield - Birmingham
- 1 tph Edinburgh - Sheffield - Birmingham
- 1 tph Edinburgh - Leeds - Manchester CC
- 1 tph Glasgow - Leedsl - Manchester CC
- 1 tph Edinburgh - Newcastle
- 1 pth Glasgow - Newcastle

And eventually;

- 1 tph Glasgow - Stratford - Paris
- 1 tph Edinburgh - Stratford - Brussels.

In addition, there could be Javelin-style CC services through Carstairs

- 4 tph Glasgow - Carstairs - Gogar - Edinburgh
- 2 tph Glasgow - Carstairs - Gogar - Perth - Aberdeen




That is plenty enough business to justify a high speed network for Scotland.

That would certainly be enough services to justify a high speed line, but I'm not convinced that those frequencies are ever going to be justified. Glasgow to Manchester via Lockerbie, Newcastle and Leeds? Edinburgh to Newcastle via Lockerbie?

 

[Chris125]

What's the next "full" line after the WCML/ECML/MML triad that HS2 supliments ?

Presumably the GWML ? East of Reading is always talked of as full, how does it actually compare and would a HS line to Cardiff help ?

The mainlines south of the Thames, and the SWML in particular, are probably the most in need of capacity relief at the present time with solutions likely to involve increasing capacity on the approach to the capital.

While the GWML is very busy, i suspect a similar approach may be taken as i can't see long distance traffic justifying a HSL - there is far less potential traffic than the north-south HS2.

After all HEx will continue to use up paths on the fast lines even post electrification/IEP/Crossrail, along with the relatively slow and low capacity HST's, while there is scope to extend the 8-car IEP untis, 10-car Crossrail units and perhaps the 110/125mph EMU's being procured for outer suburban services. Longer term, removing some of the inner-suburban traffic from the relief lines (perhaps by extend Crossrail west) could relieve the line into Paddington for more outer suburban and long distance services as may a decision regarding Heathrow.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

You could probably manage a Reading-Heathrow-Paddington HSL.... but that would be very expensive per mile since almost all of it would have to be in a tunnel.

And Vodafone HQ would have to be demolished.

You could probably cut 2-3m off the Reading travel time even if you stop every train at Heathrow.

And if you stop every train at Heathrow you basically kill the Heathrow Express, freeing 4 paths an hour on the classic line.

EDIT:

Additionally you can probably build short sections of railway in the south west that would drastically improve travel times, assembling an LGV all the way to Cornwall a small section at a time.

 

[LE Greys]

You could probably manage a Reading-Heathrow-Paddington HSL.... but that would be very expensive per mile since almost all of it would have to be in a tunnel.

And Vodafone HQ would have to be demolished.

You could probably cut 2-3m off the Reading travel time even if you stop every train at Heathrow.

And if you stop every train at Heathrow you basically kill the Heathrow Express, freeing 4 paths an hour on the classic line.

EDIT:

Additionally you can probably build short sections of railway in the south west that would drastically improve travel times, assembling an LGV all the way to Cornwall a small section at a time.

Not necessarily in a tunnel. The West London section from Old Oak to Heathrow probably would be, but beyond there it's mostly a matter of following the M4. Reading station would not be that difficult to access, depending on the width of the Southern route in. West of there, it would have to be routed south of Didcot, with some form of flyover to allow a Javelin-style service to Oxford and the Cotswold Line, but could settle down quite the thing and run alongside the current main line to Swindon, with a potential access point there to Swindon station for two routes, one covering Chippenham, Bath and Bristol; the other to Gloucester and Cheltenham. The M4 and GWML cross just west of there, allowing access to Swindon the other way. Then there is a choice of following the M4 or the Badminton route, but either one would eventually land you at Bristol Parkway. The expensive bit comes west of there, a second Severn Tunnel and a new route to Cardiff and Swansea (which I've never really thought through, I don't know the area). Trains for Devon and Cornwall would have to call at Bristol Temple Meads before joining another section of new line heading for Exeter, and yet another section of new line for Plymouth (this bit was planned by the GWR in the 1930s).

The appallingly-slow sections in Cornwall would be harder to justify investment for, but they are the bits most in need of work (as often happens, the Fife Coast is a similar proposition). It might be possible to string together sections of 125 mph line to attempt to get times down. The Tamar is the biggest problem, and has been ever since cost-cutting forced Brunel to build a single-track bridge. A new tunnel might be one solution, but an expensive one. The target London-Penzance time would be 3 hours, London-Plymouth 2 hours, London-Cardiff 1 hour 30 and London-Bristol 1 hour.

Killing HEX would be an added bonus. Strangely, BAA might not do too badly out of it, a fast link into both sides of the airport would be very helpful in improving their passenger numbers, so they might not lose revenue.

 

[HSTEd]

Although it might only operate at 125mph to start with, obviously any new track should be laid out for 320kph if possible and obviously built to the full GC loading gauge.

No sense doing otherwise.

 

[vtiman]

I have thought for some time and may have even posted that the HS1/2 link should be a double track connection that should be used by both international and domestic services and not necessarily with HS2 speed trains. Since the existing HS1 tunnels at present have a limit of 140 mph we would need a minimum 125/140 mph train.

With IEP and the GWR electrification a through electric Swansea - Norwich would be possible or Birmingham - Ashford etc. HS1/2 would be an ideal way to break the tradition of having to travel across London between major terminals which becomes especially tedious when the trains are capable of 200 plus miles an hour.

It would also get around the Schengen scenario as the UK domestic/international hub could be at Ashford or Ebbsfleet (or dare I suggest Heathrow Hub UK ???) and allow cross platform interchange. This might mean that international facilities wouldn't be needed anywhere else and avoid the situation where trains have to be segregated.

If you are travelling from London to Lyon for example and you cant find a Lille connection you have to spend at least an hour travelling from Gare du Nord to Gare de l'Est. In this time you could have travelled 200 miles and saved that hour.

Similarly, if we cant offer a direct North of London to Europe interchange at Euston such as the proposed Euston X, surely it would be better to offer interchange at Stratford, Ebbsfleet or even Ashford for a cross platform change. Or we could go really insane and have international trains to Old Oak or even Heathrow per my previous suggestion. We are after all going to build a huge station at at least one of these sites.

Straying tangentially from the subject of the HS1/2 link, I believe we need to do an in-depth study as to where passengers arriving in London are actually going and then determine the best station location that better meets these travel patterns and reduces the huge expansion at Euston.

We know how many people travel to London to Euston and Kings Cross etc but I am not sure we know where their end destination is. These stations are only located where they are because they weren't allowed to be built nearer what was the city centre
of London and had to be built in what was countryside at the edge of London. Since they are both terminals apart from Thameslink, passengers have no choice but to change onto other lines or the tube to get to their destination.

I would have thought that the West End, Oxford Street and Docklands and in the future the Olympic regeneration areas would be key destinations. Many people would change at Old Oak Common onto Crossrail. If domestic HS2 services ran onto HS1 via twin tracks to Stratford Intl (which could be used as domestic only), then interchange for east end destinations could be done there. Similarly, if more Eurostar services stopped at Ebbsfleet this could become a major HS2 domestic/ HS1 international interchange thus avoiding Central London.

The currently planned single spur seems somewhat an afterthought and is literally the weak link in the project. It reminds me of the A14, which should have been a 3 lane motorway maybe know as M6 (East) or better still the money spent on an upgraded and electrified part of Nuneaton Harwich/Felixstowe. When you join the M6 from the a14 all traffic has to funnel through a roundabout rather then via a slip road. This is quite frankly ridiculous so lets not make a similar mistake with HS2 / HS1 which incidentally we should rename as HSUK. And lets include Scotland.

 

[Rational Plan]

Not necessarily in a tunnel. The West London section from Old Oak to Heathrow probably would be, but beyond there it's mostly a matter of following the M4. Reading station would not be that difficult to access, depending on the width of the Southern route in. West of there, it would have to be routed south of Didcot, with some form of flyover to allow a Javelin-style service to Oxford and the Cotswold Line, but could settle down quite the thing and run alongside the current main line to Swindon, with a potential access point there to Swindon station for two routes, one covering Chippenham, Bath and Bristol; the other to Gloucester and Cheltenham. The M4 and GWML cross just west of there, allowing access to Swindon the other way. Then there is a choice of following the M4 or the Badminton route, but either one would eventually land you at Bristol Parkway. The expensive bit comes west of there, a second Severn Tunnel and a new route to Cardiff and Swansea (which I've never really thought through, I don't know the area). Trains for Devon and Cornwall would have to call at Bristol Temple Meads before joining another section of new line heading for Exeter, and yet another section of new line for Plymouth (this bit was planned by the GWR in the 1930s).

The appallingly-slow sections in Cornwall would be harder to justify investment for, but they are the bits most in need of work (as often happens, the Fife Coast is a similar proposition). It might be possible to string together sections of 125 mph line to attempt to get times down. The Tamar is the biggest problem, and has been ever since cost-cutting forced Brunel to build a single-track bridge. A new tunnel might be one solution, but an expensive one. The target London-Penzance time would be 3 hours, London-Plymouth 2 hours, London-Cardiff 1 hour 30 and London-Bristol 1 hour.

Killing HEX would be an added bonus. Strangely, BAA might not do too badly out of it, a fast link into both sides of the airport would be very helpful in improving their passenger numbers, so they might not lose revenue.

For the SW shortish sections of new track could save massive amounts of time. Currently it takes an hour to travel 50 miles from Exeter to Plymouth, anew route following the A38 could easily knock half an hour off the time, even if the line connected either side of Newton Abbott.

 

[Chris125]

Not necessarily in a tunnel. The West London section from Old Oak to Heathrow probably would be, but beyond there it's mostly a matter of following the M4.

...or use that tunnel to 6-track the GWML out to Heathrow, perhaps by separating Crossrail from the outer-suburban and airport services which could run fast to OOC/Paddington which would release more paths for long distance services and perhaps relieve them of some of the commuting traffic from Reading.

Chris

 

[TBY-Paul]

The more I read this thread, the more it throws up questions.
"HS2 then passes west of Swillington to once more meet the M1, which it follows into a sharp right curve as it climbs over the A63 - speed drops to 230kph as it heads east. (it is here, after crossing the A63, that a future HS route towards Newcastle would carry straight on northwards.) "
This would suggest that the High speed line will continue to Newcastle at sometime in the future. Which I assume would mean captive trains would be used as far Newcastle, if this was the case, would this mean only the following routes would available.
A) Newcastle-Sheffield- Totten(Derby/Nottingham)-Birmingham.
B) Newcastle-Sheffield(Parkway)-Totten-Birmingham(Int)- London.

The reason I'm thinking this is because it looks like both York and Leeds are going to be on spurs from the main North /South route, and unlike Birmingham and Manchester, neither York Or Leeds will have a northerly link to the High speed line.
If from Newcastle the line was to go to Edinburgh, how would Edinburgh-York-Leeds-Birmingham work. You would have a High speed line from Birmingham to Edinburgh up the east coast, but wouldn't/couldn't call at Leeds or York, and depending on how they design the route through/around Newcastle, might not even call at Newcastle.
The more I think about it the I'm inclined to thinking the line might only go as far as Newcastle, with the main route to Scotland being up the West Coast (Serpell Option A springs to mind).

 

[Ironside]

The more I read this thread, the more it throws up questions.
"HS2 then passes west of Swillington to once more meet the M1, which it follows into a sharp right curve as it climbs over the A63 - speed drops to 230kph as it heads east. (it is here, after crossing the A63, that a future HS route towards Newcastle would carry straight on northwards.) "
This would suggest that the High speed line will continue to Newcastle at sometime in the future. Which I assume would mean captive trains would be used as far Newcastle, if this was the case, would this mean only the following routes would available.
A) Newcastle-Sheffield- Totten(Derby/Nottingham)-Birmingham.
B) Newcastle-Sheffield(Parkway)-Totten-Birmingham(Int)- London.

The reason I'm thinking this is because it looks like both York and Leeds are going to be on spurs from the main North /South route, and unlike Birmingham and Manchester, neither York Or Leeds will have a northerly link to the High speed line.
If from Newcastle the line was to go to Edinburgh, how would Edinburgh-York-Leeds-Birmingham work. You would have a High speed line from Birmingham to Edinburgh up the east coast, but wouldn't/couldn't call at Leeds or York, and depending on how they design the route through/around Newcastle, might not even call at Newcastle.
The more I think about it the I'm inclined to thinking the line might only go as far as Newcastle, with the main route to Scotland being up the West Coast (Serpell Option A springs to mind).

If you could put in northerly links then you could have mostly high speed stoppers in the pattern you suggest, with a few selected limited or non stoppers. To me it would seem wise to have two parallel sets of lines for resilience as much as anything.

 

[HSTEd]

If you build a line as far north as Newcastle up the East Coast.... there will be no west coast link.
You end up pointlessly duplicating trackwork, it would be cheaper to put in a triangle junction south of Newcastle and continue north from there than to go north from Wigan, assuming that line is even rated for 320kph.

 

[nerd]

The more I read this thread, the more it throws up questions.

The reason I'm thinking this is because it looks like both York and Leeds are going to be on spurs from the main North /South route, and unlike Birmingham and Manchester, neither York Or Leeds will have a northerly link to the High speed line.
If from Newcastle the line was to go to Edinburgh, how would Edinburgh-York-Leeds-Birmingham work. You would have a High speed line from Birmingham to Edinburgh up the east coast, but wouldn't/couldn't call at Leeds or York, and depending on how they design the route through/around Newcastle, might not even call at Newcastle.
The more I think about it the I'm inclined to thinking the line might only go as far as Newcastle, with the main route to Scotland being up the West Coast (Serpell Option A springs to mind).

You are right that there is no north-facing chord out of Leeds on the eastern arm at Swillington - although there is out of Manchester on the western arm at Warburton. Ostensibly this is because the units starting at Manchester Piccadilly will have their depot at Bamfurlong; but it has been interpreted by some as confirming HS2 Ltd's preference for a west-side route to Scotland. However, I cannot see any reason why a north-facing chord out of Leeds could not yet be built, should the eastern route be chosen.

I cannot see any likelihood, however, for a north-facing chord to be built out of York at Garforth. There is no suggestion that captive services will ever be run into York itself. If a business case can be made for HSR services from Scotland to York (and if the Scots services do run along an east-side alignment); then the best way to do it (in my view); would be to have a 'Tyne and Wear Interchange' station around Birtley (by 'The Angel of the North'). If some Scotland-London HSR services stop there; passengers could connect to classic services northwards to Newcastle, and southwards to Durham, Darlington and York. Alternatively, north-facing link would allow classic-comaptible paths from York/Teeside onto the HSR line at Birtley to go on to Scotland.

But the answer to your basic question is that HS2 Ltd's design principle is that no HSR lines will go 'through' major conurbations; instead, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds will all be circumvented with low-speed spurs in. On the same principle (and contrary to the recent suggestion from the Lords) there will be no services through Euston onto HS1.

The corollary of this is that captive services will almost all be (so far as possible) end-to-end; and will not 'call at' intermediate stops, other than outskirts stations to speed turnround at termini (Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Davenport Green. Gogar). If the Scots services do stop half-way, I expect it only to be once - either at Chorley (on a west-side alighnment) or Birtley (on an east-side alignment).

So, if there is a captive service into Newcastle, it will be via a spur in from the west (most likely with both north and south-facing chords, if the main line goes on to Scotland). This will be used by the two dedicated Newcastle-London services; but not by Scotland-London services.

That assumes an east-side routing for the Scots-London sevice (and Transport Scotland officially maintain that they still have an open mind on the matter); but in the end I expect them to plump for the west-side route; as tbtc points out above, the east-side route results in some fairly convoluted routings. Of course, if you are not needing to stop, it doesn't matter which side of the country you run through - but it does appear that a west-side route could be shorter all round, and so quicker.

Which would probably rule out direct Scotland-Newcaslte HSR services; but in compensation would make it much easier to run direct HSR services from Scotland to Liverpool. What the Scots lose on the swings, they could gain on the roundabouts.

 

[billio]

But the answer to your basic question is that HS2 Ltd's design principle is that no HSR lines will go 'through' major conurbations; instead, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds will all be circumvented with low-speed spurs in. On the same principle (and contrary to the recent suggestion from the Lords) there will be no services through Euston onto HS1.

Is there a place where I can find a justification for this "design principle" ?.