High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[edwin_m]

I think the Newcastle-Carlisle high speed option would extend journey times too much, as well as being quite difficult to build through a hilly and visually sensitive area. The choice is likely to be between York-Newcastle-Edinburgh-Glasgow and Wigan-Carlisle splitting somewhere near Carstairs for Glasgow or Edinburgh.

There may be some scope for upgrading certain existing sections rather than building new, as further north the high speed service is less frequent but will still replace most of the passenger service on some parallel classic routes. For example Edinburgh-Carstairs would have its London and Birmingham trains replaced by high speed, so south of the junction with the Shotts route would have just an hourly EMU and a small amount of freight.

HS2 phase 2 included an option to extend the western leg from south of Wigan to north of Preston, but Government didn't take that up in the current proposed route. I presume it would be revived if Phase 3 went ahead as a western option.

 

[StupidQuestion]

I think the Newcastle-Carlisle high speed option would extend journey times too much, as well as being quite difficult to build through a hilly and visually sensitive area. The choice is likely to be between York-Newcastle-Edinburgh-Glasgow and Wigan-Carlisle splitting somewhere near Carstairs for Glasgow or Edinburgh.

There may be some scope for upgrading certain existing sections rather than building new, as further north the high speed service is less frequent but will still replace most of the passenger service on some parallel classic routes. For example Edinburgh-Carstairs would have its London and Birmingham trains replaced by high speed, so south of the junction with the Shotts route would have just an hourly EMU and a small amount of freight.

HS2 phase 2 included an option to extend the western leg from south of Wigan to north of Preston, but Government didn't take that up in the current proposed route. I presume it would be revived if Phase 3 went ahead as a western option.

Not quite sure how it would extend journey times, sorry I may have misunderstood. Currently it takes 1h30 from Newcastle to Edinburgh. A high speed line would presumably do it in well under an hour. Newcastle to Manchester I guess would be a similar saving. You may well be right about it being difficult to build though. Not sure how it compares with a Newcastle-Edinburgh route, would it really be easier/cheaper to build New-Edin despite being more than double the length? Maybe, I don't know. You would also lose the Newcastle-Manchester/Liverpool option.

 

[HSTEd]

Not quite sure how it would extend journey times, sorry I may have misunderstood. Currently it takes 1h30 from Newcastle to Edinburgh. A high speed line would presumably do it in well under an hour. Newcastle to Manchester I guess would be a similar saving. You may well be right about it being difficult to build though. Not sure how it compares with a Newcastle-Edinburgh route, would it really be easier/cheaper to build New-Edin despite being more than double the length? Maybe, I don't know. You would also lose the Newcastle-Manchester/Liverpool option.

If you maintain a chord at Birmingham Delta Junction to turn it into a triangle, you could run Manchester-Leeds via the Phase 2 lines, allowing you to dispense with teh western leg entirely and build the entire route via the eastern corridor. Or just simply run Classic Compatibles on the Liverpool/Manchester-Newcastle section, travelling on TPE North to Leeds.

That or you just build a "Pennine Base Tunnel" route between Manchester and Leeds.

 

[edwin_m]

Not quite sure how it would extend journey times, sorry I may have misunderstood. Currently it takes 1h30 from Newcastle to Edinburgh. A high speed line would presumably do it in well under an hour. Newcastle to Manchester I guess would be a similar saving. You may well be right about it being difficult to build though. Not sure how it compares with a Newcastle-Edinburgh route, would it really be easier/cheaper to build New-Edin despite being more than double the length? Maybe, I don't know. You would also lose the Newcastle-Manchester/Liverpool option.

Sorry it was me that misunderstood, I was thinking you intended Newcastle-Carlisle to be part of journeys to/from Birmingham and London. However I think if it is just linking Newcastle more quickly to Scotland and NW England, the small journey time saving over going via Berwick or Huddersfield respectively is unlikely to justify the cost of building it.

Manchester-Leeds via a west-east curve at Lichfield would take a lot longer than the existing route.

 

[StupidQuestion]

Sorry it was me that misunderstood, I was thinking you intended Newcastle-Carlisle to be part of journeys to/from Birmingham and London. However I think if it is just linking Newcastle more quickly to Scotland and NW England, the small journey time saving over going via Berwick or Huddersfield respectively is unlikely to justify the cost of building it.

Manchester-Leeds via a west-east curve at Lichfield would take a lot longer than the existing route.

I understand your point now, yeah if it was part of Birmingham/London to Scotland it would be a bit of a kink. I was just thinking it might be a cheaper solution for Newcastle to stop it being 'out on a limb' in HSTEd's scenario where a western HS line from manchester to Scotland had been built. You are probably right that it would not justify the cost though. In an ideal world it would be nice to connect as many of our major cities together with HS lines as possible. Either way it will be a long time in the future before such a line is considered and perhaps various factors may have changed by then.

 

[edwin_m]

This thread has got me thinking about whether an ECML-like or a WCML-like route will be proposed for Scotland.

The eastern option could serve more population (Teeside plus Tyneside must be a lot more than Preston to Carlisle) and the rural parts are less hilly so easier to build through. However it would most likely require either very difficult city centre through stations or less attractive out-of-town stations for both Newcastle and Edinburgh.

The diversion into the West Midlands probably means that London-Scotland would be slower via an east coast high speed route than a west coast option. This could change if there was a decision to build a second north-south line in England, which would most likely follow approximately the ECML route northwards from London.

 

[HSTEd]

The diversion into the West Midlands probably means that London-Scotland would be slower via an east coast high speed route than a west coast option. This could change if there was a decision to build a second north-south line in England, which would most likely follow approximately the ECML route northwards from London.

Yes, it would be slower for Glasgow Journeys..... by something like ~10 minutes, and about the same for Edinburgh journeys. However you end up needing pretty much the same amount of trackwork overall while getting Newcastle for "free", that is a major cost saving.

Remember when you are running 5+km/minute, you can eat up distances ridiculously fast.

As to having out of town stations at Newcastle and Edinburgh.... you would not necessarily have to have through stations at all, you could simply put them on spurs.

 

[tbtc]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/03/labour-free-schools-police-winter-fuel-allowances

The shadow cabinet must plan on the basis of the same spending totals as the coalition, Ed Balls has said as he set out a series of likely cuts to government spending, including the abolition of police commissioners, means-testing the winter fuel allowance and freezing the building of further free schools.

...

He also proposed that industry should share the cost of their regulators, a merger of the four agencies working for motorists, a takeover of the delivery of High Speed 2 by Network Rail...

Does anyone see that affecting HS2 significantly?

I suppose it'll mean taking decisions out of politicians hands and making it harder for them to scrap it?

At least it shows Labour aren't being as silly about HS2 as previous announcements have suggested.

 

[edwin_m]

Probably the equivalent of the Coalition announcing all those quango abolitions in their first weeks. Most of the work still needs to be done, it will have to be done by someone else with the added cost and distraction of reorgansiation. In most cases there will be no saving but the finances will be so impenetrable that it is impossible to tell whether there was a saving or not.

 

[kkid]

From what I have read (I'm not a train guy, sorry), HS2 will allow trains from Europe to travel on it, therefore trains from France or Germany could go directly through to Birmingham or Manchester (When complete). Is this right?


Therefore, does this mean that freight between Europe and the UK will be possible past London (Which I assume is the limit at the moment thanks to HS1)?

 

[LexyBoy]

From what I have read (I'm not a train guy, sorry), HS2 will allow trains from Europe to travel on it, therefore trains from France or Germany could go directly through to Birmingham or Manchester (When complete). Is this right?

Yes, this will be possible. It's been discussed at length in this thread and most people seem to believe that it won't happen, beyond a possible one or two trains a day for appearance's sake. Certainly not whilst the UK remains outwith Schengen. Personally I would hope that it would happen, but at the end of the day it will largely be an economic decision.

Remember that this is already possible - there's no reason Eurostar trains can't run beyond London. It would of course be more attractive as a HS route all the way.

Therefore, does this mean that freight between Europe and the UK will be possible past London (Which I assume is the limit at the moment thanks to HS1)?

Freight already runs to many places across the UK through the Chunnel. It won't be using the high speed lines.

 

[Chris125]

From what I have read (I'm not a train guy, sorry), HS2 will allow trains from Europe to travel on it, therefore trains from France or Germany could go directly through to Birmingham or Manchester (When complete). Is this right?

In theory yes, but at the very least such trains would need to conform to the higher safety standards demanded in by the Channel Tunnel, they would need to use segregated platforms to ensure border security as we aren't in the Schengen area, and a 'path' would be needed on HS2 which during the peaks is likely to be full south of Birmingham.

Therefore, does this mean that freight between Europe and the UK will be possible past London (Which I assume is the limit at the moment thanks to HS1)?

There is no plan to use HS2 for freight, it will be much longer and far more intensively used than HS1 so the few hours when such trains could run will be needed for maintenance. There should be more room for freight on the existing network however.

Chris

 

[JohnB57]

Schengen isn't the issue. It's tunnel security. Security checks are the same when flying between Schengen countries as they are to anywhere else.

Security is a far bigger obstacle to international rail journeys through the tunnel than a basic passport check.

 

[jon0844]

Who knows whether in the next 10-20 years, we'll have security having to be even more commonplace for even regular train journeys (or at least Intercity services)? Or we'll have developed better security equipment than can scan people and bags without having to stop or place bags on a belt etc.

Either way, I am sure it wouldn't be impossible to imagine security checks to be possible before a train heading from Birmingham can leave to go direct to France or Belgium.

As for the passport controls, I wonder how much the UK Border Agency (or whatever it's called today) would charge to have some staff checking passports for a couple of services in the morning (assuming that's all we'd need initially, to satisfy a business market, with people later on just changing via EUS/SPX)?

I've flown to some tiny airports before where the police/customs came out just for the flight, in a single car; coming in, doing the checks and then going back. And that might be for a plane with just 100-120 people.

Surely a train to Europe would hold many hundreds of people potentially, and the cost easily incorporated into the ticket price.

We could deal with the problems, even if we didn't sort out the Schengen 'issue' between now and 2030.

 

[HSTEd]

Security checks on Eurostar are rather pointless really....

People can't hijack a train and a bomb light enough to be carried aboard is not going to kill everybody.

 

[jon0844]

Agreed, but I can't see them going away anytime soon. In fact, between now and 2030 or whenever HS2 opens, I am sure we'll have either solved the problem or have much tighter security.

 

[JohnB57]

Security checks on Eurostar are rather pointless really....

People can't hijack a train and a bomb light enough to be carried aboard is not going to kill everybody.

I love the logic. It's only worth sneaking a bomb on board if it'll kill everybody...

On a serious note, I'm a bit agnostic on their value too.

Agreed, but I can't see them going away anytime soon. In fact, between now and 2030 or whenever HS2 opens, I am sure we'll have either solved the problem or have much tighter security.

But direct trains to Paris will still take almost three hours from Birmingham and three and a half from Manchester. Put that into context and a 06.00 departure from Manchester will get you into central Paris at 10.30. Will that be attractive to enough business users?

 

[jon0844]

An earlier departure? I've got up far earlier to get a morning flight, so I still think it's possibly viable but only early morning (or late coming back) as for the rest of the day a change in London is probably fine.

 

[ninja-lewis]

This thread has got me thinking about whether an ECML-like or a WCML-like route will be proposed for Scotland.

The eastern option could serve more population (Teeside plus Tyneside must be a lot more than Preston to Carlisle) and the rural parts are less hilly so easier to build through. However it would most likely require either very difficult city centre through stations or less attractive out-of-town stations for both Newcastle and Edinburgh.

The diversion into the West Midlands probably means that London-Scotland would be slower via an east coast high speed route than a west coast option. This could change if there was a decision to build a second north-south line in England, which would most likely follow approximately the ECML route northwards from London.

Yes, it would be slower for Glasgow Journeys..... by something like ~10 minutes, and about the same for Edinburgh journeys. However you end up needing pretty much the same amount of trackwork overall while getting Newcastle for "free", that is a major cost saving.

Remember when you are running 5+km/minute, you can eat up distances ridiculously fast.

As to having out of town stations at Newcastle and Edinburgh.... you would not necessarily have to have through stations at all, you could simply put them on spurs.

How do you get a ECML route past Edinburgh to get to Glasgow?

Through the city centre is probably out of the question. There isn't the room, particularly in the critical Waverley-Haymarket section, unless you use existing infrastructure and accept significant speed and capacity restrictions.

Can't go around the city to the North because of the Forth. Can't really go south either considering areas like Bonaly and the Bypass extend right up to the foot of the Pentlands.

And even if you could go around with a spur station, you inconvenience a lot of people. A spur station in the West sends those travelling south on a slow journey around the city first. Likewise a spur in the East would do the same for people travelling west to Glasgow.

Considering the Scottish Government's desire for a HS link between Edinburgh and Glasgow and, in all likelihood they're more interested in connecting Edinburgh and Glasgow to Manchester, Birmingham and London than Newcastle and York, can anyone really see past a WCML route with a Carstairs-style split to Glasgow and Edinburgh Haymarket (as useful as Waverly considering most of the non-Edinburgh population is West and North of city)?

More so when Edinburgh is comfortably west of any point on the Phase 2 Western branch.

 

[Nym]

Security checks on Eurostar are rather pointless really....

People can't hijack a train and a bomb light enough to be carried aboard is not going to kill everybody.

If you detonate the right chemical in the right place, trust me, you can kill everyone...

 

[edwin_m]

If you detonate the right chemical in the right place, trust me, you can kill everyone...

But if that is true for a Channel Tunnel train (which it probably is) it's also true for a non-Channel Tunnel train, or indeed for the queue for security if all trains had to undergo such checks.

 

[Nym]

But if that is true for a Channel Tunnel train (which it probably is) it's also true for a non-Channel Tunnel train, or indeed for the queue for security if all trains had to undergo such checks.

This is not the case due to many aspects to be considered.

I will not be going into why on a public forum.

 

[HSTEd]

If you detonate the right chemical in the right place, trust me, you can kill everyone...

With a weapon that weighs under ten kilogrammes using materials that are likely to be available to terrorists?
Even detonating the charge to blow out the lead bogie is unlikely to cause massive casualties due to the articulated nature of the design.
And how you would catastrophically trash the leading bogie from inside the passenger saloon is an interesting question.

I could collapse the tunnel and vapourise the entire train, passengers included, using a carriable (in a backpack) device made from the right materials.

Its called a Special Atomic Demolition Munition.
I don't think this is a reasonable threat.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How do you get a ECML route past Edinburgh to get to Glasgow?

Any East Coast line is likely approaching Edinburgh from the direction of approximately Heriot, likely involving significant tunnelling anyway (although no more than would be expected on the west coast route).
Skirting along the top of the Pentlands would easily get you sufficiently far west to connect with the Scottish Government built line to Glasgow.

And even if you could go around with a spur station, you inconvenience a lot of people. A spur station in the West sends those travelling south on a slow journey around the city first. Likewise a spur in the East would do the same for people travelling west to Glasgow.

Presumably you would have both, as the Scottish Government wants to build a spur to the west in advance of HS2 arriving in Scotland.
An eastern spur would be relatively easy to arrange since it is a terminal line and thus is not subject to curvature limitations, only to gauge limitations.
The existing corridor could probably be made suitable. (connecting in near Mussleburgh/Newcraighall)

Considering the Scottish Government's desire for a HS link between Edinburgh and Glasgow and, in all likelihood they're more interested in connecting Edinburgh and Glasgow to Manchester, Birmingham and London than Newcastle and York, can anyone really see past a WCML route with a Carstairs-style split to Glasgow and Edinburgh Haymarket (as useful as Waverly considering most of the non-Edinburgh population is West and North of city)?

More so when Edinburgh is comfortably west of any point on the Phase 2 Western branch.

The ScottisH Government can't afford to pay for a Edinburgh-Glasgow link and links between Wigan (where the UK government funded route will have to end) and Carstairs.

A more direct line between Edinburgh and Glasgow would probably cost similar amounts to the Carstairs route due to tunnelling, but would cut several minutes off the journey time.
The total amount of track that has to be purchased by the Scottish Government is significantly reduced by building Glasgow-Edinburgh-Newcastle instead of Glasgow/Edinburgh-Carstairs-Wigan.

There is no case for the UK government to go north of Wigan except to serve Scotland, while the similar point in the East Arrives at Newcastle.

A better way to get direct links between Manchester and Scotland would be a Transpennine GC-cleared route (and I note that they lose Manchester and gain Leeds and Newcastle, this is the only difference for the Scottish Government in terms of connectivity between the two routes.... they get London and Birmingham either way.)

 

[joeykins82]

If we were part of the Schengen area there could still be segregated platforms and security checks for the via Channel Tunnel services, but it would be possible to offer domestic fares as well because passengers wouldn't have passed through border control and been "technically in France/Belgium/UK". That could neatly solve the request for direct West Midlands or North West to Kent services as well (although that's been more prominent in the discussion on the HS1-HS2 link thread)

 

[edwin_m]

If we were part of the Schengen area there could still be segregated platforms and security checks for the via Channel Tunnel services, but it would be possible to offer domestic fares as well because passengers wouldn't have passed through border control and been "technically in France/Belgium/UK". That could neatly solve the request for direct West Midlands or North West to Kent services as well (although that's been more prominent in the discussion on the HS1-HS2 link thread)

But southbound domestic passengers would still have to arrive 20min early and undergo security checks. Together with the likely low frequency of the service, this is enough of a disincentive for a lot of people to prefer to get a train to Euston and transfer to Southeastern at St Pancras - especially if the HS2 work includes a better passenger link between these stations.

 

[joeykins82]

Well that's fine then: the majority of passengers just want to turn up and get the first, fastest service and are happy with making connections and transferring between stations in London. It's passengers who do not travel frequently, have heavy baggage or mobility problems who benefit most from and are therefore prepared to arrange their travel around a direct, albeit less frequent service.

 

[jon0844]

I'd have thought a few direct services in the morning, for business people or even the occasional service to Disneyland Paris, could be quite lucrative because of the convenience and improved overall journey time due to the lack of changing, transferring to St Pancras and even the risk of missing the connection due to a delay.

In order for people not to miss connections, I bet there would be a minimum connection of an hour or more to get from Euston to St Pancras, making journey times artificially longer - but longer nonetheless.

 

[JohnB57]

An earlier departure? I've got up far earlier to get a morning flight, so I still think it's possibly viable but only early morning (or late coming back) as for the rest of the day a change in London is probably fine.

You assume that earlier services will be available, which is a long shot unless demand is there.

The first Eurostar departure is currently 05.40 ex St Pancras, so if for example the Manchester/Paris service were to replace this, it would involve an 04.30 Manchester departure, check in at 04.00, for a possible arrival in Paris around 09.00.

An 06.45 flight ex Manchester would get you into CDG at about the same time, so you gain at least two hours and probably pay considerably less for the privilege.

I don't think the business case is there, but time will tell.

 

[jon0844]

You might be right, and this is just 'blue sky thinking', but I think you need to look at the arrival time and work back - so that would mean the earlier departure time from further away. For business travellers, you'd get far more productive work time on a train all the way and taking airports out of the loop entirely.

Yes, you'd need to clear security, but from then on you can have the laptop out and get on with things.. folding it up to move from the lounge to the train seat and carrying on without fuss.

I do wonder about the connection time, which will increase the total journey time when people must change trains (and stations). This will suddenly remove some of the benefits over flying, although in my other example of having a train running to Disneyland, I'd take the train over plane every time!

 

[JohnB57]

I think there are limits to the relevance of the "work while you commute" argument and you'd be far better off getting a full night's sleep.

I'm not saying it wouldn't work, just not for a large enough market.