High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[joeykins82]

Captive stock should be cheaper to procure as it'll be more widely available European loading gauge.

 

[Muzer]

Could they really be wider? I mean, wouldn't this cause massive issues with classic compatible stock having elephant-sized gaps between the train and the platform edge? Unless they did something clever like interlacing tracks at stations...

 

[TheGrew]

Both these routes are operated by the same company so they don't really care which route you take, they'll get your money anyway. For longer distance tickets not priced by Southeastern there is no premium.

I think the other thing is who actually owns HS1, I believe it is Canadian teachers pension fund who will obviously want a return on their investment.
HS2 however I believe will be owned by network rail and charged in a similar if not identical way to the other infrastructure.

Apart from fitting more people in as they can be twice as long as clasic compatibles without having to join and split services, potentially double decker and are wider (so they either get more people in or are more comfortable).

Absolutely the European gauge will make 3+2 seating actually comfortable and that is before you consider adding a second deck

 

[gordonthemoron]

AFAIAA there are no 3+2 trains on the continent, certainly not high speed. I had a friend complaining today that Virgin trains seats were too small for his body builder's butt

 

[Deerfold]

AFAIAA there are no 3+2 trains on the continent, certainly not high speed. I had a friend complaining today that Virgin trains seats were too small for his body builder's butt

Sweden?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seadipper/3290538957/in/set-72157594170974346/

 

[TheGrew]

Not the continent but Japan uses 3+2 on the N700
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/700_Series_Shinkansen_Interior.jpg

Though even if you 'just' went 2+2 across 2 decks the capacity increase would be substantial.

 

[gordonthemoron]

yes, I was expecting AGV/TGV Duplex trains for HS2 only stock

 

[Ironside]

I think the other thing is who actually owns HS1, I believe it is Canadian teachers pension fund who will obviously want a return on their investment.
HS2 however I believe will be owned by network rail and charged in a similar if not identical way to the other infrastructure.


Absolutely the European gauge will make 3+2 seating actually comfortable and that is before you consider adding a second deck

The govenment owns HS1 but the Canadian pension fund bought the right to the profits of it for 30 year(I think it's 30 yrs but happy to be corrected).

I imagine that the same will happen for HS2 as it will make the figures look a lot better if a concession is given leading to billions coming back to the govenment.

 

[HSTEd]

Is it officially stated there wont be a premium, or is this more pro-HS2 wishful thinking?

Various Secretaries of State for Transport have said this repeatedly in the House in answer to questions and this is the position that HS2 Ltd use in all economic modelling.

If you book a return from Ashford to London, it's 20% more to use the HS1 service. Why should HS2 be any different?

Because there is still a practical way to travel between Ashford and London that isn't HS1.
There will not be such a thing for HS2.
Additionally, providing a seat on HS1 costs rather more than doing so on the conventional line, this situation is reversed for HS2, where it will be cheaper to provide such a seat than on the classic lines running parallel.

And why shouldn't the users pay a premium, when the advocates claim they get benefits from time saved?

Because having a premium service implies there is a non premium service.
Having a non premium service runs counter to the very point of the project, to remove long distance travel from the West Coast Main Line (and East Coast Main Line for that matter) for destinations that are not on the relieved section.

Why would we undermine the scheme by wasting valuable WCML paths on competing services that will do nothing but abstract HS2 revenue?

And is it cheaper to travel from Manchester to Sheffield on the stopper than it is to travel on the Liverpool-Norwich train or one of the TPE 'Express' workings?

Less burden for the poor suffering taxpayer (the vast majority of whom will never use it)

You really want to make that argument?
Very few people regularly use intercity rail travel at all, why is the taxpayer throwing endless wads of money at it to prop it up?
If you want significant railway travel to survive outside of the south east be careful what you claim to undermine HS2.

who will be lumbered with billions of taxes so that the relatively few can whizz along

And yet HS2s capacity will be comparable, or superior to, all remaining north-of-the-thames intercity services (GEML Norwich, MML IC, ECML IC, GW IC and other WCML IC) by some distance.
Why should HS2 pay a premium to prop up the relative few who chose not to use it?

Absolutely spot on. Buying captive stock has no advantages.

Its cheaper and you can fit more people on.
That means it has some rather serious advantages.

 

[jon0844]

Foreign trains are far more spacious and comfortable as a result.

While it will be interesting to hear how both types of train will stop at the same platforms, I am certainly hopeful that once HS2 is built and we gradually begin to upgrade the rest of the network - and build HS3, HS4 etc (as I've said before, long after we've gone) - we might one day convert a lot of the network to allow these bigger trains.

Then 3+2 will be perfectly comfortable for long distance. 2+2 will be like luxurious first class and 2+1 would be crazy (rather like the first class set up on Heathrow Express!).

The obvious upside being that with a larger train, double deck or not, you'll be in a better position to cope during congestion (such as previously cancelled services, or a big event that took place somewhere) as more people will fit on.

HS2 (and of course the same for HS1) is just the start of a new future of modern railways.

 

[HSTEd]

The HS2 loading gauge isn't going to be that much wider (the Shinkansen gauge is wider).
Its a few inches at most.

The real benefit is the possibility of double decker trains.

 

[jon0844]

The HS2 loading gauge isn't going to be that much wider (the Shinkansen gauge is wider).
Its a few inches at most.

The real benefit is the possibility of double decker trains.

That answers that then.

Still, even a few inches can make all the difference. (ooer).

 

[Deerfold]

That answers that then.

Still, even a few inches can make all the difference. (ooer).

It's how you use them that's important.

 

[Grumpy]

Various Secretaries of State for Transport have said this repeatedly in the House in answer to questions and this is the position that HS2 Ltd use in all economic modelling.

Well we'll see. At present the politicians are promising all things to everybody to try to garner public support
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because there is still a practical way to travel between Ashford and London that isn't HS1.
There will not be such a thing for HS2.



.

I cant grasp this. There will still be practical, direct, services from Leeds to Kings X, Manchester and Birmingham to London
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Additionally, providing a seat on HS1 costs rather more than doing so on the conventional line, this situation is reversed for HS2, where it will be cheaper to provide such a seat than on the classic lines running parallel.



Because having a premium service implies there is a non premium service.
Having a non premium service runs counter to the very point of the project, to remove long distance travel from the West Coast Main Line (and East Coast Main Line for that matter) for destinations that are not on the relieved section.

Why would we undermine the scheme by wasting valuable WCML paths on competing services that will do nothing but abstract HS2 revenue?

And is it cheaper to travel from Manchester to Sheffield on the stopper than it is to travel on the Liverpool-Norwich train or one of the TPE 'Express' workings?



.

So you've spent £50bn (or whatever) on which you've got a huge annual capital charge, a fleet of energy hungry trains and no doubt just had a gun to your head by the unions re pay rates (see Boris on the Olympics), and that's cheaper?

Re fares if you look at Peterborough-Kings X or New St.-Euston you'll see that the faster service charges a premium
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You really want to make that argument?
Very few people regularly use intercity rail travel at all, why is the taxpayer throwing endless wads of money at it to prop it up?
If you want significant railway travel to survive outside of the south east be careful what you claim to undermine HS2.




.

Is this the latest scaremongering by the pro HS2 lobby-if you don't support HS2 then railway travel outside the SE will be cut?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its cheaper and you can fit more people on.
That means it has some rather serious advantages.

How can you fit more people on? I accept d/deckers may allow this but no-one can point me to a document that says these are needed or are under consideration.

Similarly 2+3 seating. The Scandinavians have a loading gauge that allows wider trains so forget that. I don't believe anyone on the Mainland has 2+3 seating on high speed services. And you don't get much additional useable width-the TGV Atlantique is only approx. 3 inch wider than a typical BR EMU

The number of people you can fit in depends on the number of carriages, 1st/2nd class mix, seat pitch etc. This will apply to both captive and classic trains.

How is it cheaper? If you're going to have to design a classic-compatible train anyway and set up production, why isn't it cheaper to just run a few more of these off than buy another totally different design with all that implies in terms of staff training, duplicate spares etc. To say nothing of the extra weight of a bigger carriage and consequent higher energy costs. And you'd clearly have lost the flexibility to run "off piste" eg engineering diversions

 

[Loki]

Could they really be wider? I mean, wouldn't this cause massive issues with classic compatible stock having elephant-sized gaps between the train and the platform edge? Unless they did something clever like interlacing tracks at stations...

The platform gauge differences are not that big. Just a few inches. The problem can be resolved with extendable platforms installed on the trains.
Also HS1 is already GC gauge and has no problem running both W gauge trains and UIC ones.

 

[HSTEd]

Well we'll see. At present the politicians are promising all things to everybody to try to garner public support

Yes, but reversing position on that is going to cost so much in political capital terms that it simply isn't worth it, especially considering it won't actually increase revenue from the service.
And will increase the subsidy required for classic lines when they have to provide more capacity to handle these passengers (since West Coast conventional IC services lose money by the buckload)

I cant grasp this. There will still be practical, direct, services from Leeds to Kings X, Manchester and Birmingham to London

Look at the modelling by HS2 Ltd and Network Rail, the number of non HS2 Intercity seats out of Euston post HS2-2 opening.
The number collapses, then you have to include trains to non HS2 served destinations, such as North Wales.
You will be left with a handful of trains that won't be able to move any significant number of passengers.

So you've spent £50bn (or whatever) on which you've got a huge annual capital charge,

Actually the interest rate on bonds is negative in real terms for a large range of depreciation periods.
Even for 35 years the index linked bonds are only 0.03%. So the real terms interest on £40bn would be £12m per year. (And doing it in real terms is reasonable as fares and all others are related to inflation).
As the bulk of the expensive parts of the line (the tunnels, bridges and compensation payments) have long or infinite lifetimes you can set your depreciation period to an arbitrarily long time, so the capital repayment itself tends to be quite small.

a fleet of energy hungry trains

The enemy consumption per seat.km of the TGV Duplex is approximately equal to that of the Class 390. It has massive benefits from not having insanely heavy tilt equipment et. al.
The AGV does better and we have ever reason to believe the current in development TGV Duplex successor will to.

and no doubt just had a gun to your head by the unions re pay rates (see Boris on the Olympics)

The staff requirement will be cut drastically per seat.km, so even if the unions demand a massive pay rise (and I doubt they will, since we have seen just how weak the union movement is these days) it would still be cheaper especially considering the simplicity of the line's infrastructure compared to the WCML.

Re fares if you look at Peterborough-Kings X or New St.-Euston you'll see that the faster service charges a premium

Yes, and if you note, it costs rather more to run the Pendolino service compared to the Class 350.
Look up the track access charges for a Class 350 and a Class 390 to see what I mean.
Then you have to consider the massively increased staffing costs on a Pendolino and other sundry items which conspire to drive the cost through the roof.

The HS service will have drastically reduced staffing costs (both absolutely and per seat) and will have a lower rolling stock leasing charge thanks to the drastically reduced amount of rolling stock required per seat.km.

Is this the latest scaremongering by the pro HS2 lobby-if you don't support HS2 then railway travel outside the SE will be cut?

No, I am not saying this will happen unless HS2 opens.
I am merely pointing out that an argument that we shouldn't subsidise High Speed rial for 'the few' to ride on also applies generally to InterCity travel, since the majority of the people in the country rarely, if ever, ride on an InterCity train.

You have to be careful what arguments you use because they will be picked up and used against you at a later date.

How can you fit more people on? I accept d/deckers may allow this but no-one can point me to a document that says these are needed or are under consideration.

They have been mentioned at various times in the papers by ministers, such as Justine Greening.

And do you really expect detailed schedules and plans for rolling stock acqusition 13 years before the first phase even opens?
We aren't even sure what rolling stock will ever be on the market at that time.

How is it cheaper? If you're going to have to design a classic-compatible train anyway and set up production, why isn't it cheaper to just run a few more of these off than buy another totally different design with all that implies in terms of staff training, duplicate spares etc.

Because such trains will still be bespoke orders, whether or not they are part of a larger order of bespoke units.
The marginal cost of additional construction will still be higher than that of off-the-shelf units.

And as I understand it the EU is supposed to be mandating increasing standaridsation of driving desks and other trainboard equipment, precisely to allow for increased interoperability.
Remember, that for one thing, a classic compatible set has an awful lot more equipment than a captive set.
AWS/TPWS amongst other things, all of which have to be provided for and maintained.

There are also passenger comfort benefits to consider, and the fact that it is very hard (or even impossible) for a classic compatible train have to level access on a continental height platform like those provided at high speed stations. (As TSIs require them since a continental train can't use a British platform without its bottom being ripped out).

To say nothing of the extra weight of a bigger carriage and consequent higher energy costs.

Firstly the energy cost is a rounding error in the cost of running a service.
I calculated it and its on the order of a few hundred pounds even for a 394m Duplex set with 1352 seats.
Secondly, the weight of the carriage is irrelevent if you have a Duplex set, since it actually has a lower weight per seat than a regular TGV let alone the slovely Class 390 or Class 373.

And you'd clearly have lost the flexibility to run "off piste" eg engineering diversions

The lack of any south facing HS2 to Classic connections means that the only section of line that could actually be bypassed is Crewe to Manchester (excluding the Crewe-Wigan connection which is only operated by CC stock anyway).
Everything else would require the trains to run all the way to London on the classic line which is untenable because you would have to start axing commuter trains on the WCML to get them paths.

And I am not really sure how you could run a train from Leeds into Euston using only electrified railways that aren't HS2.

 

[Chris125]

Re fares if you look at Peterborough-Kings X or New St.-Euston you'll see that the faster service charges a premium

That's a different issue - when HS2 opens it could well be more expensive than using the equivalent WCML service as those will no longer be able to charge the 'premium' that they can at present, however those are likely to become slower and in some cases aimed more at commuters than intercity traffic.

How can you fit more people on? I accept d/deckers may allow this but no-one can point me to a document that says these are needed or are under consideration.

Have you tried Google? They have always been cited as a possibility and their potential capacity used as a benchmark; indeed the announcement that HS2 was to proceed specifically mentions them -

"HS2 trains will be up to 400 metres long with 1,100 seats, travelling at speeds of up to 250 mph. Double decker trains could be introduced to run on the HS2 network and would be compatible with HS1 and the Channel Tunnel. Services using HS2 and existing rail lines will use standard-size non-double decker high speed trains."

How is it cheaper? If you're going to have to design a classic-compatible train anyway and set up production, why isn't it cheaper to just run a few more of these off than buy another totally different design with all that implies in terms of staff training, duplicate spares etc. To say nothing of the extra weight of a bigger carriage and consequent higher energy costs. And you'd clearly have lost the flexibility to run "off piste" eg engineering diversions

We aren't talking about a 'few more', but a split of 81 captive to 99 classic compatible - almost 50/50. With a predicted 15% difference in cost between them that's a substantial sum even if procuring 180 versus 99 lowered the unit cost. As for a 'totally different design' there's no reason why the train fleets can't be procured from the same operator and based around an existing 'platform' such as the AGV or Velaro.

I see no value in captive trainsets being able to run 'off piste', there will neither be the capacity nor platform lengths on the existing mainlines into London to accommodate such trains - however an off-the-shelf design gives flexibility over the initial size of the captive fleet and it's make-up, as trainsets can be more easily used abroad and extra sets procured without the expense of re-starting a production line for a unique design.

That said I really don't understand why you regard this as such an issue - decisions over ruling stock are years away, so if it's cheaper to procure an entirely classic-compatible fleet then that choice could be made by whoever orders them.

Chris

 

[eps200]

Not really tied into any thread of discussion but can someone answer me why does it seem to be a given that CC stock can't tilt? I realise tilt gear adds weight but if running a double decker is viable?
Clearly there is higher cost in terms of energy used per seat but running north of Crewe at 110 instead of a possible 140 seems like a terrible idea?

Finally getting 140 running seems like some easy political capital too

 

[The Ham]

The lack of any south facing HS2 to Classic connections means that the only section of line that could actually be bypassed is Crewe to Manchester (excluding the Crewe-Wigan connection which is only operated by CC stock anyway).
Everything else would require the trains to run all the way to London on the classic line which is untenable because you would have to start axing commuter trains on the WCML to get them paths.

And I am not really sure how you could run a train from Leeds into Euston using only electrified railways that aren't HS2.

Also, given that engineering will be designed in (so shuttle working on one track whilst the other track is worked on) will mean that very little traffic will need to be diverted. It should also be noted that there are not really that many (compared to the total number of track miles) sections of existing track which have a viable diversion route.

The only reason that shuttle working doesn't happen on the existing network is that it costs so much to build after the event with all the extra signals which would be required. Once in cab signalling becomes the norm this is likely to change.

However even if diversions were needed then, as it would likely be late night/at a weekend passenger numbers are proberbly going to be low enough that the existing network could cope with a few extra trains per hour and/or longer trains than normal to make up for a lot of the loss in capacity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not really tied into any thread of discussion but can someone answer me why does it seem to be a given that CC stock can't tilt? I realise tilt gear adds weight but if running a double decker is viable?
Clearly there is higher cost in terms of energy used per seat but running north of Crewe at 110 instead of a possible 140 seems like a terrible idea?

Finally getting 140 running seems like some easy political capital too

It is because it adds a lot of weight which makes it a lot more expensive to run (a class 221 has track access charges of about 50% more than the 220's per coach).

Also the distances are a little less (about 20% less) than you suggest as there is link from HS2 to Wigan. Also, it could well be possible to put in some more line enhancements to increase the speed for non tilting stock (that is if a link to Scotland isn't built anyway). Wigan to Glasgow is about 200 miles, running at 110mph gets you there in 1 hour 49 minutes whilst at 140mph gets you there in 1 hour 25 minutes. Whilst 25 minutes isn't to be sniffed at it would require 0 stops and for the whole way to be able to run at full speed. If the distance at which you can travel at 140mph falls by just 75 miles it reduces the time saving to 15 minutes.

Virgin made a big thing of if the ECML were able to run at 140mph then they could by using Pendilinos get to Scotland in almost the same jurney times as HS2 (post phase 2). However it isn't really viable as travelling at those speeds eats up paths when running with slower trains.

 

[edwin_m]

Not really tied into any thread of discussion but can someone answer me why does it seem to be a given that CC stock can't tilt? I realise tilt gear adds weight but if running a double decker is viable?
Clearly there is higher cost in terms of energy used per seat but running north of Crewe at 110 instead of a possible 140 seems like a terrible idea?

Finally getting 140 running seems like some easy political capital too

HS2 is designed on the basis of proven technology, for example the published timings are based on an Alstom AGV. There is no proven design of tilting train available that could match the top speed necessary to keep up with other trains on the London-Birmingham section. I seem to remember Germans have had major problems with tilting high speed trains, and I'm not sure if anyone else has tried.

Unless someone comes up with a 360km/h tilting train, the only option would be to slow down the whole HS2 network to run at the speed of the fastest tilting train available.

 

[YorkshireBear]

HS2 is designed on the basis of proven technology, for example the published timings are based on an Alstom AGV. There is no proven design of tilting train available that could match the top speed necessary to keep up with other trains on the London-Birmingham section. I seem to remember Germans have had major problems with tilting high speed trains, and I'm not sure if anyone else has tried.

Unless someone comes up with a 360km/h tilting train, the only option would be to slow down the whole HS2 network to run at the speed of the fastest tilting train available.

Could you not disable the tilt between London and Manchester run at 360kph? Then just enable it and go for it.

 

[Ironside]

Not really tied into any thread of discussion but can someone answer me why does it seem to be a given that CC stock can't tilt? I realise tilt gear adds weight but if running a double decker is viable?
Clearly there is higher cost in terms of energy used per seat but running north of Crewe at 110 instead of a possible 140 seems like a terrible idea?

Finally getting 140 running seems like some easy political capital too

As you allude, double decker is possible but allows for more seating, tilting only provides speed so cost per seat is higher. 140 on classic lines will require In cab signalling and an extra portion of capsasity because other trains are moving slower.

 

[Philip Elliott]

However even if diversions were needed then, as it would likely be late night/at a weekend passenger numbers are proberbly going to be low enough that the existing network could cope with a few extra trains per hour and/or longer trains than normal to make up for a lot of the loss in capacity

Most of the top 10 busiest VT services are on Sunday morning when there is 2-track operation.

 

[AndyLandy]

Not really tied into any thread of discussion but can someone answer me why does it seem to be a given that CC stock can't tilt? I realise tilt gear adds weight but if running a double decker is viable?

CC stock won't be double-deck though. For the CC trains to actually live up to their name, they're going to have to look much like existing InterCity trains do, about the same length and height.

In an ideal world, we'd get to the point where HS lines reach all the way to Scotland, and we can run fast captive stock all the way; but that's a long way off. In the shorter term, we'll have to make do with things like CC stock running off the end of the first HS lines, potentially being limited to 110mph up the northern WCML.

 

[edwin_m]

Could you not disable the tilt between London and Manchester run at 360kph? Then just enable it and go for it.

No train has ever been produced that can both tilt and run at 360km/h, even not at the same time! Probably because there are few routes that would need such a train, although HS2 to Scotland is potentially one of them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As you allude, double decker is possible but allows for more seating, tilting only provides speed so cost per seat is higher. 140 on classic lines will require In cab signalling and an extra portion of capsasity because other trains are moving slower.

The in-cab signalling is likely to be do-able in the timescales of HS2 because many routes will have ERTMS by then. The capacity may be a harder nut to crack, because freight is forecast to continue increasing.

 

[Chris125]

Not really tied into any thread of discussion but can someone answer me why does it seem to be a given that CC stock can't tilt?

Lord Berkeley raised this in the Lord's back in 2011:

To ask Her Majesty's Government, in respect of the first phase of the proposed High Speed 2 line, what is the expected journey time from London to Glasgow using HS2 with and without tilting on the conventional network, compared with existing journey times.

Earl Attlee: At this early stage in the Government's proposals for a high-speed rail network, no decisions have been made regarding the detailed specification of rolling stock. At this point however, the Government do not anticipate that trains operating on HS2 will be capable of tilting, either on the high-speed network or on the conventional network. This is because tilting trains are necessarily heavier than non-tilting trains, and increasing the weight of a vehicle ultimately results in a reduction of maximum speed. This means that a tilting train would not be able to operate at speeds of 225 mph or 250 mph as required by the HS2 route.

We tested our assumptions on tilting trains both with train manufacturers and with our technical challenge panel, who agreed with our conclusions. It is possible that future technology would permit a tilting high-speed train to be built, but no manufacturer could visualise and offer either credible costs or likelihood of successful commercial development of such a product. There are currently no tilting high-speed trains anywhere in the world.

Services running off HS2 onto the west coast main line to continue to Scotland would be speed-limited by the curvature of the route in a number of locations. However there is scope for increasing the non-tilt line speed from 110 mph to 125 mph or higher at a number of locations. Between Lichfield-where HS2 rejoins the WCML-and Glasgow, the difference in time between a non-tilting 110 mph train and a tilting 125 mph Pendolino is estimated to be 13 minutes. HS2 Ltd believes that by reviewing the assumptions behind the WCML upgrade works it should be possible to run non-tilting trains at 125 mph for lengthy sections, and thereby regain 6 or 7 of the lost 13 minutes. Similarly from Lichfield to Manchester a 110 mph non-tilt train would lose two minutes, of which we believe one minute could be regained. The HS2 business case is based on these journey time assumptions.

A high level assessment of journey times indicates that the London to Glasgow journey would take four hours using a London to the West Midlands high-speed line, reducing to three hours and 30 minutes once the Y network became operational. This compares to a current, standard journey time of four hours and 30 minutes.

I think there's a document somewhere with a slightly more detailed answer from HS2 Ltd about the issues but I've been unable to locate it, however I think the above gives a good overview of the issues nevertheless.

Chris

 

[HowardGWR]

Lord Berkeley raised this in the Lord's back in 2011:



Chris

If the CC trains were pendolinos and upgraded for higher speeds on the HS2 stretch, could they not achieve the timings mentioned by Lord Attlee?

Surely, for the duration, through trains to Scotland are bound to be CC and not captive?

I am probably remiss here so put me right please.

 

[HSTEd]

If the CC trains were pendolinos and upgraded for higher speeds on the HS2 stretch, could they not achieve the timings mentioned by Lord Attlee?

Surely, for the duration, through trains to Scotland are bound to be CC and not captive?

I am probably remiss here so put me right please.

At best pendos can do 155, which would make them eat too many paths heading to birmingham/wigan

 

[Metrailway]

SNCF modified a standard TGV into a tilting prototype due to political pressure in the 1990s, and I believe this reached 320km/h on non-tilt sections and 220km/h on tilt sections.

 

[clc]

I understand that a journey time of 3 hours is required to capture a significant share of the air market. HS2 delivers Edinburgh/Glasgow to London in 3 hr 38 mins. The Scottish Govt's HSR line would knock 10-15 mins off that. So can another 25 minutes be shaved through upgrading the classic line north of Manchester? Any thoughts on cost of doing this?