HS2 and capacity on classic lines - Spectator Debate

[Manchester77]

When you have many towns, large and small without railway access, and many present stations that you need to take a long way round to journey to clogging up the main lines, which I also mentioned in previous posts.

With no local stations, just stations where we already have stations, routes that are already established (London - Birmingham, London - Manchester, London - Leeds).

I know it is for a faster line with shortened journey times, but all destinations with airline competition (less so Birmingham - London, but the time saved is less and it has three rail companys already in competition), so the benefit of time saved is negligible compared to them.

While I understand your points regarding re-opening lines it's important to understand the core motive behind HS2 which is capacity. Our three main lines are filling up with some almost at capacity. You can only do so much to add capacity before it becomes unsustainable to keep throwing millions at a line where only one extra path will be gained. Removing the intercity trains off the WCML will mean that there's more room for local services (the ones which are currently operated by London Midland) which will benefit towns along the line as they'll have an improved service with more capacity.

I think I've mentioned in a previous post that following the introduction of Virgins VHF timetable there is no room for Northern to operate extra local services to relief overcrowding. This is one way HS2 benefits local stations by freeing up space for more trains to serve them.

I think the fact that HS2 is faster is a huge benefit because it should hopefully remove the need for domestic flights which is a big benefit. You can't really argue that domestic flights are better than a LDHS train service. You don't have the hassle of checking in at an airport you just turn up and board. When you arrive you're in the city centre not on the outskirts where you have to get a train/taxi to the centre of town. Furthermore it's more environmentally friendly to have a 400m long train carrying people than multiple aircraft doing the same job.

 

[Bright Boy]

Your points are well made and do make a lot of sense, and I agree with them surprise surprise !!.

I just think that re-opening other classic mainlines, such as the former GCR, will do the same job of relieving the mainlines and opening up paths, plus re-opening more direct routes for some towns (eg Rugby - Leicester) and re-connecting some towns to the rail network, and for a cheaper cost, upsetting less "NIMBY's", and serving wider areas of population.

Manchester for example, already has fast railways, and airlines, Lutterworth and Leigh have neither, just buses, I know there is a greater population in Manchester than a lot of these places put together, but Manchester has a choice of Railways, and airlines slow or fast, Leigh and Lutterworth and many other places do not have a choice at all, it is buses or nothing as far as public transport goes.

If HS2 is built then it will compete with the airlines, it will still be slower in travel time, but as you say the airline check-in adds more time and inconvenience, and also to/from the airport adds time (unless you just happen to live near the airport), so that will equal things up a bit. But will the cost be on a par ?, an off-peak return to London is currently equal to a cheap flight, for peak times the flights are cheaper, so it will be difficult for HS2 to compete on cost if it is going to be more than Virgin which will also be more expensive than the flights. Will more people choose convenience over price or less ?

If it tries to compete on price, will it lose money, then we will need to subsidise it

 

[The Planner]

This is much the same as the Okehampton debate, if Lutterworth is massively missing out, why isn't there a dedicated campaign to re-open the line via locals, businesses and the MP?

 

[Bright Boy]

Lutterworth is just one example, if you try reading my posts you will find that I refer to many towns, Tavistock is another

 

[Altnabreac]

A lot of the points you and others make are irrelevant to my argument, which is why pay all that money for a completely new railway, built on new land (or under/over it), which is upsetting many landowners and people who have homes on the route, the so called "NIMBYs" many who have a genuine complaint.

When you have many towns, large and small, without railway access, and many current stations that you need to take a long way round to journey to/from, clogging up the main lines, which I also mentioned in previous posts.

With no local stations, just stations where we already have stations, routes that are already established (London - Birmingham, London - Manchester, London - Leeds).

I know it is for a faster line with shortened journey times, but all destinations with airline competition (less so Birmingham - London, but the time saved is less and it has three rail companys already in competition), so the benefit of time saved is negligible compared to them.

And for me it is pointless to keep going around in circles arguing about trivial matters such as the population of Glasgow, also some of the "facts & figures" are debateable, for instance the Benefits:Cost ratio, who invented that one?, Benefits - to whom, how can you possibly calculate that, it may well Benefit someone, who and how many?, not enough in my opinion. Cost - we don't know how much it is going to cost by the time it is completed, we just have estimates, which keep rising. So how can you calculate the Benefits:Cost ratio ?

And the arguments over Glasgow's population are ridiculous, is Glasgow and its catchment area one of the largest in the UK?, 3rd or 4th !!! who cares, they have a large population, if the arguments about the line serving the largest population centres are to be believed then that's where the line should go after Manchester, not Leeds, they should have a branch, along with almost all the other big cities I have named in a previous Post, or a completely different line. Is it because there are less tory Mp's in Glasgow and no voters for them?

Also my Belief is that this HS2 line is promoted by the politicians for other reasons other than to help the public or relive other lines.

I'm glad you are in favour of "sensible" re-openings, and I know that both the English and Scottish governments have started and continue to do that which is very good, but for me this line is not sensible. And I note that you use the word "sensible", does that me that you agree with me that HS2 is not sensible ?

£32 million for other projects is good, but how many billions which they are planning to spend on HS2 could they use for these other projects, or other things such as education and hospitals? and that is why I call this a "lunatic scheme".

The Blackadder sketch was just a lighthearted/satrical side to this debate, but it does have a serious message, just as it did in Blackadder 4 about WW1, as do the "folksy quotes"

This is a forum where everyone can view their opinion, What I have wrote is my opinion and I am writing about this matter here in order to hopefully change some people's opinions about this scheme, and at least I may have opened some peoples minds to a different view on this project, some people I will not change, but that is the way things go.

another "folksy quote" we have is :-

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"

My point is that HS2 does serve Glasgow, with faster classic compatible services in Phases 1&2 then a dedicated line in Phase 3. It's very interesting to discuss alternative options with people but just saying "don't build it, do something else, and don't check the BCR as its all about what I feel is a good scheme" doesn't strike me as a recipe for integrated transport planning.

More like the sort of thing General Melchett might propose?

 

[jon0844]

If NIMBYs have genuine reasons not to want HS2 built, then what about upgrading the WCML and reopening other lines where you also need to reclaim land?

Don't the people who will lose their homes and offices to widen the WCML (for example) have a valid argument to stop the work too?

In other words, let's do nothing and nobody will be upset.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Your points are well made and do make a lot of sense, and I agree with them surprise surprise !!.

I just think that re-opening other classic mainlines, such as the former GCR, will do the same job of relieving the mainlines and opening up paths, plus re-opening more direct routes for some towns (eg Rugby - Leicester) and re-connecting some towns to the rail network, and for a cheaper cost, upsetting less "NIMBY's", and serving wider areas of population.

Manchester for example, already has fast railways, and airlines, Lutterworth and Leigh have neither, just buses, I know there is a greater population in Manchester than a lot of these places put together, but Manchester has a choice of Railways, and airlines slow or fast, Leigh and Lutterworth and many other places do not have a choice at all, it is buses or nothing as far as public transport goes.

If HS2 is built then it will compete with the airlines, it will still be slower in travel time, but as you say the airline check-in adds more time and inconvenience, and also to/from the airport adds time (unless you just happen to live near the airport), so that will equal things up a bit. But will the cost be on a par ?, an off-peak return to London is currently equal to a cheap flight, for peak times the flights are cheaper, so it will be difficult for HS2 to compete on cost if it is going to be more than Virgin which will also be more expensive than the flights. Will more people choose convenience over price or less ?

If it tries to compete on price, will it lose money, then we will need to subsidise it

Reopening the GCR as a LDHS-only route, which is what is needed in this country, would not stop NIMBYs appearing along the route. Reopening it to create a freight and piggyback lorry-only line where trains would only run at 75mph or so was opposed for the same reasons: people don't want a new line running through them at any speed if they don't get a station on it. Reopening the GCR with every station on it in order to satisfy locals would not produce a LDHS line, which is what is needed in this country and is why we are building HS2. That is not to say that reopening it as a local or regional line in total or in parts is not a valid idea - I would support such a measure where it would connect your currently unserved towns and villages to the rail network where a reasonable overall business case exists (including environmental, social benefits as well, of course). HS2 does not preclude the existence of such a line in future, when it is required. When such a line is to be reopened and rebuilt, it can pass without the need for nationwide political agreement as is required for HS2 and it will not take two decades to come to fruition once planned.

Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham and London are significantly larger than towns like Lutterworth and Leigh by several orders of magnitude. A new line to serve them provides benefits to many orders of magnitude more people a year than a line to them, which is why a scheme which connects them all together with a dedicated fast link is a reasonable option to take.

For the vast majority of InterCity journeys, the completed HS2 network will be faster for passengers than flying, not just competitive. Although a plane between Glasgow and London might spend only about an hour or less in the air, the overall journey time for the majority of passengers is significantly longer. Car from home to airport parking, possibly a bus transfer to the airport with luggage, check in queues, security, waiting for gates and then waiting while boarding and then taxiing time, with another large amount of time spent disembarking. On top of this most non-regular travellers (e.g. those with families or so on) will then add several hours on top in order to make sure that they do not miss anything. All this time spent faffing about in airports is where HSR can end up significantly faster for the vast majority of travellers. Get on a train from your local station (and in 2026/2033/whenever there'll be many more of them than there are today) that will take you to an HS2 station (as the NR timetables and route maps will be completely and utterly rewritten around HS2, most likely even including additional chords and other reopened sections such as the Stonebridge Railway to Birmingham Interchange) and spend only a few minutes (stations really aren't that big compared to airports, seriously) changing from one platform to another. The cost of aviation is going to go up significantly more than electric HS rail travel, especially when a single 400m train can carry two A380s' worth of passengers while using less than the energy consumption of a single Boeing 737 (seriously, a circa-1994 400m Eurostar is max 12 megawatts while a 747 averages 140 megawatts). Once the airlines don't have the speed advantage, and the cost of providing the flights increases too much, the air market really won't be able to survive no matter how low the prices drop.

 

[jon0844]

Until we can fuel planes another way, with something very cheap and easy to obtain/produce, I can see that in 50+ years we might be reserving fuel for long-haul flights only.

If air travel becomes really expensive (and it's not exactly cheap at the moment) then you'll be reserving fuel for routes where there's no realistic alternative. For short haul, it will not only be uncompetitive, but there may even one day be legislation to restrict such flights.

 

[The Planner]

Lutterworth is just one example, if you try reading my posts you will find that I refer to many towns, Tavistock is another

Still doesn't alter my point, Tavistock is getting what is basically an elongated siding which is massively dependant on a section 106 agreement. If there are all these towns which require/need/want their line re-opened why aren't there huge vocal campaigns and lobbying to do it?

 

[Bright Boy]

I don't know about all the towns but I do no that Leigh and Skelmersdale , in the north west have been campaigning for a rail connection, that's just two in the north west alone, I know of Blyth in the north east.

I know that Winslow has been the subject of a reopen proposal for Chiltern Railways

Can anyone else on here, from towns around the country, let The Planner know of your claims for a rail connection.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Reopening a local line is significant only on a local and regional scale. HS2 is so vital on a national scale that all three political parties support it and it will fundamentally change the UK as a whole once completed. The Britain of 2050 with a fully built-out HSR network at its core from Wales to Scotland to Anglia et al would effectively be a microstate where people travel as effortlessly between regions and countries as they do between local authorities now. London is so successful because it pools the talent of Britain into a tight area - with a national HSR network that tight area can be the size of an entire country which will deliver enormous economic benefit to people across the entire UK. Or at the very least, it would be a step towards such a utopian vision far beyond what the alternatives to HS2 could bring.

 

[Bright Boy]

HS2 does not yet serve Glasgow, the Classic compatible services have to be worked in after HS2 has been built, it is a proposal, but things can change as they inevitably do. I have not said anything about widening the WCML, however there are more paths available on the WCML north of Preston.

If HS2 trains run onto the WCML and stop at the main stations, Wigan, Preston, Lancaster, Penrith, Carlisle, Motherwell, Glasgow that is fine, what HS2 needs to do is open more stations along its route and possibly branches to serve other towns/cities, using the same classic trains, they will need to widen it though, that will give you the fast non-stop trains from Manchester/Leeds/Birmingham to London and wider areas of population, then with the other lines relieved open up either new or old lines to towns not served, then we will have a balanced and practical railway, and possibly make everyone happy?

And its not what "I feel" is a good or bad scheme, I do think practically and about the wider community, I can read a map and I can see who is missing out, I can work out travel times added together unlike some people on here and I do not take fools gladly by accepting made up statistics and figures which are thrown at me to persuade me about something, and I do learn from History.

Most airports now have rail connection, Manchester Piccadilly to the Airport 15 mins, Heathrow to Paddington is 15 mins , Glasgow is more awkward with a change to bus add another 10-15 mins, internal flight check-in is 1 hour (my wife usually gets there 45mins before with no problem, regular traveller), flight to London is 1 hour 20 mins on average from Glasgow, 45 mins from Manchester, so HS2 will be about level with Manchester flights , maybe a little faster, but Glasgow is a lot more quicker to fly at about 3 hours travel time than with the current train at 4 1/2 hours with a possible reduction of about 45 mins with HS2

The fuel situation is a good point, a little outside this debate but we can welcome new angles, air travel will become more expensive in future so faster rail travel at a higher expense will probably become viable, but will aircraft engineering turn to different ways to power their planes, they changed from propellers to rockets in the 1940's before we had changed from steam to diesel and electric, will they change to nuclear in future ? the aircraft industry is faster to adapt than railways

Not everyone wants to live in London, did you know that the London area population are the least happy people in the UK

Utopian visions change, when I was a lad the utopian vision was a little bit what we have today in some things, what will be our utopian vision in 50 years time ?

I had an idea for the character of General Melchett in my previous Blackadder sketch (but did not have the time and space to expand on that), it was as Lord Melchett the Home Secretary whom Blackadder approached for support for the line, and his answer was "fine as long as it comes no where near my land" I also had Captain Darling as the Right Honourable Darling who was leader of the opposition and was an MP in the North West who would support it only if he could travel on it using his expenses so to get to parliament quicker, but did not trust the plan and was very suspicious of Blackadder's intentions, and not forgetting George as Blackadder's dim-witted spin doctor who inadvertently messed up Blackadder's speeeches to persuade people to accept the line, along with the mathematically challenged Baldrick as Treasurer and the good looking but sly Blackadder as prime minister, do they remind you of anyone ?

 

[HSTEd]

If I was going to build a new fast railway from London to Birmingham with intermediate stops, it would not take HS2s curent route.
There is no point 'widening' it, if you want more capacity the best option is to build another two track line along a new route.

 

[Bright Boy]

How about Marylebone -Aylesbury - Buckingham - Banbury - Leamington - Dorridge - Birmingham Snow Hill, re-opening Aylesbury - Verney Jct - Buckingham - Banbury, upgrading the rest, re-aligning what was Verney Jct, this would add Buckingham back to the network and is quite direct, you can have trains non-stop Birmingham - London with some stopping on loops.

 

[pablo]

Ha, it's all jam tomorrow! Rockets? No. Don't stray from familiar pasture.

Interestingly, at present, the APD is more than the fare on some short-haul flights. They are so cheap. The very thing that killed NoL and Nightstar. So how is flying going to get so much more expensive that it kills itself off, short-haul?

The energy mix is changing fundamentally so present trends cannot be exponentiated.

 

[HSTEd]

How about Marylebone -Aylesbury - Buckingham - Banbury - Leamington - Dorridge - Birmingham Snow Hill, re-opening Aylesbury - Verney Jct - Buckingham - Banbury, upgrading the rest, re-aligning what was Verney Jct, this would add Buckingham back to the network and is quite direct, you can have trains non-stop Birmingham - London with some stopping on loops.

Unless you plan to demolish the BNP Parabas building, Marylebone has no capacity for significant numbers of additional trains - certainly not the 30+ classic compatible trains per hour required to match HS2.

Also if Euston can't cope with that many passengers how do you plan on supporting Marylebone with its far more tenuous Underground connections?

 

[jon0844]

Ha, it's all jam tomorrow! Rockets? No. Don't stray from familiar pasture.

Interestingly, at present, the APD is more than the fare on some short-haul flights. They are so cheap. The very thing that killed NoL and Nightstar. So how is flying going to get so much more expensive that it kills itself off, short-haul?

The energy mix is changing fundamentally so present trends cannot be exponentiated.

The passenger surely doesn't care how their ticket cost is divided up. If 99% of it was tax, it means them paying a lot more.

Planes will get more efficient but I still don't believe we will see flying getting cheaper, only more and more expensive.

 

[Bright Boy]

Unless you plan to demolish the BNP Parabas building, Marylebone has no capacity for significant numbers of additional trains - certainly not the 30+ classic compatible trains per hour required to match HS2.

Also if Euston can't cope with that many passengers how do you plan on supporting Marylebone with its far more tenuous Underground connections?

I was just responding with an option for a fast line just to Birmingham, not a replacement for the HS2 line in full, it does not have to go to Marylebone, however that station does have availability, not for 30+ an hour, but you don't need 30 per hour just to Birmingham. If you need more paths then build another station in London, is that what HS2 is doing anyway ?

Buildings can be demolished to make way for new projects and businesses re-located, have you heard of such a thing ? Maybe expensive, but what is HS2 if not that!

Marylebone underground station is on the central part of the Bakerloo line, hardly tenuous, and one stop away is Baker Street for Hammersmith & City, Circle, Jubilee and Metropolitan lines, in the other direction 2 stops is Paddington station for connections to the West

Maybe that line could go underground pass Marylebone and join with the new Crossrail at an enlarged Bond Street station?

Many things are possible, which maybe better, cheaper or more preferable to HS2

 

[The Planner]

Marylebone is pretty much at capacity, there is a scheme in the works now to try and squeeze some more flexibilty out of it.

 

[po8crg]

Re: flights vs trains to London.

This mostly uses Manchester examples, but a lot of the issues are similar from Liverpool or Leeds - obviously, the exact selection of flights and trains varies depending where you're leaving from, and flights are much more competitive from Glasgow/Edinburgh than from the M62 corridor.

Which is faster depends a lot on where you're trying to get to, and where you're coming from. It's really only a consideration for business travellers; leisure travellers will almost always take a cheap Advance train fare. If you live closer to the airport, then you might well find it's easier to get there than to the mainline station - much of Cheshire can get to Ringway easier than Piccadilly, for instance. From city centres (ie, leaving from the office), the mainline stations are always superior, of course - and regional cities generally only have one airport, so suburbs on the other side can get into the city easier than the airport (e.g. from Oldham or Rochdale, or suburbs like Littleborough or Shaw, then Piccadilly is much easier than going all the way around the city to Ringway). The same applies to Liverpool (Lime Street is much easier from Wirral or Southport, Speke is easier from Widnes), and I'm sure it does for most other cities too.

If you want to go to the City, then a train to Euston and the Northern Line is much faster than any flight option from as far as Manchester. Indeed, standing in the departures lounge of Ringway, it's quicker to take a train to Piccadilly and a Pendolino to Euston than to check-in, fly to Heathrow and HEx in to Paddington and then two tubes. Crossrail might actually make the flight more competitive if you can XR from Heathrow direct, or if the change from HEx to XR (at Paddington?) is easy and fast.

If you happen to be leaving from somewhere with a flight to LCY, then that's almost certainly better for much of East London, including Canary Wharf. There aren't any flights there from Manchester any more, which means you're stuck with LHR.

But if you're headed for somewhere in the Heathrow area, including much of the M4 corridor, then flying and renting a car or using a taxi can often beat a train to Euston, and the XC Voyager to Reading is so much slower than the Pendos that the flight can compete for anywhere but central Reading.

 

[NotATrainspott]

But if you're headed for somewhere in the Heathrow area, including much of the M4 corridor, then flying and renting a car or using a taxi can often beat a train to Euston, and the XC Voyager to Reading is so much slower than the Pendos that the flight can compete for anywhere but central Reading.

This. This is why the Crossrail Interchange isn't just Crossrail but the entire GWML as well. With HS2 + GWML modernisation, Manchester or Leeds to the Thames Valley involves one single change in a brand new, purpose-designed station and is just as fast or faster than going direct via XC and Birmingham.

 

[Tobbes]

In re: flying vs HS2, does anyone have ballpark figures on the Glasgow - Euston for HSR the whole way? Anything under 2h 30m and the air market (other than connecting to long haul at LHR) is presumably dead and buried.

 

[Altnabreac]

In re: flying vs HS2, does anyone have ballpark figures on the Glasgow - Euston for HSR the whole way? Anything under 2h 30m and the air market (other than connecting to long haul at LHR) is presumably dead and buried.

I've seen numbers between 2 hours 15 and 2 hours 40 mentioned depending on route and stop assumptions. The official HS2 Phase 3 remit is to get journey times to Edinburgh/Glasgow "under 3 hours" so to achieve that full High Speed Line all the way may not be required.
http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/131101-hs2-options-scotland.pdf

 

[Tobbes]

Thanks Altnabreac -

2h15 is presumably direct with one/non-stop HSR all the way - and would be remarkable. Let's hope they press on with it!

But whilst I generally buy the "if we build it, they will come" argument, I do wonder about demand for 2 tph @ 800 passengers a time from both Glasgow and Edinburgh, but 1 tph seems insufficient, somehow.

Thanks again,

Tobbes

 

[Altnabreac]

Thanks Altnabreac -

2h15 is presumably direct with one/non-stop HSR all the way - and would be remarkable. Let's hope they press on with it!

But whilst I generally buy the "if we build it, they will come" argument, I do wonder about demand for 2 tph @ 800 passengers a time from both Glasgow and Edinburgh, but 1 tph seems insufficient, somehow.

Thanks again,

Tobbes

Here's some really (really!) rough numbers based on Scottish Transport Statistics 2013 Aviation and Cross border rail statistics:
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk...publications-and-consultations/j285663-00.htm

Firstly passenger numbers on flights from Glasgow/Edinburgh to London/other cities on HS2 route in 2012 (Prestwick doesn’t have flights to Stansted anymore so isn't relevant.)

Edinburgh to
Heathrow 1,255,000
Gatwick 696,800
London City 322,700
Luton 269,800
Stansted 346,400
LONDON ALL 2,890,700

Glasgow to
Heathrow 828,500
Gatwick 607,400
London City 158,200
Luton 276,500
Stansted 331,600
LONDON ALL 2,202,200

Edinburgh to
Birmingham 285,900
Manchester 108,300
East Midlands 72,700
Leeds/Bradford 2,200

Glasgow to
Birmingham 208,100
Manchester 50,000
East Midlands 70,700
Leeds/Bradford 11,900

I'm going to assume that if HS2 has times well under 3 hours it captures 90% of all London traffic. This is a reasonable assumption based on the S curve distribution we know affects Rail/Air market share:
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk...publications-and-consultations/j202923-06.htm

90% of all London traffic 4,583,610

I'm also assuming HS2 fully built to Scotland kills the market completely for Edinburgh/Glasgow flights to Manchester/Leeds/Birmingham as these routes will not have the interconnecting passenger traffic (unlike say Heathrow which will probably maintain limited flights to Edinburgh/Glasgow and account for the 10% share kept by air to London) and times around 1-2 hours.

100% of all intermediate traffic 809,800

Total Air journeys transfer to HS2 5,393,410

Now we'll add in the existing Scottish Cross Border Rail Journeys (again from STS 2013, showing numbers in 2012).

to / from London 2,046,000
to / from North West England 1,941,000
to / from North East England 1,576,000
to / from Yorkshire and the Humber 893,000
to / from West Midlands 279,000
to / from*East England 277,000
to / from*South East 241,000
to / from*East Midlands 191,000

Lets assume HS2 captures 90% of the London traffic, some people may still want to travel on classic ECML/WCML services as these are numbers for all Scotland not just Edinburgh/Glasgow. For example the Sleeper and Highland Chieftain to Inverness will probably still run and not use HS2.

90% of all London traffic 1,841,400

I'll then assume that HS2 picks up 50% of the other cross border rail traffic. This is a very conservative assumption but there will be flows like Edinburgh - Berwick that HS2 won't ever take over. Depending on the route chosen HS2 may not pick up traffic to the NE of England either. (I've also excluded SW England/Wales as these are not served by HS2 but in reality some passengers may well use HS2 and change at Crewe/Birmingham)

50% of other traffic 2,699,000

Total Rail transfer to HS2 4,540,400

So if we combine our existing rail passengers transferring to HS2 plus air passengers we get a total of nearly 10 million passengers:

HS2 passengers based on 2012 figures 9,933,810

This is then really rough as we'll divide that 10 million by 365 for a daily figure and then by 12 for an hourly figure. These numbers are not at all accurate as there will be a big seasonal and peak/off peak variation:

Daily passengers 27,216
Hourly passengers 2,268

However that number of around 2,000 in an average hour suggests that 2tph Edinburgh/Glasgow @ 800 passengers (3,600 passengers in total) is not unreasonable especially when you remember these are 2012 numbers and HS2 to Scotland would probably not open until the mid 2030s.

Must stress these are really rough ballpark figures but they do show that the service level proposed is probably not unreasonable.

 

[po8crg]

Thank you for that Altnabreac, that's really helpful, and might actually suggest demand for 3tph at peak times - though that's probably better resolved by demand management (ie making peak tickets expensive) than buying more rolling stock that would be underused the rest of the day.

I was wondering about international trains, as people keep writing about them:

2h15 to London plus 2h15 London-Paris is 4h30 if the cross-London link gets built eventually (as long as provision is made at Old Oak Common in phase one, it'll get built in phase three or four or five, IMO).

Not sure how much that would abstract from flights - it's comparable to current London-Glasgow/Edinburgh times, which have about 40% of rail/air demand, but there's a long tradition of rail on those routes back to the Flying Scotsman, which there isn't to Paris. Glasgow-Paris flights (2012) is 125,030, and Edinburgh-Paris is 286,625.

If we say that 30% might take direct rail rather than fly, that gives you about 125,000 potential rail passengers pa, or 338 a day, ie one 200m train a day combined between both cities.

Amsterdam Schiphol has much more demand than Charles de Gaulle, but I expect that most of that is changing for long-haul and wouldn't want to go to Centraal - also Amsterdam is at least an hour further by train than Paris.

With current UKBA border and CTIGC security arrangements, I doubt whether international services would be offered even if the line were available.

If you could run a real train service, with passengers boarding and alighting all along the route, with stops at Carlisle, Preston, Birmingham Interchange, Old Oak Common and some combination of Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford before the tunnel, then there would be enough demand to run something like 1tph alternating between Glasgow and Edinburgh, with most of the pax only using the train for parts of the journey (much like the longer Cross-Country trains).

PS I've been wondering about Glasgow-Edinburgh routes. What I expect is a 260kph GC-gauge line from Glasgow to Edinburgh (260 is the speed of the Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham spurs) and then the 400kph mainline joining it at a junction somewhere halfway-between the cities, ie a T (with the junction somewhere between Airdrie and Bathgate) rather than a Y at Carstairs like WCML. It would probably make sense to extend the mainline up to a junction near Falkirk so CC trains can run through Falkirk to Perth and beyond (ie Aberdeen-Dundee-Perth-Falkirk-England and Inverness-Perth-Falkirk-England services). This would also allow the Glasgow/Edinburgh trains to be limited stop and the Aberdeen/Inverness trains to stop at all intermediate HS2 stations.

Looking at the map, we might get an Edinburgh Airport station on the same basis as the Manchester Airport station (ie the line pretty much goes past the airport, why not run it through the airport and provide a station?) but I can't see a case for any other intermediate stops between the cities, and the case for a station in the Borders is pretty weak too; you might put a station at the junction of the T to allow for combining/splitting trains, but why not just do that at the first place you actually want a station? (ie Carlisle or Newcastle, depending which route you take).

I'd prefer the East Coast route via Newcastle, but it would have to go through the middle of Northumberland National Park to keep the distance (and time) down, so I guess a West Coast route via Preston and Carlisle is more likely.

 

[NotATrainspott]

PS I've been wondering about Glasgow-Edinburgh routes. What I expect is a 260kph GC-gauge line from Glasgow to Edinburgh (260 is the speed of the Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham spurs) and then the 400kph mainline joining it at a junction somewhere halfway-between the cities, ie a T (with the junction somewhere between Airdrie and Bathgate) rather than a Y at Carstairs like WCML. It would probably make sense to extend the mainline up to a junction near Falkirk so CC trains can run through Falkirk to Perth and beyond (ie Aberdeen-Dundee-Perth-Falkirk-England and Inverness-Perth-Falkirk-England services). This would also allow the Glasgow/Edinburgh trains to be limited stop and the Aberdeen/Inverness trains to stop at all intermediate HS2 stations.

Looking at the map, we might get an Edinburgh Airport station on the same basis as the Manchester Airport station (ie the line pretty much goes past the airport, why not run it through the airport and provide a station?) but I can't see a case for any other intermediate stops between the cities, and the case for a station in the Borders is pretty weak too; you might put a station at the junction of the T to allow for combining/splitting trains, but why not just do that at the first place you actually want a station? (ie Carlisle or Newcastle, depending which route you take).

I'd prefer the East Coast route via Newcastle, but it would have to go through the middle of Northumberland National Park to keep the distance (and time) down, so I guess a West Coast route via Preston and Carlisle is more likely.

The Central Belt, especially post-EGIP-and-beyond, could probably sustain a sort of Central Belt Parkway station for any future HS to anywhere further north, which would enable London-Aberdeen trains in the same way that they currently aren't justified without stopping in Edinburgh. If a fourth Forth Bridge was in order, having this Parkway station around the Edinburgh Airport/International Gateway area could probably suffice as it is more-or-less as close to Waverley as Meadowhall is to Sheffield Midland with a plethora of onward connections available by rail, road, tram and air. This line would come off the Edinburgh spur a few kilometres from the outer ring road, directly allowing Glasgow-North HS trains and then another link would be required for Edinburgh-North trains. There's not a point in the world in expensively reopening a slow intercity line to Perth along the M90 so use it as the HS2 route from the new bridge to just south of Perth, where the main route swings eastwards to Dundee and the other goes into Perth station as it is today. Since there is never going to be enough traffic to justify two independent double-track railways to Aberdeen, I see the classic line being upgraded to HS standards (GC gauge but only as fast as it is practical to go) whenever it is feasible and where it is not, the old route would effectively be replaced except to serve local stations or as long passing loops for freight and local services. The HS station at Dundee wouldn't need more than two platform faces and wouldn't need non-stop lines either, so the costs of it would be much lower than elsewhere on HS2.

Effectively this provides three separate Scotland spurs off the HS2 mainline, which would likely require more paths to be found further south in some way in order to allow all three spurs a reasonable service. One 200m unit an hour from London split off a Glasgow service at Carlisle would be more than enough capacity for the number of passengers going to London, with the money-making Edinburgh passengers able to get off at the Airport station. Most Central Belt-Aberdeen/Inverness passengers would move onto other domestic services running over the HS-Scotland tracks, allowing the other services to slow down considerably to serve areas better where currently only cars can provide a decent service.

 

[Altnabreac]

Thank you for that Altnabreac, that's really helpful, and might actually suggest demand for 3tph at peak times - though that's probably better resolved by demand management (ie making peak tickets expensive) than buying more rolling stock that would be underused the rest of the day.

I was wondering about international trains, as people keep writing about them:

2h15 to London plus 2h15 London-Paris is 4h30 if the cross-London link gets built eventually (as long as provision is made at Old Oak Common in phase one, it'll get built in phase three or four or five, IMO).

Not sure how much that would abstract from flights - it's comparable to current London-Glasgow/Edinburgh times, which have about 40% of rail/air demand, but there's a long tradition of rail on those routes back to the Flying Scotsman, which there isn't to Paris. Glasgow-Paris flights (2012) is 125,030, and Edinburgh-Paris is 286,625.

If we say that 30% might take direct rail rather than fly, that gives you about 125,000 potential rail passengers pa, or 338 a day, ie one 200m train a day combined between both cities.

Amsterdam Schiphol has much more demand than Charles de Gaulle, but I expect that most of that is changing for long-haul and wouldn't want to go to Centraal - also Amsterdam is at least an hour further by train than Paris.

With current UKBA border and CTIGC security arrangements, I doubt whether international services would be offered even if the line were available.

If you could run a real train service, with passengers boarding and alighting all along the route, with stops at Carlisle, Preston, Birmingham Interchange, Old Oak Common and some combination of Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford before the tunnel, then there would be enough demand to run something like 1tph alternating between Glasgow and Edinburgh, with most of the pax only using the train for parts of the journey (much like the longer Cross-Country trains).

My personal view is that its unlikely to be viable to run Scotland - Paris trains. Even if the HS1-HS2 link were added back into the project or upgraded to a full segregated route you would be competing with paths for running more domestic services which would likely have a better business case.

At a 4 hours 30 - 5 hours sort of timing a 25%-30% rail share is possible but only if running a frequent service. This is the sort of share currently on Edinburgh - London with a 1-2tph service. If running a 1-2tpd sort of service you would capture a much lower percentage of the market share and thus justifying even less of a service.

My view is that HS2 will boost the percentage for rail share of Scotland - Europe but by increasing the number of people interchanging Euston - St Pancras. If a HS1 - HS2 link were built you might justify a regular service Paris to Birmingham which would facilitate cross platform interchange for Scottish journeys at Old Oak Common or Birmingham Interchange but probably not a regular Scotland - Paris service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

PS I've been wondering about Glasgow-Edinburgh routes. What I expect is a 260kph GC-gauge line from Glasgow to Edinburgh (260 is the speed of the Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham spurs) and then the 400kph mainline joining it at a junction somewhere halfway-between the cities, ie a T (with the junction somewhere between Airdrie and Bathgate) rather than a Y at Carstairs like WCML. It would probably make sense to extend the mainline up to a junction near Falkirk so CC trains can run through Falkirk to Perth and beyond (ie Aberdeen-Dundee-Perth-Falkirk-England and Inverness-Perth-Falkirk-England services). This would also allow the Glasgow/Edinburgh trains to be limited stop and the Aberdeen/Inverness trains to stop at all intermediate HS2 stations.

Looking at the map, we might get an Edinburgh Airport station on the same basis as the Manchester Airport station (ie the line pretty much goes past the airport, why not run it through the airport and provide a station?) but I can't see a case for any other intermediate stops between the cities, and the case for a station in the Borders is pretty weak too; you might put a station at the junction of the T to allow for combining/splitting trains, but why not just do that at the first place you actually want a station? (ie Carlisle or Newcastle, depending which route you take).

I'd prefer the East Coast route via Newcastle, but it would have to go through the middle of Northumberland National Park to keep the distance (and time) down, so I guess a West Coast route via Preston and Carlisle is more likely.

For direct services to the north of Scotland you need to consider both the demand for dedicated services and more importantly availability of paths on HS2 (especially south of Birmingham). If planning to run services which don't go through Edinburgh or Glasgow you either need to reduce the frequency of service to Edinburgh/Glasgow or remove services from other cities in England (Preston, Newcastle etc).

While its true there are the 2 Heathrow paths that could become available, competition will be fierce for them (Offhand I could suggest Wolverhampton, Chester/North Wales, Manchester via Stoke, Hull via Rotherham and Doncaster, Sheffield via Toton and Chesterfield) and my personal view is that while through services to Aberdeen / Dundee on HS2 are possible (once the route is electrified), these are likely to be via Edinburgh.

With regards speeds, remember the 400 / 260 kph issue is due to turnout speeds. One line has to slow to 260kph where there is a divergence. The Leeds/Manchester/Birmingham sections all turn off the 400kph mainline and it isn't worthwhile speeding back up to 400kph as you are nearly at your destination.

The same issue applies in Scotland but only to one of the branches. To maintain evenish journey times you would probably choose the city further from the Y junction to be served by the 400kph branch and the one closer to the Y to be a 260kph line. The Edinburgh - Glasgow line would have 2 260kph turnouts so as you point out it would mean Edinburgh - Glasgow services would be unlikely to get above 260kph (which the short distance contributes to as well). However one branch can be designed to 400kph standards.

 

[clc]

Altnabreac, thanks for that summary of likely passenger numbers. Just to pick up your point about HSR not capturing the Scotland - Heathrow interlining market, the report linked to below says the volume of interlining is about 50% on flights between Scotland and Heathrow, making interline demand of 1.19m passengers per annum. HSR could potentially abstract half of interlining passengers if there was a direct service to Heathrow - see Pages 48 and 52:

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/PC-Workstream-2-Strategic-Choices.pdf

 

[Altnabreac]

Altnabreac, thanks for that summary of likely passenger numbers. Just to pick up your point about HSR not capturing the Scotland - Heathrow interlining market, the report linked to below says the volume of interlining is about 50% on flights between Scotland and Heathrow, making interline demand of 1.19m passengers per annum. HSR could potentially abstract half of interlining passengers if there was a direct service to Heathrow - see Pages 48 and 52:

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/PC-Workstream-2-Strategic-Choices.pdf

Interesting numbers there thanks. Suggests that 90% may be slightly optimistic without a Heathrow link. Could see some extraction via Old Oak Common to be honest but maybe 80% is more realistic given the numbers interlining at Heathrow.