HS2 and the APT: The Scottish case for tilt!

[HighlandStorm]

There’s already been plenty of discussion about the use of Pendolinos on HS2 vs the non tilt journey time penalty north of Handsacre Journey!

But how would the more aggressive tilting and higher top speed of the BR Advanced Passenger Train fair - not just against the Pendolino but the actual proposed HS2 Trains. Some googling and several AI models later - this was the answer:

3rd Place: 4hr 18min - HS2 train.

2nd Place: 3hr 38min - Class 390.
(Chris Gibb’s proposal)

1st Place: 3hr 29min - The APT

HS2 should be bringing the journey time and capacity to basically end the internal domestic air market.

Instead, where HS2 is heading promises West central Scotland slower journeys with less capacity.

That’s a completely unacceptable outcome and the case for tilt at this end of the West Coast Mainline is unanswerable!

Is it time for the APT II?

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, it's time to build more of HS2. The APT was a bodge to avoid the UK investing in proper high speed rail when the French and Germans were well down that road.

Tilt has no real future.

Ideally there should be an agreement between England and Scotland to fund HS2 all the way to the Central Belt, let alone Manchester.

 

[Sorcerer]

New tilting trains would mean a need to update TASS or to invest in a new tilt control technology, both of which Alstom and Network Rail have no interest in supporting. The Pendolino has been a very successful train but what has to be understood is that it, along with the Advanced Passenger Train, was part of a wider investment plan drawn up to avoid building new lines and trying to squeeze the most out of the existing infrastructure which has lead us to where we are now. The answer as @Bletchleyite pointed out is to build more of HS2, and preferably in full.

 

[NCT]

You'll need to do a bit better than 'Some Googling and Several AI models'. The 3 numbers you've presented are not anything I recognise. Are they based on the same HS2 infrastructure and same stopping patterns? State the sources behind the Google or AI results.

 

[JamesT]

There’s already been plenty of discussion about the use of Pendolinos on HS2 vs the non tilt journey time penalty north of Handsacre Journey!

But how would the more aggressive tilting and higher top speed of the BR Advanced Passenger Train fair - not just against the Pendolino but the actual proposed HS2 Trains. Some googling and several AI models later - this was the answer:

3rd Place: 4hr 18min - HS2 train.

2nd Place: 3hr 38min - Class 390.
(Chris Gibb’s proposal)

1st Place: 3hr 29min - The APT

HS2 should be bringing the journey time and capacity to basically end the internal domestic air market.

Instead, where HS2 is heading promises West central Scotland slower journeys with less capacity.

That’s a completely unacceptable outcome and the case for tilt at this end of the West Coast Mainline is unanswerable!

Is it time for the APT II?

What are these numbers? London to Glasgow?
You've missed out probably the most important number, which is the current journey time. That's the starting point for comparisons, rather than imaginary rolling stock.

 

[Zomboid]

The 1640 from Glasgow (today) is due in to Euston at 2120, so that sample of one gives 4h40. And unusually for the Glasgow-London trains it calls at MK.

If the 4h18 is accurate then even the limited HS2 which is being built will be 20 minutes faster.

 

[HighlandStorm]

If the 4h18 is accurate then even the limited HS2 which is being built will be 20 minutes faster.

My original query was for a hypothetical non stop express.

To lose more time through lack of tilt than HS2 Trains gain on HS2 - is sub optimal!

When set against a 17% capacity loss to Scotland (from Rail Engineer articles about Chris Gibbs proposals) and a notable journey improvement and capacity increase of 150% on London Birmingham, the outcome is likely to be economically benefit Southern England while providing negative economic impacts for Scotland and Northern England.

I don’t disagree with the build more HS2 posts - but that looks decades away. We need a solution for the medium term. The reduction in HS2 line speed amplifies this, while making the pathing of lower top speed tilting trains less impactful on total HS2 capacity.

There isn’t scope to run more Scotland trains north of Handsacre so the only option is different trains from the HS2 train plan.

 

[Zomboid]

In terms of capacity, I would hope that sense prevails and they get some 10 or 11 car 895s, as 400m long trains aren't likely to be practical on the classic network.

More tilt seems unlikely though.

 

[Sorcerer]

I don’t disagree with the build more HS2 posts - but that looks decades away. We need a solution for the medium term.

Longer trains would be a more appropriate medium term solution to make up for the capacity shortcomings than developing an APT Mk2. Journey times unfortunately won't be made much faster unless we increase the non-EPS limits north of Preston. Even if there was the will to develop a new tilting train alongside supporting the infrastructure requirements to enable it's operation it would still lose time due to being speed-limited on HS2.

The only existing high-speed train offering at least 300km/h with APT/Pendolino level tilt is the Avelia Liberty (coaches only), and while the N700 Shinkansen can tilt it's only by about 1-2 degrees which definitely wouldn't be worth all the infrastructure upgrades required to support it. It's unfortunate, but the fact is without HS2 going up to Golborne the London-Scotland journey times on the west coast axis won't be getting any faster once the 390s are life expired.

 

[3RDGEN]

My original query was for a hypothetical non stop express.

To lose more time through lack of tilt than HS2 Trains gain on HS2 - is sub optimal!

When set against a 17% capacity loss to Scotland (from Rail Engineer articles about Chris Gibbs proposals) and a notable journey improvement and capacity increase of 150% on London Birmingham, the outcome is likely to be economically benefit Southern England while providing negative economic impacts for Scotland and Northern England.

I don’t disagree with the build more HS2 posts - but that looks decades away. We need a solution for the medium term. The reduction in HS2 line speed amplifies this, while making the pathing of lower top speed tilting trains less impactful on total HS2 capacity.

There isn’t scope to run more Scotland trains north of Handsacre so the only option is different trains from the HS2 train plan.

If the reports of changing the HS2 stock configuration is correct then the London Euston - Glasgow services will be 250m trains so there's a capacity increase on the 390's for a start since it will be near impossible to build new stock with less seats than a 390 has.

The introduction of LUMO has just increased capacity to the Scottish central belt, if they get a track access extension beyond 2030 then they will likely increase capacity further with new trains, possible 10 car services and reduced journey times. There is also the planned platform extensions at Manchester Airport which will allow longer trains on the North West - Glasgow / Edinburgh route.

 

[Palmerston]

There’s already been plenty of discussion about the use of Pendolinos on HS2 vs the non tilt journey time penalty north of Handsacre Journey!

But how would the more aggressive tilting and higher top speed of the BR Advanced Passenger Train fair - not just against the Pendolino but the actual proposed HS2 Trains. Some googling and several AI models later - this was the answer:

3rd Place: 4hr 18min - HS2 train.

2nd Place: 3hr 38min - Class 390.
(Chris Gibb’s proposal)

1st Place: 3hr 29min - The APT

Pendolino plan for HS2 - Rail Engineer

Listen to this article Under current plans, in about seven years’ time HS2 trains from Old Oak Common (OOC) will join the West Coast Main Line (WCML) at Handsacre Junction just north of Lichfield. These trains will replace most of the WCML long distance trains that currently start at London...

www.railengineer.co.uk

The current record London to Glasgow is 3h 52 on a non-stop APT. The times above look similar to those in the railengineer article, which assumed 390s run on the HS2 track at 155 mph, and possibly continue at this speed on a new track to Crewe and then upgraded 140 mph track to Glasgow, stopping only at Preston and Birmingham Interchange.

HS2 proposed 4 hours to Glasgow including stops, which would have been a big upgrade on current times. If you build a new line to Crewe, adding something to Golborne seems more likely than upgrading Crewe to Glasgow for 140 mph.

 

[HSTEd]

We do appear in rather a quandry, given the rather large cost inflation seen in high speed infrastructure construction.

We also have a big chunk of semi wilderness splitting Scotland from England.
Even on the East Coast its about 90 miles between the last big habitation in England (Tyneside) and the first big one in Scotland (Edinburgh).

On the west coast there is only one substantial settlement in the ~130 miles between Lancaster and the Glasgow/Motherwell conurbation, Carlisle, and even that isn't that large.

I can't see a high speed line ever getting above Manchester on the West Coast, there just don't seem to be enough passengers to justify that length of track through politically charged terrain.

 

[TheWierdOne]

I can't see a high speed line ever getting above Manchester on the West Coast, there just don't seem to be enough passengers to justify that length of track through politically charged terrain.

It would need a good chunk of political will but I can’t see it being impossible. Certainly I can see it happening as a sweetener to keep Scotland in the union. The wilderness land is both a blessing and a curse.

On the one hand you have much less of an problem acquiring land, on the other hand you would almost certainly have environmentalist banging on about how the high speed electric railway, which scientists generally agree is excellent for helping meet climate goals, is going to be bad for a bird that is apparently too thick to fly away from the construction.

The lack of population isn’t an issue I think, because high speed rail after all doesn’t stop much for obvious reasons. A line from Manchester with stations at Preston, Lancaster and Carlisle before splitting around Carstairs for Edinburgh and Glasgow would provide a good balance of few stops, and space for express services running very limited stop, while also having decent connections onto conventional local and regional services.

 

[HSTEd]

On the one hand you have much less of an problem acquiring land, on the other hand you would almost certainly have environmentalist banging on about how the high speed electric railway, which scientists generally agree is excellent for helping meet climate goals, is going to be bad for a bird that is apparently too thick to fly away from the construction.

The lack of population isn’t an issue I think, because high speed rail after all doesn’t stop much for obvious reasons. A line from Manchester with stations at Preston, Lancaster and Carlisle before splitting around Carstairs for Edinburgh and Glasgow would provide a good balance of few stops, and space for express services running very limited stop, while also having decent connections onto conventional local and regional services.

Comparatively few people being around might make land acquisition somewhat easier, although it may just be a siren call that lures the railway into surface construction and another unwinnable political fight, analogously to the Chilterns.
However the real problem with building a railway with no people around is that no people are around to actually use it.

Scotland has a population of around 5.55 million which is expected to be south of 5.50 million and falling by 2050. Combined with a hundred thousand people in Carlisle there just isn't anyone around to actually use this railway.
The air market is absolutely tiny as it is, because the total travel market just isn't very large. Railways are only good for the climate if they are intensively used.

The business case for a 130 mile railway that might stretch to four trains per hour on an optimistic estimate of demand probably isn't going to be great. If we are building a high speed railway to keep scotland in the union for political reasons (although I am not sure you could get Scottish government cooperation for such a project in any case), you'd probably want to build a railway from Newcastle (or just south of it) to Edinburgh and then a section from Edinburgh to Glasgow.

The latter section is likely to get Support from the Scottish government and would likely be heavily used, and the Edinburgh Newcastle section is shorter and thus less expensive.

The railway south of Newcastle is already relatively fast and any future line or improvements has many more people to serve.

 

[Grimsby town]

Scotland has a population of around 5.55 million which is expected to be south of 5.50 million and falling by 2050. Combined with a hundred thousand people in Carlisle there just isn't anyone around to actually use this railway.
The air market is absolutely tiny as it is, because the total travel market just isn't very large. Railways are only good for the climate if they are intensively used.

I'm not saying it's necessarily viable to build a HS line all the way to Scotland but I'd dispute that the travel market is tiny. There's around 3 million journeys from Edinburgh to London airports alone. There's already over 2 million passengers per year on trains from London to Edinburgh. That's more than currently take the train from Manchester to London currently (~3.6 million). Add Glasgow and journeys to other English cities and its a pretty significant market.

The big advantage for Central Belt to London rail services is the lack of competion with the car. Its far easier to get modal shift from planes to trains than it is from car to trains. A plane is another form of public transport which a lot of people would consider worse than a train.

I also think its a growing market. Edinburgh is one of the most successful economies in the UK and is growing quickly. Scotland's population may shrink but its unlikely the major cities will and most areas in the Central Belt are projected to grow over the next decade.