HS2 future northern extensions

[clc]

I wonder how the cost of Scottish HSR lines will be apportioned between the UK and Scottish Governments. Am I right in thinking HS2 has been deemed a national scheme and therefore not subject to Barnett consequencials? If so, it would be reasonable to expect the UK Govt to fully fund any extension to Glasgow and Edinburgh. But what about the proposed HSR line between Glasgow and Edinburgh? Would that also be regarded as a national scheme in the same way that the east-west HS3 line in northern England presumably will be?

The wrangling over who pays for what will be interesting to watch.

 

[Tobbes]

I'd like to HS2 extended to Edinburgh and Glasgow as part of Phase 2, but as that's not going happen, then the least we need is clear timetable of when it could be reasonably completed.

On Barnett, the fiscal landscape is changing so fast with the Smith Commission that the only thing that I think is sure is that when we come to build HS2 Ph 3, the story will be different to now.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes, defined as a national infrastructure project so not subject to Barnett consequentials, the Governments position is that as rail governance and funding is completely devolved then the Scottish government is responsible for planning and financing everything on its side of the border while Westminister would pay for the track on its side of the border, if it has a valid business case.

 

[clc]

But if the infrastructure in Scotland is required for the national project then surely logic dictates that it should be funded from the national pot?

Cross border rail travel isnt devolved hence the Scottish Govt doesn't fund the ECML and WCML franchises. Presumably the Scottish Govt doesnt fund infrastructure improvements in Scotland which are needed for existing cross border services?

 

[HSTEd]

The whole mess that is this 'devo-max' is going to cause serious problems.
It will lead to years of wrangling over who pays for what and nothing will ever actually get built.

My own opinion is that it should be paid for by Westminster who should then proceed to stick giant Union Jacks on all the stations, bridges and any other piece of visible infrastructure.

 

[Altnabreac]

Cross border rail services are not devolved (at present) so any cross border element of the scheme would need consent and co-operation (as well as funding) from the Department for Transport in London.

It would most likely require two hybrid bills to be progressed through Westminster and Holyrood simultaneously for works on each side of the border.

It is for this reason that the cross border element of the scheme is being progressed jointly by DfT and Transport Scotland.

Each decision on Barnett Consequentials is an individual one and non binding but given that HS2 in England has been declared a scheme of national importance it is extremely unlikely any cross border scheme would be assessed differently.

The Edinburgh - Glasgow scheme is more likely (but not guarenteed) to be assessed as a scheme not of national (UK) importance but equally so is any Cross Pennine HS3 scheme so I wouldn't be surprised if a decision to fund cross pennine HS3 did generate Barnett consequentials for Scotland. (at the mooted £7bn this would be in the region of £700m extra for Scotland)

The trickier questions are around things like the southwards facing spurs from Edinburgh - Glasgow high speed rail. These would probably (although not necessarily in the case of a purely east coast scheme) form part of a future cross border scheme so the additional cost of these spurs to the Edinburgh - Glasgow scheme could be assessed as of national importance and funded separately.

In reality there are no clear boundaries here and it will all form part of a political negotiation.

Investment in new cross border infrastructure is likely to continue to be of political benefit to both major political parties in Scotland and at UK level so I would not be surprised to see more detailed announcements on these sorts of details in the run up to the election next year.

 

[adrock1976]

The site for the Glasgow HS station should ideally be in the vicinity of the former College Goods Yard near High Street and Bellgrove stations.

This would then provide connectivity with the long - awaited Glasgow Crossrail project.

In peace

Adam

 

[Altnabreac]

The site for the Glasgow HS station should ideally be in the vicinity of the former College Goods Yard near High Street and Bellgrove stations.

This would then provide connectivity with the long - awaited Glasgow Crossrail project.

Cheers

Adam

High Street is one of three potential sites identified by Glasgow City Council as a potential high speed rail terminus and is the preferred option of the council. See p51-53 of the Glasgow Council Local Plan main issues report:
https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=13033&p=0

However the currently proposed High Speed Rail Scotland between Glasgow and Edinburgh does not include proposals for city centre stations so at least initially any high speed trains will operate between Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley.

Any new city centre station would only be developed as part of a full cross border European Gauge extension of HS2.

 

[clc]

High Street is one of three potential sites identified by Glasgow City Council as a potential high speed rail terminus and is the preferred option of the council. See p51-53 of the Glasgow Council Local Plan main issues report:
https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=13033&p=0

However the currently proposed High Speed Rail Scotland between Glasgow and Edinburgh does not include proposals for city centre stations so at least initially any high speed trains will operate between Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley.

Any new city centre station would only be developed as part of a full cross border European Gauge extension of HS2.

The report states "Central Station – Network Rail have advised that this would necessitate extending the station beyond its current western boundary to accommodate existing local services or re-routing some of the local services currently terminating at Central, e.g., via Crossrail."

Why would it be necessary to extend the western boundary when they could build out over the Clyde using the old piers?

 

[Altnabreac]

The report states "Central Station – Network Rail have advised that this would necessitate extending the station beyond its current western boundary to accommodate existing local services or re-routing some of the local services currently terminating at Central, e.g., via Crossrail."

Why would it be necessary to extend the western boundary when they could build out over the Clyde using the old piers?

Good question?

Other options to free up capacity include diverting more services to Low Level or tram train for Cathcart Circle services (as suggested in the STPR).

Glasgow Council have a preferred option of High Street to help regenerate the east end and would like to see Crossrail.

Transport Scotland may not share these priorities.

Either way we won't see an answer in the short term as the first phase will not include any new city centre stations.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The report states "Central Station – Network Rail have advised that this would necessitate extending the station beyond its current western boundary to accommodate existing local services or re-routing some of the local services currently terminating at Central, e.g., via Crossrail."

Why would it be necessary to extend the western boundary when they could build out over the Clyde using the old piers?

There's a Grade A listed building on Jamaica Street, on the eastern side, while the western side consists only of a multistorey car park and a forgettable Victorian structure. It looks like it should be possible to fit another four or so 150m long short-ish platforms there but that might cause problems when other services are likely to be longer in future with higher passenger numbers.

If I were in charge, I would use the need to provide captive-gauge platforms as an opportunity to do a full-scale redevelopment of the station while keeping the Victorian heritage. Getting four perfectly straight 440m long platforms in to the site without demolition is going to be a challenge, unless you can afford to make the surface station HS-only give or take a mere couple of classic platforms, with all other services running via a cross-city tunnel (with the problem that there would be nowhere to terminate any of them at all if anything went wrong in the core, unlike Crossrail or Thameslink). A square 440m long area with enough width for two terminus platform islands would be available if the station were able to be built on top of the Clyde over the disused piers, like Blackfriars on Thameslink. This would necessitate doing something with the Grade A listed building but in comparison to the rest of the scheme, moving or preserving it somehow could not be that difficult if necessary at all. The western side platforms could be left as-is during construction and the station interior north of Argyll Street would then become available for retail development, as would the undercroft of the rebuilt section south of the road under the HS platforms.

 

[clc]

There's a Grade A listed building on Jamaica Street, on the eastern side, while the western side consists only of a multistorey car park and a forgettable Victorian structure. It looks like it should be possible to fit another four or so 150m long short-ish platforms there but that might cause problems when other services are likely to be longer in future with higher passenger numbers.

If I were in charge, I would use the need to provide captive-gauge platforms as an opportunity to do a full-scale redevelopment of the station while keeping the Victorian heritage. Getting four perfectly straight 440m long platforms in to the site without demolition is going to be a challenge, unless you can afford to make the surface station HS-only give or take a mere couple of classic platforms, with all other services running via a cross-city tunnel (with the problem that there would be nowhere to terminate any of them at all if anything went wrong in the core, unlike Crossrail or Thameslink). A square 440m long area with enough width for two terminus platform islands would be available if the station were able to be built on top of the Clyde over the disused piers, like Blackfriars on Thameslink. This would necessitate doing something with the Grade A listed building but in comparison to the rest of the scheme, moving or preserving it somehow could not be that difficult if necessary at all. The western side platforms could be left as-is during construction and the station interior north of Argyll Street would then become available for retail development, as would the undercroft of the rebuilt section south of the road under the HS platforms.

I don't think they'd get permission to demolish a grade A listed building. It sounds as if Network Rail realises this and is thinking the only way to create 4 HSR platforms would be to extend platforms 1-4 out over the river without demolishing any buildings on Jamaica Street. That would explain the need to extend the station on the western side.

 

[HSTEd]

They might be able to get permission to move it out of the way though, put the whole thing on piles or similar.

 

[Tobbes]

I'm sure that it could be made to work for 400m captive sets, but the idea of combining this with a Central - Queen Street tunnel to have Glasgow Crossrail is very appealing. Is it realistic? And after Queen Street VLL*, what would the gradient be to get to the top of the Cowlairs incline?

Thanks,

Toby

*Very Low Level!

 

[NotATrainspott]

I'm sure that it could be made to work for 400m captive sets, but the idea of combining this with a Central - Queen Street tunnel to have Glasgow Crossrail is very appealing. Is it realistic? And after Queen Street VLL*, what would the gradient be to get to the top of the Cowlairs incline?

Thanks,

Toby

*Very Low Level!

I believe Cowlairs Incline is 1 in 42, so it would be interesting to see what would be possible. Any tunnel would be used only by brand new EMU stock, so I would imagine that any gradients possible on Crossrail would be possible here as well. This section here shows its 1 in 32 descent down from Paddington to pass under the Central line at the north edge of Hyde Park. The Glasgow line would almost certainly need to be able to serve both the E&G and Cumbernauld lines for it to fill with traffic, which might complicate the northern side a little.

If the Scottish Government is able to do long-term borrowing I cannot see why it would be impossible to build this. Even after electrification Queen Street HL will be able to deal with no more trains without enormous physical changes, while the tunnel would then solve terminus capacity problems in Glasgow forever.

 

[clc]

If the Scottish Government is able to do long-term borrowing I cannot see why it would be impossible to build this. Even after electrification Queen Street HL will be able to deal with no more trains without enormous physical changes, while the tunnel would then solve terminus capacity problems in Glasgow forever.

I agree. It wouldn't be affordable right now because of the current transport schemes but if we're talking 20 years from now when all the big projects will have been completed (ie. FRC, AWPR, M8, A9, A96, EGIP, E2G HSR, Highland Mainline, Aberdeen-Inverness, electrification programme) then the SG should be able to afford the £3 billion cost if it can spread the repayments over 30 years or whatever. Who knows, they might even have a spare billion to extend the trams to Leith!

 

[Altnabreac]

New cross Glasgow tunnelling is a long way off but I'm willing to bet 2 things about it:

It won't involve high speed trains from England but be about domestic services from Ayrshire / Inverclyde / South Glasgow.
It won't have stations at both Central and Queen Street. They are too close together to justify the cost of a second station.

Either you would have a single station at Central or if you wanted a second station it would be further east serving the High Street / Collegelands / Cathedral / GRI sort of area.

 

[clc]

.

if you wanted a second station it would be further east serving the High Street / Collegelands / Cathedral / GRI sort of area.

I hadn't envisaged the tunnel going in that direction, where would it's northern portal be?

 

[Altnabreac]

I hadn't envisaged the tunnel going in that direction, where would it's northern portal be?

The main thing to bear in mind is the tight throat at Queen Street means no tunnelling scheme could reuse Cowlairs tunnel (not without closing Queen St. HL for years anyway) so wherever it went it would have to tunnel as far as surface track somewhere well beyond Queen Street.

Plausible options are Bellgrove, Cowlairs, or my favourite - somewhere near Railcare Springburn.

If you were going to make a business case for what would be several billion £ of investment you'd need to support new development and regeneration so an east end station makes sense. I'd put one somewhere around Townhead personally.

Not really on anyone's short term radar but could see it happening in the 2030s.

 

[clc]

The main thing to bear in mind is the tight throat at Queen Street means no tunnelling scheme could reuse Cowlairs tunnel (not without closing Queen St. HL for years anyway) so wherever it went it would have to tunnel as far as surface track somewhere well beyond Queen Street.

Plausible options are Bellgrove, Cowlairs, or my favourite - somewhere near Railcare Springburn.

If you were going to make a business case for what would be several billion £ of investment you'd need to support new development and regeneration so an east end station makes sense. I'd put one somewhere around Townhead personally.

Not really on anyone's short term radar but could see it happening in the 2030s.

Townhead is such a disaster zone because of the motorway carving through it I fear it may be beyond repair. I quite like the idea of a station at High Street/Collegelands though, that area has a lot of potential so some pump priming would deliver a good return I think.

 

[33Hz]

Re the comments about HS3 / Pennine base tunnels up thread: Another example closer to home is the Florence to Bologne HSR. 74km of tunnel in 79km and opened in 2009 for €5.2bn.

Impressive piece of civil engineering but boring to travel through when you know there's spectacular scenery on the old route.

 

[pablo]

Re the comments about HS3 / Pennine base tunnels up thread: Another example closer to home is the Florence to Bologne HSR. 74km of tunnel in 79km and opened in 2009 for €5.2bn.

Impressive piece of civil engineering but boring to travel through when you know there's spectacular scenery on the old route.

The way things are going, HS2 will end up like that and TfL will run it.

 

[po8crg]

To be fair to the Italians, the Apennines are more of a barrier than the Pennines so they really didn't have much choice. Turin-Lyon is going to need a monster tunnel at Mont d'Ambin

 

[Class 170101]

A link to Birmingham New Street as well - so more links to the SW not just the North.
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2014/11/22-plan-to-link-hs2-to.html

Plan to link HS2 to Birmingham New Street

THE West Midlands Integrated Transport Authority and the Rail Delivery Group are proposing that HS2 should be linked to the existing railway in central Birmingham so that some trains could serve New Street station as well as the new Curzon terminal planned alongside Moor Street station. The suggestion has come at the same time as an independent think tank has concluded that high speed rail is a catalyst for economic regeneration.

A New Street link would mean that, after the second phase of HS2 is completed to Manchester and Leeds, cross country services to and from the South West of England and South Wales could make use of HS2 to reach destinations in the North West, North East and Scotland.

It would also mean that some ‘classic compatible’ HS2 trains from London could continue via New Street to Sandwell & Dudley and Wolverhampton – and even to Telford and Shrewsbury, if electrification is extended by 2026 – and also to Worcester if electrification is extended beyond Bromsgrove.

There would appear to be two opportunities to connect HS2 to Birmingham New Street – near Water Orton, or in the Washwood Heath/Saltley area. At both locations, the new railway is planned to run alongside the existing Derby-Birmingham tracks.

The idea of such a connection is disclosed in written evidence from the West Midlands Integrated Transport Authority (WMITA) to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee, which is conducting an in-depth study into the economic case for HS2.

The WMITA document includes the following statement: “It should also be recognised that HS2 Phase 2 services will also offer a faster alternative to the Cross Country services on West Midlands to Manchester and West Midlands to East Midlands/Yorkshire/Newcastle/Scotland corridors.

“There could therefore be some advantage in combining some Cross Country services into the future HS2 franchise, especially if (as proposed by Centro/WMITA, the Rail Delivery Group and others) through 'classic compatible' HS2 services are to operate from the North of England to Bristol/Cardiff via a new connection between HS2 and the existing West Midlands rail network.”

More details may be given on 25 November when witnesses to be questioned by the Lords’ select committee will include Chris Tunstall, Director of West Midlands Integrated Transport Authority, and Jerry Blackett, chief executive of Greater Birmingham Chambers of Commerce.

Meanwhile, a report from an academic group the Independent Transport Commission has concluded that investment in high speed rail can help to 'increase the long-term capacity of the UK’s transport infrastructure and act as a catalyst for the economic regeneration of cities and regions'.

The Commission is a research charity and think tank. John Worthington, Independent Transport Commissioner and Chairman of the HSR working group whose report was published on 20 November, said: “Our research on the impacts of high-speed rail in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, has shown that, far from being a white elephant, there are very many examples where investment in HSR has been the catalyst for significant urban and regional renewal.

“This has happened when HSR has been properly integrated with the local transport network, when co-operation has been strong between all interest groups, and when cities have planned ahead and understood that regeneration is a long-term process.

"We hope that this report will act as a call-to-arms for the UK's cities and regions and will, through the lessons it contains, help them to grasp the opportunities that HSR investment offers.”

 

[clc]

Keith Brown on HS2:
"Mark Griffin: What is the Scottish Government's view of the HS2 chairman's comments that upgrades of existing rail lines are much more likely than extension of HS2 to Scotland, and that the discussions between the two transport departments on high-speed rail are running behind schedule?

Keith Brown: David Higgins has to take his steer from the Department for Transport. The much more important issue behind that is the political one. If we can get from all the political parties buy-in to the principle that high-speed rail should come to Scotland, that will strengthen his hand. We have a lot of time for him, but he has to say what he has to say, given the political direction that he gets.

David Higgins is well aware of the situation in Scotland and the benefits that would accrue from high-speed rail; it is obvious to most people who think about it that the real benefits in economic regeneration and modal shift would accrue if the line came all the way to Scotland and we got sub-three-hour journey times from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London. It might be possible to get that if we did some of the refurbishment that has been talked about—we will have to wait and see what the joint study says—but if we want real modal shift, high-speed rail has to come all the way to Scotland. The central belt of Scotland is the second most economically active area of the UK after the south-east of England, so there are real benefits to the rest of England and the rest of the UK if the link comes all the way here.

As I have said directly to the UK Government and others, we really want high-speed rail to come all the way to Scotland because that is what will bring the real benefits. However, the politicians will drive that—let us not pretend otherwise—and we all have to convince them that it should happen"

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=9677&mode=pdf

 

[NotATrainspott]

Keith Brown on HS2:
"Mark Griffin: What is the Scottish Government's view of the HS2 chairman's comments that upgrades of existing rail lines are much more likely than extension of HS2 to Scotland, and that the discussions between the two transport departments on high-speed rail are running behind schedule?

Keith Brown: David Higgins has to take his steer from the Department for Transport. The much more important issue behind that is the political one. If we can get from all the political parties buy-in to the principle that high-speed rail should come to Scotland, that will strengthen his hand. We have a lot of time for him, but he has to say what he has to say, given the political direction that he gets.

David Higgins is well aware of the situation in Scotland and the benefits that would accrue from high-speed rail; it is obvious to most people who think about it that the real benefits in economic regeneration and modal shift would accrue if the line came all the way to Scotland and we got sub-three-hour journey times from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London. It might be possible to get that if we did some of the refurbishment that has been talked about—we will have to wait and see what the joint study says—but if we want real modal shift, high-speed rail has to come all the way to Scotland. The central belt of Scotland is the second most economically active area of the UK after the south-east of England, so there are real benefits to the rest of England and the rest of the UK if the link comes all the way here.

As I have said directly to the UK Government and others, we really want high-speed rail to come all the way to Scotland because that is what will bring the real benefits. However, the politicians will drive that—let us not pretend otherwise—and we all have to convince them that it should happen"

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=9677&mode=pdf

I can see this being one of the SNP's demands for a confidence-and-supply agreement with Labour after May 2015. Even just to do a proper route engineering study would be ideal, so that adequate pre-planning and protection of the route can be done to minimise costs later. If it were then found that it would be possible to deliver chunks of the route, cutting off some of the worst sections of the WCML, then these chunks could be authorised individually to reduce the spending pressure on the Treasury.

 

[Chris125]

I can see this being one of the SNP's demands for a confidence-and-supply agreement with Labour after May 2015. Even just to do a proper route engineering study would be ideal, so that adequate pre-planning and protection of the route can be done to minimise costs later. If it were then found that it would be possible to deliver chunks of the route, cutting off some of the worst sections of the WCML, then these chunks could be authorised individually to reduce the spending pressure on the Treasury.

Demanding the next government support a new line all the way wouldn't really achieve anything, a final decision seems highly unlikely in the next parliament.

Chris

 

[NotATrainspott]

Demanding the next government support a new line all the way wouldn't really achieve anything, a final decision seems highly unlikely in the next parliament.

Chris

I am aware, but it would not be at all inadvisable to do some pre-planning for it. If it's known that such a line will be built eventually, it is not a bad idea to actively plan for it so that no incompatible development is authorised for the future. David Higgins did say that the future of HSR in the UK needs to be considered in the same way as the motorways were planned.

 

[edwin_m]

Protecting an alignment would be a good idea but would involve a round of consultation, as TfL is currently doing for Crossrail 2.

Interesting one if the SNP props up a Labour government in the next Westminster Parliament. Their price will presumably be another referendum, which they are quite likely to win, in which case Labour won't have anywhere to look for support the next time round...

 

[po8crg]

Protecting an alignment would be a good idea but would involve a round of consultation, as TfL is currently doing for Crossrail 2.

Interesting one if the SNP props up a Labour government in the next Westminster Parliament. Their price will presumably be another referendum, which they are quite likely to win, in which case Labour won't have anywhere to look for support the next time round...

If Labour have two brain-cells to rub together, they'd set up an English Parliament in that situation and shift all the power there and away from the UK one - that would give them a legit excuse to have PR for the new parliament, and at least give them a chance at stopping the Tories running it forever.