HS2 future northern extensions

[edwin_m]

My Understanding is that future line north will leave HS2 at Swillington and head towards Northallerton and then on to Newcastle.

You're way ahead of reality here. No decision has been made on any future line northwards from the Phase 2 route either east or west of the Pennines.

 

[NotATrainspott]

You're way ahead of reality here. No decision has been made on any future line northwards from the Phase 2 route either east or west of the Pennines.

Arup's design for the Leeds branch explicitly stated that passive provision for Newcastle was included at junction 40 on the M1, where the Church Fenton/York connection veers very sharply to the east and reduces to a 230km/h alignment. While Arup's design included the track spacing required for a diverging grade-separated junction, the DfT website maps do not show this any more while they still do so for the connection at Bamfurlong. Additionally, the DfT did give an initial indication of a York-Newcastle new build HSR line at only £3.5bn to compare with the same price for gauge-clearing the line, so it is not particularly clear-cut which stage in planning a Newcastle extension really is. We will most likely find out more certainly once the report into London-Scotland further journey time reductions is released this year.

 

[edwin_m]

TBY-Paul's use of "will" suggests that this route is a certainty. This is not so - even if a route was suggested, it didn't become part of the initial preferred route and hasn't gone for consultation. All options are still open for anything that goes off or beyond the Phase 2 alignment that ends at Church Fenton.

 

[TBY-Paul]

TBY-Paul's use of "will" suggests that this route is a certainty. This is not so - even if a route was suggested, it didn't become part of the initial preferred route and hasn't gone for consultation. All options are still open for anything that goes off or beyond the Phase 2 alignment that ends at Church Fenton.

In view of the opening post, and the particular reference to possible future intermediate stations on a possible future route towards Newcastle, and the fact the post was asking about possible future intermediate stations I thought I would offer alternative suggestions to a Darlington (east) location.

I apologise for using the word "will" , I have been back and edited my post and changed the word "will" to "might". I hope this appeases you in some way.

 

[edwin_m]

I apologise for using the word "will" , I have been back and edited my post and changed the word "will" to "might". I hope this appeases you in some way.

Thanks for making this change. My concern was really that someone will read this forum and think something is happening that may not be.

 

[NotATrainspott]

High Speed Rail London to the West Midlands and Beyond: A Report to Government by High Speed Two Limited - Chapter 6 [Document Page 228-9, PDF Page 15-16]

Costs
6.1.29 In order to be able to assess the relative business case for the three networks and for a longer term network as a whole we have developed some broad infrastructure cost assumptions for the various components of the network configurations. These are based on basic unit rates derived from our work on HS2, and calculated using assumptions about the composition of certain route sections. To assemble these costs we have used the following per-kilometre and station unit construction rates (expressed here without any optimism bias):

• Flat terrain. We have assumed a unit rate per kilometre of approximately £11m over sections of route which, at the level at we have studied them, appear to present relatively straightforward engineering challenges. As with all the unit rates, this is derived from similar sections of route on HS2, and therefore includes an allowance for road crossings etc, insofar as these feature in the sampled HS2 sections.
• Undulating terrain. For more difficult sections of route, where the terrain is more difficult to cross and would typically require the construction of additional structures (such as viaducts) and earthworks we have assumed a unit rate of approximately £17.5m per route kilometre.
• Urban routes. For urban sections of route we have adopted a unit rate of approximately £23m per route kilometre. This reflects the additional expense of laying high speed infrastructure through urban areas, where typically there are more structures crossing the route, and limited space.
• Tunnels. Tunnelled route sections are ascribed a unit rate of approximately £80m per route kilometre. This is based on a single bore, twin track tunnel designed for speeds of up to 320kph. Such tunnels are employed on various sections of HS2’s route.
• Stations. We have assumed a range of rates per station, rising from £150m for a two platform station on the main line of route, to £240m for a four platform terminal station.

6.1.30 To all infrastructure capital expenditure we have added an uplift of 66% to reflect optimism bias, in line with Treasury Green Book guidance, which reflects the very early development stage of this analysis.
6.1.31 For rolling stock capital expenditure, and the unit rates for operations and maintenance we have adopted the same cost assumptions as for HS2 (which are detailed in Chapter 4), and based our calculations on the service patterns modelled.

6.1.32 The indicative costs for the components of the three configurations are illustrated in Figure 6.1f, expressed here in 2009 prices with the 66% optimism bias included. These are intended to give a broad indication of the cost magnitude and are not intended as cost forecasts of engineered routes.
Two points are worth noting in particular:

• The most direct route between the North East and Scotland has been assumed with a dividing point in Lanarkshire. This has been assumed in order to provide an equal service in terms of journey times to Glasgow and Edinburgh. An alternative less direct route (avoiding more difficult terrain) may result in longer journey times but lower costs.
• The costs for the components to both Manchester and Leeds include taking the line back to the WCML and ECML respectively, so that classic-compatible services could continue to serve other destinations, such as Liverpool, Glasgow and Newcastle in the interim (as under the HS2 Day One scenario).

North West to Scotland
£15.2bn
Total length: 397km
Comprising stations in Lancashire, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Lanarkshire (assumed for train dividing)

North East to Scotland
£12.7bn
Total length: 257km
Comprising stations at Glasgow, Edinburgh and Lanarkshire (assumed for train dividing)

Transpennine
£3.8-4.6bn
(depending on East/West of Manchester)
Total length: 54-69km

Yorkshire to the North East
£4.6bn
Total length: 144km
Comprising stations at Newcastle and Teeside interchange, as well as a West Yorkshire interchange

West Midlands to North West
£5.4-5.8bn
(depending on East/West of Manchester)
Total length: 138-161km
Comprising stations at Manchester and Manchester interchange

West Midlands to Yorkshire
£5.8bn
Total length: 175km
Comprising stations at Leeds, South Yorkshire interchange and East Midlands interchange

 

[dave59]

Some interesting ideas here offering greater capacity and regional connectivity including Edinburgh/Glasgow. Cumbria misses out but the plans would benefit the NE of England. A surface link to HS1 is also proposed.

highspeeduk.co.uk

 

[NotATrainspott]

HS2 Ltd are aware that their 'inverted A' required more infrastructure to be built than either the 'reverse E' (HSUK's plan) or 'inverse S' (UK Ultraspeed) alternatives but the difference is made up in the far greater time savings that come as a result. When everything is made to go via the east coast it leads to effectively negligible journey time savings for London-Birmingham, London-Manchester and Manchester-Birmingham and negligible benefits for London-Leeds and London-Newcastle over the line currently proposed. As a result, the cost saving is a false economy which would be almost impossible to then rectify later on, whereas spending £42bn (of which £14bn is nothing but contingency, remember) on doing London-Birmingham, London-Manchester and London-Leeds well and then extending it to Newcastle and Scotland in the not-too-distant future is a better option in the long run.

I'll try to find the original source document where they discuss this plan. Most of the later documents mention it in some way or another, including the Environmental Statement, but I have read the document which explains it most clearly.

-- EDIT --

Tada! Found it.

HS2 Ltd’s analysis of options for a wider network
4.22 The Government’s proposal for a Y-shaped network linking London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds has been informed by an analysis carried out by HS2 Ltd of the options for extending the high speed network north from Birmingham to Scotland.
4.23 HS2 Ltd considered three options for such a wider network, which are set out in Figure 4.5.
4.24 Of these options, HS2 Ltd’s analysis suggests that although it is not the shortest or cheapest option, the ‘Inverse A’ is likely to present the best business case. This is because its additional costs are more than outweighed by the improved journey times it offers to the widest range of destinations, and the additional growth in the market, including as a result of modal shift from aviation, that it would attract as a result.

4.25 HS2 Ltd also noted that this ‘Inverse A’ network could be built in stages, beginning with the legs to Manchester and Leeds. Each of these two legs would be likely to have a strong business case as an addition to the initial London-Birmingham line, and their completion would deliver the core ‘Y’ network described above, as well as providing a foundation for any continuations north.
4.26 HS2 Ltd’s analysis is summarised in Table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2 Comparison of HS2 Ltd’s wider network options
Journey Times (hrs:mins)
Route - Inverse A - Reverse S - Reverse E
London-Manchester - 1:20 - 1:20 - 1:40
London-Leeds - 1:20 - 1:35 - 1:20
London-Newcastle - 2:00 - 2:07 - 2:00
London-Glasgow/Edinburgh - 2:40 - 3:17 - 3:10
Birmingham-Manchester - 0:40 - 0:40 - 1:28
Birmingham-Leeds - 1:05 - 1:07 - 1:05
Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh - 1:45 - 2:48 - 3:15/3:30
--Business Case
-Infrastructure Capital Cost
£52.2 bn - £44.3 bn - £49 bn
-Benefits
£103 bn - £73.9 bn - £87.3bn
-Indicative Benefit:Cost Ratio
2.3:1 - 1.8:1 - 1.9:1

4.27 In considering the journey times and benefit:cost ratios set out above, it should also be borne in mind that the journey times from Birmingham to Leeds and Newcastle for the ‘Inverse A’ and the ‘Reverse E’ include stops at additional stations in the East Midlands, South Yorkshire and Teesside, offering wider connectivity benefits that the ‘Reverse S’ cannot provide.
4.28 Although HS2 Ltd’s work suggests that the ‘Inverse A’ is likely to be the best candidate, it does not offer a definitive view as to the precise configuration of the optimum wider network, given the strategic nature of its analysis. Rather, it limits itself to a small number of broader conclusions, which are set out below:

• There is a good case for going on to develop high speed lines beyond the West Midlands and, of the networks we have looked at, a network with two branches either side of the Pennines performs best.
• While there appears to be a good case for continuing High Speed Two on to the North West and Manchester, there looks also to be a particularly strong case for a branch to Yorkshire and Leeds, via the East Midlands. Both appear to be strong candidates for more detailed work as part of the next stage of development.

• Government needs to decide its aspirations for the longer term network before plans for the next stage can be worked up in detail. We have been able to design High Speed Two in such a way that options for the future remain open, but this will not be the case for route sections beyond Birmingham.
• The longer term network should initially be built out from the High Speed Two trunk. If there is further demand in the longer term, a second leg could be provided from the East Midlands to London.

High Speed Rail [Page 71-74]

 

[Martin222002]

All through stations other than OOC have non-stop lines, yes, but the linespeeds around Toton and Meadowhall aren't 400km/h. The Nick Clegg Kink at the latter reduces the linespeed to around 270km/h, IIRC, which is still definitely HSR speed but it means that a non-stop train would still have to accelerate and decelerate. On the Western route there aren't as many, if any, of these speed 'pinch points' as the route is straighter and avoids population areas much more.

Actually, according to the most recent phase two consultation maps (see link for map) the line speed where to route now is planned to curve just north of the Meadowhall station sees the line speed drop from 360kph to only 190kph (for about a 1km and a half) and then back up to 360kph, which is a very serious drop in line speed and definitely not HSR.

http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/consultation_library/pdf/Route%20section%20HSL15%20plan%20and%20profile%20sheet%201%20of%201.pdf

 

[NotATrainspott]

Actually, according to the most recent phase two consultation maps (see link for map) the line speed where to route now is planned to curve just north of the Meadowhall station sees the line speed drop from 360kph to only 190kph (for about a 1km and a half) and then back up to 360kph, which is a very serious drop in line speed and definitely not HSR.

http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/consultation_library/pdf/Route%20section%20HSL15%20plan%20and%20profile%20sheet%201%20of%201.pdf

Wow. The Nick Clegg Kink is far worse than I had ever imagined it would be.

 

[HSTEd]

That still doesn't cost very much in travel time terms.

That is something like a minute at most, even including the acceleration/decelleration time at the ends of the speed restriction.

 

[Nym]

It does knacker your headway up, but on that section of line where I'd only expect around 8tph, possibly 10tph at a push, it should be fine.

 

[MarkyT]

That still doesn't cost very much in travel time terms

Such a speed restriction, so close to Meadowhall station, would also make no practical running time difference at all to trains calling there.

 

[dave59]

HS2 Ltd are aware that their 'inverted A' required more infrastructure to be built than either the 'reverse E' (HSUK's plan) or 'inverse S' (UK Ultraspeed) alternatives but the difference is made up in the far greater time savings that come as a result. When everything is made to go via the east coast it leads to effectively negligible journey time savings for London-Birmingham, London-Manchester and Manchester-Birmingham and negligible benefits for London-Leeds and London-Newcastle over the line currently proposed. As a result, the cost saving is a false economy which would be almost impossible to then rectify later on, whereas spending £42bn (of which £14bn is nothing but contingency, remember) on doing London-Birmingham, London-Manchester and London-Leeds well and then extending it to Newcastle and Scotland in the not-too-distant future is a better option in the long run.

I'll try to find the original source document where they discuss this plan. Most of the later documents mention it in some way or another, including the Environmental Statement, but I have read the document which explains it most clearly.

More like the HS2 remit was primarily a WCML relief and they are sticking to it. HSUK on the other hand had a blank sheet of paper and is about capacity (now the HS2 buzzword) rather than a journey time (to London) focus.

Easier terrain for the trunk route to Scotland leaving London in the right direction, a proper HS1 link, a transpennine HS line, the inclusion of Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow on the core network.

There's a lot to like about their plans... unless you live in Carlisle or Carstairs.

 

[NotATrainspott]

More like the HS2 remit was primarily a WCML relief and they are sticking to it. HSUK on the other hand had a blank sheet of paper and is about capacity (now the HS2 buzzword) rather than a journey time (to London) focus.

Easier terrain for the trunk route to Scotland leaving London in the right direction, a proper HS1 link, a transpennine HS line, the inclusion of Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow on the core network.

There's a lot to like about their plans... unless you live in Carlisle or Carstairs.

HS2 is a WCML relief line because the WCML connects the largest conurbations in Britain and is the busiest mixed-traffic line in the whole of Europe. The 'blank sheet of paper' approach doesn't actually work when you're talking about half a hundred billion pounds' worth of investment which will outlast each and every one of us alive today.

How exactly will the HSUK proposals provide additional capacity above the completed inverted A? The only line on HSUK which has no equivalent on the complete HS2 is from Scotland to Newcastle, which could very easily be added in as a reasonably short ~100km link between Newcastle and Carlisle, if it were ever needed. On the other hand, flows like Birmingham-Manchester-(Liverpool) or Birmingham/Manchester-Scotland are completely and utterly ignored by HSUK, even though they are some of the largest conurbations outside London. Yes, the current HS2 plan does not include a TransPennine HSR route but realistically this can be planned separately.

Easier terrain for the trunk route to Scotland? I really don't think so. No matter which way you go, there are always going to be hills in the way and once the hill is large enough, it doesn't really matter what it is like on the surface because you're driving a TBM through it anyway. Serving Glasgow via Edinburgh is also not an optimal solution as both are primary destinations requiring long dwell times at stations, so the Glasgow time savings get eaten away very quickly and you effectively throw away billions of pounds worth of investment in reducing journey times. Edinburgh is to the west of Carlisle, which is pretty far west in UK terms, so there is nothing logically wrong about using the west coast route to serve it. The only justifiable reason why it might make sense to approach Edinburgh from the east would be to allow trains even further north to Aberdeen, with the same problems of journey times being extended by a stop in Edinburgh. If the need really does arise, then a Central Belt parkway station would be more than sufficient to allow them to serve both cities and without the need to build twice as many bored tunnels under Edinburgh.

 

[HSTEd]

Scotland cannot support a high speed route by itself, especially if that route has to come all the way from Wigan on its own benefits.

Routing via Newcastle would not approach Edinburgh from the east, it would approach Edinburgh from the south [draw a straight line from Newcastle to Edinburgh to illustrate my point] and would pass through a delta/triangle junction that would allow Glasgow trains to proceed directly without going through Edinburgh, leaving you with no need to increase the number of tunnels bored under Edinburgh.

As to this insane idea of going to Newcastle via Carlisle... why would you do that? The cheapest and most reasonable connection to the projected first two phases of HS2 would be from York, which involves easier terrain and doesn't involve an absurdly long way round.
Sounds like you are just desperately trying to justify the western route by trying to force Newcastle traffic onto it.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Scotland cannot support a high speed route by itself, especially if that route has to come all the way from Wigan on its own benefits.

Routing via Newcastle would not approach Edinburgh from the east, it would approach Edinburgh from the south [draw a straight line from Newcastle to Edinburgh to illustrate my point] and would pass through a delta/triangle junction that would allow Glasgow trains to proceed directly without going through Edinburgh, leaving you with no need to increase the number of tunnels bored under Edinburgh.

As to this insane idea of going to Newcastle via Carlisle... why would you do that? The cheapest and most reasonable connection to the projected first two phases of HS2 would be from York, which involves easier terrain and doesn't involve an absurdly long way round.
Sounds like you are just desperately trying to justify the western route by trying to force Newcastle traffic onto it.

The London-Scotland overall travel market is large enough that a 2-3 hour journey time would result in vast increases in passenger numbers. At that journey time the rail-air modal share can quickly switch around from 20:80 to 80:20, even without the suppressed demand which will not fly but will happily take the train and is still time-sensitive.

Newcastle-Lanarkshire isn't any easier than Carlisle-Lanarkshire and has to go through a National Park on the English side as well. If you look at the figures the DfT put forward you'll notice that 1. the cost of York-Newcastle is effectively negligible and 2. the cost of Preston-Scotland isn't that much higher than Newcastle-Scotland. Since all the future completed HS2 maps have Scotland connected via the west I think it's reasonable to suggest that the DfT, being responsible for this kind of thing, prefer it that way.

I don't know why you think I would suggest going London-Carlisle-Newcastle. My point was that Scotland-Newcastle-London would be better done as Scotland-Carlisle-Newcastle-London than to build a line directly.

 

[dave59]

HS2 is a WCML relief line because the WCML connects the largest conurbations in Britain and is the busiest mixed-traffic line in the whole of Europe. The 'blank sheet of paper' approach doesn't actually work when you're talking about half a hundred billion pounds' worth of investment which will outlast each and every one of us alive today.

How exactly will the HSUK proposals provide additional capacity above the completed inverted A? The only line on HSUK which has no equivalent on the complete HS2 is from Scotland to Newcastle, which could very easily be added in as a reasonably short ~100km link between Newcastle and Carlisle, if it were ever needed. On the other hand, flows like Birmingham-Manchester-(Liverpool) or Birmingham/Manchester-Scotland are completely and utterly ignored by HSUK, even though they are some of the largest conurbations outside London. Yes, the current HS2 plan does not include a TransPennine HSR route but realistically this can be planned separately.

Easier terrain for the trunk route to Scotland? I really don't think so. No matter which way you go, there are always going to be hills in the way and once the hill is large enough, it doesn't really matter what it is like on the surface because you're driving a TBM through it anyway. Serving Glasgow via Edinburgh is also not an optimal solution as both are primary destinations requiring long dwell times at stations, so the Glasgow time savings get eaten away very quickly and you effectively throw away billions of pounds worth of investment in reducing journey times. Edinburgh is to the west of Carlisle, which is pretty far west in UK terms, so there is nothing logically wrong about using the west coast route to serve it. The only justifiable reason why it might make sense to approach Edinburgh from the east would be to allow trains even further north to Aberdeen, with the same problems of journey times being extended by a stop in Edinburgh. If the need really does arise, then a Central Belt parkway station would be more than sufficient to allow them to serve both cities and without the need to build twice as many bored tunnels under Edinburgh.

Capacity-wise more tracks south of the Birmingham spur. (HS2 two track)More connectivity releasing more capacity elswhere on the classic network.

Terrain is much easier on the eastern side of (particularly) Northern England as the design of the classic lines confirm. The hills between Kendal and Carstairs would not be easy. Unlike the eastern route there are also National Parks and AONB's in the way. The western route is shorter but avoids Tyneside/Teeside which is too big to bypass in favour of Carlisle. Journey times may well be slightly longer via an eastern route but well within the range of effective competition with air traffic. Manchester-Scotland (presently served by 3 car DMU's) would still have a much better timing than via the classic line but importantly links would be vastly improved between the Liverpool/Manchester Leeds/Bradford and Tyneside/Teeside conurbations. The thought that Northern Rail DMU-land could get a HSL through its core!

HSUK was clearly devised by people outside London with the emphasis on the wider UK rather than with an eye on for e.g Heathrow and Crossrail.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Capacity-wise more tracks south of the Birmingham spur. (HS2 two track)More connectivity releasing more capacity elswhere on the classic network.

Terrain is much easier on the eastern side of (particularly) Northern England as the design of the classic lines confirm. The hills between Kendal and Carstairs would not be easy. Unlike the eastern route there are also National Parks and AONB's in the way. The western route is shorter but avoids Tyneside/Teeside which is too big to bypass in favour of Carlisle. Journey times may well be slightly longer via an eastern route but well within the range of effective competition with air traffic. Manchester-Scotland (presently served by 3 car DMU's) would still have a much better timing than via the classic line but importantly links would be vastly improved between the Liverpool/Manchester Leeds/Bradford and Tyneside/Teeside conurbations. The thought that Northern Rail DMU-land could get a HSL through its core!

HSUK was clearly devised by people outside London with the emphasis on the wider UK rather than with an eye on for e.g Heathrow and Crossrail.

There is no point in a four-track HSR route: at the southern end it would require a 20 platform HSR station in London (which would cost more than the whole of York-Newcastle HSR alone) and no trains would ever overtake each other anyway. HS2 Ltd know this and that's why the only four-track section of HS2 is between Birmingham Interchange and the south Birmingham junction, along with the short section where the grade-separated Birmingham north junction fades into the grade-separated Leeds junction without going back to two tracks. If a second pair of tracks is needed it is far better to build it on a significantly different alignment to serve a different market, e.g. via Leicester/Cambridge/Stansted.

I am very much aware that the terrain between York and Newcastle is significantly easier than the terrain between Wigan and Scotland. That is very much reflected in the low cost of an extension to Newcastle forecast by the DfT back at the very start of the HS2 project. However, it is that fact which makes a Western route not impossible - if York-Newcastle were as difficult as Wigan-Carlisle, then the higher cost would have to be balanced out by increasing the use of the line which could only happen by connecting Scotland to it. As the York-Newcastle line is so easy and cheap in the grand scheme of things compared to the significant benefits it would bring to the most economically deprived area in England, I am absolutely certain that the next announcement of further expansion of HS2 will include it.

It is the route north of Newcastle where the benefits of the via-Newcastle line start to run out as it is then no better than any other route to Scotland. The ECML north of Newcastle is almost as twisty as the WCML for the same reason. A direct line from Newcastle to Edinburgh takes the line directly through the Northumberland National Park. In order to avoid it, the route would either have to go as far north as Coldstream or as far south as makes a Carlisle stop worthwhile, with the two options being of effectively equal length and the Carlisle option following a major road and double-track railway along its entire length. The western option can easily tunnel through the short hilly range between the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales National Parks, following the WCML and M6/M74 along its entire length.

Scotland-Manchester via the east coast might be faster than it is today but it still isn't fast enough to provide the level of benefit that HS2, once extended, will do with ease. Scotland-Manchester will be on the order of only one and a bit hours compared to the three or so it is today, which is enough to make Manchester closer to the Central Belt than Aberdeen is. As I said, the only link that HS2 would need to add to its masterplan would be Carlisle-Newcastle in order to provide all the benefits of HSUK on top of what it already delivers in a superior way.

TransPennine HSR is an extremely good idea but it does not need to be attached onto HS2 in order to happen. None of the London trains will ever use the tunnel to get to their destination, so it can be designed to be more suitable for local use rather than to be used primarily for vLDHS services like HS2. A mixed-traffic line would allow more than just city-centre non-stop trains to go fast through the tunnels, which would certainly be built for HS2 gauge from the very start. Until the route could justify captive stock, there is nothing wrong in running a modified IEP on it which can then serve more than just the new stations built for HS2 - then you could have TransPennine HSR trains going on the same kind of routes as are currently run by TransPennine Express.

HSUK appears to be much more of a London-oriented scheme than HS2 is. Birmingham is the core of HS2 and will be the biggest beneficiary with direct, frequent, very fast and very high quality trains connecting it to almost every city in the UK. Birmingham-Manchester is completely ignored by HSUK, even though they are the second and third largest cities in the UK and most certainly the next two most important ones after London.

 

[Silversmith]

NotATrainspott - thank you for your contributions. Your posts have really helped me to clarify the whole HS2 issue in my mind and I now completely understand the substantial benefits of the scheme. Thanks again.

 

[po8crg]

TransPennine HSR is an extremely good idea but it does not need to be attached onto HS2 in order to happen. None of the London trains will ever use the tunnel to get to their destination, so it can be designed to be more suitable for local use rather than to be used primarily for vLDHS services like HS2. A mixed-traffic line would allow more than just city-centre non-stop trains to go fast through the tunnels, which would certainly be built for HS2 gauge from the very start. Until the route could justify captive stock, there is nothing wrong in running a modified IEP on it which can then serve more than just the new stations built for HS2 - then you could have TransPennine HSR trains going on the same kind of routes as are currently run by TransPennine Express.

While the TP route itself would be built to the HS2 gauge (ie UIC GC), there's no requirement for the stations (even Leeds and Manchester) to be the same as the trains will be conventional anyway. Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-York-Newcastle and Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull will be the primary routes using it initially, and neither route will have all-captive stations at the completion of HS-TP.

Within Manchester, it would make very little sense to connect this to Piccadilly HS2; there won't be much (any?) free platform capacity there, and the HS route out would not provide a useful connection to Liverpool - it's faster to use the conventional track. Current TP trains either run along the Oxford Road viaduct (which could never be widened to take captive stock) or through Victoria (which could be, perhaps). The most sensible route in the first phase would be to end the HS track in East Manchester and run in on the conventional route - perhaps building the connection at Stalybridge where the Victoria and Piccadilly lines meet.

At the Liverpool end, a spur off HS2 into the city would probably connect somewhere in the Culcheth area, where an eastbound connection to the Chat Moss line into Manchester could also be made. A new link from Culcheth, through Victoria and out to connect to the TP line in the Ashton/Stalybridge area could then be part of a later phase - it would also be useful for connecting HS trains from Yorkshire to Scotland, so would make sense in conjunction with the extension to Scotland.

Looking at Leeds, it would make far more sense for the HS link to go through Leeds City station than to reverse at New Lane, which (again) doesn't have the platform space for TP trains as well as Southbound trains to Birmingham/London. The link could join conventional track through Leeds City and then connect to HS2 somewhere east of the city for the northbound service to York/Newcastle. The Leeds City route could be expanded to allow for captive services (with a single pair of captive platforms in the station) at a later date, perhaps coordinated with the arrival of HS-Scotland or HS-Newcastle. Services to these platforms would be captive services from Liverpool/Manchester to Newcastle and also Leeds/Scotland services, possibly originating from Toton or Hull.

Hull would be initially served by the conventional route through Selby (which is due for electrification); a high-speed spur to Hull would later provide HS connections to Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool via the TP route, York-Newcastle using the Newcastle route, and southbound to Meadowhall-Toton-Birmingham-London via HS2.

 

[NotATrainspott]

While the TP route itself would be built to the HS2 gauge (ie UIC GC), there's no requirement for the stations (even Leeds and Manchester) to be the same as the trains will be conventional anyway. Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-York-Newcastle and Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull will be the primary routes using it initially, and neither route will have all-captive stations at the completion of HS-TP.

Within Manchester, it would make very little sense to connect this to Piccadilly HS2; there won't be much (any?) free platform capacity there, and the HS route out would not provide a useful connection to Liverpool - it's faster to use the conventional track. Current TP trains either run along the Oxford Road viaduct (which could never be widened to take captive stock) or through Victoria (which could be, perhaps). The most sensible route in the first phase would be to end the HS track in East Manchester and run in on the conventional route - perhaps building the connection at Stalybridge where the Victoria and Piccadilly lines meet.

At the Liverpool end, a spur off HS2 into the city would probably connect somewhere in the Culcheth area, where an eastbound connection to the Chat Moss line into Manchester could also be made. A new link from Culcheth, through Victoria and out to connect to the TP line in the Ashton/Stalybridge area could then be part of a later phase - it would also be useful for connecting HS trains from Yorkshire to Scotland, so would make sense in conjunction with the extension to Scotland.

Looking at Leeds, it would make far more sense for the HS link to go through Leeds City station than to reverse at New Lane, which (again) doesn't have the platform space for TP trains as well as Southbound trains to Birmingham/London. The link could join conventional track through Leeds City and then connect to HS2 somewhere east of the city for the northbound service to York/Newcastle. The Leeds City route could be expanded to allow for captive services (with a single pair of captive platforms in the station) at a later date, perhaps coordinated with the arrival of HS-Scotland or HS-Newcastle. Services to these platforms would be captive services from Liverpool/Manchester to Newcastle and also Leeds/Scotland services, possibly originating from Toton or Hull.

Hull would be initially served by the conventional route through Selby (which is due for electrification); a high-speed spur to Hull would later provide HS connections to Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool via the TP route, York-Newcastle using the Newcastle route, and southbound to Meadowhall-Toton-Birmingham-London via HS2.

Isn't that what I said though? Any new, expensive infrastructure such as completely new alignments or tunnels can be built for HS2 gauge but you would only use IEPs or classic-compatibles on them, using the existing stations and tracks where it is a feasible option such as in the city centres. Until such time as the TransPennine passengers require 400m double-decker trains, there is little benefit in actually providing the captive TP stations and as you said it would likely be detrimental to remove them from the standard stations such as Victoria or Leeds City.

 

[po8crg]

I wasn't disagreeing with you, but expanding on your idea.

I need to get better at agreeing with people - this happens to me a lot.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It should not be long until there is more news of what is planned for Scotland and High-Speed rail. Baroness Kramer's report into getting the London-Scotland journey time under 3 hours is due before the Parliamentary summer recess (22nd July 2014) which is a little under four months away now. The most recent SPT meeting agenda also says that the business case for E&G high-speed rail will be presented to ministers in Spring.

3.6 High Speed Rail
Officers continue to be engaged in the High Speed Rail Scotland Stakeholder Group and associated sub-groups for Benefits and Vision, and Capacity and Connectivity, in relation to high speed rail between Glasgow and Edinburgh, and between Scotland and England.
A joint study between TS, DfT and HS2 Ltd into high speed rail cost and route options between Scotland and Manchester/Leeds is due to report in 2014.
TS are progressing work on a business case for advancing the build of elements of high speed rail in Scotland, including the potential for a high speed link between Edinburgh and Glasgow. The business case is due to be presented to Ministers in Spring 2014.

 

[clc]

The most recent SPT meeting agenda also says that the business case for E&G high-speed rail will be presented to ministers in Spring.

I have a feeling the Scot Govt will be aiming to make a positive announcement on this before September.

 

[edwin_m]

I have a feeling the Scot Govt will be aiming to make a positive announcement on this before September.

No doubt politicians on both sides of the debate will want to turn to their advantage whatever comes out of either of the studies mentioned by NotATrainspotter.

 

[clc]

No doubt politicians on both sides of the debate will want to turn to their advantage whatever comes out of either of the studies mentioned by NotATrainspotter.

Indeed. Though in Scotland the Coalition will find it more difficult to have any promises it makes taken seriously.

 

[eps200]

Indeed. Though in Scotland the Coalition will find it more difficult to have any promises it makes taken seriously.

It will be a Westminster promise I imagine, I'd bet on a "if you vote to leave this doesn't happen" implication.

 

[Altnabreac]

It will be a Westminster promise I imagine, I'd bet on a "if you vote to leave this doesn't happen" implication.

My understanding of timescales is that the cross border available this year will be very high level only. May choose a route corridor (East/West/Central) but not any more detail than that. Probably no indicative costs or BCR. Any commitment from Westminster is likely to be to develop a detailed route and business case rather than a "We're building it" type announcement.

The Scottish section will be full business case so any announcements from the Holyrood side could be more definitive.

Having said all that politics will play a big part in both announcements so the spin may be different from the reality of the reports.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It will be a Westminster promise I imagine, I'd bet on a "if you vote to leave this doesn't happen" implication.

I don't see there being that much of a political thing about it to be perfectly honest. Even with political separation the number of people travelling between the two countries will still be very high, as it is today between the UK and the Republic of Ireland even despite the currency difference. The worst case scenario for cross-border travel is that some of the marginal cross-border services, such as the Northern/ScotRail services via Carlisle and the GSW line, would no longer do so. The ICEC and ICWC services will still have to run, and there isn't much point in cutting back the CrossCountry or TransPennine Express ones either because the market they serve will not disappear overnight. ScotRail could be nationalised by iScotland but it would still require a separate infrastructure maintenance company who would then be duty-bound to allow foreign operators, regardless of their ownership, access to the network. I'm sure it would be perfectly feasible for the two administrations to agree that Network Rail would continue to exist more-or-less as-is (it already separates Scotland out operationally, including funding and political arrangements) and that the other operators would be dealt with by Westminster as they are at the moment - with services in Scotland still being controlled by Westminster but with some input from Holyrood.

It would be in the interests of rUK to work with iScotland to complete the HS2 network because the damage caused by London-Scotland air travel is primarily done around London and the South East. Until there is an HSR line running all the way to the Central Belt, this damage will not be undone and a pointless line running to Carlisle and then stopping would be just that - pointless. The business case of the lines already planned in England also improves dramatically the further north they are extended as the connectivity and journey times improve so dramatically. The French and the Germans and the Spanish and the Italians and so on, complete with language and cultural barriers, are working together on connecting up their high-speed rail networks so to argue that two modern first-world countries with the most amicable of relations would not be able to as well is not really credible.