HS2 future northern extensions

[po8crg]

The rest of the EU has even less reason to favour Scotland than rUK does. Creating an exception to the Schengen rule is not a precedent that they'll be much inclined to accept - and forcing Scotland into Schengen is useful leverage for getting rUK into Schengen.

UK border controls have been a bit of a running sore for France and Belgium ever since Sangatte, so using Scotland as leverage to try to push rUK into Schengen is going to be very tempting for them.

Ireland would happily merge the CTA into Schengen if they could, I'm sure.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I believe the Westminster administration has for some years planning for an independent Scotland in a way that would protect the interests of the taxpayers in the rest of the UK.

In this respect I believe the current proposal to expedite HS2 as far as Crewe and no further is to give the Westminster Government leverage to negotiate with a future independent Scottish Government on a cost sharing arrangement for an extension of HS2 from Crewe to the Scottish border. The Westminster argument being that there would be insufficient economic benefit for it provide an upgrade over the WCML North of the Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds axis and hence if the Scottish government wished a HS line to the South they should meet the cost of not only the Scottish section but also the link to the existing English HS network.

In the meantime any possibility of an east coast HS2 to Newcastle will be left on the back burner.

HS2 is being expedited to Crewe for 2027 and to Manchester and Leeds (and hence to the ECML for Newcastle) for 2030. This is as fast as the programme of construction seems to allow based upon the Gantt charts in David Higgins' HS2 Plus presentation slides.

The economics of HS2 to Scotland remaining within the UK are very strong. With a realistic independence situation, the economics may be dented slightly but they were never marginal to begin with. The BCR for HS2 to an independent Scotland is still higher than almost every other large-scale infrastructure scheme. Electrification and classic line improvements would still come as part of Network Rail (rUK)'s CP6 (2019-2024), CP7 (2024-2029) and CP8 (2029-2024) plans and by the earliest time that HS2 could reach Scotland, the vast majority of possible upgrades would have already been done to the classic rail network. The only large infrastructure schemes that would be happening after this point would be additional high-speed rail lines, but none of these would have a higher BCR than just finishing the High Speed Two project (which from its very foundation was a plan to connect London to Scotland with a continuous high-speed rail line).

HS2 to Scotland does not solely benefit Scotland; it benefits all of NW England north of the Liverpool/Manchester axis. There are no realistic long-term solutions to WCML capacity issues other than a new fast line because it is all double-track and no amount of new freight loops would make it significantly better. There is little point in serving Lancashire or Cumbria or Northumberland if the trains cannot continue to carry Scottish passengers as independence or not, the Central Belt is still the fifth largest conurbation on the island of Great Britain. If the rUK want to reduce the number of lorries taking up space on motorways belching out carbon heading north, even just to Carlisle, there is no more long-term economic way of doing this than a new line going all the way. If the rUK want to reduce the number of domestic flights taking up space at Heathrow, Birmingham and Manchester there is no better way to do it than providing a better HSR alternative. If the rUK wants to avoid having to do these by sabotaging trade, investment and freedom of movement between the two countries then it would be economically destructive for no real net gain.

With regard to the question of border controls - there will need to at least be an opportunity to undertake customs checks on the border between England and an independent Scotland, if only to provide random checks on the self-declarations made on all cross border trade which every business (both in Scotland and in any other EEA (EU+) country) have to complete and which have to be declared on an EC Sales List. The EC Sales Lists includes the details of all cross border transactions (goods and services). Under the governing treaties all Governments (including those within the EU) are required to demonstrate that they have robust controls in place to ensure that all cross border trade is accurately recorded (from whom to whom and at what value). I think we can all imagine how this will be interpreted post independence by Westminster.

With regard to passenger traffic, the pressure comes from the "English" pre-occupation with immigration. There will be enormous pressure on Westminster to have controls in place to prevent illegal immigration occurring through Scotland (as the then only land border with England). This distinguishes it from the Northern Ireland situation, where the existing checks made on both airline passengers out of Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK and at the ferry ports, such as Stranraer. which do not currently involve crossing a national border should be noted. I would therefore suggest it is likely that a "Eurostar" type arrangement would apply between England and Scotland rail services if there is not an actual border control stop.

In the real world countries deal with the EC Sales List duties by making people send forms to their respective governments when they export to other EU countries. Doing so is a hell of a lot less expensive and difficult than re-inforcing borders. The UK/France border is not a customs border because both the UK and France are within the customs union; it is an immigration border because one is in the Common Travel Area and the other is in Schengen. The (r)UK _will_not_ leave the EU because doing so would be a complete disaster for the country. The anti-EU temper has been stoked up by the media but now the business minds have realised what they have done in making Nigel Farage a real force in politics are are trying to back-pedal as much as they can. Realistically, iScotland would be in the EU through some mechanism because once the country would be independent, the Spanish cannot deny that it exists as a sovereign state as they do with Kosovo today. It is within iScotland's interest to remain within the CTA. If that means not being able to change immigration policy as much as the SNP might like then it would still be done.

Since both countries would be within the same customs union and the same immigration zone, there is no need for a controlled border of any kind. Unless the border were totally secured, it would be trivial to circumvent it with the next layer of problem being that there is no way of telling the difference between an iScot and an rUK-er if they don't have ID, unlike European borders or the US-Mexico or US-Canadian border. It will still be impossible to remove UK citizenship from iScots because there is no clean way of differentiating between the people who should get it or not, so iScots themselves would still be able to get over any border regardless.

A passport/EU ID card is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for ferry or air travel between the Republic or Northern Ireland and the UK today. Although many people may use one, there is no need for immigration-proof ID as Irish Ferries will admit:

Useful means of identification when travelling on these routes are:

Passport
Driving Licence
European identity Card
Bank cards
Photo ID (school or college)
Utility Bills
Birth Certificate

This is officially only for British or Irish citizens but there is no way of actually telling this without a passport or other immigration-proof ID.

Creating a 'Eurostar-style' system for travel to Scotland would therefore not be essential. Such a system would effectively prevent Scotland services to serve anywhere in England as well and would drive a stake right through the heart of the UK rail and other transport networks where one does not necessarily have to exist. The European countries are doing very well right now in removing all internal borders between each other and even then many of their services have existed well before border controls were removed. With the two countries remaining in the CTA, the EU and with Scotland able to keep the pound whether rUK likes it or not there isn't anything to stop current services continuing effectively unchanged. Even if the iScottish Government decided to renationalise ScotRail they would still need to have an NetworkScotRail who would be duty-bound to sell track access rights on the same terms to any other buyer from England as they would for iScotRail. The reverse is likewise true. The EU rules do not care whether the companies are state-owned, franchised, concessioned or completely free-marketed and they do not care which country it is (other than Ireland/NI, because that's still an unconnected island).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The rest of the EU has even less reason to favour Scotland than rUK does. Creating an exception to the Schengen rule is not a precedent that they'll be much inclined to accept - and forcing Scotland into Schengen is useful leverage for getting rUK into Schengen.

UK border controls have been a bit of a running sore for France and Belgium ever since Sangatte, so using Scotland as leverage to try to push rUK into Schengen is going to be very tempting for them.

Ireland would happily merge the CTA into Schengen if they could, I'm sure.

If the UK were to join Schengen it would all have to happen at once, I would believe. Such a move would be fantastic news for Camden though because it would put Euston Cross or some halfway house between it and the surface plan back on the table. Even just two 400m through platforms for HS2-HS1 services, with north-London and London-Continent passengers able to use north-Continent trains, would reduce the number of platforms needed on the surface and thus the land take. Some of the St Pancras platforms would then be available for future use by any other HSR line into London, so land-take could be reduced twice.

 

[Tobbes]

I see no reason why Scotland wouldn't be in the CTA if it votes for independence (though I hope it doesn't). EU membership is much more complex than the SNP/Yes are implying, and it is most likely that for 18-24 months post independence, Scotland would be outside the EU, though a way to make the border work is in everyone's interest. CTA is the way to go if the UK refuses to join Schengen (which I hope it does, soon).

 

[Altnabreac]

Why does anyone ever put borders up anywhere then? At the end of the day, countries leaving their borders open is the exception not the norm. And personally, I don't believe in people coming into and out of the country unchecked. What if the rUK leaves the EU, or at least ends the freedom of movement, which is very possible? What if Scotland has to join Schengen, which, as things stand, it would be obliged to? The only way I'd personally find it acceptable would be if the foreign Scotland closely followed rUK immigration and visa policies, as well as giving significant access to intelligence. It's not about sabotaging Scotland. The very idea suggests that Scotland wouldn't be able to cope. Far smaller countries manage but if you believe Scotland is that vulnerable, then is independence such a good idea?

Countries broadly enforce borders for 2 reasons: Customs and Immigration.

Assuming rUK and iScotland stayed in the EU they would remain within the same Customs Union so that probably rules out one reason. There is of course always a possibility that one or other of iScotland or rUK leaves the EU/doesn't join the EU. While this scenario is unlikely if it did happen the level of trade between the EU and whichever country was not a member would necessitate either EEA membership (the Norwegian model) or a Swiss style bilateral treaty model. Either of these would be likely to retain a customs union (even if other elements of the EU were dropped like CAP or CFP) as the customs union is the primary economic benefit for both sides and something you would try and keep even after EU exit. Therefore Customs would not be a likely reason to erect a iScotland / rUK border.

The second reason for borders is Immigration. The UK maintains a border with the rest of the EU (excluding Ireland) primarily because the UK does not have mandatory ID cards. Therefore once an illegal immigrant enters the UK it is relatively easy to work/live/access healthcare etc without having to prove your nationality.

So you think to yourself - Of course the rUK will want to keep out the Scots who will now be foreigners in rUK with no right to be there?

Unfortunately for this argument, citizens of iScotland born before 2017 will have an automatic right to British nationality as a result of having British nationality acquired before independence. Many may choose to take dual nationality at the point of independence (as I certainly would).

Going forward iSCotland citizens would continue to have freedom of movement to the rUK as part of the EU so there would be no economic/political benefit from preventing iScotland citizens from moving freely over the border. The only people you are concerned with are non iScotland citizens entering iScotland externally and then crossing the open border. This is exactly the same as the Irish situation today and the reason why visa harmonisation between rUK, ROI and iScotland would continue post independence.

Now again you may say one/both countries could leave the EU in future. This would change matters slightly but not that much. All iScotland citizens born pre 2017 would continue to have the right to live and work in rUK via dual nationality, or if they haven't taken this status they would have a similar right to the Irish citizens right of abode in the British Nationality Act 1981. Additionally the children and grandchildren of people born in the UK before 2017 would automatically qualify for rUK UK Ancestry Entry Clearance giving the right to work in the rUK for 5 years and then acquire indefinite leave to remain/rUK citizenship after that point (this is the method used by all the Aussie backpackers).

The only people living in iScotland who wouldn't have the right to work in rUK, even if rUK left the EU, would be immigrants to iScotland who took out citizenship after 2017 and any children they had who did not have a single UK born grandparent.

So until 3 generations have passed from 2017 and rUK has left the EU and the EEA and has no bilateral freedom of movement treaty there will be negligible numbers of iScotland residents who do not have a legal route to work / live in rUK.

Therefore the economic benefits of a border (keeping out illegal immigrants) would be very low as there will be almost no one living in Scotland who could be an illegal immigrant to rUK until at least 2070 or so.

So yes in theory rUK could build border posts but what would they be for? If virtually everyone in iScotland has a right to live and work in rUK and everyone in iScotland has a right to move goods across the border, what would the border posts do except cost a lot of time, money and economic disbenefit for both countries?

As I say I am neither Scottish nor a nationalist but people who say things like "Of course there'll be a border" without thinking about the reasons why borders exist are just daft.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I see no reason why Scotland wouldn't be in the CTA if it votes for independence (though I hope it doesn't). EU membership is much more complex than the SNP/Yes are implying, and it is most likely that for 18-24 months post independence, Scotland would be outside the EU, though a way to make the border work is in everyone's interest. CTA is the way to go if the UK refuses to join Schengen (which I hope it does, soon).

I agree that EU membership and indeed other elements of potential separation are more complex than the SNP make out. My personal opinion is that iScotland would not declare independence until EU membership is acquired but this would likely be resolved by delaying the date of independence to 2018 or 2019 rather than having an interim not in UK or EU period.

I don't think UK (with or without Scottish Independence) can ever join Schengen until mandatory ID cards are introduced, which seems unlikely in the medium term to be politically acceptable.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I see no reason why Scotland wouldn't be in the CTA if it votes for independence (though I hope it doesn't). EU membership is much more complex than the SNP/Yes are implying, and it is most likely that for 18-24 months post independence, Scotland would be outside the EU, though a way to make the border work is in everyone's interest. CTA is the way to go if the UK refuses to join Schengen (which I hope it does, soon).

EU membership may be complex but it is not as complex as the Better Together people are saying either. The years taken for countries to go through the accession process are not years of eurocrats in Brussels throwing around paper planes made from all the documents the new country is sending. Being in the EU is a matter of changing huge numbers of laws so that they are compatible with the EU standards. The day before a country raises the EU flag, its laws have been changed to meet the EU ones and it is a member in all but name.

In no circumstance would Scotland have to change hundreds of laws and constitutional documents in order to join because its laws are already compatible with the EU as part of being in the United Kingdom. There may be minor differences due to the minor UK opt-outs but these are 1. well-defined, removing the need for years of lawyering to work out what isn't compatible and 2. theoretically possible (at least in part) to preserve as the net result for the rest of the EU if the UK splits is not going to be particularly dramatic.

The other reason for delaying entry is so that economic statistics and requirements can be met. This may be a problem for countries which are not as developed, such as the EU8 in 2004, Bulgaria/Romania in 2007, Croatia in 2013 or the eventual accession of the rest of the Balkans in the next half century. This is not a problem for Scotland because on its own, with or without oil, it is wealthier than average for the EU (as the UK is today, ahead of France, Spain and Italy). If Wales or the North-East of England wanted to join on their own it would be more of a problem but as Scotland is the richest UK region outside the SE by all metrics.

As with all things related to the referendum, actual details of the realities of independence would only come after a Yes vote. It would not be feasible for any state to prevent independence happening after a Yes vote because the vote has been allowed by the Edinburgh Agreement, which binds the UK and Scottish Governments to respect whatever result comes of it. With a Yes vote, the only thing that matters is for the most mutually acceptable outcome for the UK and for the EU to be agreed upon and denying access arbitrarily is not in the interests of the EU.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Just moving back to railway matters, assuming a yes vote and Scotland leaves the UK, what currency would be used in Scotland to buy rail tickets? Would Network Rail still be responsible for the rail network in Scotland? Do the leasing agreements of train operators cater for their stock running in two separate countries which also raises the extra insurance risk for the TOC?

 

[edwin_m]

Assuming Scotland no longer used the pound (whether that happens is another kettle of fish entirely) I imagine tickets would be available in either currency much as they are for Eurostar. Any rolling stock and other contracts would presumably continue to run their terms, as they already have to cope somehow with the existing legal differences in Scotland. I'm not sure why the insurance risk would increase, unless due to currency fluctuations, since there is no change in the physical risks being insured against.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Assuming Scotland no longer used the pound (whether that happens is another kettle of fish entirely) I imagine tickets would be available in either currency much as they are for Eurostar.

Exactly, there is no guarantee that an independent Scotland would be allowed to retain the Pound if the Westminster Government refused to guarantee the countries debt, which it has every right to do so, especially as English & Welsh voters might be of the same view. The Scottish Government would either have to print it's own currency which would considerably increase it's borrowing rates, or use the Euro. However, this might only happen after it demonstrated financial stability as the Euro Zone members would want to prevent the troubles of recent years. Either way interest rates north of the border could be significantly different which could reflect not only ticketing costs but the levels of investment by the industry.

Any rolling stock and other contracts would presumably continue to run their terms, as they already have to cope somehow with the existing legal differences in Scotland. I'm not sure why the insurance risk would increase, unless due to currency fluctuations, since there is no change in the physical risks being insured against.

I suspect the existing contracts for stock remaining in England and Wales would be unchanged, but there might have to be changes to stock running across the border purely to ensure the contract complied with the legislation of both governments. English and Welsh companies operating trading branches north of the border would need to register them in Scotland so they could comply with EU Vat laws, hence the sales lists etc. Whilst there may be little change to the physical insurance risk the financial risks and administration involved in settling claims given the potential currency fluctuations could force up insurance premiums.

 

[Altnabreac]

Exactly, there is no guarantee that an independent Scotland would be allowed to retain the Pound if the Westminster Government refused to guarantee the countries debt, which it has every right to do so, especially as English & Welsh voters might be of the same view. The Scottish Government would either have to print it's own currency which would considerably increase it's borrowing rates, or use the Euro. However, this might only happen after it demonstrated financial stability as the Euro Zone members would want to prevent the troubles of recent years. Either way interest rates north of the border could be significantly different which could reflect not only ticketing costs but the levels of investment by the industry.



I suspect the existing contracts for stock remaining in England and Wales would be unchanged, but there might have to be changes to stock running across the border purely to ensure the contract complied with the legislation of both governments. English and Welsh companies operating trading branches north of the border would need to register them in Scotland so they could comply with EU Vat laws, hence the sales lists etc. Whilst there may be little change to the physical insurance risk the financial risks and administration involved in settling claims given the potential currency fluctuations could force up insurance premiums.

As Sterling is a tradeable currency there is no way to stop iScotland from continuing to use the pound should they so wish in the same way as Panama uses the US Dollar or Montenegro uses the Euro.

The debate is about whether rUK would allow continued use of the Bank of England as lender of last resort etc rather than the currency itself.

Worth noting though that Salmond's council of economic advisers specifically recommends against going down this unofficial route (usually known as Dollarisation) but if post independence that were the preferred option there is nothing rUK could do to stop it.

 

[Wavertreelad]

As Sterling is a tradeable currency there is no way to stop iScotland from continuing to use the pound should they so wish in the same way as Panama uses the US Dollar or Montenegro uses the Euro.

The debate is about whether rUK would allow continued use of the Bank of England as lender of last resort etc rather than the currency itself.

Worth noting though that Salmond's council of economic advisers specifically recommends against going down this unofficial route (usually known as Dollarisation) but if post independence that were the preferred option there is nothing rUK could do to stop it.

I agree, but if an independent Scotland wanted to join the EU I doubt if it would be able to use Dollarisation of the Pound and would either have to print it's own currency a be the lender of last resort or use the Euro. If I remember correctly didn't Argentina link it's currency to the US Dollar and then found it had to devalue it when it couldn't service the countries debts? After the Euro crisis I could not see allowing such a scheme to work and I can't think of any country in the EU using their own currency linked to that of another member state apart from in Euroland. On the other hand if Scotland used the Euro, the rest of the UK could not the lender of last resort, so I'm afraid it means a yes vote means the Scots would have to stand on their own feet financially with all the implications that involves.

 

[Altnabreac]

I agree, but if an independent Scotland wanted to join the EU I doubt if it would be able to use Dollarisation of the Pound and would either have to print it's own currency a be the lender of last resort or use the Euro. If I remember correctly didn't Argentina link it's currency to the US Dollar and then found it had to devalue it when it couldn't service the countries debts? After the Euro crisis I could not see allowing such a scheme to work and I can't think of any country in the EU using their own currency linked to that of another member state apart from in Euroland. On the other hand if Scotland used the Euro, the rest of the UK could not the lender of last resort, so I'm afraid it means a yes vote means the Scots would have to stand on their own feet financially with all the implications that involves.

I agree that it's an unprecented situation in the EU that would be unusual but that's different from saying

The Scottish Government would either have to print it's own currency which would considerably increase it's borrowing rates, or use the Euro.

The currency issue would require negotiation with both UK and the EU but it is uncertain rather than impossible to use sterling.

Montenegro has been accepted as an EU candidate country despite having no independent currency or lender of last resort. Now you can say that it is different unilaterally using the Euro than unilaterally using Sterling but its the same principle just a different detail.

For example the Crown Dependencies and overseas territories still use Sterling in one form or another. Gibraltar has an official agrement with the Bank of England to issue notes while The Isle of Man for example uses its own Manx Pound unilaterally 1 for 1 pegged against Sterling with no official agrement and allows interchangeability of notes by maintaining a currency reserve of Sterling. This is similar to a unilateral adoption Scotland could opt for.

A pegged currency as you discuss above with Argentina and the dollar is completely different to a dollarisation where you just use the foerign currency. Pegging is completely compatible with EU membership and there are several examples in the EU including Denmark (who have no intention f joining the Euro), Lithuania (who are set to join the Euro soon) and Bulgaria (who have a long term Euro aspiration). Other countries use a Currency Board which is similar but gives a little more flexibility to move up and down. This would be an alternative option to have a Scottish pound pegged 1-1 with Sterling. This was the solution used after decolonisation in countries such as Benin, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna all of which use currencies pegged 1-1 against the French franc (although they are now pegged against the Euro instead). Plenty of currencies have been pegged against Sterling historically (for example the Singapore dollar) but most of these had ended by the 1970s.

There are significant uncertainties but I don't believe anyone should say things like Sterling would definitely be unable to be used by iScotland as there are many possible permutations and the detail is all up for negotiation after the vote (if of course it's a Yes, which I personally doubt it will be).

 

[CdBrux]

How about we now get back to discussing what the next priority for HSR in the northern part of UK should be:

1) East / West on roughly Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds (&Sheffield), corridor
a) should this be: i) HSR for part / most of way; ii) new line, but not to 360kmh; iii) significant upgrade of existing lines?
2) further extensions north (i.e. Newcastle / Teesside)
3) to Scotland (Glasgow, or Edinburgh or both?)
a) via east coast (extension of Newcastle line)
b) via west coast (continuing north from Wigan)

From what we have learnt so far it seems 2 is the cheapest and easiest but either 1 or 3 would provide the better benefits especially considering regeneration (but the better BCR?)

 

[NotATrainspott]

How about we now get back to discussing what the next priority for HSR in the northern part of UK should be:

1) East / West on roughly Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds (&Sheffield), corridor
a) should this be: i) HSR for part / most of way; ii) new line, but not to 360kmh; iii) significant upgrade of existing lines?
2) further extensions north (i.e. Newcastle / Teesside)
3) to Scotland (Glasgow, or Edinburgh or both?)
a) via east coast (extension of Newcastle line)
b) via west coast (continuing north from Wigan)

From what we have learnt so far it seems 2 is the cheapest and easiest but either 1 or 3 would provide the better benefits especially considering regeneration (but the better BCR?)

Supposing that the UK stays together the likely outcome is that 2 (to Newcastle with a station on the Tees Valley and possibly a parkway in West or North Yorkshire) and 3b (with Preston Interchange, Carlisle and city centre Glasgow and Edinburgh termini) would be built simultaneously as Phase 3. Depending on what the devo-maxed Scottish Government would want and be able to do, construction of the entire Scottish arm could be done at once from the Central Belt and Preston heading towards Carlisle, or it could be phased with one side of Carlisle being completed before the other but as part of one single economic proposition (i.e. the business case is for the whole route, not just for either route to Carlisle). The construction of the Newcastle route would be easy and a cheap add-on so I personally would not be surprised if it were to open not long after the original Leeds date of 2033.

The Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow termini would all have four 400m platforms because two would be too few for future-proofing and three is a silly number. Preston Interchange, the Tees Valley station and the possible one near York would likely have only two platforms because they are through-only stops without much (if any) splitting and joining. Carlisle could end up either way because it would be a significant place for splitting/joining and only having one platform in each direction would be a risk while there really wouldn't be much of a site constraint preventing four platforms from being built to begin with. Building only two platforms at Carlisle would likely preclude the possibility of adding another two later because there would be significant site development nearby after the station would be built and it would be silly to have to provide passive/active provision for them in the station design without just building them anyway. Whether or not there would be a Crewe-style bored tunnel for fast trains to Scotland not stopping in Carlisle would likely depend on how the air and rail markets develop in the meantime. What to remember is that when a London-Toton direct line is built, there will be a lot more capacity on the Phase 1 route for additional services to Scotland or other places, so more platforms and additional infrastructure today isn't going to be as useless as it might be thought.

The east-west TransPennine link would likely start out as a combination of upgraded and possibly new lines where necessary and it would likely start being built as soon as the effects of the TransPennine electrifications are known. If reopening the Woodhead line were feasible with 25kV electrification then it may well happen, even if it is kept as a UK-gauge route at high classic speed. If a captive TransPennine link were provided later it would be no great loss - Edinburgh and Glasgow can attest that there is nothing wrong with having more inter-city regional/local links on top of HSR. The Liverpool captive HS2 branch would be included as one of the first parts of the captive TransPennine link to be built as the line in and station there could serve both roles adequately, unlike Manchester where the TransPennine link would realistically have to be a through station and the HS2 is a terminus.

 

[Haydn1971]

Using Woodhead or any other existing tunnel for that matter would have implications, firstly existing "heritage" tunnels are unlikely to meet current safety standards so would need extensive work to make fit for use, but perhaps more relevant would be the shock wave impact of running a high speed train through a tunnel designed to just accommodate UK gauge - bigger bore tunnels are required for HSR, so you may as well just bore a new one rather than modify an existing one

 

[Altnabreac]

How about we now get back to discussing what the next priority for HSR in the northern part of UK should be:

1) East / West on roughly Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds (&Sheffield), corridor
a) should this be: i) HSR for part / most of way; ii) new line, but not to 360kmh; iii) significant upgrade of existing lines?
2) further extensions north (i.e. Newcastle / Teesside)
3) to Scotland (Glasgow, or Edinburgh or both?)
a) via east coast (extension of Newcastle line)
b) via west coast (continuing north from Wigan)

From what we have learnt so far it seems 2 is the cheapest and easiest but either 1 or 3 would provide the better benefits especially considering regeneration (but the better BCR?)

I agree that the first step should be Option 2 - a Newcastle HS2 extension from Garforth with stations at Teesside Interchange (really a Darlington SE station), Wearside Interchange (Washington) and Newcastle. As a first stage this would only build dedicated high speed line to Pelaw with CC trains used to access Newcastle and Edinburgh via existing tracks.

This would be followed by 3c extension to Scotland via the Newcastle HS line but not via the East Coast. You would be aiming to link the southern end of High Speed Rail Scotland near Carstairs to the Newcastle High Speed Rail by the shortest route possible.

My ideal route would be direct via Scottish Borders with a new tunneled high speed station in Newcastle and following the A696/A68 corridor in Northumberland.

Posibly a cheaper and more realistic option may be to run through Newcastle on existing lines and have a new HS line from the Blaydon area along the Tyne Valley and then the WCML corridor. This is only around 10-15% longer than a direct route through the Borders, doesn't need new city centre stations, avoids the Northumberland National Park and could be built as 2 phases with some use of existing WCML north of Carlisle continued initially.

Running London - Birmingham - Yorkshire - Newcastle - Tyne Valley - Carstairs sounds a bit bonkers initially but distance wise you are only looking at something in the region of 200 miles from Garforth compared to 160 miles or so from Wigan. At 350kmph this is only a 10 minute time penalty in exchange for building much less new track as you reuse the Newcastle portion. If taking a Borders route its an even shorter time penalty.

You also create great new fast links from Scotland - Newcastle.

At least initially this would need to use CC trains only north of Leeds as you wouldn't be building new city centre stations at Newcastle, Glasgow or Edinburgh. This would be a significant saving as especially in Newcastle and Edinburgh any new stations would have to involve a large amount of tunneling. Hopefully 400m platforms for long CC trains could be developed at existing stations though.

Using Woodhead or any other existing tunnel for that matter would have implications, firstly existing "heritage" tunnels are unlikely to meet current safety standards so would need extensive work to make fit for use, but perhaps more relevant would be the shock wave impact of running a high speed train through a tunnel designed to just accommodate UK gauge - bigger bore tunnels are required for HSR, so you may as well just bore a new one rather than modify an existing one

I think a Pennine Base tunnel in the Woodhead area but with new bores is the way to go, combined with rebuilding/ upgrading the existing lines on either side of the Pennines so you aren't building new City Centre infrastructure which costs the big money, you can then use the HS2 corridor in Yorkshire for as much of the Manchester - Leeds journey as possible, effectively giving you some free HS line for cross pennine services.

 

[edwin_m]

Last I heard (probably on here somewhere) the "new" Woodhead tunnel was being used for the power cables and the original tunnels were to be allowed to fall into disrepair, so any transport use would need another tunnel anyway.

 

[po8crg]

I think you can go for a two stage approach

Stage One

Newcastle HS
Liverpool HS Spur (to Culcheth, with a bidirectional junction with HS2 and a link to the Chat Moss line into Manchester)
Manchester-Sheffield new line (not HS, but normal gauge, though the tunnel bores might be GC-gauge to allow for a future upgrade), including an Ardwick flyover to relieve the Piccadilly station throat (existing track to Glossop, new line Glossop-Stocksbridge, existing line into Sheffield; possibly a slightly more southerly alignment than the original Woodhead). Hope Valley is just too long and too winding to be upgradeable to a fast service.
Electrification from HS2 and ECML through Selby to Hull, including a junction so classic services can get to Hull from HS2.

This would mean that trains from Liverpool could go along the HS spur to Culcheth, over Chat Moss, then either via Victoria to Leeds and beyond (for Hull or back onto HS for Newcastle), or via Piccadilly to Sheffield and then onto MML (to e.g. Nottingham).

Stage Two

West Coast HS to Scotland
HS from Culcheth, through Manchester Victoria (new platforms under the Arena, probably means demolishing it and rebuilding above the new station - us Mancs will have to go to Liverpool or Leeds for concerts for a few years) and then Transpennine to Bradford Parkway (near Oakenshaw, on the motorway, and with rail links to Bradford and Halifax), through Leeds (new platforms to the south of the existing Leeds City station, improving links between City and New Lane) and out East to connect to the existing HS2.
Two new North-facing bay platforms at Toton (for services to Liverpool and Scotland)

New services could include:
(captive) Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-York-Newcastle
(captive) Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Meadowhall-Toton
(classic) Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull
(captive) Toton-Meadowhall-Leeds-Manchester-Scotland
(classic) Hull-Leeds-Manchester-Scotland

Not much point doing Newcastle-Scotland via Leeds and Manchester. The few passengers to Preston could change in Manchester; Newcastle-Carlisle would still be better served by the classic line.

Sheffield-Manchester-Liverpool would continue to use the stage one route. I'm sure a few people would go out to Meadowhall, to go via Leeds, but mostly just those heading for Scotland, avoiding the need to change stations in Manchester.

The reason I'm proposing terminating some captives at Toton is that there's no point whatsoever running them to Birmingham or London, as every station has a better direct service to Birmingham Curzon Street and London Euston and there's more room to add platforms at Toton than Curzon Street.

 

[Wavertreelad]

I agree that it's an unprecented situation in the EU that would be unusual but that's different from saying

The currency issue would require negotiation with both UK and the EU but it is uncertain rather than impossible to use sterling.

Montenegro has been accepted as an EU candidate country despite having no independent currency or lender of last resort. Now you can say that it is different unilaterally using the Euro than unilaterally using Sterling but its the same principle just a different detail.

For example the Crown Dependencies and overseas territories still use Sterling in one form or another. Gibraltar has an official agrement with the Bank of England to issue notes while The Isle of Man for example uses its own Manx Pound unilaterally 1 for 1 pegged against Sterling with no official agrement and allows interchangeability of notes by maintaining a currency reserve of Sterling. This is similar to a unilateral adoption Scotland could opt for.

A pegged currency as you discuss above with Argentina and the dollar is completely different to a dollarisation where you just use the foerign currency. Pegging is completely compatible with EU membership and there are several examples in the EU including Denmark (who have no intention f joining the Euro), Lithuania (who are set to join the Euro soon) and Bulgaria (who have a long term Euro aspiration). Other countries use a Currency Board which is similar but gives a little more flexibility to move up and down. This would be an alternative option to have a Scottish pound pegged 1-1 with Sterling. This was the solution used after decolonisation in countries such as Benin, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna all of which use currencies pegged 1-1 against the French franc (although they are now pegged against the Euro instead). Plenty of currencies have been pegged against Sterling historically (for example the Singapore dollar) but most of these had ended by the 1970s.

There are significant uncertainties but I don't believe anyone should say things like Sterling would definitely be unable to be used by iScotland as there are many possible permutations and the detail is all up for negotiation after the vote (if of course it's a Yes, which I personally doubt it will be).

To put a lid on this debate can I say I agree with some of your points, but

"The currency issue would require negotiation with both UK and the EU but it is uncertain rather than impossible to use sterling."

The point being whilst the referendum takes place during this parliament, any yes vote would not result in an overnight separation. It would be the next UK government that will then have to sort out the mess. Given there is cross party support on both sides of the fence there could be some very strong lobbying from a variety of sources to tow a hard line to prevent Wales and Northern Ireland thinking along similar lines, let alone consider the political implications for any party being seen by the remaining UK voters who might not too pleased to see more of their earnings drifting out of the country.

According to Wiki Montenegro has never had the support of the EU for using the Euro as they had previously used the DM. However, they are at present in the process of trying to join the EU but they will need to align their economy to meet with stricter EU rules before this happens. One of the reasons for the collapse in 2008 and subsequent Euro crisis is that the rules for joining the currency had been relaxed to grow the community. Some of those countries admitted then found they could borrow much easier and sent their economies on a spending spree of debt. When these debts were called in by the banks following the global crash of 2008 the countries concerned could not sustain the economy so hence the reason why Germany ended up bailing them out.

Any country using another nations currency using dollarisation or pegging has the same has the same problem ultimately that is has to hold a reserve of that currency to service the countries debts. It is totally at the mercy of the host country or community as far as interest rates are concerned, which can have devastating implications for the economy and usually means there are strict exchange controls on international bank transactions. The Chinese RMB for example is only traded in Hong Kong and recently in London, but they hold huge reserves of negotiable currencies thanks to their export lead economy. They use these reserves to pay for the imports but the importer is not allowed to hold the foreign currency so has to go through the bank to remit the funds. In order to slow the flow of exports and generate domestic growth in the economy the Chinese government manipulates the rate of exchange of the RMB but at the same time it invests it's reserves in overseas project to obtain an income and at the same ensure the needs of it's nation are sustained.

Personally I hope it is a no vote as the implications for all of us are far reaching, whether we like it not.

 

[WatcherZero]

Last I heard (probably on here somewhere) the "new" Woodhead tunnel was being used for the power cables and the original tunnels were to be allowed to fall into disrepair, so any transport use would need another tunnel anyway.

Nevermind disuse, as they are no longer being maintained they have to be filled in to prevent a safety hazard.

 

[edwin_m]

I think you can go for a two stage approach

Some interesting ideas here but a few problems too.

Not sure you need to build two Transpennine routes - I think this is what you are proposing for the two stages, unless you intend to use the existing line via Halifax but this isn't high speed by any means!

There could also be a stage zero - build the bit west of Guide Bridge then send everything via Huddersfield.

Toton is a non-place to terminate - it would be far better to make these classic compatible and continue to Nottingham, though maybe not all the way to Norwich.

Any new route built from now on is almost certain to be GC gauge, with the possible exception of station platforms. It doesn't cost much extra and it provides a lot of future proofing. It might not be to full high speed standards in terms of track spacing etc if its curvature is only suitable for a lower speed.

Suitability of this sort of idea seems to come down to the choice between an expensive new alignment through Manchester and a cheaper one that involves reversal.

 

[Muzer]

Well you could make an argument for running the Highland sleeper up the HS2 lines, the higher quality of the railhead would let them roll at 110mph which would significantly reduce the travel time and allow the Highland sleeper to leave Euston at a similar time to the Lowland.

Why would you want it to? I'd much rather have a longer sleep than a quicker journey.

 

[Wavertreelad]

50 years ago we built the M62 across the Pennines which I know is far from straight with gentle inclines so it is not the same as a railway, but the principle remains the same, where's there is a will, there is a way. If I remember correctly the plans for the M62 were first drafted twenty or thirty years earlier when construction methods were not as advanced, but the project was completed.

Nowadays, the hardest part of the exercise is likely be deciding on a route that gets the support of the majority and does not get bogged down gaining parliamentary approval for years. I am not against protecting our environment and heritage but sometimes the best solution is starting with a blank sheet of paper and taking it from there. We all know tunnelling either under Manchester or through parts of the Pennines is not going to be cheap, quick or necessarily easy to construct, but as long as the overall economic benefits to the North of England are measured to be positive then can the case for building the line be ignored?

 

[po8crg]

Not sure you need to build two Transpennine routes - I think this is what you are proposing for the two stages, unless you intend to use the existing line via Halifax but this isn't high speed by any means!

For stage one, I'm not proposing anything beyond the TP electrification for the Manchester-Leeds section.

It's not high-speed at all, but we're just upgrading it to higher speed at the moment.

There are two TP routes, one is Manchester-Sheffield, the other is Manchester-Leeds.

I'm sure that the new construction between Manchester and Sheffield would be GC-gauge, but I'm proposing using existing track to approach both cities, and that certainly isn't GC-gauge (mostly W8, from what I can tell).

You could, later (a stage three) build a connection through East Manchester to connect the Sheffield line to the HS track through Victoria, and then pass through Sheffield to connect to HS2 at (or near) Meadowhall, allowing trains from the East Midlands and East Anglia to bypass Leeds and go through Sheffield instead.

The problem with a reversal in Manchester is that it requires a big expansion of Piccadilly HS2 station, and that probably means a lot of demolitions. Reversals need a lot more platforms than through track.

Since you have to come in from the East either way, the differential is the cost of Piccadilly versus the cost of Victoria and the cost of the West approach. It's closer than you'd think.

Note, though, that the western approach to Piccadilly is a long way around if you're trying to get to Liverpool or Scotland. Going along the Oxford Road Viaduct and over Chat Moss will get you to the HS2 mainline/Liverpool spur junction at Culcheth faster than the HS2 route from Piccadilly, because it's such a long way around to go via the Airport.

Leeds is the one that's a big deal - expanding Leeds City is a really expensive option compared to avoiding the city, connecting at Oulton and allowing trains to either avoid Leeds or go in and out of New Lane with a reversal.

 

[Altnabreac]

To put a lid on this debate can I say I agree with some of your points, but

"The currency issue would require negotiation with both UK and the EU but it is uncertain rather than impossible to use sterling."

The point being whilst the referendum takes place during this parliament, any yes vote would not result in an overnight separation. It would be the next UK government that will then have to sort out the mess. Given there is cross party support on both sides of the fence there could be some very strong lobbying from a variety of sources to tow a hard line to prevent Wales and Northern Ireland thinking along similar lines, let alone consider the political implications for any party being seen by the remaining UK voters who might not too pleased to see more of their earnings drifting out of the country.

According to Wiki Montenegro has never had the support of the EU for using the Euro as they had previously used the DM. However, they are at present in the process of trying to join the EU but they will need to align their economy to meet with stricter EU rules before this happens. One of the reasons for the collapse in 2008 and subsequent Euro crisis is that the rules for joining the currency had been relaxed to grow the community. Some of those countries admitted then found they could borrow much easier and sent their economies on a spending spree of debt. When these debts were called in by the banks following the global crash of 2008 the countries concerned could not sustain the economy so hence the reason why Germany ended up bailing them out.

Any country using another nations currency using dollarisation or pegging has the same has the same problem ultimately that is has to hold a reserve of that currency to service the countries debts. It is totally at the mercy of the host country or community as far as interest rates are concerned, which can have devastating implications for the economy and usually means there are strict exchange controls on international bank transactions. The Chinese RMB for example is only traded in Hong Kong and recently in London, but they hold huge reserves of negotiable currencies thanks to their export lead economy. They use these reserves to pay for the imports but the importer is not allowed to hold the foreign currency so has to go through the bank to remit the funds. In order to slow the flow of exports and generate domestic growth in the economy the Chinese government manipulates the rate of exchange of the RMB but at the same time it invests it's reserves in overseas project to obtain an income and at the same ensure the needs of it's nation are sustained.

Personally I hope it is a no vote as the implications for all of us are far reaching, whether we like it not.

Boringly it seems we now entirely agree that its complicated, requires negotiation and cause far reaching effects. Consensus is much less interesting .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Toton is a non-place to terminate - it would be far better to make these classic compatible and continue to Nottingham, though maybe not all the way to Norwich.

I think Toton serves Nottingham / Derby relatively well but agree you'd extend services beyond Toton, to me though Leicester seems a better bet for extensions, if you wanted to go beyond there perhaps Peterborough / Cambridge /Stansted would be a more promising corridor than Norwich.

 

[po8crg]

I think Toton serves Nottingham / Derby relatively well but agree you'd extend services beyond Toton, to me though Leicester seems a better bet for extensions, if you wanted to go beyond there perhaps Peterborough / Cambridge /Stansted would be a more promising corridor than Norwich.

Depends if you're extending HS2, or running onto classic track. For classic, you probably do both (Leicester-Toton-Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool/Scotland and Norwich-Ely-Peterborough-Toton-Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool/Scotland; if EWR is built, you could to Norwich-Cambridge-Bedford-Leicester-Toton instead)

HS extensions from Toton go Leicester-Bedford-London to provide the second route into the city and bypass Birmingham for London to Yorkshire and the NE.

Then you can look at an easterly route going Norwich-Cambridge-Bedford or similar to connect East Anglia into the HS network (by then, we're into the 2050s, mind)

 

[edwin_m]

The problem with a reversal in Manchester is that it requires a big expansion of Piccadilly HS2 station, and that probably means a lot of demolitions. Reversals need a lot more platforms than through track.

Since you have to come in from the East either way, the differential is the cost of Piccadilly versus the cost of Victoria and the cost of the West approach. It's closer than you'd think.

Note, though, that the western approach to Piccadilly is a long way around if you're trying to get to Liverpool or Scotland. Going along the Oxford Road Viaduct and over Chat Moss will get you to the HS2 mainline/Liverpool spur junction at Culcheth faster than the HS2 route from Piccadilly, because it's such a long way around to go via the Airport.

Leeds is the one that's a big deal - expanding Leeds City is a really expensive option compared to avoiding the city, connecting at Oulton and allowing trains to either avoid Leeds or go in and out of New Lane with a reversal.

The land north of Piccadilly is currently virtually derelict, over a larger area that is currently planned to be the HS2 station. I would hope that the powers that be reserve some of this land for extra railway facilities rather than letting it all be developed. Whereas at Victoria the Arena would need to be demolished to add any more through platforms

The Victoria approach tracks in both directions go over many flat junctions several of which would need to be grade separated, resulting in moreorless a new route between the Eccles area and somewhere east of the city centre.

Although the HS2 route south-eastwards from Piccadilly is indirect on the map, it would probably be faster than going west on existing routes (even allowing for a reversal) and it would certainly be cheaper than going west on new infrastructure.

It also has the advantage of passing the Airport so all services could serve both the Airport and Liverpool. This avoids either sending alternate services to each destination (giving each a less attractive frequency of probably two per hour, and less choice of through services) or splitting and joining. In fact it would be difficult to serve the Airport on any option that runs through Victoria.

 

[Wavertreelad]

The land north of Piccadilly is currently virtually derelict, over a larger area that is currently planned to be the HS2 station. I would hope that the powers that be reserve some of this land for extra railway facilities rather than letting it all be developed. Whereas at Victoria the Arena would need to be demolished to add any more through platforms

The Victoria approach tracks in both directions go over many flat junctions several of which would need to be grade separated, resulting in moreorless a new route between the Eccles area and somewhere east of the city centre.

Although the HS2 route south-eastwards from Piccadilly is indirect on the map, it would probably be faster than going west on existing routes (even allowing for a reversal) and it would certainly be cheaper than going west on new infrastructure.

It also has the advantage of passing the Airport so all services could serve both the Airport and Liverpool. This avoids either sending alternate services to each destination (giving each a less attractive frequency of probably two per hour, and less choice of through services) or splitting and joining. In fact it would be difficult to serve the Airport on any option that runs through Victoria.

I totally agree that any new Transpennine route should serve both Manchester Airport and the Manchester City Centre as this then it could share the HS2 route south or a route to Liverpool. If there is land to the north of Piccadilly likely to be available would it be possible to build a line roughly in a north easterly direction towards Miles Platting if necessary in a tunnel then onwards broadly to the north of Oldham over the Pennines?

 

[edwin_m]

I totally agree that any new Transpennine route should serve both Manchester Airport and the Manchester City Centre as this then it could share the HS2 route south or a route to Liverpool. If there is land to the north of Piccadilly likely to be available would it be possible to build a line roughly in a north easterly direction towards Miles Platting if necessary in a tunnel then onwards broadly to the north of Oldham over the Pennines?

Off the top of my head:

- Turn sharp left out of Piccadilly to pick up the line from Ashburys northwards (sometimes referred to here as the curvilinear forest) - slow.

- Then when this splits at the Philips Park triangle continue straight on through Newton Heath to join the Calder Valley line, although this bit would demolish some housing.

- This parts of the Calder Valley line was at least partly four-track and is on a reasonably good alignment.

- Diverge eastwards north of Mills Hill to cross the A627(M) then pick up the M62 before Newhey.

- Approximately follow the M62, taking out the worst of the bends. This will involve finding a new way to cross Scammonden Water as well as a lot of very challenging topography.

- Potentially transfer onto the Calder Valley route towards Mirfield where the M62 crosses it east of Brighouse.

- Probably off towards York via Kirkgate with Leeds on a branch.

However none of this is exactly high speed - probably not much more than 100mph due to the curves - and probably longer than the Huddersfield route too. I can't help thinking Woodhead would be easier!

 

[Rational Plan]

Not strictly a Northern Extension of HS2, but would certainly take advantage of the freed capacity provided by HS2 would be a new highish speed link South of Leicester to Northampton.

You could have a half hourly express from Leicester running to Northampton, Milton Keynes, Bletchley, Leighton and Dunstable to London Euston, providing both extra long distance commuting to London but also linking the M1 towns together properly at last.

it would also help relieve the MML, Though I wonder what scope there would be to extend it further up North, at least to Nottingham/and of Totton, it would provide lots of new one change connections at Leicester or Totton.

 

[edwin_m]

Not strictly a Northern Extension of HS2, but would certainly take advantage of the freed capacity provided by HS2 would be a new highish speed link South of Leicester to Northampton.

You could have a half hourly express from Leicester running to Northampton, Milton Keynes, Bletchley, Leighton and Dunstable to London Euston, providing both extra long distance commuting to London but also linking the M1 towns together properly at last.

it would also help relieve the MML, Though I wonder what scope there would be to extend it further up North, at least to Nottingham/and of Totton, it would provide lots of new one change connections at Leicester or Totton.

This would be relatively easy using the Nuneaton line out of Leicester, the Great Central (formation largely still in place) to Rugby and a connection to WCML. If there isn't enough capacity towards Euston it could may be go to Oxford and beyond.