HS2 future northern extensions

[TBY-Paul]

I was watching a news article on my local BBC news, which would normally pass me by, because it not something that would spike my interest. The article was about "Natural England" planting 60,000 trees as part of a "Bio-diversity" & " re-Wilding" programme.

The thing that spiked my interest was the location. Cue, shot's of the WCML at Tebay Valley. Apparently the plan is to have the area covered in mature trees in the next 10+ years.

In view of this, would it be a added complication, when selecting a route through to Scotland. I can't imagine Natural England being to enthusiastic about a future High Speed rail line going through an area they have spent vast amounts of time and money on.
(I'm thinking along the lines of how the area will look, in 10-20 years time, once the trees are established).

 

[NotATrainspott]

I was watching a news article on my local BBC news, which would normally pass me by, because it not something that would spike my interest. The article was about "Natural England" planting 60,000 trees as part of a "Bio-diversity" & " re-Wilding" programme.

The thing that spiked my interest was the location. Cue, shot's of the WCML at Tebay Valley. Apparently the plan is to have the area covered in mature trees in the next 10+ years.

In view of this, would it be a added complication, when selecting a route through to Scotland. I can't imagine Natural England being to enthusiastic about a future High Speed rail line going through an area they have spent vast amounts of time and money on.
(I'm thinking along the lines of how the area will look, in 10-20 years time, once the trees are established).

High speed rail lines aren't that wide so I doubt the effect on tree cover would be that large. Indeed, one of the mitigation measures proposed for HS2 is to plant trees along the route to act as a natural noise barrier.

 

[TBY-Paul]

High speed rail lines aren't that wide so I doubt the effect on tree cover would be that large. Indeed, one of the mitigation measures proposed for HS2 is to plant trees along the route to act as a natural noise barrier.

Whilst I can agree that the planting of 60,000 trees in themselves shouldn't be to much of problem, more an inconvenience. It's when you take into account the ambitions of the two National Parks (Lake District & Yorkshire Dales) to extend their areas up to the M6 Motorway boundary, in the same location, it would leave a very narrow channel in which to thread a High Speed rail route through. It would appear to be a thin twisty channel that wouldn't lend it's self to very High speed running.

All these things combined add further complications to any future route north to Scotland, especially if the Manchester to Glasgow route is favoured over a Leeds/Newcastle to Scotland route.

If the Northumberland National park is considered a handicap to a Newcastle to Glasgow/Edinburgh route, then surely having the Lake District NP & Yorkshire Dales NP expanding to such an extent would create a similar handicap.

 

[quantinghome]

Whilst I can agree that the planting of 60,000 trees in themselves shouldn't be to much of problem, more an inconvenience. It's when you take into account the ambitions of the two National Parks (Lake District & Yorkshire Dales) to extend their areas up to the M6 Motorway boundary, in the same location, it would leave a very narrow channel in which to thread a High Speed rail route through. It would appear to be a thin twisty channel that wouldn't lend it's self to very High speed running.

All these things combined add further complications to any future route north to Scotland, especially if the Manchester to Glasgow route is favoured over a Leeds/Newcastle to Scotland route.

If the Northumberland National park is considered a handicap to a Newcastle to Glasgow/Edinburgh route, then surely having the Lake District NP & Yorkshire Dales NP expanding to such an extent would create a similar handicap.

Given the twisting route of the Lune Valley and its being surrounded by hills and mountains, any high speed route would have to be predominantly in tunnel. So perhaps its effect on any newly designated area of National Park will be relatively small.

 

[snowball]

High speed rail lines aren't that wide

Surely in many places most of the width comes from embankments and cuttings.

Also high speed lines have to be very straight - much straighter than a motorway - and as quantinghome says the Lune valley is twisty.

It's when you take into account the ambitions of the two National Parks (Lake District & Yorkshire Dales) to extend their areas up to the M6 Motorway boundary, in the same location

Approval of which was announced a few days ago. It will take effect in August 2016. The new boundaries tend to be a bit short of the M6 when seen on a detailed map.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34614556

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...les-national-parks-boundary-changes-confirmed

 

[Chester1]

I know a bit about Natural England in a proffessional capacity, it mainly cares about sites of special scientific interest and European protected species. Upgrades of exisiting infrastructure aren't significant if they are done sensitively. The connecting area between the National Parks is small and its in an area that would probably need tunneling anyway. I don't think the line is even at 110-125mph at that point. There is no business case for extending HS2 to Scotland, its far to expensive for the number of people it would connect. If Scotland ever gets HS it would be linking up the central belt.

 

[Tobbes]

Whether there is a formal business case for a TSI compliant HSR extension to the Central Belt from HS2 Phase 3 or not, there is a very clear UK political case for doing it, and as a result, it will get built.

I look forward to it, even if it means lots of tunnels through Cumbria!

 

[Ironside]

Whether there is a formal business case for a TSI compliant HSR extension to the Central Belt from HS2 Phase 3 or not, there is a very clear UK political case for doing it, and as a result, it will get built.

I look forward to it, even if it means lots of tunnels through Cumbria!

The political desire is there and so it will get built eventually probably when the classic lines start to fill up.

 

[Chester1]

Whether there is a formal business case for a TSI compliant HSR extension to the Central Belt from HS2 Phase 3 or not, there is a very clear UK political case for doing it, and as a result, it will get built.

I look forward to it, even if it means lots of tunnels through Cumbria!

The political desire is there and so it will get built eventually probably when the classic lines start to fill up.

There is huge political desire from the SNP but only mild interest from the Conservatives. They have very little stake in Scottish politics and a HS line won't make a huge difference to their prospects. This is in contrast with HS3 which is part of a much wider plan to remodel the Northern economy on London in the hope of reduce subsidies to the North, making it less dependant on the public sector and give the Tories a chance of winning again in Northern suburbs. Compare HS Scotland with spending a few hundred million on wiring up and speeding up Crewe-Holyhead. Between Crewe and Conwy the line runs through 4 Tory held marginal constituencies and 1 (Chester) which went Labour in May with a tiny majority of 90. I have said for a long time that it will get wired ahead of when it should based on a BCR, because there is clear political gain for the Tories. There are some oppertunities for the Tories in Lancashire, Cumbria and Scottish Borders but not enough for them to spend billions, especially with a poor BCR. Glasgow-Edinborugh with HS links to the ECML and WCML is a different matter, especially if part funded by the Scottish government. A high BCR would probably override the Tories apathy.

 

[CdBrux]

Is the WCML between Lancaster (or even Preston) & say Carstairs going to be a capacity pinch point before the approaches into Glasgow / Edinburgh and the line between Wigan & Preston / Lancaster?

The additional advantage of prioritising work in Scotland is that any legislation can be taken through the Scottish parliament before the Westminster parliament has finished the detailed HS2 phase 2 work if so desired.

 

[Altnabreac]

Is the WCML between Lancaster (or even Preston) & say Carstairs going to be a capacity pinch point before the approaches into Glasgow / Edinburgh and the line between Wigan & Preston / Lancaster?

The additional advantage of prioritising work in Scotland is that any legislation can be taken through the Scottish parliament before the Westminster parliament has finished the detailed HS2 phase 2 work if so desired.

This is written assuming Phase 1 of a Scottish high speed line is built between Edinburgh / Glasgow / south of Carstairs.

After that first phase opens it is likely the initial pinch point will be between Carlisle and Carstairs.

This is because of 3 main factors:

• You are likely to be splitting the 400m HS trains at Carlisle so north of Carlisle HS train frequencies increase because there are lots of 200m sets operating.
• A fairly large amount of freight traffic that is tricky to divert as it is heading to Mossend / Grangemouth etc
• Steep gradients and sharp curves over Beattock

There is also more freight capacity on the Settle & Carlisle for slower bulk traffic south of Carlisle.

So Phase 2 is likely to be a section of HS south of Carstairs wholly within Scotland.

To get the required sub 3 hour journey time however I think a 3rd new piece of HS line located wholly in England will be necessary. Given the strategic importance of Preston and the likelihood of splitting at Carlisle it is unlikely to bypass either of those cities.

Also given the lack of tilt in High Speed Trains and poor performance of freight over high gradients it would seem likely that the most performance and speed gain for the new high speed line will be a curved section over a steep gradient between those 2 cities of Carlisle and Preston.

Unfortunately the new National Park designation is in exactly the sort of area that might benefit most from a new high speed bypass section.

 

[Chester1]

This is written assuming Phase 1 of a Scottish high speed line is built between Edinburgh / Glasgow / south of Carstairs.

After that first phase opens it is likely the initial pinch point will be between Carlisle and Carstairs.

This is because of 3 main factors:

• You are likely to be splitting the 400m HS trains at Carlisle so north of Carlisle HS train frequencies increase because there are lots of 200m sets operating.
• A fairly large amount of freight traffic that is tricky to divert as it is heading to Mossend / Grangemouth etc
• Steep gradients and sharp curves over Beattock

There is also more freight capacity on the Settle & Carlisle for slower bulk traffic south of Carlisle.

So Phase 2 is likely to be a section of HS south of Carstairs wholly within Scotland.

To get the required sub 3 hour journey time however I think a 3rd new piece of HS line located wholly in England will be necessary. Given the strategic importance of Preston and the likelihood of splitting at Carlisle it is unlikely to bypass either of those cities.

Also given the lack of tilt in High Speed Trains and poor performance of freight over high gradients it would seem likely that the most performance and speed gain for the new high speed line will be a curved section over a steep gradient between those 2 cities of Carlisle and Preston.

Unfortunately the new National Park designation is in exactly the sort of area that might benefit most from a new high speed bypass section.

Instead of splitting trains wouldnt it be simpler to extend the relevant Scottish platforms to 400m and run the HS trains non stop between Scotland and Manchester airport? Some (maybe half) of the Preston terminating services could be extended to Carlisle to provide Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith and Carlisle with HS2 services. It would probably knock 10 mins off journey times as well. How big would the issues be for implementing this? Are there bends that wouldnt support 400m at a sensible speed for instance. Obviously too expensive for the WCML as a whole but 3 or 4 stations?

I agree Carstairs-Glasgow/Edinburgh is a good and likely project but I think HS2 reach Scotland is a solution looking for a problem. I know allot of people think this about HS2 as a whole (which I disagree with) but there is plenty of scope to make improvements without a new line in Cumbria. Lets say the relevant WCML and ECML stations north of HS2 were upgraded to 400m platforms, would more than 3/4 x 400m long trains per hour be needed on each line? Couldnt the existing lines support this with relatively minor upgrades? Correct me if I am wrong but the existing passenger services between Preston and Carlisle are a) 3 tp2h to Barrow/Carlisle, b) 1 tph to Windermere c) One every 2 hours between Leeds and Lancaster mixed in with an hourly Lancaster d) 1 XCountry tph, 2 Virgin trains services. Its not allot for a mainline. Crucially there are no slow services between Carnforth and Carlisle so if freight was diverted (expensive but much cheaper than a HS line) and all TPE services were run with 110mph EMUs there would be few issues with differing train speeds.

 

[Noddy]

Instead of splitting trains wouldnt it be simpler to extend the relevant Scottish platforms to 400m and run the HS trains non stop between Scotland and Manchester airport? Some (maybe half) of the Preston terminating services could be extended to Carlisle to provide Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith and Carlisle with HS2 services. It would probably knock 10 mins off journey times as well. How big would the issues be for implementing this? Are there bends that wouldnt support 400m at a sensible speed for instance. Obviously too expensive for the WCML as a whole but 3 or 4 stations?

I agree Carstairs-Glasgow/Edinburgh is a good and likely project but I think HS2 reach Scotland is a solution looking for a problem. I know allot of people think this about HS2 as a whole (which I disagree with) but there is plenty of scope to make improvements without a new line in Cumbria. Lets say the relevant WCML and ECML stations north of HS2 were upgraded to 400m platforms, would more than 3/4 x 400m long trains per hour be needed on each line? Couldnt the existing lines support this with relatively minor upgrades? Correct me if I am wrong but the existing passenger services between Preston and Carlisle are a) 3 tp2h to Barrow/Carlisle, b) 1 tph to Windermere c) One every 2 hours between Leeds and Lancaster mixed in with an hourly Lancaster d) 1 XCountry tph, 2 Virgin trains services. Its not allot for a mainline. Crucially there are no slow services between Carnforth and Carlisle so if freight was diverted (expensive but much cheaper than a HS line) and all TPE services were run with 110mph EMUs there would be few issues with differing train speeds.

The problem is that the WCML is a 160kph (or less) railway for non-tilting trains and, judging by cost of the last upgrade, not easily upgradable for higher line speeds. You say there are plenty of scope to make improvements but the basic problem is much of the route is not on a straight alignment. So your brand spanking new HS trains (and 110mph EMUs) will pretty much be limited to 160kph north of Manchester. For the stopping WCML trains this could actually provide a slower service than today.

The new HS lines are going to be running trains that do a minimum of 320kph and is being designed with 400kph in mind. People seem to forget that once the journey time between the Central Belt and London (and the Midlands) is under 3hrs it will effectively eliminate the advantages of air travel, on everything bar cost. The environmental benefit of a large reduction in internal flights is potentially huge and one reason why even if the BCR doesn't quite stack up the government may decide to do it anyway (assuming the UK remains as one country).

 

[The Planner]

Is the WCML between Lancaster (or even Preston) & say Carstairs going to be a capacity pinch point before the approaches into Glasgow / Edinburgh and the line between Wigan & Preston / Lancaster?

It is going to get tight north of Preston and something will need to be done for the freight, the S&C won't be considered the catch all answer.

 

[Chester1]

The problem is that the WCML is a 160kph (or less) railway for non-tilting trains and, judging by cost of the last upgrade, not easily upgradable for higher line speeds. You say there are plenty of scope to make improvements but the basic problem is much of the route is not on a straight alignment. So your brand spanking new HS trains (and 110mph EMUs) will pretty much be limited to 160kph north of Manchester. For the stopping WCML trains this could actually provide a slower service than today.

The new HS lines are going to be running trains that do a minimum of 320kph and is being designed with 400kph in mind. People seem to forget that once the journey time between the Central Belt and London (and the Midlands) is under 3hrs it will effectively eliminate the advantages of air travel, on everything bar cost. The environmental benefit of a large reduction in internal flights is potentially huge and one reason why even if the BCR doesn't quite stack up the government may decide to do it anyway (assuming the UK remains as one country).

I thought the limit was 110mph not 160kph (which is 100mph?). That might actually help capacity wise, it would be easier to make sure every train running between Preston and Carlisle was capable of 100mph than 110mph. My question related to capacity, could 400m run as long as the relevant Scottish platforms were lengthened? Not stopping between Lockerbie and Manchester Airport would speed up services would probably offset most of the losses from not running at VT 125mph. I am not sure about the envoironmental argument, its a factor but it wont be worth spending 10s of billions.

It is going to get tight north of Preston and something will need to be done for the freight, the S&C won't be considered the catch all answer.

S&C plus the Cumbrian coast line surely must have significant potential extra capacity if money was spent on them. I admit not a catch all answer though.

I know HS2 extending to Scotland would:

A) decrease journey times
B) increase freight capacity
C) increase passenger capacity

However is that worth spending £100m+ a mile, i.e. 10s of billions on? I suspect the cost of re signalling, relaying track and adding passing loops to the S&C and Cumbrian coast and extending WCML platforms in Scotland to 400m would cost a fraction of extending HS2 to Scotland. Its worth also considering the capacity of HS2 itself. How many trains to Scotland are there paths for? Even if the two per hour saved for services to Heathrow were used for London-Scotland services would there be capacity to absorb a huge switch from plane to train?

 

[The Planner]

Cumbrian Coast is not a viable answer for freight, the time penalty is too big and would require significant expenditure to make it of any use.

 

[Chester1]

Cumbrian Coast is not a viable answer for freight, the time penalty is too big and would require significant expenditure to make it of any use.

How much expenditure? Completely replacing the track and signalling of an existing line, especially one that can be closed and replaced with buses for a long time (at least between Barrow and Carlisle), sounds tiny compared with dedicated high speed line from Wigan to Scotland. As I previously stated, how many train paths can be spared south of Birmingham for London-Scotland services? I believe there will be 18 paths. I believe 13 are reserved for London to Birmingham + the north, 3 for services to Scotland and 2 free. Ignoring that English services could have a better business case for the paths, its 5 at most. Add moving Birmingham-Scotland to highspeed and that would be a total of 6 train paths an hour. Its not worth it for the distances involved. Only Manchester airport-Piccadilly, Sheffield-Leeds and Birmingham International-Birmingham are equal or bellow that and for less distance combined than Wigan-Carstairs.

 

[Tobbes]

The environmental benefit of a large reduction in internal flights is potentially huge and one reason why even if the BCR doesn't quite stack up the government may decide to do it anyway

Exactly right, Noddy. And this can be caught in the BCR - and it would also be beneficial to have a loop link to LHR for runway 3 (&4?) and Terminal 6 (&7?).

(assuming the UK remains as one country).

A position made more likely by building it. Another reason it gets done, and sooner. It struck me as ironic that had Darling as Transport Secretary in Blair I gone for HS2 in 98, it may have been open to Scotland (or at least well on the way) by 2014. Oh well.

 

[mrmartin]

What is this 'enormous' environmental benefit from reducing internal flights?

Firstly, a lot of internal flights to heathrow will continue, as they are for connecting passengers (and this would be a lot higher if it wasn't heathrow being so crowded - many flights to AMS/FRA/CDG will also be for the same reason - so this could change if third runway goes ahead).

Secondly, airports are really handy for a lot of people. Anywhere in Western Edinburgh for example will find edinburgh airport a lot quicker to get to (even via public transport) than the city centre terminal at rush hour. I think a big fallacy is this idea that everyone is doing city-center to city-center, which I'm not sure is true.

Secondly, aviation contributes 6% of UK CO2. Domestic flights are somewhere around 10% of that total (https://www.theccc.org.uk/charts-data/ukemissions-by-sector/aviation/), of which not all are scotland/london flights.

So assuming HS2+ got marketshare of 60-70%, you'd be looking at a massive 0.2%-0.3% reduction in emissions...

 

[The Planner]

How much expenditure? Completely replacing the track and signalling of an existing line, especially one that can be closed and replaced with buses for a long time (at least between Barrow and Carlisle), sounds tiny compared with dedicated high speed line from Wigan to Scotland.

I am not on about that though, I don't expect HS2 to go anywhere north of where it is planned currently (ie: Golborne). You might get some realignment of the existing route with higher line speeds but that is it. The signalling on the Cumbrian Coast and the S&C will get wiped out and replaced with ERTMS within the next 10-15 years anyway as it is a prime target to get rid of a lot of boxes. The track would need doing as well as gauge and a significant amount of structures on the coast as it is RA7 and W6a.

 

[WatcherZero]

Speech in Scotland today urging firms to build for £10bn of contracts, nothing new really just saying an announcement on next steps for HS2 to Scotland 'In the New Year'.

 

[matacaster]

Are there any figures for projected HS2 passenger loading going north from London to Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester in the morning peak and similar ones for travel to London from those places?

I suspect a wide imbalance as HS2 is basically designed to increase the number of midland and northern commuters working in London.

 

[Chester1]

Exactly right, Noddy. And this can be caught in the BCR - and it would also be beneficial to have a loop link to LHR for runway 3 (&4?) and Terminal 6 (&7?).



A position made more likely by building it. Another reason it gets done, and sooner. It struck me as ironic that had Darling as Transport Secretary in Blair I gone for HS2 in 98, it may have been open to Scotland (or at least well on the way) by 2014. Oh well.

A high speed rail link would change very few peoples minds on the union and at an enormous cost. The risk of independance makes extending HS2 less not more likelý. If Scotland went independant it would be a waste of money for England, as it does benefit England much but most of the new line would be in England. As I have recently pointed out, not running heathrow HS services is the only way to find more than 3 London-Scotland paths in the Birmingham International-London section of HS2. Unless you are suggesting cutting the services planned for Birmingham and the north your two suggestions are not both possible.

What is this 'enormous' environmental benefit from reducing internal flights?

Firstly, a lot of internal flights to heathrow will continue, as they are for connecting passengers (and this would be a lot higher if it wasn't heathrow being so crowded - many flights to AMS/FRA/CDG will also be for the same reason - so this could change if third runway goes ahead).

Secondly, airports are really handy for a lot of people. Anywhere in Western Edinburgh for example will find edinburgh airport a lot quicker to get to (even via public transport) than the city centre terminal at rush hour. I think a big fallacy is this idea that everyone is doinlg city-center to city-center, which I'm not sure is true.

Secondly, aviation contributes 6% of UK CO2. Domestic flights are somewhere around 10% of that total (https://www.theccc.org.uk/charts-data/ukemissions-by-sector/aviation/), of which not all are scotland/london flights.

So assuming HS2+ got marketshare of 60-70%, you'd be looking at a massive 0.2%-0.3% reduction in emissions...

Also, if Co2 reductions were the driving force a Dublin-Holyhead tunnel would be much better. At £300m a mile it would cost £16.5bn, add another £1bn to electrify and upgrade Crewe-Holyhead to cut journey times by 1/3 and it would be possible to cut Dublin-London journey times avoiding flying from the current 7 hours to 3 hours. That would save far more Co2 than cutting Scotland-London trains times from 4 to 3 hours. Its too expensive and there wouldnt be paths of the lower section of HS2 but you can see my point...

I am not on about that though, I don't expect HS2 to go anywhere north of where it is planned currently (ie: Golborne). You might get some realignment of the existing route with higher line speeds but that is it. The signalling on the Cumbrian Coast and the S&C will get wiped out and replaced with ERTMS within the next 10-15 years anyway as it is a prime target to get rid of a lot of boxes. The track would need doing as well as gauge and a significant amount of structures on the coast as it is RA7 and W6a.

Sounds like well over £1bn for 150+ miles of relaying track to 90mph, electifcation and gauge clearance. Still a small fraction of a brand new HS line.

Speech in Scotland today urging firms to build for £10bn of contracts, nothing new really just saying an announcement on next steps for HS2 to Scotland 'In the New Year'.

Which government said that Scottish or UK? Id take it with a pinch of salt if it was from a member of the Scottish government as nearly all the funding would be from the central government, so its the Tories who will decide.

Are there any figures for projected HS2 passenger loading going north from London to Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester in the morning peak and similar ones for travel to London from those places?

I suspect a wide imbalance as HS2 is basically designed to increase the number of midland and northern commuters working in London.

18 (number of paths per hour) x 1100 (estimated capcity of 400m long trains) is 19,800 seats per hour. That isn't allot of commuters. It will virtually turn the WCML into commuter line but its as true for Manchester and Birmingham.

 

[dcsprior]

A high speed rail link would change very few peoples minds on the union and at an enormous cost. The risk of independance makes extending HS2 less not more likelý. If Scotland went independant it would be a waste of money for England, as it does not benefit England much but most of the new line would be in England.

I presume you meant to include the word which I've added in bold above?

If so, then I don't understand the logic. Surely any transport link between Scotland and England benefits both countries equally - for example

• If it makes things better for English tourists travelling to Scotland, then it is also beneficial for the Scottish tourist industry.
• If it makes it easier for a Scottish worker to get to England, then it also benefits their English employer.
• If it makes it easier for an representative of an English company to visit a Scottish customer, then it also brings that customer a wider choice.

This remains true whether Scotland remains part of the UK as-is, if there are changes within the UK, or if we were ever to become independent.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I've worked out before that when you sum together all Edinburgh and Glasgow traffic to all of the London airports, the total is one of the largest flows of passengers in the entire world. That the traffic is split across two airports in the north and five at the London end means that individual flows don't show up but HS2 would take from all of them, as only a small number of people flying to London airports are going to be going anywhere but Greater London. The only flights that would then have much of a reason to exist would be feeder flights into Heathrow for onward connections: London City may not even exist a few decades along the line but even then it's going to be hard to compete with Crossrail to Old Oak Common and then HS2 to Scotland, both Luton and Gatwick could be accessed faster going to Euston and then changing to Thameslink and obviously the Thames Valley would be accessible via the GWML at Old Oak Common so any local Heathrow traffic would cease.

Once you account for the increase in demand that will occur as a result of bringing journey times down to ~2.5 hours, I think the main restriction on passenger numbers will be capacity available south of Birmingham. In some of the HS2 technical reports there is discussion of the maximum capacity of Phase 1 and how it could only be reached by having considerably more captive running, so it may be possible to squeeze out a few more paths but these would have to be distributed between all the places which will see massive increases in passenger demand. It seems therefore that the business case for full HS2 to Scotland may only be realised once there is a second line from London to the Midlands.

 

[miami]

The environmental benefit of a large reduction in internal flights is potentially huge and one reason why even if the BCR doesn't quite stack up the government may decide to do it anyway (assuming the UK remains as one country).

There's still plenty of flights from Manchester to Heathrow, because if you want to fly to south africa, you have to change somewhere. The environment doesn't care if that's Heathrow, Amsterdam, Paris or Frankfurt, however people tend to prefer Heathrow (not just inertia with BA either, there's no second layer of security for example), meaning a higher frequenecy, meaning shorter layovers.

Might drop a few easyjet flights off the roster, but people still fly on BA point-to-point from Manchester, with fares at least as high as a peak time. Door-to-door is a good 40 minutes quicker for me and I would guess many others, and that's with a 1h50 train from Wilmslow rather than a 50 minute flight from Heathrow. For central London, I agree it's a toss-up, but out west there's no question. Flying is the only reasonable way to go SW Manchester to Staines for example

T=0 Leave house
T=10 arrive airport
T=35 take off
T=1h30 land
T=1h40 in taxi
T=1h50 at office in Staines

Compare with
T=0 Leave house
T=10 arrive Wilmslow
T=15 depart wilmslow
T=2h10 arrive Euston
T=2h45 arrive Vauxhall
T=3h20 arrive staines
T=3h30 at office in staines

Same with Reading or Slough, and the time sums don't work for Ealing either.

You might save 2 or 3 flights a day with HS2 to Edinburgh, but rail is hardly environmentally clean either.

Add a 3 hour train ride vs a 90 minute flight and the time collapses, with the possible exception you're going to somewhere very close to Euston. Crossrail will mean Heathrow to City is about 20 minutes longer than Euston to City. The flight will be 90 minutes faster, and the pre-flight will be 30 minutes slower. Flying will still be 30-40 minutes faster, each direction, than HS2.

And don't underestimate those connections. If BA want the scottish long haul market at £5k/person, they need to offer a frequent service.

 

[HSTEd]

T=0 Leave house
T=10 arrive airport
T=35 take off
T=1h30 land
T=1h40 in taxi
T=1h50 at office in Staines

Compare with
T=0 Leave house
T=10 arrive Wilmslow
T=15 depart wilmslow
T=2h10 arrive Euston
T=2h45 arrive Vauxhall
T=3h20 arrive staines
T=3h30 at office in staines

With HS2 you come out with:

T=0 Leave house
T=10 Arrive Manchester Airport station
T=15 Depart Manchester Airport
T=1hr10 arrive Euston
T=1hr15 arrive Tottenham Court Road
T=1hr50 arrive Heathrow Airport Central
T=1hr55 in Taxi
T=2hr05 at Office in Staines

And that is before CR2 provides a direct train from Euston to somewhere close enough to Staines for a taxi ride.

 

[Camden]

With HS2 you come out with:

T=0 Leave house
T=10 Arrive Manchester Airport station
T=15 Depart Manchester Airport
T=1hr10 arrive Euston
T=1hr15 arrive Tottenham Court Road
T=1hr50 arrive Heathrow Airport Central
T=1hr55 in Taxi
T=2hr05 at Office in Staines

And that is before CR2 provides a direct train from Euston to somewhere close enough to Staines for a taxi ride.

The issue referred to isn't to do with Manchester, the example given was rather obviously illustrating that with the reduction of journey times on offer to Scotland HS2 isn't going end flights from Scotland, nor even reduce them significantly.

I suppose it does indicate that flights from Manchester might not be viable (depending on how many people are still connecting for long haul), but how many people does that add that don't already use the west coast main line... Not that many in the scheme of expenditure involved.

Good luck with getting to TCR in 5 minutes after arriving at Euston on HS2. I assume that's by teleporter, but doesn't that make HS2 redundant?

 

[Noddy]

There's still plenty of flights from Manchester to Heathrow, because if you want to fly to south africa, you have to change somewhere. The environment doesn't care if that's Heathrow, Amsterdam, Paris or Frankfurt, however people tend to prefer Heathrow (not just inertia with BA either, there's no second layer of security for example), meaning a higher frequenecy, meaning shorter layovers.

Might drop a few easyjet flights off the roster, but people still fly on BA point-to-point from Manchester, with fares at least as high as a peak time. Door-to-door is a good 40 minutes quicker for me and I would guess many others, and that's with a 1h50 train from Wilmslow rather than a 50 minute flight from Heathrow. For central London, I agree it's a toss-up, but out west there's no question. Flying is the only reasonable way to go SW Manchester to Staines for example

T=0 Leave house
T=10 arrive airport
T=35 take off
T=1h30 land
T=1h40 in taxi
T=1h50 at office in Staines

Compare with
T=0 Leave house
T=10 arrive Wilmslow
T=15 depart wilmslow
T=2h10 arrive Euston
T=2h45 arrive Vauxhall
T=3h20 arrive staines
T=3h30 at office in staines

Same with Reading or Slough, and the time sums don't work for Ealing either.

You might save 2 or 3 flights a day with HS2 to Edinburgh, but rail is hardly environmentally clean either.

Add a 3 hour train ride vs a 90 minute flight and the time collapses, with the possible exception you're going to somewhere very close to Euston. Crossrail will mean Heathrow to City is about 20 minutes longer than Euston to City. The flight will be 90 minutes faster, and the pre-flight will be 30 minutes slower. Flying will still be 30-40 minutes faster, each direction, than HS2.

And don't underestimate those connections. If BA want the scottish long haul market at £5k/person, they need to offer a frequent service.

OK I used to regularly commute from Inverness to Bristol by easyjet and there is no way you could arrive at the airport at T10 and be taking off at T35. And those are small airports, not Manchester or Heathrow. So I am sceptical about some of your timings.

I do accept your point that Heathrow is easier if you are working in west London. However Old Oak Common on HS2 combined with Crossrail will make things much easier plus at some point they will build the spur even if it's not straight away.

HS trains between Brussels and Paris have destroyed the air market between those two cities, despite Paris being a major hub airport. I don't see any reason why it can't happen in the UK. There may always be a handful of connecting flights but the vast majority will go. I also suspect that major airlines like BA would offer through plane/train tickets for international travel. This would then free up some landing slots which could be used for more lucrative long distance flights.

 

[Camden]

HS trains between Belgium and Paris have destroyed the air market between those two cities, despite Paris being a major hub airport. I don't see any reason why it can't happen in the UK. There may always be a handful of connecting flights but the vast majority will go.

Comparing the UK to other European countries as if it's like for like (when they have completely different approaches to travel, and different geography) has been one of the great follies of HS2 supporters. The UK won't turn into France with HS2.