HS2 future northern extensions

[HSTEd]

Given the 125mph west coast only averages 80mph, can we expect a design speed of 330kph to only run at an average 220kph?

No, only relatively small parts of modern routes, and especially the west coast, is actually rated for 125mph.
This is a result of their terrible age.

In Japan a 300km/h N700 Shinkansen can stop every twenty miles and still average close to 200km/h.
With HS2 trains will spool up to speed and sit there at 320km/h throughout.

 

[TBY-Paul]

Assuming that HS2 actually gets built as currently proposed, I would be surprised if many of those reading this forum live to see HS2 get to Scotland. Trains using the southern parts of HS2 will be extended north via WCML & ECML, probably calling only at Preston before Glasgow & Edinburgh (WCML), and calling only at Newcastle & Edinburgh (ECML).

Intermediate stations are likely to remain served by conventional WCML and ECML trains, running to revised (possibly slower) timetables, and requiring passengers to change at somewhere like Preston or Leeds if they wish to use HS2 to get to/from London.

The SNP will probably whinge a lot, but unless Scotland is willing to fund most of the building & operating costs, there is unlikely to be a business case to extend the current HS2 proposals.

Darlington will be a calling point on the ECML. The recently signed Tees Valley unitary authority devolution agreement has a condition included, that stipulates, that Darlington station must be made HS2 ready.

I'm not sure how this will effect the original aim of having a Tees Valley interchange as proposed in the early HS2 documents.

 

[HSTEd]

HS2 ready doesn't mean any HS2 trains have to call.

First and last train of the day would easily meet that specification.

 

[po8crg]

I'm not sure how this will effect the original aim of having a Tees Valley interchange as proposed in the early HS2 documents.

The Tees Valley Interchange was a proposed station for if HS2 incorporated a York-Newcastle segment, as was on the original "inverted A" scheme. That would be a true HS station with 400m TSI platforms. Nothing really to do with anything on ECML for classic-compatible services.

 

[Altnabreac]

Assuming that HS2 actually gets built as currently proposed, I would be surprised if many of those reading this forum live to see HS2 get to Scotland. Trains using the southern parts of HS2 will be extended north via WCML & ECML, probably calling only at Preston before Glasgow & Edinburgh (WCML), and calling only at Newcastle & Edinburgh (ECML).

Intermediate stations are likely to remain served by conventional WCML and ECML trains, running to revised (possibly slower) timetables, and requiring passengers to change at somewhere like Preston or Leeds if they wish to use HS2 to get to/from London.

The SNP will probably whinge a lot, but unless Scotland is willing to fund most of the building & operating costs, there is unlikely to be a business case to extend the current HS2 proposals.

Darlington will be a calling point on the ECML. The recently signed Tees Valley unitary authority devolution agreement has a condition included, that stipulates, that Darlington station must be made HS2 ready.

I'm not sure how this will effect the original aim of having a Tees Valley interchange as proposed in the early HS2 documents.

The indicative service pattern in the HS2 Business Case for the ECML was for 4tph to go north of Leeds.

These were as follows:
1tph Newcastle, Darlington, OOC, Euston
1tph Newcastle, York, OOC, Euston
1tph York, Toton, OOC, Euston
1tph Newcastle, Durham, Darlington, York, Meadowhall, Toton, Birmingham

That looks like a not too unreasonable a service pattern although I suspect there would be a couple of changes to that once the politics gets involved namely:

• Demand for a direct Durham - Euston service.
• Demand for a direct Northallerton - Euston service.
• Demand for a direct Euston service from stations north of Newcastle (especially Alnmouth / Berwick).
• Demand for an Edinburgh - Toton service.

You can kill all these birds with one stone by extending the York terminator to Edinburgh calling at Northallerton, Durham, Newcastle, Alnmouth, Berwick.

The calls could be 1tp2h at Northallerton / Durham, Alnmouth / Berwick.

 

[po8crg]

I know a lot of people have commented that an independent Scotland would probably kill off any HS2 extension further north, but making it an international line would surely make it eligible for lots of EU funding, which would go some way to counterbalancing the reduced willingness of rUK to pay for it.

 

[clc]

I know a lot of people have commented that an independent Scotland would probably kill off any HS2 extension further north, but making it an international line would surely make it eligible for lots of EU funding, which would go some way to counterbalancing the reduced willingness of rUK to pay for it.

The next referendum will likely be 20 years away. In the meantime you'd hope some progress would be made and it's interesting that there's been a shift in Scottish Government language away from demanding a full HS connection to England. The Transport Minister Derek Mackay now talks about a journey time of "not more than three hours" between London and Edinburgh and Glasgow. I take that as tacit acceptance that a full HS line isn't going to happen.

My hunch is that if Westminster agreed to fund the Glasgow-Edinburgh HSR line and Carstairs spur but no other significant upgrades Scottish Ministers would be privately delighted with that outcome.

 

[Tobbes]

Indyref2 - if it happens - seems to me to be either in 2017/18 (if the UK opts to leave the EU) or in the 2030/35 timeframe.

Assuming that the UK doesn't opt to leave the EU, then I'd expect an announcement before the 2020 election that the whole thing will be built to the Central Belt, with a target opening date in 2030(ish). Political? Of course, but that's the way these things go.

 

[HSTEd]

The SNP does not want the link built, such things tend to lead to the dissolution of hard regional boundaries along them.
Note how Denmark and Sweden have blurred into one another along the route of the Oresund bridge.

This would weaken the SNP when it inevitably resumes its push for independence.
This demand for HS2 to Scotland is merely a stick to beat the British Government with.

 

[Tobbes]

The SNP does not want the link built, such things tend to lead to the dissolution of hard regional boundaries along them.
Note how Denmark and Sweden have blurred into one another along the route of the Oresund bridge.

This would weaken the SNP when it inevitably resumes its push for independence.
This demand for HS2 to Scotland is merely a stick to beat the British Government with.

Which is precisely why Westminster will do it. If DfT funds the line to Carstairs, then Holyrood can build the rest (as I understood they'd already committed to). It would be pretty embarrassing if the HSR got to Carstairs and found that the Scottish LGV (LGV Ecosse?) didn't, in fact, exist.

 

[HSTEd]

Im sure they would manage to find a way to pass it off as Westminsters fault that the line between Gretna and Glasgow/Edinburgh wasn't finished.

 

[Altnabreac]

The SNP does not want the link built, such things tend to lead to the dissolution of hard regional boundaries along them.
Note how Denmark and Sweden have blurred into one another along the route of the Oresund bridge.

This would weaken the SNP when it inevitably resumes its push for independence.
This demand for HS2 to Scotland is merely a stick to beat the British Government with.

Well the driving force for High Speed Rail to Scotland so car has been entirely the SNP Government at Holyrood.

I'm hopeful we may get some positive news out of Westminster in the near future but it has been like blood out of a stone getting them this far.

If you had had any involvement in the scheme so far you couldn't think otherwise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The next referendum will likely be 20 years away. In the meantime you'd hope some progress would be made and it's interesting that there's been a shift in Scottish Government language away from demanding a full HS connection to England. The Transport Minister Derek Mackay now talks about a journey time of "not more than three hours" between London and Edinburgh and Glasgow. I take that as tacit acceptance that a full HS line isn't going to happen.

My hunch is that if Westminster agreed to fund the Glasgow-Edinburgh HSR line and Carstairs spur but no other significant upgrades Scottish Ministers would be privately delighted with that outcome.

Remember Scottish Ministers have seen the revised report from HS2 now and know what's in it. The rest of us should see it in the next few months.

They will be trying to get as good a deal as possible but will have realistic expectations as to what can be achieved, having seen the report.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which is precisely why Westminster will do it. If DfT funds the line to Carstairs, then Holyrood can build the rest (as I understood they'd already committed to). It would be pretty embarrassing if the HSR got to Carstairs and found that the Scottish LGV (LGV Ecosse?) didn't, in fact, exist.

I guarantee Westminster will not fund a full high speed line to Gretna anytime soon.

Most of the High Speed Line construction north of Wigan in the next 20 years will be north of the border.

This whole process has been forced on HS2 and Westminster by action from a combination of Scottish Civic Society and the Scottish Government.

I'm not a Scottish Nationalist (or in fact a Scot by birth at least) but you'd have to be churlish to deny that if the new line happens it will have been down to pressure from the SNP government.

 

[clc]

If the Scottish line is to be funded by Barnett consequentials arising from HS2 then it will need to be constructed concurrently with work south of the border as Barnett money has to be spent in the year its allocated.

Nicola Sturgeon said the Glasgow-Edinburgh line could be operating by 2024. If we assume the Glasgow/Edinburgh/Carstairs line costs £4 billion and the spend occurs between 2019-2024 then HS2 would have to spend £40 billion over the same period to generate the required consequentials.

Does anyone know what HS2 spend is expected to be between 2019-2024?

 

[HSTEd]

I guarantee Westminster will not fund a full high speed line to Gretna anytime soon.

I agree, it has no business case.

I'm not a Scottish Nationalist (or in fact a Scot by birth at least) but you'd have to be churlish to deny that if the new line happens it will have been down to pressure from the SNP government.

I very much doubt it will be built - the concept only exists to be a stick for the SNP to beat the Westminister parties with.

 

[miami]

I agree, it has no business case.

No market in eloping any more?

 

[HSTEd]

No market in eloping any more?

Not when one can get a relatively cheap flight to vegas

 

[The Ham]

If the Scottish line is to be funded by Barnett consequentials arising from HS2 then it will need to be constructed concurrently with work south of the border as Barnett money has to be spent in the year its allocated.

Nicola Sturgeon said the Glasgow-Edinburgh line could be operating by 2024. If we assume the Glasgow/Edinburgh/Carstairs line costs £4 billion and the spend occurs between 2019-2024 then HS2 would have to spend £40 billion over the same period to generate the required consequentials.

Does anyone know what HS2 spend is expected to be between 2019-2024?

I would suggest that it would be better to look at ways of improving services and lines as well as possible reopenings rather than building a high speed line. As one of the problems with the ECML and WCML is that there are a lot of junctions and stations which limit the express services. I didn't think this was quite so much if a problem the further north of Leeds you got.

A brand new two line track from Leeds to the lowland cities in Scotland would appear a lot for a few trains an hour.

That's not to say that there wouldn't be bits of new lines and maybe with upgrades to allow the whole way to take European sized trains.

 

[Altnabreac]

I would suggest that it would be better to look at ways of improving services and lines as well as possible reopenings rather than building a high speed line. As one of the problems with the ECML and WCML is that there are a lot of junctions and stations which limit the express services. I didn't think this was quite so much if a problem the further north of Leeds you got.

A brand new two line track from Leeds to the lowland cities in Scotland would appear a lot for a few trains an hour.

That's not to say that there wouldn't be bits of new lines and maybe with upgrades to allow the whole way to take European sized trains.

It's less junctions and stations that is the issue and more the number of freight trains, lack of freight loops and differential speeds of passenger versus freight that's the problem.

Assuming HS2 are going to be splitting at Carlisle then capacity between Carlisle and Carstairs is going to be a particular bottleneck.

I'd recommend reading the Network Rail presentation here for a good explanation of the issues:
http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-cont...il-Capacity-Constraints-on-existing-lines.pdf
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree, it has no business case.


I very much doubt it will be built - the concept only exists to be a stick for the SNP to beat the Westminister parties with.

Well I would just wait until the report comes out, only a month or two to go.

I suspect a 3 hour journey time will have a good business case. The SNP will want to build enough new line to deliver that 3 hour journey time and Westminster will concede enough consequentials or direct funding to allow that to be constructed.

I'd be comfortable betting that the first phase of High Speed Rail Scotland will open before the second phase of HS2.

 

[33Hz]

If the Scottish line is to be funded by Barnett consequentials arising from HS2 then it will need to be constructed concurrently with work south of the border as Barnett money has to be spent in the year its allocated.

Nicola Sturgeon said the Glasgow-Edinburgh line could be operating by 2024. If we assume the Glasgow/Edinburgh/Carstairs line costs £4 billion and the spend occurs between 2019-2024 then HS2 would have to spend £40 billion over the same period to generate the required consequentials.

Does anyone know what HS2 spend is expected to be between 2019-2024?

So given the lack of engineering resource in this country anyway, effectively doubling the work going on is going to have a knock on effect in available staff, equipment and consequently costs for everyone.

 

[Altnabreac]

So given the lack of engineering resource in this country anyway, effectively doubling the work going on is going to have a knock on effect in available staff, equipment and consequently costs for everyone.

High Speed Rail construction is much easier to resource than upgrades to existing lines would be of a similar scale.

Because it is greenfield construction much more of the work can be carried out by general construction contractors who don't have to worry about PTS qualified staff etc. The same firms who are currently carrying out road jobs in Scotland like the Forth Replacement Crossing, M8 Completion or Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route would likely be bidding for the work.

The major roads investment in Scotland over the period 2020 - 2030 is likely to be concentrated on the A9 and A96 in the north of the country so general engineering resource in the central belt could focus on delivering high speed rail in that period.

Even the tracklaying and wiring elements are simpler because they can be carried out during daytime rather than in short possessions.

I suspect the one trade where the shortage will still be acute will be in signalling, although depending on the preferred system there may be the option of bringing in more continental engineers.

 

[The Ham]

High Speed Rail construction is much easier to resource than upgrades to existing lines would be of a similar scale.

Because it is greenfield construction much more of the work can be carried out by general construction contractors who don't have to worry about PTS qualified staff etc. The same firms who are currently carrying out road jobs in Scotland like the Forth Replacement Crossing, M8 Completion or Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route would likely be bidding for the work.

The major roads investment in Scotland over the period 2020 - 2030 is likely to be concentrated on the A9 and A96 in the north of the country so general engineering resource in the central belt could focus on delivering high speed rail in that period.

Even the tracklaying and wiring elements are simpler because they can be carried out during daytime rather than in short possessions.

I suspect the one trade where the shortage will still be acute will be in signalling, although depending on the preferred system there may be the option of bringing in more continental engineers.

Quite, anyone with a digger and the appropriate training can shift soil and construction materials around to sort out line and level on a greenfield job.

Even signalling may not be that difficult, given that it could probably fit in around the main HS2 signalling. Especially as it would have little interaction with lines with trains running on them.

 

[HSTEd]

Of course if the line only has to held two or three trains per hour a single track line with dynamic loops would only need three or four loops to get from Wigan to Glasgow.

320-360km/h with 250km/h on the turnouts leads to it eating up traack awfully fast.

 

[najaB]

Of course if the line only has to held two or three trains per hour a single track line with dynamic loops would only need three or four loops to get from Wigan to Glasgow.

Would that result in posters on the 2116 version of RailUK down crying the short-sightedness of those early 21st century railway engineers?

 

[HSTEd]

Would that result in posters on the 2116 version of RailUK down crying the short-sightedness of those early 21st century railway engineers?

I doubt it, just means we we will end up with 400m double deck trains on every service

 

[najaB]

I doubt it, just means we we will end up with 400m double deck trains on every service

Or the 2116 posters suggesting that they use 442's.... Gets coat....

 

[edwin_m]

Of course if the line only has to held two or three trains per hour a single track line with dynamic loops would only need three or four loops to get from Wigan to Glasgow.

320-360km/h with 250km/h on the turnouts leads to it eating up traack awfully fast.

The saving in cost from building single versus double track is likely to be small particularly for high speed. All the structures and earthworks are still there, just a few metres narrower. There is less track but more pointwork, and no possibility of closing one track at either end of the day to allow more engineering access. And a dynamic loop for 300km/h is going to be well over 10km long anyway.

 

[class26]

Would that result in posters on the 2116 version of RailUK down crying the short-sightedness of those early 21st century railway engineers?

Would it save that much ? Surely it`s not worth making a single line ?

 

[HSTEd]

There is less track but more pointwork, and no possibility of closing one track at either end of the day to allow more engineering access. And a dynamic loop for 300km/h is going to be well over 10km long anyway.

Not sure about more pointwork, certainly not that significantly anyway.
Four dynamic loops, a single low speed point machine in the northern platform end (ignoring branch to Edinburgh for now) and one point machine at the southern end where the route collapses to single track is a grand total of ten.

Not sure you are going to get much less than ten points on the route between Glasgow and Wigan, even excluding the Edinburgh junction. You could easily expend that on the Glasgow throat if you want anything like enough platforms to do anything more than what a single track route could do. [You would need paired crossovers at both ends at bare minimum if you want your engineering access advantage - which is 8 before you even start at segmenting the route].

And with an Edinburgh junctino it is entirely possible you could do away with any loops between Carstairs and the end points since the traffic density is even lower there.

10km sounds like a lot but remember they would be seperated by fifty or sixty kilometers.

 

[Haydn1971]

The saving in cost from building single versus double track is likely to be small particularly for high speed.

I've priced many a scheme at concept stage for bid funds, the big costs are in the soil moving exercise - a typical bridge will typically cost less than the earth embankment needed to ramp up to the bridge from the rail level - there would of course be a saving in capital costs, 10% at most, but the economics would take a hit, so it's quite possible that a single track option with passing loops could actually cost more because of the impact on the economic case - ie dual track costs say £10Bn has BCR of 2.0, beats single track at £9Bn with reduced BCR of say 1.9 - less economic benefit

 

[HSTEd]

so it's quite possible that a single track option with passing loops could actually cost more because of the impact on the economic case - ie dual track costs say £10Bn has BCR of 2.0, beats single track at £9Bn with reduced BCR of say 1.9 - less economic benefit

Assuming you can actually get to a point where the reduced capacity of a single track scheme matters.
And we are not going to get near that for this Scotland route.