HS2 in the press

[clc]

Will we see what happened in Canada in Victorian times happening here? A new railway to prevent the country breaking up?

I don't think a cross border high speed line will be built or even started before the next referendum so it's probably a moot point.

 

[HSTEd]

The SNP won't get another referendum any time soon - they certainly won't get one with anything like the favourable terms they got this time (where the Westminster government basically let the SNP dictate all of the terms).

If HS2 reaches Scotland Scottish nationalism is dead - it cannot survive <2hr30 journey times to London.

 

[clc]

The SNP won't get another referendum any time soon - they certainly won't get one with anything like the favourable terms they got this time (where the Westminster government basically let the SNP dictate all of the terms).

If HS2 reaches Scotland Scottish nationalism is dead - it cannot survive <2hr30 journey times to London.

I was thinking 20 years until the next one....

 

[Altnabreac]

I don't think a cross border high speed line will be built or even started before the next referendum so it's probably a moot point.

Ironically it's probably the political fallout from the last referendum that will get it built before the next referendum

The SNP won't get another referendum any time soon - they certainly won't get one with anything like the favourable terms they got this time (where the Westminster government basically let the SNP dictate all of the terms).

If HS2 reaches Scotland Scottish nationalism is dead - it cannot survive <2hr30 journey times to London.

Without descending into discussing the referendum politics, it's notable that SNP politicians are much more pro HS2 phase 3 to Scotland than UK ones.

It will likely be pressure from SNP MPs that forces HS2 phase 3 up the political agenda in the next parliament.

I was thinking 20 years until the next one....

That sounds about right. I don't think a full cross border high speed line will be complete by then, but I'd be willing to bet it will be well advanced with some sections built (especially at the northern end).

 

[edwin_m]

I was thinking 20 years until the next one....

If the UK votes to leave the EU, especially if the majority of Scots vote to stay in, then that will almost certainly trigger another independence referendum which will have an excellent chance of success. The Scots broadly see the EU as a valuable institution, especially for restraining some of the things they reckon Westminster would do if it got the chance.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

If the UK votes to leave the EU, especially if the majority of Scots vote to stay in, then that will almost certainly trigger another independence referendum which will have an excellent chance of success. The Scots broadly see the EU as a valuable institution, especially for restraining some of the things they reckon Westminster would do if it got the chance.

I think I have read something where Nicola Sturgeon said the only way the SNP would support a referendum on leaving the EU was if there was a double vote, meaning that not only a majority of UK voters voting to leave, but a majority of voters in each of the four nations voting in favour, so that the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are not dragged out of Europe by a Conservative/UKIP leaning South East.

Anyway hopefully we should get the report on extending HS2 to Scotland plus the Scottish high speed rail report before the election so it will be interesting to see what each party says on it.

 

[Camden]

I can't see HS2 being any real benefit to Scotland. Are you sure enthusiasm north of the border isn't more along the lines of looking interested to make sure they get something? (ie some sort of compensation for missing out). The likelihood of it actually being built seems 0 to me.

 

[Deerfold]

I can't see HS2 being any real benefit to Scotland. Are you sure enthusiasm north of the border isn't more along the lines of looking interested to make sure they get something? (ie some sort of compensation for missing out). The likelihood of it actually being built seems 0 to me.

Any reasons for thinking this, or just gut instinct?

 

[NotATrainspott]

I can't see HS2 being any real benefit to Scotland. Are you sure enthusiasm north of the border isn't more along the lines of looking interested to make sure they get something? (ie some sort of compensation for missing out). The likelihood of it actually being built seems 0 to me.

HS2 to Scotland is inevitable in the same sense as it was inevitable the LGV Sud-Est would be extended beyond Lyon to Avignon, Nimes and now towards Barcelona and Madrid. It won't all happen overnight, China-style, but basically all the cost involved in HSR is the capital investment and if more capital investment will result in greater economic returns, it makes sense to do that. Extending HS2 to Scotland would allow full use of the infrastructure south of Manchester, which could be very important indeed as the future main limitation of the Phase 1 infrastructure is the ability to timetable services reliably. HS2 Ltd had a report commissioned which said it would be possible to squeeze a few more TPH out of the Birmingham Junction once moving-block signalling is installed and there is more captive running. The current timetable has to be written to cope with Scotland services being delayed on the WCML, so once you have a captive line without any delays, you can cut the amount of timetable slack considerably.

 

[Altnabreac]

I can't see HS2 being any real benefit to Scotland. Are you sure enthusiasm north of the border isn't more along the lines of looking interested to make sure they get something? (ie some sort of compensation for missing out). The likelihood of it actually being built seems 0 to me.

Once you get journey times under 3 hours then you start making really big inroads into the air market.

Currently there are 6 million plus journeys per year by Air from the Central Belt of Scotland to London.

Build enough of HS2 phase 3 to get that sub 3 hour journey time and you can capture 70-80% of that market.

That's 4-5 million extra journeys for rail.

Makes the business case look very good. As you probably don't need full High Speed all the way to hit 3 hours you can even drop some of the trickier, more expensive sections (like new city centre stations) and just build enough high speed line to get the sub 3 hour journeys.

Scotland and its politicians are very interested indeed in the possibilities... Just wait until May.

 

[clc]

I can't see HS2 being any real benefit to Scotland. Are you sure enthusiasm north of the border isn't more along the lines of looking interested to make sure they get something? (ie some sort of compensation for missing out). The likelihood of it actually being built seems 0 to me.

Scottish Government Ministers are very keen because they believe Scotland would become less attractive to investors if it missed out compared with those English regional cities which were connected. I don't know what the general population in Scotland think about HS2 but the few people I've discussed it with were against it because of the cost or just didn't care. I've not seen evidence of any widespread feeling that its essential for Scotland to be connected.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Once you get journey times under 3 hours then you start making really big inroads into the air market.

Currently there are 6 million plus journeys per year by Air from the Central Belt of Scotland to London.

Build enough of HS2 phase 3 to get that sub 3 hour journey time and you can capture 70-80% of that market.

That's 4-5 million extra journeys for rail.

Makes the business case look very good. As you probably don't need full High Speed all the way to hit 3 hours you can even drop some of the trickier, more expensive sections (like new city centre stations) and just build enough high speed line to get the sub 3 hour journeys.

.

I think that's likely to be the most realistic outcome - 3 hour journey times on classic compatibles.

It will likely be pressure from SNP MPs that forces HS2 phase 3 up the political agenda in the next parliament.

Depends on the parliamentary arithmetic of course. Predictions of 40-50 SNP MPs are ludicrous; 30 years of voting patterns tells us that's just not going to happen. Many Labour voters may be unhappy about the party's conduct during the referendum but when push comes to shove they'll still choose them at Westminster as they think that's the best way to prevent a Conservative government. The BBC filmed Jim Murphy and the MP for Glasgow East knocking on doors the other day and the conversations went something like: "vote Labour to get the Tories out". That was the extent of their pitch. Not a word about what Labour would do to improve their communities. Just, vote for us because we're not the Tories. The fact is Labour use this tactic because they know it's effective, at least in their traditional heartlands.

Personally, I think the SNP will win 15-20 seats.

 

[deltic]

Taking HS2 to Scotland is highly problematic due to considerable environmental constraints both on the west and east coast and the economics/finances are highly unlikely to stack up. The volume of traffic is just not there. More likely to see a HS3 type fudge with more upgrading of existing lines and much lower operating speeds to avoid some of the environmental issues.

 

[Ironside]

Once you get journey times under 3 hours then you start making really big inroads into the air market.

Currently there are 6 million plus journeys per year by Air from the Central Belt of Scotland to London.

Build enough of HS2 phase 3 to get that sub 3 hour journey time and you can capture 70-80% of that market.

That's 4-5 million extra journeys for rail.

Makes the business case look very good. As you probably don't need full High Speed all the way to hit 3 hours you can even drop some of the trickier, more expensive sections (like new city centre stations) and just build enough high speed line to get the sub 3 hour journeys.

Scotland and its politicians are very interested indeed in the possibilities... Just wait until May.

It's a shame we can't just build the phase three in one go, but if thats the political reality then your plan looks encouraging and well thought out. The expencive bits could be done as demand rises in the future.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Taking HS2 to Scotland is highly problematic due to considerable environmental constraints both on the west and east coast and the economics/finances are highly unlikely to stack up. The volume of traffic is just not there. More likely to see a HS3 type fudge with more upgrading of existing lines and much lower operating speeds to avoid some of the environmental issues.

The volume of traffic already exists but uses planes rather than trains. The current rail market share is around 20%, and with HSR to Scotland, that becomes 80% before any more demand is stimulated.

There's a common refrain that upgrading of existing lines is always going to be more likely but in reality, over the long term the need for a fully captive line will always be there. When that is built, any improvements made to the existing WCML that enable faster speeds will become completely useless, because the only traffic using it will be 75mph freight. The best option is to build entirely new sections at full HS2 standard and connect back in to the existing, untouched WCML once the money runs out for that phase. Even then, the minimum length of a new build section would have to be reasonably large as there would be costs involved in connecting back to the WCML at either end, while still ensuring the route is ready to be completed fully in future.

 

[Voglitz]

Once you get journey times under 3 hours then you start making really big inroads into the air market.

Currently there are 6 million plus journeys per year by Air from the Central Belt of Scotland to London.

Build enough of HS2 phase 3 to get that sub 3 hour journey time and you can capture 70-80% of that market.

That's 4-5 million extra journeys for rail.

Makes the business case look very good.

Suppose high speed rail to the Scottish belt could be constructed for £10 billion, the money could be borrowed at 3 per cent interest, and the line resulted in 5 million additional train journeys annually.

Then the cost per additional journey would be £60 (ignoring the extra operating expenses).

A business case is a justification for a proposed project on the basis of its expected **commercial** benefit.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Suppose high speed rail to the Scottish belt could be constructed for £10 billion, the money could be borrowed at 3 per cent interest, and the line resulted in 5 million additional train journeys annually.

Then the cost per additional journey would be £60 (ignoring the extra operating expenses).

A business case is a justification for a proposed project on the basis of its expected **commercial** benefit.

Business cases for public capital spending projects can take in wider economic benefits as well. If extending HS2 to Scotland would boost the economy of the UK by around a billion pounds a year the initial capital cost of the scheme becomes insignificant. If the government didn't take wider economic benefits into consideration at all, there would be not much of a case for any public spending at all, as any investment done could be done by the private sector instead. Crossrail isn't going to generate anywhere near the ticket revenue needed to pay back the cost of building it but this is completely irrelevant for the government as it provides such a massive economic boost to the country.

 

[HSTEd]

Fudges like slightly higher operating speeds will never achieve the kind of market share gains required to be worth it.
You need a fully captive line haeding as far north as possible with 320/360km/h trains running up to full speed and staying at that speed as long as possible.

HS2 paths are very valuable, don't force us to waste them on allowing makeup time for classic sets doing a crawl over Shap.

 

[Altnabreac]

Suppose high speed rail to the Scottish belt could be constructed for £10 billion, the money could be borrowed at 3 per cent interest, and the line resulted in 5 million additional train journeys annually.

Then the cost per additional journey would be £60 (ignoring the extra operating expenses).

A business case is a justification for a proposed project on the basis of its expected **commercial** benefit.

Business Cases are really not just about commercial benefits.

Try reading up here to understand how they work:
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/stag

With an expensive scheme like this it's always difficult to get a positive business case but HS2 has got one despite there being only a small number of existing non rail passengers to attract to rail. This is mainly due to economic benefits from higher speeds and released capacity.

The Scottish extension of HS2 also has these sorts of benefits but can also attract some of the large existing air passenger market in addition.

 

[deltic]

Transport business cases are heavily based around time savings. Given High Speed rail is no quicker than flying between Scotland and London there are no time savings for the economic case. The passenger volumes even if everyone transfers from air to rail are still low for a high speed line. The cost of building the line is likely to be well over £10bn more like £30-40bn and it is the environmental difficulties which are really the death knell of the scheme.

 

[Altnabreac]

Transport business cases are heavily based around time savings. Given High Speed rail is no quicker than flying between Scotland and London there are no time savings for the economic case. The passenger volumes even if everyone transfers from air to rail are still low for a high speed line. The cost of building the line is likely to be well over £10bn more like £30-40bn and it is the environmental difficulties which are really the death knell of the scheme.

There are journey time improvements for existing London - Scotland rail passengers as well as for Scotland - Birmingham / Manchester / Liverpool / Leeds etc.

Costs will be high but there aren't any impossible environmental difficulties.

I'll predict work on the Scottish end of HS2 to be in progress well before HS2 Phase 2 to Manchester and Leeds is under construction (excluding the fasttracked Crewe section of phase 2).

 

[NotATrainspott]

Transport business cases are heavily based around time savings. Given High Speed rail is no quicker than flying between Scotland and London there are no time savings for the economic case. The passenger volumes even if everyone transfers from air to rail are still low for a high speed line. The cost of building the line is likely to be well over £10bn more like £30-40bn and it is the environmental difficulties which are really the death knell of the scheme.

By that same logic, there was no improvement in building the Channel Tunnel or HS1 because it was possible to fly between London and Paris in approximately the same time as the train takes today.

Most of the time savings from HSR come from the complete lack of fuss at either end, as passengers only need to arrive a few minutes before departure and they can be out on the street mere seconds after arriving at their destination. Even the slickest business traveller going through the slickest airport isn't going to be anywhere close to this, especially when you then have the fact that most airports are relatively distant from not only central business areas but also where it is easy for a large number of people to reach. If you live in Paisley it won't take you long to get to Glasgow Airport, but if you live almost anywhere else in Greater Glasgow there will be a not-inconsiderable journey which will also be challenging to do by public transport. On the other hand, the HSR terminals are all located in central hubs of public transport, so it would be just as easy to get from Paisley to Glasgow Central as it would be from anywhere else in Greater Glasgow (especially after a north-south heavy rail tunnel is built).

The cost of the scheme will depend upon a variety of factors but I cannot see it being that much more difficult than any of the other sections, such as the one through South Yorkshire. In particular, the number of people who would live or work near the route is going to be tiny, so the amount of expensive compensation works that will be required will be small. The southern sections might be easier to deliver from a pure engineering perspective but once you include all the extra compensation works, e.g. extra and longer tunnels and cuttings, needed for political reasons it's not really that much more impossible. If I had gone around on this forum saying that the four political parties with the largest number of prospective seats for 2015 (Lab, Lib, Con & SNP) all heavily support the choice to build the most expensive (and beneficial) HSR scheme before 2009 I would have been laughed at, but here we are today with Phase 1 in the committee stage and all that.

 

[deltic]

By that same logic, there was no improvement in building the Channel Tunnel or HS1 because it was possible to fly between London and Paris in approximately the same time as the train takes today.

Most of the time savings from HSR come from the complete lack of fuss at either end, as passengers only need to arrive a few minutes before departure and they can be out on the street mere seconds after arriving at their destination. Even the slickest business traveller going through the slickest airport isn't going to be anywhere close to this, especially when you then have the fact that most airports are relatively distant from not only central business areas but also where it is easy for a large number of people to reach. If you live in Paisley it won't take you long to get to Glasgow Airport, but if you live almost anywhere else in Greater Glasgow there will be a not-inconsiderable journey which will also be challenging to do by public transport. On the other hand, the HSR terminals are all located in central hubs of public transport, so it would be just as easy to get from Paisley to Glasgow Central as it would be from anywhere else in Greater Glasgow (especially after a north-south heavy rail tunnel is built).

The cost of the scheme will depend upon a variety of factors but I cannot see it being that much more difficult than any of the other sections, such as the one through South Yorkshire. In particular, the number of people who would live or work near the route is going to be tiny, so the amount of expensive compensation works that will be required will be small. The southern sections might be easier to deliver from a pure engineering perspective but once you include all the extra compensation works, e.g. extra and longer tunnels and cuttings, needed for political reasons it's not really that much more impossible. If I had gone around on this forum saying that the four political parties with the largest number of prospective seats for 2015 (Lab, Lib, Con & SNP) all heavily support the choice to build the most expensive (and beneficial) HSR scheme before 2009 I would have been laughed at, but here we are today with Phase 1 in the committee stage and all that.

The financial and business cases for the Channel Tunnel and HS1 of course didnt stack up in the end!

Only around 50% of air passengers at most are travelling from city centre to city centre - so not all air passengers will transfer from air to rail.

Getting a line through/round the Lake District, Northumberland National Park/coast will not be easy and very expensive.

But I agree with your last point, lets hope is not UKIP or the Greens that hold the balance of power come May.

 

[po8crg]

Getting a line through/round the Lake District, Northumberland National Park/coast will not be easy and very expensive.

The existing corridor that the M6 and WCML run along passes between the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales National Parks, and would be the obvious choice for any line through Cumbria. That's likely not to be massively controversial, given that the motorway and existing railway already go through. There may be more resistance in Scotland than in Cumbria - neither the M74, nor the WCML are ideal for a route to Slamannan (which is near-enough halfway between Glasgow and Edinburgh on a straight-line route, ie roughly where a junction would be so the two arms can be used for Glasgow-Edinburgh trains as well as for Anglo-Scottish). A new corridor through the borders will face rather more resistance than Borders Railway did, as it won't have a station between Carlisle and Glasgow/Edinburgh.

Northumberland National Park is a much bigger barrier to Newcastle-Edinburgh than the Lakes are to Preston-Carlisle. Indeed, if you can't go through the National Park (and do bear in mind that the A68 does go through, so a railway along that corridor isn't completely impossible), then the shortest route from Newcastle to Glasgow is to go south of the park, at which point you practically go through Carlisle.

The western route is a lot shorter than the eastern, which is why the motorway to Scotland takes the western route.

There are some second-order considerations in terms of connections to English cities other than London - generally, the eastern route makes it easier to serve multiple cities with one train; the western route makes trains to most English cities faster than the eastern.

 

[Deerfold]

But I agree with your last point, lets hope is not UKIP or the Greens that hold the balance of power come May.

If the Greens do, I suspect the building or not of HS2 won't be at the top of their list of desires.

 

[HSTEd]

It is a very rare piece of infrastructure that does not pay for itself in the end.

It might not do it inside the 30 year assesment timeframe but come back in 50 years and everyone would have been pleased that it was built. Even 'white elephants' like the Humber Bridge - would you rather live in a world where we had not built that now?

With a full captive line a Central Belt-London journey time of 2hr30 is within reach.
Aircraft are not so much faster as to be able to overturn the enormous frequency advantage available for the HSR option (at least 2tph to each destination from London) and the complete lack of check in times.
Even with the 1hr15 airline journey time you are still looking at 2hr+ including check-in and faffing around in the airport.

 

[Voglitz]

By that same logic, there was no improvement in building the Channel Tunnel or HS1 because it was possible to fly between London and Paris in approximately the same time as the train takes today.

According to the SRA's Ricard Anguera, building the Channel Tunnel generated negative net economic benefits.

Most of the time savings from HSR come from the complete lack of fuss at either end, as passengers only need to arrive a few minutes before departure and they can be out on the street mere seconds after arriving at their destination.

Well, in the case of Eurostar, there is quite a "loss of fuss", because people have to be at the station well before the train leaves. On SNCF domestic tgv, everyone has "the fuss" of making a reservation, and in the case of Ouigo, travelling miles out into the sticks to board the train.

On the other hand, the HSR terminals are all located in central hubs of public transport, so it would be just as easy to get from Paisley to Glasgow Central as it would be from anywhere else in Greater Glasgow (especially after a north-south heavy rail tunnel is built).

Did I miss something? Has a north-south heavy rail tunnel under Glasgow been announced? Who said there was going to be a HSR terminal at Glasgow Central?

 

[HSTEd]

According to the SRA's Ricard Anguera, building the Channel Tunnel generated negative net economic benefits.

Yes, but economic benefit analyses are complete junk most of the time - you can make them say almost anything you want.
I would much rather have the Channel Tunnel than some nebulous "benefits" that might have been accrued from not building it.

Well, in the case of Eurostar, there is quite a "loss of fuss", because people have to be at the station well before the train leaves. On SNCF domestic tgv, everyone has "the fuss" of making a reservation, and in the case of Ouigo, travelling miles out into the sticks to board the train.

All reservation services are not really a common thing in Britain however - In fact I can't really remember their ever being one apart from maybe the sleeper. And short of the SNPs wildest dreams coming true there will not be Eurostar style security checks on HS2.
And Ouigo is a result of the TGV system's use of classic lines to reach city centres which places limitations on track capacity - HS2 and similar all-captive schemes avoid this constraint.

 

[Voglitz]

It is a very rare piece of infrastructure that does not pay for itself in the end.

Where's your evidence for that statement? Spain, for example, is chock full of newly built dud infrastructure that does not and cannot pay for itself. And large parts of the UK rail network never paid for themselves, and were closed down.

It might not do it inside the 30 year assesment timeframe but come back in 50 years and everyone would have been pleased that it was built. Even 'white elephants' like the Humber Bridge - would you rather live in a world where we had not built that now?

Most people in Great Britain have never used the Humber Bridge, they're probably not bothered. A low value, high cost investment.

 

[HSTEd]

Where's your evidence for that statement? Spain, for example, is chock full of newly built dud infrastructure that does not and cannot pay for itself. And large parts of the UK rail network never paid for themselves, and were closed down.

Newly built infrastructure obviously hasn't paid for itself
Come back in fifty years - then you can make a proper value judgement on the infrastructure.

And large parts of the railway network never paid for themselves using some very dodgy purely financial data that was likely cooked to achieve the desired result. (They made the greatest mistake such analyses can ever make, they assumed only two options all-or-nothing, with more modern 'lightweight railway' practices many routes could have survived in some form).

Most people in Great Britain have never used the Humber Bridge, they're probably not bothered. A low value, high cost investment.

Not bothered is a neutral position, you can't use it to say something shouldn't eb built - I suspect the net opinion is still positive.

 

[Voglitz]

Yes, but economic benefit analyses are complete junk most of the time - you can make them say almost anything you want.
I would much rather have the Channel Tunnel than some nebulous "benefits" that might have been accrued from not building it.

You would, but you're probably not representative of most people (who don't use the tunnel and aren't much bothered).

And Ouigo is a result of the TGV system's use of classic lines to reach city centres which places limitations on track capacity - HS2 and similar all-captive schemes avoid this constraint.

There's no evidence that track capacity is the reason Ouigo uses out of town stations. More likely, it's to stop business people switching from regular tgv.